Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Matthew]

Ancient Roman gold coins could be about 9 grams, but from the time of Constantine until the end of the high middle ages they were typically around 4 grams or so. The standard silver coin was about 1.5 grams or less, but there were very heavy examples during the late medieval silver boom in Germany. I recommend downloading this handy pdf I made to see some examples: Ancient and Medieval Coinage.

[Yora]

All in all creatures weights, at least few 'correct' weights, indicate 'normal' pounds.

There is no such thing as a normal pound.

454g, 373g, 350g, 437g, 467g, 453.6g, 329g, 319 to 324g, 367g, 489g, 560g, 467g, 409.5g, 425g, 498g, 471g, 490g.

The only normal pound is 500g.

[Ashtagon]

At 1-inch diameter, you get a coin 0.938 mm thick (gold), or 1.707 mm tick (silver). Those are aspect ratios (diameter/thickness) of 27.4 and 14.9 respectively.

A US quarter's ratio is 13.9; a UK 20p coin is 12.6; a UK £1 coin is 7.15.

The silver coin can believably have a one-inch diameter. The gold coin should be smaller. At 0.8 inch diameter, it would be 1.44 mm thick and have an aspect ratio of 14 which is in normal modern coinage ratios.

Just ran spreadsheet numbers. For copper and silver coins, a 1-inch diameter gives a thickness on a par with aspect ratios of modern coins. For gold and platinum coins, you need a 0.8 inch diameter to get the same aspect ratio. Electrum coins (anyone ever use those?) would also need to be smaller than 1 inch to avoid being foil coins.

Also, all D&D coins are denser than modern coins by far.

Another fun fact: The density of modern coins, calculated from diameter, thickness, and mass, is much lower than it should be when calculated from the component metal physical properties. For example, 11:1 copper-nickel alloy (used in US 25c, 10c coins) should have a density of 9.75. Calculated values are 7.009 and 6.669. Even allowing 0.1mm for surface feature embossing, that's too low. I wonder if modern coin manufacturing uses some "metal foaming" techniques. They certainly aren't the advertised metal content if those physical dimension numbers are supposed to be correct.

[J.Gellert]

Coins... Only two weeks back, I spent 3 hours trying to calculate late-Roman coin weights and deciding on the perfect balance between realism and ease of use (because I didn't want to use the D&D standard of 1 gold = 10 silver = 100 copper).

Just one of the little things I know my players are never going to appreciate.

[Straybow]

Also, all D&D coins are denser than modern coins by far.

Another fun fact: The density of modern coins, calculated from diameter, thickness, and mass, is much lower than it should be when calculated from the component metal physical properties. For example, 11:1 copper-nickel alloy (used in US 25c, 10c coins) should have a density of 9.75. Calculated values are 7.009 and 6.669. Even allowing 0.1mm for surface feature embossing, that's too low. I wonder if modern coin manufacturing uses some "metal foaming" techniques. They certainly aren't the advertised metal content if those physical dimension numbers are supposed to be correct.

Ummm, no. I can't imagine where you are getting those density numbers.

Cu density is 8.96, Ni density is 9.00. We could round Cu and any Cu-Ni alloy to 9.0 as close enough for most calculations.

Yes, Ag is denser at 10.5, but that is only by 16.7%. Au at 19.3 is more than double the density of Cu.

[Ashtagon]

Ummm, no. I can't imagine where you are getting those density numbers.

Cu density is 8.96, Ni density is 9.00. We could round Cu and any Cu-Ni alloy to 9.0 as close enough for most calculations.

Yes, Ag is denser at 10.5, but that is only by 16.7%. Au at 19.3 is more than double the density of Cu.

Yes, density of modern coins based on metal composition should be on the order of 8-9 g/cc. On the other hand, the diameter and thickness are documented, from which it is trivial to calculate volume. And mass is documented; with mass and volume, you can calculate a density figure. This calculated density is much lower than the metal composition should indicate. I've double checked my figures, so I'm not sure where this error is creeping in, or if it's bad data from wikipedia.

