Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Brother Oni]

As far as "mortaring" with bows, it's certainly possible, but I don't think I've ever heard about even remotely accurate bow/whatever fire while someone tells you what he's seeing...

You've never heard of clout archery?

I will concede that indirect fire of this sort is used more against formations, so accuracy is less of an issue.

If someone is body-building so heavily, that muscle growth impedes his range motion, it indeed will be a problem. But that's specific situation, and such person won't train martial arts anyway, body just wouldn't be able to do both, even with liberal application of steroids.

Bolo Yeung did both, so I wouldn't say that martial arts and body building are mutually exclusive.

[Spiryt]

You've never heard of clout archery?

I will concede that indirect fire of this sort is used more against formations, so accuracy is less of an issue.

Uh, clout archery is done with your own eyes, at agles of 40, maybe 50 degrees at very most.

Formation would have to be something like 100x100 men to be hitable without looking...

Bolo Yeung did both, so I wouldn't say that martial arts and body building are mutually exclusive.

He wasn't competitive in any MA from what I see, and his body anyway was nowhere near being very hypertrophied for BB standards, not enough to inhibit his motion or for his endurance/coordination to suffer.

So no problem here.

I'm talking about being "pro" in either of those.

Every single professional martial artist, boxer, wrestler, whoever will do mass/strength/conditioning programs with weights, it's pretty much required for success.

But human body has limits, and it cannot do martial arts training/conditionig and bulking/shredding itself enough for professional body-building competitions at the same time.

[Brother Oni]

Uh, clout archery is done with your own eyes, at agles of 40, maybe 50 degrees at very most.

I've done clout. You can't look at your target at full draw because your arm and bow are in the way, plus doing so changes your reference points - you angle your whole body, not just your arm.

Normally when shooting clout, you get to shoot sighters first, so you figure out what angle to adjust your body to hit the target. In the case stated, if you have somebody shouting out where your arrows are landing, then you can adjust - sure it's not as good as going up and seeing where they're falling, but it's the next best thing.

Formation would have to be something like 100x100 men to be hitable without looking...

Without a spotter, I agree. Mike_G's post said that there is one available though.

He wasn't competitive in any MA from what I see, and his body anyway was nowhere near being very hypertrophied for BB standards, not enough to inhibit his motion or for his endurance/coordination to suffer.

While he wasn't in competitive MA, he did hold the Hong Kong bodybuilder title for 10 years.
That said, I disagree that only full contact competitive fighters can be valid martial artists.

I think we're in agreement on general terms, just differing in what we interpret as 'body building'.

[Spiryt]

I've done clout. You can't look at your target at full draw because your arm and bow are in the way, plus doing so changes your reference points - you angle your whole body, not just your arm.

Normally when shooting clout, you get to shoot sighters first, so you figure out what angle to adjust your body to hit the target. In the case stated, if you have somebody shouting out where your arrows are landing, then you can adjust - sure it's not as good as going up and seeing where they're falling, but it's the next best thing.

One still had seen the target split of seconds before such shot, compare how's the wind going, how is the target moving... Completely incomparable to not seeing it at all.

Then come the angles on other axises (not only up/down) that obviously pretty instantly get lost if shooter can't actually see target...

In short, I can't really imagine shooting at anything smaller than a barn without looking.

While he wasn't in competitive MA, he did hold the Hong Kong bodybuilder title for 10 years.
That said, I disagree that only full contact competitive fighters can be valid martial artists.

I think we're in agreement on general terms, just differing in what we interpret as 'body building'.

Oh, they can be valid martial artists, the thing is that one can't be really 'pro' at both of those at the same time.

And without being such, those two really doesn't interfere much, said Bolo didn't even look swollen enough to be in any way "interfered".

That's why this all "lifting slows" etc. is pretty weird point.

Dorian Yates won't be able to do any MA very seriously, but it's extreme case of body building, not 'normal' lifting for some strength/bulk in muscle/joint system.

[Brother Oni]

In short, I can't really imagine shooting at anything smaller than a barn without looking.

On a personal missile weapon level, I agree with you. Getting a shot in the target area of approximately a barn seems reasonable with only a separate spotter working with you.

With crew served weapons, particularly artillery, it's a different matter entirely.

[fusilier]

The bowmen could take one step back and gain the same exact cover as a crossbowman from the same wall.

A bowman can't rest his weapon on a wall, but you don't need to hang your left over the wall like the old guy at Helms' deep in the movie.

