Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Galloglaich]

Yep. http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spotxiii.html The subtype of XIIIa is, I believe, the closest historical match to the D&D Bastard Sword, as these are depicted as being used single-handed from horseback, and two-handed on the ground.

Basically, most longswords (two handed swords analagous to the D&D bastard sword) could be used either one handed or two handed and were used on horseback one - handed and also sometimes on foot in conjunction with a buckler or rotella (small shield). You can see this in a lot of period art. Primarily they were two handed weapons though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword

In the fechtbuchs (fencing manuals) of the Middle Ages and Renaissance you use the longsword with two hands most of the time, but you can switch to single handed in the middle of a fight, to do sling cuts, sieze the other guys sword- arm or his weapon, etc.

So in terms of the functionality you are describing, almost all longswords were "Hand and a Half" weapons, designed to be usable one handed or two handed, but much more effective in two-hands.

The historical Bastard sword is a sub-type of the longsword which appeared in the 14th-15th Century, basically pointier and a little more thrusting oriented. An Oakeshott XVa is pretty typical example.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spotxv.html

G.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, you want to target the weaker rear armor, but that's a tough shot to get, since the tank will try to put it's front toward danger, and tanks work best with infantry who will generally notice and shoot any errant AT gunners who try to infiltrate around to the vulnerable points.

Doctrine does advise targeting the rear armor, even more recently, when I was trained on the now obsolete Dragon, but that's like saying doctrine advises you to try to pick up only hot women. A full on armored assault with supporting infantry is a bit like two minutes to closing time. You take any shot you can get, and hope for the best.

It's always better to hit a tank on the side and rear, that is also true with other tanks. It's not as hard generally speaking with a personal anti-tank weapon since they are tpically used in ambush. You don't want to open fire on a tank from long range with personal anti-tank weapon because a tank can shoot you miles away.

However there is always a sort of see-saw between anti-tank weapons and tank armor, and doctrine changes accordingly. When the anti-tank weapons could punch through frontal armor the armies which had them took advantage of that because it means the weapons are more effective by a couple of orders of magnitude - it means tanks can't get close to infantry.

In WW II, when the Bazooka first appeared it could consistently penetrate the frontal armor of the best Geman tanks from it's maximum effective range (not very far). By contrast, the primary US anti-tank gun at the time the 37mm could not even pentrate side armor except at very close range. After sad experiences in North Africa they called it the "door knocker". The British 6 pounder (57mm) was a little better but also basically had to attack from ambush.

When the heavy German tanks came out the Bazooka was only suitible for short range and even then, a rear shot or side shot was the only way for it to have any effect. The Tiger tank was almost invulnerable to the Bazooka from any direction. That is why the 82nd Airborne made it a priority to distribute panzerfausts to their troops.

The Germans had a similar problem on the Russian front. The T-34 and KV were essentially immune to the German 50mm gun, and had pretty effective armor even on the sides. The PaK 40 (75mm) improved the situation but only marginally. The Germans always had their PaK 43 (88 mm) but this was a huge weapon with very limited mobility not very useful at close range (very effective at long range though). But the Russians came out with their formidable Joseph Stalin Tank, the much heavier T-34 / 85 and Kv / 85 and Isu - 153 Tank Destroyer, Is-122, Su-100 etc. these very tough AFVs were all but invulnerable and could even endure the 88 mm, which made them a major problem. The German answer was the panzerfaust for short range, something like a primitive RPG with a huge warhead, and the panzershiek, a much improved copy of the American bazooka.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerschreck

Both the panzkerfaust and the panzershriek could easily penetrate the frontal armor of Soviet vehicles.

The nature of the fight on the Russian front meant that on the Western front the Germans had a relatively easy time dealing with US and British armor which did not include heavy tanks until the very end of the war when the Pershing finally arrived. Fortunately for US troops a big advantage in air power and artillery helped even the score somewhat.

And the bazooka was no slouch either, it was improved through the war and always posed a threat for ambush, it was also supplemented with 57mm and later 75 and 105mm recoilless rifles.

Interestingly during the war the Soviets had no personal anti-tank weapon and had to rely on molatov cocktails and anti-tank mines and the like.

After WW II the Soviets adopted the Panzerfaust as the RPG 2. By The Vietnam era, RPG 7s and B-10 rockets were easily knocking out US heavy tanks from the front, as the HEAT warheads were powerful enough to cut through almost any thickness of steel armor. It wasn't until the new type of Chobbham armor (laminated with Ceramic layers) was invented by the British in the 1970's that the problem of HEAT warheads was solved, pushing the see-saw back heavily in the direction of the new generation of tanks like the M-1, Leopard II, Challenger II, LeClerk, Merkava etc. etc..