[Galloglaich]

Ancient Roman gold coins could be about 9 grams, but from the time of Constantine until the end of the high middle ages they were typically around 4 grams or so. The standard silver coin was about 1.5 grams or less, but there were very heavy examples during the late medieval silver boom in Germany. I recommend downloading this handy pdf I made to see some examples: Ancient and Medieval Coinage.

To build on what Matthew said, most Medieval and Classical era coins, at least the type which would be spent normally, were extremely small, as in maybe half to a third the size of a dime ... most of the money used for daily use was silver or bronze... or in some places like in the far East, iron. I have a few Roman and Medieval coins that I bought from Ebay they are really tiny.

Gold was extremely valuable, you could get a sword for a half a mark in the late Medieval period which would be a very small gold coin smaller than a dime, or a larger quantity of silver, about a hundred small silver coins.

Some other prices:

A sheep, 56 dinari (a tiny silver 900-1000 dinari to a mark)
Bushel of wheat 84 dinari
Sword 1/2 a mark
Stirrup Crossbow 1 mark
Coat of plates (platendienst) 1/4 mark
Cuirass with pauldrons, 1 mark
Mail Haubergeon 2-7 marks or 10 marks for a ‘special’ Haubergeon (possibly tempered or fine links)
Half-Armor ‘of Proof’ a little over 2 marks
Milanese Harness 4 Florins (florin is a gold coin worth very roughly 1.5 marks)
Milanese Harness ‘of Proof’ 7 Florins
Equipment for a mounted crossbowman, 11 florins, equipment ‘for a lancer’ 30 florins

Days wage for a Carpenter in Klosternaubourg 20 deniers in the summer (roughly 1/2 mark per month) 16 deniers n the winter

Day wage for a Carpenter or a mason in Saxony 2 groschen and 4 dinari, plus two jugs of ‘hornet’ beer, plus 3 groschen per week for bath money. Monthly wage is roughly 3/4 mark per month (assuming a typical 5 1/2 day work week and not counting the beer)

Mercenaries pay*:
Light Cavalry 2 Florin per month
Gunner or Arbalestier 3 Florin per month
Doppelsöldner Halberdier 3 Florin per month
Leutzule (guide) 2 Florin per month
Lancer (with horse and armor) 10 Florin per month
Knight (‘Lance’)** 20 Florin per month

* Mercenaries pay was considered extremely high
** Knights pay would also cover at least 2 mounted attendants who were also expected to fight plus one mounted servant (veleti)

G

[Straybow]

Yes, density of modern coins based on metal composition should be on the order of 8-9 g/cc. On the other hand, the diameter and thickness are documented, from which it is trivial to calculate volume. And mass is documented; with mass and volume, you can calculate a density figure. This calculated density is much lower than the metal composition should indicate. I've double checked my figures, so I'm not sure where this error is creeping in, or if it's bad data from wikipedia.

No, the data from the US Mint is the same. The diameter counts the reeded edges of the dime and quarter. The thickness is the stacking ring, which is equal to the maximum relief of the image. The high relief parts of the image take up a very small percentage of the face, and the difference in mass is that missing volume.

[Straybow]

I have another question.

The Strength Ratings for bows, from 3.5, are they a good simulation of how bows work?

Is a bow made with a specific pull, where if you are stronger you'd gain no benefit, and if you are weaker you'd get a penalty?

Also, is it impossible to get that with a "regular" longbow? Did such a thing as a "composite longbow" ever even exist?

No, it is horribly inconsistent and even nonsensical. If "strength bows" should be allowed at all, the low mass of the arrow should impose the same limitation as a light weapon: half the strength bonus.