In fact, the archers could gain 100% cover of a fifteen foot high wall, and have one guy on top spot and call ranges while they shoot over it like a mortar section.

During the Battle of the Little Bighorn, when Custer's command found itself under attack. They retreated to a ridge-line, dismounted and set up firing lines. Any native that poked his head over the ridgeline was met with a volley of carbine fire. So the natives resorted to indirect fire with their bows. This is well attested to in Native American accounts of the fight.

Because nobody from Custer's command survived, we don't know for certain how effective such fire was. I think the belief is that they got in trouble when they started to run out of ammo and decided to move. At which point the natives were able to come out of cover and attack them. I can't remember if there was any estimate as to how many casualties they took while in the defensive position, from indirect fire -- but it must have been low.

[fusilier]

. . . That's why this all "lifting slows" etc. is pretty weird point.

Dorian Yates won't be able to do any MA very seriously, but it's extreme case of body building, not 'normal' lifting for some strength/bulk in muscle/joint system.

There's an old concept of "muscle binding" or "muscle-bound", the belief being that large muscles reduce flexibility. This is considered to have been debunked. My understanding is that putting on large muscles isn't necessarily going to reduce flexibility, as long as flexibility exercises are included in the routine. That implies that muscle "bulking" exercises alone might limit flexibility, but that's different from saying that big-muscles and flexibility are mutually exclusive.

It may be common in practice, as people focus on one or the other, rather than attempting both.

On the other hand, it is often claimed that muscle size and muscle strength aren't exactly correlated, and people with large "showy" muscles aren't, necessarily, stronger than people with smaller looking muscles. (Although I've heard conflicting anecdotes on this too)

[Raum]

There's an old concept of "muscle binding" or "muscle-bound", the belief being that large muscles reduce flexibility. This is considered to have been debunked. My understanding is that putting on large muscles isn't necessarily going to reduce flexibility, as long as flexibility exercises are included in the routine. That implies that muscle "bulking" exercises alone might limit flexibility, but that's different from saying that big-muscles and flexibility are mutually exclusive.

It may be common in practice, as people focus on one or the other, rather than attempting both.

On the other hand, it is often claimed that muscle size and muscle strength aren't exactly correlated, and people with large "showy" muscles aren't, necessarily, stronger than people with smaller looking muscles.

This!

Others touched on it and I'll state it explicitly: your training should be functional.

Bodybuilders train for mass because definition is what judges look for - most are relatively weak by competition time. Weight cutting and dehydration are additional methods of seeking definition. Neither helps strength, particularly when taken to extremes. Compare them to a wrestler who needs strength, speed, and flexibility while being able to hit a target weight. He has to train for explosive power and movement - he'll be strong. However it won't be the same strength as a Strongman competitor's. They'll seek pure sustained and repetitive strength without needing the speed or pure explosive power. And none of them will have the pure endurance of an iron man competitor.

Do note, my very brief descriptions can't cover all facets of the various sports. I've just pointed out a few differences.

Train for function! ;)

[Mike_G]

Wow, as expected, the least important part of my post got the most attention.

My main point was that a wall that would give cover to a crossbowman, say a chest high wall, where he could rest his bow or the hand holding it would give the same cover to a longbowman who stood two feet back from the wall. You don't need to expose yourself to shoot a bow.

The only time a crossbow would be better at allowing you to shoot from cover would be that you could shoot it while prone, which isn't really practical with a longbow.

As far as using a bow to fire indirectly, I don't know any instance that it happened, but if you were trying to range a pike square on the other side of a ridge, I think it could be done quite easily with a spotter.

Machine guns can be fired indirectly with a spotter. This was practiced by (at least) the US Marines in between the World Wars as a way to use massed machine guns to lay down fire over an area. Using spotters, machine gun platoons competed against mortar platoons to hit targets on the other side of a ridgeline.

By the time WWII was fought, infantry formations had gotten dispersed enough that it wasn't really worth it, and nobody really used battalions of machine guns fining indirectly.

But a lot of nonexploding projectiles landing in the area of an enemy in close formation is a pretty real threat.

[Galloglaich]

Clout archery and other forms of indirect shots with bows and arrows seem to have been very commonly used in Medieval Europe, it was one of the principle advantages of bows over crossbows, since crossbows tended to have a much better (anywhere from three to four times) direct shot range while the arrows shot from bows perform a bit better than the stout, much heavier crossbow bolts do at terminal velocity. But even crossbows were used this way:



With crossbows it was common to use special bolts, sometimes made to whistle, called 'bremsen', for the longest range / area shots, similar to how the recurves were used at long range; the killing shots were usually short to medium range, just as with the recurve.