But very recently the Russians seem to have posssibly changed the alchemy again with their tandem warhead RPGs, which is apparently what gave the Israelis so much trouble during their last invasion of Lebanon.

G.

[Boci]

To the best of my knowledge, a katana was crafted using the folding steel technique out of necessity due to the low quality of Japanese iron. So what would be the result if European iron was used to construct a katana?

[Galloglaich]

Some examples of longswords being used one-handed in Medieval art:

Here with a shield (note the length of the grip of the sword, clearly a Hand and a Half weapon)

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/galler...g2_itemId=6617

Note the guys on the bridge

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/galler...g2_itemId=6602

In a knightly judicial combat

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/galler...2_itemId=11942

[Galloglaich]

To the best of my knowledge, a katana was crafted using the folding steel technique out of necessity due to the low quality of Japanese iron. So what would be the result if European iron was used to construct a katana?

Katanas were mae from steel of a variety of different qualities. Katanas were neither inferior nor superior to European swords, there was a huge variety in quality from one sword to another. Some katanas were actually made with Indian wootz steel which is better than European homogenius steel... some European swords were made of the same material.

The katana was made for a specific purpose and a specific type of fighting, single edged with a focus on slicing / draw-cuts, it is essentially a two-handed saber. The Europeans had very similar weapons called kriegsmessers, schwiesersabels, grossabels etc. which were also very popular, just not well known to gamers.

Japanese combat, especially in the period after the Island was "closed" to foriegn influence, (post 16th Century) became somewhat ritualized / specialized and a more narrow range of weapons were used, but the quality of the weapons was very high and definiately compared well with the best European kit. European arms from the same period were more varied and more oriented to dealing with heavier armor and missile weapons, but weren't necessarily better or worse. Both Japan and places like Italy and Germany were among the worlds top producers of hand weapons like swords (among many other regions which are less famous, such as India, the Philippines, and Thailand).

But I think it's a mistake to assume that the katana was better or worse than the longsword, it's like saying a screwdriver is better than a hammer. Depends if you are driving a nail or screwing in a screw...

G.

[Britter]

Modern smiths using modern steel have forged some pretty impressive katana. I have seen examples forged from L6 that can be bent to a 180 degree angle and return to true, while retaining their ability to cut. Of course, you will pay through the nose for such a blade. Modern steel helps eliminate some of the weakness of the traditional method, mainly brittleness along the cutting edge and weakness against lateral impact. Modern steels tend to be more forgiving while cutting as well, allowing a sword to survive poorly executed techniques that would bend or break more traditonally made katana.

I would guess that similar results would be found with forging European-style blades using modern steels.

Btw, those are some great cutting vids. I have never seen some of those methods for long sword before. Good stuff.

[valadil]

So what do you gun folk think about this? It's a hand gun that needs to be within certain proximity of a wristwatch that's electronically bound to it. The idea is that it makes it so that only you can fire the gun, not the guy who takes it from you, or the small child who finds it in your closet.

Not being a gun owner or enthusiast, my thoughts are pretty simple. I like the idea in theory. The price is prohibitive, but should drop if it catches on. Including an extra point of failure could be deadly, especially an electronic one that's more of a system of failure than a single point. If I were to buy a gun and had kids, I'd probably want something like this.

[boomwolf]

But very recently the Russians seem to have posssibly changed the alchemy again with their tandem warhead RPGs, which is apparently what gave the Israelis so much trouble during their last invasion of Lebanon.

Not that much actually, the Merkava mk. 4 is still nigh-impenetrable, abd under constant upgrades.

The main problem was terrorists hiding between civilians, so they kept attacking you from "cleared" areas, giving no actual "front line" to the war.

[Stephen_E]

The main problem was terrorists hiding between civilians, so they kept attacking you from "cleared" areas, giving no actual "front line" to the war.

Currently there is no single general accepted definition of terrorism, but none of the ones I've read that come close to be accepted would call the act you decribe as terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
Wiki does a good job of covering the problems with the use of this term and makes the point that it is genarally used as a perjorative, which would probably be the most accurate description of your use above.