Follow this reasoning:

A short bow has about 50-80 lb draw and 5' length. Limb tip velocity is the limit of arrow velocity, and with no major change in geometry tip velocity is proportional to limb length. A longbow made to the same draw weight would have 20% longer limbs, resulting in 20% higher arrow velocity, which is 44% more energy. Raise the draw weight to 140+ lbs (at least double) and make a heavier arrow to maximize the energy transfer and you get the same 20% higher velocity with about 100% more energy than the short bow.

This accounts for the difference between the listed damages of 1d6 shortbow and 1d8 longbow. Double the power (energy), only one point extra damage on average, two points maximum damage by die size.

Now, do you think an average shlub with a strength of ten can effectively draw and use a 140 lb longbow? Sorry, no. That 140 lb draw is a one-arm press (pressing 140 lb with one hand, pulling 140 lb with the other) that implies a bench press strength of about 280 lb. Military press is generally about 70% of bench press, so that comes to 196 lb. That's 4 lb shy of the overhead lift limit for a strength of 15. That means the strength bonus happens to correspond to the change in die size (+2), and the change in average damage is half the strength bonus (+1).

It's a very sloppy way to get there, but it is at least in the correct neighborhood.

So, longbow should require a strength of 14 for anybody to use without lengthy training (far more than reflected in d20). Historical records show that yeomen trained from the age of 14 and became eligible for the King's service at 22, so about 8 years to allow men of somewhat more average strength (probably around 12) to wield the longbow with precision.

---

1
Now, suppose you want to add more "strength bonus" to that bow. You can't really make the limbs substantially longer, so you can't add to the missile velocity (the most efficient route, since velocity is squared). You can only add to the missile mass.

Carrying capacity as a rough measure of strength increases by 32% for each +1 strength bonus, so you'd need to increase the draw weight by about 32% to keep pace. But remember, it took a doubling of energy to get a +1 average damage increase or +2 to die size going from shortbow to longbow. That means a +41% for +½ to damage and +1 to die size. We need to lengthen the bow (and therefore, release velocity) by a few percent to keep the pace.

Now, if you wanted to start with a longbow at strength 10 (the +0 composite longbow), you see how enormous the draw weights become, just multiplying by rate of increase in carrying capacity and handwaving the increased arrow mass and a couple inches of limb length for each step.

+0 140 lb 1d8
+1 184 lb 1d9
+2 244 lb 1d10
+3 322 lb 1d11
+4 424 lb 1d12

Note that the whole scheme falls apart with the composite shortbow, at about half the draw weight:

+0 70 lb 1d6
+1 92 lb 1d7
+2 122 lb 1d8

Oops, it took a 20% longer bow and a 15% heavier draw (equivalent to 1 Strength point) just to get to 1d8 damage for the longbow, and the 20% longer bow accounted for more than half of the logarithmic energy increase. The +2 strength shortbow arrow must get all it's extra energy from missile mass. The draw is roughly proportional to optimal missile mass, so we're 15% too light of draw for the estimated doubling of energy to match the longbow arrow.

So, allowing half strength bonus (or add strength bonus to die size) for strength bows is actually too generous. In fact, I'd impose a half strength bonus limit for thrown weapons as well, for these and additional reasons.

[Galloglaich]

I should add, those prices I quoted were from the 15th Century in Northern Germany (Holy Roman Empire) and the Baltic area.

G

[J.Gellert]

Interesting stuff

That's pretty good to know. Of course even I (that usually go straight for realism) will admit that perhaps it's looking too much into things; because we don't know what damage means. What is a +1 Strength bonus to damage when you are wielding a dagger, or a warhammer?

But judging from the above, the math would simply make more sense if the Longbow did, say, 1d10 instead of 1d8.

Which brings me to another question; Shouldn't crossbows be doing more damage, by this reasoning? A heavy crossbow is essentially a bow that the average person can't pull (hence the cranequin), so its damage should be comparable to +Strength bonus bows, not just simple bows.