With the longbow though the clout shooting seemed to be done with rather heavy war arrows and could cause serious casualties.

Steadying a crossbow on any kind of cover also helps with accuracy, just as it did with firearms. Crossbows, like early firearms, were typically used with pavises, war-wagons, or some other kind of mobile or fixed fortification for maximum effect, due to their relatively low rate of shots, and also due to their heightened accuracy and the ability to wait until the right moment to shoot. But with experienced marksmen, that rate of shots was not nearly as inferior to bows as is usually bruted about on History Channel and so forth. Nor is it true that the crossbow was a weapon 'just anybody' could use. Simple crossbows were fairly .... simple, but most of your late Medieval military grade weapons were anything but.

Crossbows often held their own against both longbows and recurves especially in Central Europe, for nearly three hundred years. In fact Crossbows remained the most popular ranged weapon for dealing with Steppe nomad horse-archers into about the middle of the 15th Century, even though the hand-cannon, arquebus, longbow and recurve were also available. The crossbow only very gradually began to lose ground to guns, mainly due to cost of training and manufacture. Guns got a lot easier to deal with after the invention of corned powder circa 1450.

All four weapons, firearms longbows, recurves, crossbows had their various strengths and weaknesses, but remained in competition through the Medieval period. I suspect that as he so often does with his historical writing, George R. R. Martin was borrowing from history.

G

[Brother Oni]

Machine guns can be fired indirectly with a spotter. This was practiced by (at least) the US Marines in between the World Wars as a way to use massed machine guns to lay down fire over an area. Using spotters, machine gun platoons competed against mortar platoons to hit targets on the other side of a ridgeline.

Another example would be by the BEF during WW1 using the Vickers MG. Apparently it had a range of just over 4km when fired indirectly and the Germans had a MG that was used in a similar manner.

[fusilier]

Machine guns can be fired indirectly with a spotter. This was practiced by (at least) the US Marines in between the World Wars as a way to use massed machine guns to lay down fire over an area. Using spotters, machine gun platoons competed against mortar platoons to hit targets on the other side of a ridgeline.

By the time WWII was fought, infantry formations had gotten dispersed enough that it wasn't really worth it, and nobody really used battalions of machine guns fining indirectly.

But a lot of nonexploding projectiles landing in the area of an enemy in close formation is a pretty real threat.

Actually, I've heard of indirect machine gun fire being used in WW2. I'm not sure if I'm remembering the details correctly but I think the Japanese had pre-planned zones for indirect machine gun fire as part of defensive arrangements. At long ranges machines guns create a "beaten zone", so they could defend a beach or choke point from a considerable distance. It uses a lot of ammo, but that's kind of the point. Machine guns were, initially, treated as artillery, so it made sense to use artillery tactics with them.

[GraaEminense]

While we´re talking about crossbows and the like...

I´m in the process of tweaking the weapons for WFRP, and am wondering about missile weapon ranges. The system requires three range categories for each weapon: short (easy to hit), medium (where most missile exchanges take place) and long (the limit of the weapon´s effective range).

Weapon types are rather abstract, I´m looking to differentiate a bit more without complicating things too much.

I´d really like some realistic numbers to work from though. Despite the simplification of weapon types, I´d very much appreciate some advise on what would be the preferred range and extreme effective range of these medieval/renaissance missile weapons.

Gunpowder:
The setting is somewhere between Renaissance and 30 Years´ War. I´m guessing wheellock and snaphaunce are most common, with matchlocks being somewhat primitive. I´m guessing pistol, arquebus and caliver cover the necessary bases. Some thoughts on how much rifling would add to the ranges of these things would also be appreciated.

Crossbows:
I guess I´ll just make three simple categories: Hand-spanned light crossbows, stirrup or cranequin-spanned ´normal´crossbows, and the windlass-spanned heavy crossbows.

Bows:
This is the weapon I have most trouble dividing into easy subtypes. Despite recoiling at the thought I guess I´m going with just short bow (civilian hunting bows), bow (some kind of middle ground) and longbow (proper warbows). Recurves will just have to fit in here somewhere.

Throwing weapons:
Javelins, throwing knives and throwing axes.

Slings:
Sling and staff sling.