Stephen E

[Norsesmithy]

So what do you gun folk think about this? It's a hand gun that needs to be within certain proximity of a wristwatch that's electronically bound to it. The idea is that it makes it so that only you can fire the gun, not the guy who takes it from you, or the small child who finds it in your closet.

Not being a gun owner or enthusiast, my thoughts are pretty simple. I like the idea in theory. The price is prohibitive, but should drop if it catches on. Including an extra point of failure could be deadly, especially an electronic one that's more of a system of failure than a single point. If I were to buy a gun and had kids, I'd probably want something like this.

These kinds of ideas are always bad ones, because gunfights are messy places where things happen that make "smart ideas" very dangerous.

A gunshot which hits a bone in your arm basically turns your limb into a wet noodle. With that sort of system, if you were to pick up your sidearm with your off hand, and try to keep fighting, you'd find that your gun didn't work. Further, you'd have to worry about batteries in both the gun and the wristwatch, and give your pistol an additional place to break (and I've never seen anything electronic that could stand up to the punishment a well made pistol can, so it'd break more than the other things that can also break).

The concept was basically created to prevent police officers from being shot with their own weapons (80% of officers shot to death in the line of duty were shot to death with their firearm or the firearm belonging to a brother officer that was in the hands of criminals), but all a bad guy would have to do is keep the handgun close to the policeman's arm to make it keep working (and believe me, word would get out).

And as far as keeping children safe around firearms, the best way to do that is to introduce them to firearms at a young age and teach them to handle them safely.

I mean, if you were a holophobe, and wanted a gun for plinking that would be dangerous to use for just about anything else, it'd fit the bill, but if you are afraid of guns, you shouldn't own them.

[Fhaolan]

So what do you gun folk think about this? It's a hand gun that needs to be within certain proximity of a wristwatch that's electronically bound to it. The idea is that it makes it so that only you can fire the gun, not the guy who takes it from you, or the small child who finds it in your closet.

Not being a gun owner or enthusiast, my thoughts are pretty simple. I like the idea in theory. The price is prohibitive, but should drop if it catches on. Including an extra point of failure could be deadly, especially an electronic one that's more of a system of failure than a single point. If I were to buy a gun and had kids, I'd probably want something like this.

I work with those kinds of devices all the time (but not on guns), and I can honestly say I wouldn't trust them to 'unlock' the gun when it was needed. They're too fiddly. Either both gun and watch have to have batteries (which go weak at exactly the wrong time), or it's an induction device which are easily mucked up by background magnetic fields.

[Autolykos]

or it's an induction device which are easily mucked up by background magnetic fields.

That was actually my first thought about police use. Just use some radio jamming, and the cops are reduced to moving targets. Bad idea.
Besides, I have to agree with Norsesmithy. Complicated things pretty much guarantee disaster.
The only possible use would be as a sports weapon for someone with young kids (too young to understand the concept of "weapon"), but it shouldn't be too difficult to keep the gun away from them (especially if you keep the ammunition somewhere else, which is a good idea anyway - in Germany, you're legally required to do so if you own a weapon for sports/hunting, and as a "normal person" you won't get one for protection purposes, period.)

[Myou]

Wikipedia says that arbalests had a strength of up to 22kN, but that seems far too high. Is that a mistake, or am I missing something?

[Matthew]

Wikipedia says that arbalests had a strength of up to 22kN, but that seems far too high. Is that a mistake, or am I missing something?

I have always found that particular Wikipedia article to be somewhat questionable, but that is true of all the Longbow/Arbalest/Katana type entries. That said, late period crossbows could be very powerful, so maybe 22kN is possible. That does not tell you how effective the crossbow is, though, since what you need to know is how much energy is being imparted to the target at various ranges, which it not indicate (increasing my suspicions that the number has been included only because it sounds impressive). That is in no way representative of thirteenth century crossbows and the like, of course. There was an interesting study done at Reading University by Alan Williams in the wake of the Knight and the Blast Furnace", that might be of interest to you: The Archaeometallurgy of Armour.

[Edmund]

I have always found that particular Wikipedia article to be somewhat questionable, but that is true of all the Longbow/Arbalest/Katana type entries. That said, late period crossbows could be very powerful, so maybe 22kN is possible. That does not tell you how effective the crossbow is, though, since what you need to know is how much energy is being imparted to the target at various ranges, which it not indicate (increasing my suspicions that the number has been included only because it sounds impressive). That is in no way representative of thirteenth century crossbows and the like, of course. There was an interesting study done at Reading University by Alan Williams in the wake of the Knight and the Blast Furnace", that might be of interest to you: The Archaeometallurgy of Armour.