[Ashtagon]

No, the data from the US Mint is the same. The diameter counts the reeded edges of the dime and quarter. The thickness is the stacking ring, which is equal to the maximum relief of the image. The high relief parts of the image take up a very small percentage of the face, and the difference in mass is that missing volume.

Yeah, but based on the physical mass and dimensions given and the calculated density from metal composition, something like a quarter of the theoretical volume should be empty space to allow for surface features. Examining the coins, it certainly doesn't look like there's that much empty space in there.

[Ashtagon]

stuff

A few basic errors...

* The launch velocity is determined by the speed of the string, not the limbs. That can be vastly different, depending on the way the limbs are designed bend when the bow is drawn.
* Changing the proportion of riser to limb can affect launch velocity.
* Different materials technology can change the effective draw weight without changing physical dimensions.
* Draw weight and arrow mass are completely unrelated, except to note that high draw weights with light or poorly constructed arrows can result in the arrows fairly to fly true. A heavy arrow certainly doesn't result in a higher draw weight.

http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-2633 has an article for gurps which is supposed to model arrow dynamics very well. I haven't personally read it yet though.

[Spiryt]

Which brings me to another question; Shouldn't crossbows be doing more damage, by this reasoning? A heavy crossbow is essentially a bow that the average person can't pull (hence the cranequin), so its damage should be comparable to +Strength bonus bows, not just simple bows.

"Developed" crossbows in general have shorter draw lengths, it was kind of the point of them - so they could be raised at head height, carefully aimed, supported etc.

With shorter draw length, one cannot gather the same energy in the prod using the force of, say 100 pounds.

Bow that requires 100 pounds of force over 23 inches of power stroke and crossbow of 250 pounds over 9 inches will store roughly the same amount of energy if drawn.

That's obviously very simple example, because with actual materials and geometry it will get way more complicated.


Heavy crossbow should obviously be doing more damage, but 3.5 is very simple and poorly written in general.

Calculating carrying capacities into bow draws and into damage is just a headache without point.

A longbow made to the same draw weight would have 20% longer limbs, resulting in 20% higher arrow velocity, which is 44% more energy.

It would also have heavier limbs, which would obviously consume some of energy, among other things already pointed out.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah but the strongest Medieval crossbows could be up to 1200 lb draw, and probably were more powerful than any bow.



G

[Spiryt]

Early crossbows apparently were sort of very short bows with immense draw that could be still spanned with two hands - but then evolution went for shorter power stroke...

Still, 600 pounds/8 inches well built crossbow was anyway more powerful than most practical bows out there.

It already needed some more substantial mechanical advantage, or hard work with simpler system though.

[fusilier]

A quick question - when was the system of musket troops firing by ranks (that is, so that a unit can keep up a constant stream of fire, instead of intermittent large volleys) introduced and when was it phased out?

About the earliest reference I can find is a 1764 French manual where they covered firing by platoons and units rather than ranks, and by the late Napoleonic era (early 1800s), firing by ranks was apparently being phased out, although the British Army hung onto it for a while (the latest depiction I can find is the Battle of Rorke's Drift in 1879 in the film Zulu, but I'm going to regard the authenticity as dubious at best).

As storm bringer already noted an early version of fire by ranks was probably standard practice by the late 1500s. In this case the formations were loose enough that after firing the front rank could retire to the rear. Volley fire, involving multiple ranks, started to become popular around 1630 or so. I'm not sure when firing by rank became common -- it was often used as a ploy to trick cavalry into charging. Other methods included firing by company and fire by files (which was a way of starting independent firing).

[Daosus]

I should point out that people today have difficulty agreeing on which gun caliber is best, even with well-known parameters like diameter, projectile mass, and muzzle velocity. Trying to do the same sort of thing for something as broad as "big bows, small bows, compound bows and two kinds of crossbows" is likely an exercise in madness.