Yeah, I know that´s quite a few different ones. Some pointers on just a few would still be appreciated.

[Matthew]

Interesting stuff. Any archers feel like throwing in their opinions as to the feasibility of using cover relative to crossbows.

Gunpowder:
The setting is somewhere between Renaissance and 30 Years´ War. I´m guessing wheellock and snaphaunce are most common, with matchlocks being somewhat primitive. I´m guessing pistol, arquebus and caliver cover the necessary bases. Some thoughts on how much rifling would add to the ranges of these things would also be appreciated.

Crossbows:
I guess I´ll just make three simple categories: Hand-spanned light crossbows, stirrup or cranequin-spanned ´normal´crossbows, and the windlass-spanned heavy crossbows.

Bows:
This is the weapon I have most trouble dividing into easy subtypes. Despite recoiling at the thought I guess I´m going with just short bow (civilian hunting bows), bow (some kind of middle ground) and longbow (proper warbows). Recurves will just have to fit in here somewhere.

Not sure about gunpowder, but with bows and crossbows I have found the "rule of three" helpful, and the nomenclature of D&D:

Short Bow, Long Bow, Great Bow
Light Crossbow, Heavy Crossbow, Great Crossbow

All four weapons, firearms longbows, recurves, crossbows had their various strengths and weaknesses, but remained in competition through the Medieval period. I suspect that as he so often does with his historical writing, George R. R. Martin was borrowing from history.

No doubt, but it is a question of how discriminating he is. After all, he is quite happy to tell us in the first book that long swords are designed for piercing heavy armour.

[Brother Oni]

Interesting stuff. Any archers feel like throwing in their opinions as to the feasibility of using cover relative to crossbows.

Mike_G covered most of it, but I'll add my tuppence:

Given that a crossbow is used effectively like a rifle with the added benefit of indirect fire, I would say that it would make better use of cover than a bow.

That said, if an archer were willing to compromise on drawing and stance, they could make almost as effective use by holding the bow almost horizontal rather than traditionally upright like normal.

The two feet back mentioned is a necessity for being able to draw the bow rather than something for cover (the arrow is still going to be loosed from virtually on top of the wall).

I'll have a play around with my recurve tonight to check the feasibility of drawing from a crouching position with a horizontal aligned bow, although my local range is somewhat waterlogged at the moment so I can't test any effects on accuracy.

[Conners]

Anyone seen this video of Katana vs. Longsword? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

I don't buy into it, that one outperforms the other so clearly... Problem is, I'm not skilled enough to tell what parts are wrong. The armour might be badly made, same for the longsword, his technique may've been awful on the cutting and thrusting.

[Thiel]

Anyone seen this video of Katana vs. Longsword? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

I don't buy into it, that one outperforms the other so clearly... Problem is, I'm not skilled enough to tell what parts are wrong. The armour might be badly made, same for the longsword, his technique may've been awful on the cutting and thrusting.

That's largely due to the fact that the Katana is a pretty high quality one while the long sword is little more than a stage prop.

[Storm Bringer]

Actually, I've heard of indirect machine gun fire being used in WW2. I'm not sure if I'm remembering the details correctly but I think the Japanese had pre-planned zones for indirect machine gun fire as part of defensive arrangements. At long ranges machines guns create a "beaten zone", so they could defend a beach or choke point from a considerable distance. It uses a lot of ammo, but that's kind of the point. Machine guns were, initially, treated as artillery, so it made sense to use artillery tactics with them.

the brits still teach indirect fire for L7 GPMG (The FN MAG, known in american service as the M240), when using them in a tripod mounted Substained Fire role.

i've not done the training for it, but i know it was still being taught to people a year or two ago, and i've no reason to think they've taken it out yet..

[GraaEminense]

Immediate impressions: he does not know how to use either weapon, but the longsword seems to get the rawest end of that deal.

His blows are not very well done, and he does not strike with the optimal part of the blade but too close to the hilt. With the performance against the leather armour I´d guess the longsword is not properly sharpened either.

I guess he´s just a bit better with the katana and may have a better specimen to work with.

Not saying he´s biased, just that he doesn´t convince me he knows what he´s doing.

[Matthew]

One of the worst shows on the History Channel.

[Spiryt]

Anyone seen this video of Katana vs. Longsword? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

I don't buy into it, that one outperforms the other so clearly... Problem is, I'm not skilled enough to tell what parts are wrong. The armour might be badly made, same for the longsword, his technique may've been awful on the cutting and thrusting.