Williams suggests 200 joules, but his figures are based on speculation and are approximate. Strickland and Hardy's 'The Great Warbow' is probably a better source for figures, but I haven't got that on hand and I'm not going to scour the library to get it at the moment.

That said, 22kN is laughably huge for anything man-portable, though I wouldn't be surprised if siege weapons could produce that kind of force.

[Fhaolan]

Wikipedia says that arbalests had a strength of up to 22kN, but that seems far too high. Is that a mistake, or am I missing something?

I think the article is getting confused by changing terminology and is reporting inaccurate data because of it. The term 'Crossbow' has at various times meant any weapon with a bow attached cross-wise to a body, said weapon but specifically dealing with spring-style prods ('bow'), said weapon but only when it's wood or composite prods. Arbalest was at one point just another word for crossbow, a crossbow pulled by a crank, or a crossbow with metal prods. Balista was also another word for crossbow, a cranked crossbow large enough to require a stand or mount, or a torsion-style crossbow (rather than a spring-style). And there are tons of sub-types and name variants due to different languages and dialects.

The metal-prod style arbalest could pass 1,000 lb-pull strength levels supposedly (I've never seen on myself, but I've been told by specialists that it happened really late in period), but in order to reach 5,000 lb-pull strengths it's probably dealing with the torsion-style balistas instead.

[Mike_G]

If I was the type to sig other people's quotes... this would be pretty high on the list. Well done.

Thanks.

I spent some time in the Marines, and now I'm a Paramedic, and I've always considered protocols and doctrine to be suggestions. Often good, solid suggestions, but subject to broad interpretation in practice.

Stuff happens in the field that the book just doesn't cover, so you do your best.

[Galloglaich]

The metal-prod style arbalest could pass 1,000 lb-pull strength levels supposedly (I've never seen on myself, but I've been told by specialists that it happened really late in period), but in order to reach 5,000 lb-pull strengths it's probably dealing with the torsion-style balistas instead.

I just did a bunch of research on this for a book so I hope nobody minds a small dissertation on European crossbows here :)

From what I understand, European crossbows gradually improved in drawing power from around the 8th-9th Century through the 16th, when they reached their peak of efficiency. By the 12th Century they began to incorporate composite prods, possibly influenced by the technology of Recurve bows which were encountered in the early Crusades. They seemed to have reached a level of power that was threatening both to horse-archers and heavy cavalry, and requried foot -stirrups to span

At the battle of Assouf in 1191, Richard I was able to defeat a large force of "Saracen" horse archers by deploying heavy crossbowmen who were apparently able to out-range the composite recurve bows of the Arabs. At the battle of Legnano in 1176 the powerful army of Holy Roman Emperor Barbarosa was defeated by a league of Italian cities, in one of the first major defeats of heavy cavalry by infantry in Medieval Europe. Again, (according to Hans Delbruck) the crossbow was apparently one of the key factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_arsuf

In the 13th Century crossbows became more powerful still, probably spurred on by pressure from the East and more powerful recurve bows. During the famous Mongol Invasion of Europe in 1241 AD the Mongols reported in their own records that the European heavy crossbow caused severe casualties with both men and horses. During their subsequent invasions in the 1280s the Mongols were defeated repeatedly across Eastern Europe and again credited the crossbow as a major problem, which was now apparently on equal terms with their formidable recurves. These crossbows were now powerful enough that a foot stirrup was no longer sufficient to span them, they requried a belt hook, or other devices such as a goats-foot, or even a windlass.

Here is a photo of a goats-foot spanner from the 16th Century:


In the beginning of the 14th Century there were another series of major defeats of knightly armies in Switzerland, Flanders, and Italy, and again, the crossbow was a major factor. Crossbows had become so powerful now that most required a special reduction gear device called a cranequin, similar to the jack you use to raise up a car. The cult of the crossbow spawned the William Tell legends in Switzerland and initiated festivals in Italian cities like Genoa, which had become centers of their use.

This is a cranequin


In the 15th Century the steel prods began to appear, the foot-stirrup goes away and the most powerful weapons could only be spanned with the cranequin. We call the most powerful 14th-15th century crossbows arbalests out of convenience, to differentiate them from the less powerful types, much the same way as we may say 'cuir bouilli' instead of "boiled leather".