With that said, energy is pretty easy to figure, if you make some (inaccurate) assumptions, like a linear force-displacement curve for force on the arrow/bolt. Crossbows, which tend to have shorter prods, will be closer to this assumption. Bows, which get more fancy, will tend to have more energy than this assumption. However, that's "muzzle" energy, and bolts tend to lose energy slower than arrows due to higher cross sectional density, and lower drag coefficient. But, again, without picking a specific bow and a specific crossbow, and a specific range, it is difficult to make an accurate estimate of which is "better."

[Yora]

A basic understandig question:

In an aircraft carrier group (I think that's what it's called), isn't the carrier effectively providing protection for the rest of the group with it's aircraft?

So what are all the other ships for which are not carrying supplies? Probably not for ship to ship battles.

[Storm Bringer]

A basic understandig question:

In an aircraft carrier group (I think that's what it's called), isn't the carrier effectively providing protection for the rest of the group with it's aircraft?

So what are all the other ships for which are not carrying supplies? Probably not for ship to ship battles.

protecting the carrier.

carriers are glass jawed boxers. they can deal massive amounts of damage, but they can't take much punishment without sinking. thierfore, you need the other ships to keep threats form hitting the carrier, by providing platforms for Missles, Anti sub weapons, and if all else fails, by providing alternate targets on the radar screen for the incoming to aim it, or be drawn too.

They also are for all those boring, routine patrol, customs and anti-pirate stuff that navies need to do when not fighting wars.

[Yora]

Ah, okay. There's already enough stuff on an aircraft carrier, no need to cram all those cruise missiles and other specialized weapons into it as well.

[Dead_Jester]

Ah, okay. There's already enough stuff on an aircraft carrier, no need to cram all those cruise missiles and other specialized weapons into it as well.

There is also the fact that if you put everything in the same ship, it becomes not only less effective at it's primary job, but it becomes an even more inviting target. Add to that the fact that a "universal" ship being theoretically able to patrol and/or engage by itself encourages commanders to reduce the size of escorts, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Plus, placing cruise missiles on huge warships is usually wasteful, as it limits you tactical capabilities to deploy them where you want and to spread them out efficiently.

[Galloglaich]

I should point out that people today have difficulty agreeing on which gun caliber is best, even with well-known parameters like diameter, projectile mass, and muzzle velocity. Trying to do the same sort of thing for something as broad as "big bows, small bows, compound bows and two kinds of crossbows" is likely an exercise in madness.

With that said, energy is pretty easy to figure, if you make some (inaccurate) assumptions, like a linear force-displacement curve for force on the arrow/bolt. Crossbows, which tend to have shorter prods, will be closer to this assumption. Bows, which get more fancy, will tend to have more energy than this assumption. However, that's "muzzle" energy, and bolts tend to lose energy slower than arrows due to higher cross sectional density, and lower drag coefficient. But, again, without picking a specific bow and a specific crossbow, and a specific range, it is difficult to make an accurate estimate of which is "better."

Better is probably not applicable, different

the five top long-range missile weapons of the Medieval era break down something like this:



Heavy crossbow (stirrup crossbow, heavy crossbow, stegelarmbrust, knottelarmbrust)

Appears around 1050 AD, gradually improves in power and efficiency reaching a peak from 1350-1550 AD

Spanned with: goats foot and / or belt hook
Expense: moderate to high
Use on horseback: moderately difficult (requires skilled marskman, costing about half as much as a knight and requires wippe or goats-foot)

Advantages
Relatively easy to handle, usable by semi-skilled soldiers and militia.
Good strait line accuracy at individual targets,
Long range for individual targets, up to 80m effective range according to period sources
Can be held in readiness indefinitely
Can be aimed supported (leaning on something) which improves accuracy
Good armor-piercing capabilities
Moderate expense

Disadvantages
Relatively slow rate of shots (this is remedied by shooting in pairs)
Not as good at area shots (bolts lose energy fast when speed drops)
Moderately difficult to use on horseback
Ammunition is expensive
Shallow arc