Everything is wrong, from "leather armor" trough 'katana' and longsword and 'facts'....

It's like I build some kind of roughly working pressure-temperature device from old part, called it "DeLongi" and compared to the other one with "Zepter coffee" mark. Compared at making tea, for additional attraction.

Just no sense at all, there's nothing even resembling sense in that video, let alone scientific method.

The thing that one can learn here, is that while smashing some trash bins with roughly similar blades, stiffer and stouter one will generally make bigger dent... That's not exactly movie worthy.

[Spiryt]

Bodybuilders train for mass because definition is what judges look for - most are relatively weak by competition time. Weight cutting and dehydration are additional methods of seeking definition.

Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler can lift ridiculous weights. Seriously strong guys, but there's strength and strength. They will have obvious problems with application said strength in more practical manner, because body sacrifices a lot of it's capabilities to support such morbidly overgrown muscles.

Crossbows often held their own against both longbows and recurves especially in Central Europe, for nearly three hundred years. In fact Crossbows remained the most popular ranged weapon for dealing with Steppe nomad horse-archers into about the middle of the 15th Century, even though the hand-cannon, arquebus, longbow and recurve were also available.

In 15th century Poland, there were literally several mentions of bowmen in foot rotas or squads.

It was pretty normal situation for central Europe anyway, crossbows were very dominant ranged weapon, generally, before giving ground to guns.

[Autolykos]

On that bow vs. crossbow indirect fire thing:
If your cover has the optimal height and you can choose your distance from it, both weapons can be used in a way that only exposes your head to shots incoming in the same angle you're shooting. Shots incoming at a flatter angle than you're shooting at will have a hard time hitting you, while steeper ones will easily get behind your cover. So the contest is actually in getting the steepest angles possible, which is somewhat counter-intuitive, and not what bows or crossbows are actually built for.

Crossbow might have a slight advantage when wall height and distance is fixed, since its angle doesn't vary that much with range, and it will allow you to look over the cover for longer ranges (because of the flatter angle). Also, rate of fire matters a lot less since you'll only expose yourself while shooting.

Bow has a huge advantage because of the ability to half-draw, allowing to adjust the angle in which the shots will be incoming (and reducing effective cover for the opponents). Arrows also have a higher sectional density at roughly the same drag coefficient, and thus a higher terminal velocity. I don't know if this was done (and it will certainly affect accuracy), but this might even allow the archers to use the "higher" of the two firing arcs.

[Spiryt]

.
Bow has a huge advantage because of the ability to half-draw, allowing to adjust the angle in which the shots will be incoming (and reducing effective cover for the opponents). Arrows also have a higher sectional density at roughly the same drag coefficient, and thus a higher terminal velocity. I don't know if this was done (and it will certainly affect accuracy), but this might even allow the archers to use the "higher" of the two firing arcs.

Half draw will also adjust the energy of the arrow though, usually to some very insufficient quantities, probably.

[Galloglaich]

Anyone seen this video of Katana vs. Longsword? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

I don't buy into it, that one outperforms the other so clearly... Problem is, I'm not skilled enough to tell what parts are wrong. The armour might be badly made, same for the longsword, his technique may've been awful on the cutting and thrusting.

These things can be spun both ways

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpEC3...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hy_A...eature=related

G

[Autolykos]

Half draw will also adjust the energy of the arrow though, usually to some very insufficient quantities, probably.

True. But as long as you still have enough energy to cover the distance, they should remain at least somewhat dangerous. At least more dangerous than an arrow that doesn't hit at all because it's coming in too flat.

[Galloglaich]

I´d really like some realistic numbers to work from though. Despite the simplification of weapon types, I´d very much appreciate some advise on what would be the preferred range and extreme effective range of these medieval/renaissance missile weapons.

Gunpowder:
The setting is somewhere between Renaissance and 30 Years´ War. I´m guessing wheellock and snaphaunce are most common, with matchlocks being somewhat primitive. I´m guessing pistol, arquebus and caliver cover the necessary bases. Some thoughts on how much rifling would add to the ranges of these things would also be appreciated.

Guns work two ways basically. First: individual shots, maximum realistic range for regular pistols, 5- 10 meters, horse pistols is about 10 - 20 meters, arquebus / calvier about 30-50 meters. Second, volley fire, this was usually used about 100 meters distance, but can be dangerous up to around 250-300 meters in ideal cases, maybe more though from that point the ball starts to lose power and become 'spent', it varies widely depending on the caliber and the amount of powder used, and the length of the barrel. Muskets which you left out have longer range and more 'punch'. Rifled barrels were rare but not unheard of and improve accuracy considerably.