Ironically the most powerful arbalests were actually smaller, and the elimination of the foot-stirrup spanning method in favor of the cranequin made them more suitable for cavalry. These were indeed very powerful weapons, much more so than crossbows you see for hunting today. Draw weights up to 1,500 lbs were not extremely unusual, around 1,200 was probably more common, though of course with a smaller prod and a shorter spanning distance the increase in power was not quite as dramatic as that sounds. Still the very, very rare reproductions weapons of this type are tested on rifle ranges rather than archery ranges, if that tells you anything.

Precisely how powerful they are though has not been really exhaustively proven yet, there have been some informal studies done but data has not been made available yet at least not in English. I'm hoping we'll see some published academic studies and good tests showing up on video soon as interest is growing in these weapons. I suspect when we do see these it will be a surprise for a lot of people.

They were replaced on the battlefield by firearms in the 16th Century, largely because they had become so expensive to make and required more training to use than an arquebus, but they were considered to have a longer effective range and better penetration than the firearms at that time.

Fortunately for posterity, they remained popular for aristocrats as hunting weapons through the 18th Century and quite a few very nice quality examples still remain, I don't know if any are safe to try shooting or not.



G.

[Stephen_E]

Thanks.

I spent some time in the Marines, and now I'm a Paramedic, and I've always considered protocols and doctrine to be suggestions. Often good, solid suggestions, but subject to broad interpretation in practice.

Stuff happens in the field that the book just doesn't cover, so you do your best.

I should have clarified. The relevance of doctrine for the AT weapons isn't that this would always be how they were used, but that they were designed on the precept that they would only have to penetrate side and rear armour.
Thus penetrating frontal armour, while something the WW2 infantry man might like, was uncertain because it simply hadn't been designed with that in mind.

Much like WW2 US doctrine was that tanks didn't fight tanks, so they didn't design tanks to do that. That's what the tank destroyers were susposed to do.

Stephen E

[Dervag]

There were, frankly, other much better reasons why they didn't design heavy tanks that could kill the German heavies; I can go into those in considerable depth.

[Stephen_E]

There were, frankly, other much better reasons why they didn't design heavy tanks that could kill the German heavies; I can go into those in considerable depth.

I'm not talking about why they didn't design heavy tanks, I'm talking about choice made regarding the weapons put on the tanks they did produce.
It was a few years ago now, but IIRC they didn't want the 76mm that they put on the Wolverine on the Sherman because that was a AT gun and that wasn't what the Sherman was going to be doing. The stuck the slightly smaller and significantly inferior for anti-armour purposes gun on instead.

The British were even worse at deciding that this tank was for that use, and equiping it so that it really was only good for the specific purpose. Crap flexibility.

Stephen E

[Mike_G]

I should have clarified. The relevance of doctrine for the AT weapons isn't that this would always be how they were used, but that they were designed on the precept that they would only have to penetrate side and rear armour.
Thus penetrating frontal armour, while something the WW2 infantry man might like, was uncertain because it simply hadn't been designed with that in mind.

Much like WW2 US doctrine was that tanks didn't fight tanks, so they didn't design tanks to do that. That's what the tank destroyers were susposed to do.

Stephen E

I think design drives doctrine as often as the other way around.

I'm pretty sure that if they could have, they'd have designed an infantry portable AT weapon that could kill a Tiger from any angle. That just wasn't possible, but they could build a bazooka that could give the infantryman some capability against armor, even if only the weaker rear armor.

It was adopted as "better than nothing." If it couldn't kill any German tank, the big, heavy thing would have been "misplaced" by the crews, who would have carried a weapon that could at least kill something, like German infantry.

I'm sure that when the first AT gunner was issued his bazooka, and told that doctrine was to fire only at the rear of the tank, so he had to infiltrate around or wait for it to pass him, taking his shot while surrounded by Panzergrenadieren, his thought was "@#$% that. You sneak around behind the tank!"

[Dervag]

I'm not talking about why they didn't design heavy tanks, I'm talking about choice made regarding the weapons put on the tanks they did produce.
It was a few years ago now, but IIRC they didn't want the 76mm that they put on the Wolverine on the Sherman because that was a AT gun and that wasn't what the Sherman was going to be doing. The stuck the slightly smaller and significantly inferior for anti-armour purposes gun on instead.

The British were even worse at deciding that this tank was for that use, and equiping it so that it really was only good for the specific purpose. Crap flexibility.