Arbalest ('stinger' (statchel), halb rustung),

Appears around 1350 AD, reaches peak efficiency 1450 -1550 AD

Advantages
Very accurate at individual targets, up to 120m or more
Highly lethal, can kill a horse with one shot
Very good armor piercing
Moderate intimidation effect: Bolts sound scares horses and men
Can be aimed supported

Disadvantages
Very expensive
Takes a long time to make,
Requires highly skilled labor to make (steel prod versions require both skilled blacksmith and bow maker)
Dangerous to use for the shooter, requires skilled marksman
Requires expensive cranequin to span
Slow rate of shots
Ammunition is expensive
Shallow arc


Mongol / Turkish recurve
Appears in early form as far back as the 6th Century BC or much earlier, reaches various peaks of efficiency in the 4th Century AD, 12th Century AD, and the 15th Century AD

advantages
High rate of shots
Very long (longest) range for indirect / area shots, especially using flight-arrows
Cheap ammunition
Most effective of the group from horseback (by people who grow up with both horsemanship and archery)
Light and relatively small
Can be shot in high arc

disadvantages
Relatively light arrows mean limited armor-piercing ability at range
Shorter direct-shot range against individuals
Composite bows arguably most susceptible to poor weather
Takes a long time to make (up to 1 year to dry)



English* Longbow / Warbow
* actually also used in many other parts of Europe going way back
Appears in far antiquity (neolothic period) reaches peaks of efficiency in the 11th Century AD (Welsh), 14th Century AD (English longbow) and 15th Century

advantages
Long range especially for area shots
heavy arrows have good armor-piercing ability
hard-hitting: can kill horses. Arguably most devastating area -shot weapon of the group.
Fast rate of shots
Relatively cheap to make (but generally requires imported wood)
Can be shot in high arc

disadvantage
Not as long area-shot range as the recurve
Not as long direct-shot range as the crossbow
Somewhat awkward to shoot from horseback (though it was done)


Matchlock arquebus / harquebus
Appears in primitive form as early as 1300 (hook-gun), early peak (recognizable as an arquebus) by circa 1400, reaches a second peak circa 1520 (much more efficient designs)

advantages
Good armor piercing ability at close range
Can be held in readiness indefinitely
Best intimidation effect of the group: Noise and flash scares horses and men
Long range in volley fire (effectively area shot)
High lethality, can kill horses
Can be aimed supported

disadvantages
Poor accuracy against individual targets (max 50m)
Accidents with gunpowder can cause major catastrophes (i.e. explosions and fires) so early firearms require well trained / experienced gunners
No arc (very flat arc compared to the bows and even the crossbows)
Requires a lit match (which can give away the position of the shooter)
Creates cloud of smoke (which has both advantages and disadvantages)
Gunpowder is highly succeptible to weather
Until 1450 gunpowder has to be mixed on the spot (i.e. before corned powder)


G

[Straybow]

A few basic errors...

* The launch velocity is determined by the speed of the string, not the limbs. That can be vastly different, depending on the way the limbs are designed bend when the bow is drawn.
* Changing the proportion of riser to limb can affect launch velocity.
* Different materials technology can change the effective draw weight without changing physical dimensions.
* Draw weight and arrow mass are completely unrelated, except to note that high draw weights with light or poorly constructed arrows can result in the arrows fairly to fly true. A heavy arrow certainly doesn't result in a higher draw weight.

http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=SJG37-2633 has an article for gurps which is supposed to model arrow dynamics very well. I haven't personally read it yet though.

Sorry, proportional to limb speed, and since geometry of self bows doesn't change enough to matter, the math is OK.

I didn't say heavier arrow results in higher draw weight, I said the heavier draw needs the heavier arrow. If your objective is range, use a lighter arrow. If you want to increase damage, you need a heavier arrow.

[Spiryt]

For the record, that english longbow picture doesn't have much to do with actual longbows/other from medieval, it has typically modern lamination, geometry and leather grip.