The 76mm had some disadvantages of its own. One that comes to mind is the inferior HE shells, which are bad from the point of view of infantry who want a tank that can motor up and blast the crud out of the bunkers pinning them down before the enemy mortars zero in on their position.

Also, they did put the 76mm into the Sherman; they just needed some time to get to it. Since 75mm gun designs were a long-standing, mature technology with a history dating back to before World War One, while the 76 was a new design with some bugs to be worked out... good enough for me.

[Fortinbras]

What sort of MOS's do Navy SEALs have before they become SEALs. I know some are Marine Infrantry but who else gets to be a SEAL?

[Zincorium]

What sort of MOS's do Navy SEALs have before they become SEALs. I know some are Marine Infrantry but who else gets to be a SEAL?

Er, I'm a Navy petty officer who looked into the SEAL program (and decided I have no chance of making it), and this is gonna take a bit of explaining.

SEALs are Navy only, the other services have their own special warfare programs (even the Air Force) that have a different focus. Marines would have to leave the Corps, join the Navy, and then go through BUDS (the training program), and that's not going to occur very often.

You can join the SEAL program from any rating (there are no MOS's in the Navy) as enlisted, and there's a specific officer program for special warfare that, like pilots, you apply for and are accepted into as part of your commission- you're not a Line Officer, and will never command a ship. Enlisted gain the SO rating, although that didn't exist a few years ago and they were technically yeoman or gunner's mates and such.

Hope this helps.

[Fortinbras]

I have a friend who was planning to try to get into the SEALs through the Marines.

Anyway what sorts of jobs do sailors who want to be SEALs get before they go through the program? Does the Navy have its own infantry?

[fusilier]

Hi, I was just reading an excerpt from "Galleys and Gunpowder" which can be found online here:

http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/guilmar...m/Weapons.html

In it the author claims that crossbows are intrinsically inaccurate (I think compared to bows, not arquebuses). However his explanation seems somewhat lacking to me. Any input?

That link is to a full chapter, so here's the main paragraph:

But there were two great disadvantages to this system: it was intrinsically inaccurate and the winding operation took a great deal of time and attention. The reasons for the crossbow’s inaccuracy are somewhat involved. They begin with the mechanics of the release mechanism (see Fig. 4). Where an archer, by precisely controlling his release, could ensure that the energy in his bowstring was smoothly transmitted to the arrow, the crossbow release mechanism released the cord abruptly and somewhat erratically. Instead of being smoothly accelerated in a carefully controlled direction, the crossbow bolt began its voyage lying loosely in its trough, and was then ‘slapped’ into flight with enormous force. Crossbow bolts had to be made short and thick with a flat base in order to prevent the tremendous impact of the cord from reducing them to splinters.12 In view of the need for strength and the basic inaccuracy of the crossbow, war bolts were often very crudely made, having a single leather fin set into a slot sawed across the base of the bolt. The aerodynamic inefficiency of the resultant shape sharply increased drag and therefore reduced the maximum range. This was aggravated by the considerable and unpredictable vibration which the impact of the cord imparted to the bolt. By further and inconsistently increasing the aerodynamic drag of the bolt this vibration additionally reduced both range and accuracy.

12 Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, pp. 14-15, describes shooting an ordinary arrow from a heavy steel crossbow with just that result.

[fusilier]

I have a friend who was planning to try to get into the SEALs through the Marines.

Anyway what sorts of jobs do sailors who want to be SEALs get before they go through the program? Does the Navy have its own infantry?

I thought the Marine Corps was a branch of the Navy?

[Crow]

I have a friend who was planning to try to get into the SEALs through the Marines.

Anyway what sorts of jobs do sailors who want to be SEALs get before they go through the program? Does the Navy have its own infantry?

Your friend is going to have a tough time doing that. Good luck.

In response to a way earlier question about operators training to take headshots all the time, I spoke to my bosses (3 ex-delta, 2 ex-rangers), and the delta guys said that they trained to take headshots for situations in which a normal center-mass hit was ineffective, or they knew it would be (such as a guy wearing heavy body armor, and you're down to a pistol). They never trained to just take head shots all the time Tom Clancy style. As with everybody else, center mass, center mass, (no effect?) head.

This echoes the other responses to the question, but as I promised to get an answer direct from the source, there it is.

[Mando Knight]

I thought the Marine Corps was a branch of the Navy?

Not the US Marine Corps. It's also not really a good idea to try to get into the US Navy SEALS by joining the Marines. It's kinda-really hard to get promoted into the elite corps of a different military branch.