Requires highly skilled labor to make (steel prod versions require both skilled blacksmith and bow maker)

Very heavy arbalests were still being made from horn/wood/sinew composite, not that it changes much as far as skilled labor goes, perhaps required even more of it.

Moderate intimidation effect: Bolts sound scares horses and men

Why put this only under "arbalest" though? It generally could be just as applicable to arrows and bolts from lighter crossbows. Would depend mostly on fletching, which was very often made from wood in case of bolts, anyway.

Relatively light arrows mean limited armor-piercing ability at range

Well, heavy arrows could be used just as well though.

Appears in far antiquity (neolothic period) reaches peaks of efficiency in the 11th Century AD (Welsh), 14th Century AD (English longbow) and 15th Century

It would probably be more accurate to say that it reaches peak of it's military use then, cause indeed we already have some traces of very dynamic and well made longbows from Neolithic indeed. (Along with flatbows etc. obviously).

[Straybow]

That's pretty good to know. Of course even I (that usually go straight for realism) will admit that perhaps it's looking too much into things; because we don't know what damage means. What is a +1 Strength bonus to damage when you are wielding a dagger, or a warhammer?

But judging from the above, the math would simply make more sense if the Longbow did, say, 1d10 instead of 1d8.

Which brings me to another question; Shouldn't crossbows be doing more damage, by this reasoning? A heavy crossbow is essentially a bow that the average person can't pull (hence the cranequin), so its damage should be comparable to +Strength bonus bows, not just simple bows.

Higher draw weight, much smaller span (as little as 8 inches). Momentum and energy in the quarrel isn't vastly higher. It wasn't about damage, the heavier arrows and bolts were for armor penetration.

The really powerful ones can't be drawn by hand. They take a minute or two (tens of rounds) to crank, even slower than a muzzle-loader, and for games that means one shot.

I'm not trying to model arrow behavior, I'm trying to model strength bonus behavior, hence the use of carry capacity as a gauge for increasing draw to match strength. I'm using the 1d6 shortbow and 1d8 longbow and typical characteristics (50-80 lb vs 140+ lb) as the basis for comparison.

To go on a "what is damage" path does not lead to the dark side. Using a hand weapon involves more than just moving a weapon. It is moving your body, and transmitting the momentum of your arm or body through the weapon to the target. Using a two-handed weapon allows greater leverage and more momentum behind the weapon (1½×Str mod). A light weapon doesn't transmit the momentum as well and the advantage of strength in the blow is diminished (½×Str mod). We know all this by experience. You can try to use a hatchet in both hands but it just doesn't increase the effect by much. You can try to use a wood axe with one hand, and while you can get the head speed up you don't have leverage to transfer momentum.

You can try to transfer body momentum into a thrown weapon, but it is an inefficient process. With your mass no longer physically connected the momentum simply isn't there, to a greater degree than with a light weapon. But it isn't practical to go less the ½×Str.

When you're comparing arrows, quarrels, and even javelins you do have one common factor: the wound track. For each of these the difference in size of the head is not that big. With a broadhead you have cutting damage through the wound track. With a bodkin that's not as much of a factor. Really there should be a differentiation, with a smaller damage die for the bodkin. Either way, this is another strong case for not ramping up the damage just because the power of the bow is higher. If the game mechanics had armor as DR, and some kind of penetration factor, that is where the greatest effect would be.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Ah, okay. There's already enough stuff on an aircraft carrier, no need to cram all those cruise missiles and other specialized weapons into it as well.

Also, you'll frequently find that sortieing aircraft and ASW require mutually exclusive actions (carrying the necessary speed and heading to launch jets versus sprint-and-drifting to triangulate a target) so you simply can't do both simultaneously.

Edit: At least not with the same platform.

[rrgg]

My opinions on Ranged weapons:

The key with each one is how energy is stored and transferred to the projectile.
First, throwing weapons are for the most part a direct transfer of a person's arm strength to the object. The primary issue is the ratio of weapon weight to arm weight (since it is moving as well).
Javelins/darts generally break down into either "heavy" or "light" varieties.
Heavy javelins tend to be in the 2-5 lb range and include things like the pilum or simply general purpose spears. Normally these tend to be extremely short range weapons but their energy can often get into the 200 (well-built reenactor) to 300+ Joules (Olympic javelineer). For comparison, most mail armor likely needed around 100-200 J to penetrate depending on point type and quality. Obviously the effectiveness of the weapon would vary immensely depending on user strength and skill.
Light javelins on the other hand were intended for distance and were much shorter, thinner, and lighter, usually well under 1 lb. They were't nearly as powerful though. Some Roman accounts suggest that the light infantry's javelins could be turned aside by even thick gaelic cloaks.
Other throwing-type weapons achievied greater efficency by using some meathod of lengthening the arm.
throwing axes and throwing maces do this but are inconsistant and have less peircing ability.
atlatls are efficient but require a rather light, springy projectile which prevents them from being scaled up.
slings are actually capable of a lot of energy, but rely on blunt force rather than a sharp point.

Bow weapons meanwhile work by storing energy in a spring and releasing it all at once. This allows them to propell lighter projectiles at far greater speeds and distances. The limiters here are the efficiency of the spring and again the strength of a person's arm.
Traditional bows (short, long, composite, etc) were made to the user's strength with varying degrees of efficiency depending on quality of construction, but the overall doesn't seem to have been that great. Most Warbows tended to stay well below the 100 J level for their projectiles with 150 J perhaps a semi-mythical max.

Crossbows are among the first weapons that focus on storing more raw energy rather than simple efficiency.
A hand-drawn sturrup crossbow can theoretically achieve around double the energy of a traditional bow, but there seem to have still been some efficiency issues. With such short power-strokes, most designs don't achieve much more penetration than traditional warbows.
The winch is what really liberates the crossbow even if the speed is dratically reduced. Arbalests could do a ton of damage, but I'd argue that by the time you are reliably peircing high-quality armor you are into siege engine territory.

And finally, as far as storing and releasing energy goes gunpowder came along and broke everything.

[Autolykos]

Straybow, you're assuming 50-80 pound draw for a "regular" (STR 10) shortbow, but 140+ pounds for a "regular" (also STR 10) longbow, and then state that it would be impossible for a STR 10 individual to draw that longbow. This leads me to believe that your initial assumption is incorrect. A STR 10 longbow should be pullable (and aimable) by the average joe, which would put its draw weight well under 50 pounds. That's more in the "sporting" than in the "weapon" range, but historically, longbowmen needed training since childhood to get the necessary strength for pulling a longbow strong enough for military use. A 140 pound longbow should have a minimum STR bonus of +2 or +3, and those 180+ monsters should be at +4 and over.
Like I stated before, only allowing for stronger composite bows but not for stronger wooden bows is the silly part of the rule. If you take that at face value, you can easily create contradictions like the one you found.

[Straybow]

Straybow, you're assuming 50-80 pound draw for a "regular" (STR 10) shortbow, but 140+ pounds for a "regular" (also STR 10) longbow, and then state that it would be impossible for a STR 10 individual to draw that longbow. This leads me to believe that your initial assumption is incorrect.

Not quite what I meant, which may have been lost in the wall of words. I said:

So, longbow should require a strength of 14 for anybody to use without lengthy training (far more than reflected in d20). Historical records show that yeomen trained from the age of 14 and became eligible for the King's service at 22, so about 8 years to allow men of somewhat more average strength (probably around 12) to wield the longbow with precision.

Then I cited how ridiculously huge the draw weight would have to be if strength bows started at Str10 and went up proportionally with the logarithmic strength scale.

I would allow folks to use the longbow below Str14 with a feat that represents years of training. PCs wouldn't bother if they don't have Str14, but that's the explanation for more average Str12 soldiers (who don't choose their mandated training).