The exception is a well maintained weapon shot by an expert, they could sometimes achieve astounding accuracy even with smoothbore weapons, up to 200 meters. This had to do with getting a good seal in the barrel when loading, using just the right powder,

Crossbows:
I guess I´ll just make three simple categories: Hand-spanned light crossbows, stirrup or cranequin-spanned ´normal´crossbows, and the windlass-spanned heavy crossbows.

The small Cranequin weapons could be, and often were just as powerful as the windlass weapons, and led to the phasing out of the latter by the mid 15th Century at least in Central Europe. Cranequin being easier to deal with on horseback in particular (also the goats foot). Medium crossbows are described as having a 'direct shot' range of 80 meters, and an effective 'area shot' range of about 250 meters. Powerful crossbows direct shot range maybe 150 -200 meters, max arcing shots / area shot range about 400 meters.

Bows:
This is the weapon I have most trouble dividing into easy subtypes. Despite recoiling at the thought I guess I´m going with just short bow (civilian hunting bows), bow (some kind of middle ground) and longbow (proper warbows). Recurves will just have to fit in here somewhere.

I think you basically have longbows and recurves, and various strengths of both. All bows direct shot range, about 50 meters. Longbow max range for area shots (people argue about this alot) probably around 300 meters, more for very powerful 'great bows / war bows', and add 50 - 100 meters for flight arrows. Recurves probably about the same with a normal arrow, but up to 450 meters or more with flight arrows.

Throwing weapons:
Javelins, throwing knives and throwing axes.

Javelins yes, also darts (see 'Swiss Arrow'), I don't know of throwing knives being used in armies. For throwing axes see 'hurlbat'. Javelins come in two versions, lighter weapons with the amentum and the vanes can be thrown effectively maybe 80- 100 meters, obviously more in ideal circumstances. Olympic javelin throwers manage a range of about 240 feet, which is 73 meters. But the amentum and the vanes can confer a bit more range for the same effort. The heavier armor-piercing javelins are probably more like 20 meters which is the direct shot (individual target) range regardless.

Slings:
Sling and staff sling.

Yeah, I know that´s quite a few different ones. Some pointers on just a few would still be appreciated.

Slings can be shot very long range, maybe 300 meters, but with very low accuracy in most cases (except perhaps by very very skilled shooters who grew up with the weapon, in Roman times they used to be recruited from the Baeleric Isles for example). Staff-slings were used to throw something like molatov cocktails (naptha etc.).

Keep in mind, regarding siege warfare, all missile weapons get better range when shot or thrown from on-high.

G

[Straybow]

I hear what you are saying, but ... review what you said above and watch this carefully,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdzhEBWqcWo

make especial note of 0:25 and 0:27

I can't tell what you want me to notice, except that a guy with a polearm is whacking a guy on the helmet, which obviously does not cut through the armor...

I think while it's true specialized armor-piercing weapons like picks and maces can hurt armor, you don't need to be super strong for that to work. Non armor-piercing weapons won't suddenly become armor-piercing simply because you are a lot stronger (unless you are say, as strong as a bulldozer or a locomotive)

Yes, the first was my thesis. The second part has missed my point.

As for a foil vs. an arming sword. ... Now a rapier, if that is what you were thinking of...

No, I was specifically talking about an exceptionally strong person, one who could wield an arming sword as easily as you or I would wield a foil. My writing was hurried, I meant to change both words to "foil."

Arming swords are quick, in real life, and effective speed in a fight is much more a factor of skill and technique than it is brute strength. That is why a 80 year old Kendoka can fight like this:

That's a longsword technique, which depends on two handed use for its quickness and power. Nonetheless, if that 80yo dude were (magically?) vastly stronger his movements would be quicker and blows heavier. If those combatants were armored many of the blows would be ineffective, unless the wielder were far stronger.

Many Euro longsword techniques depend on binding and disarming, tripping, and otherwise making up for the inability to hurt the opponent through the armor. The remaining techniques involve driving the point of the sword through a gap to bypass the armor, or even bashing on the helmet with the hilt of the sword. Polearm techniques are not as dependent on those tricks because it can strike hard enough to hurt the armored opponent.

Super strong guy with no real martial arts training

...wasn't the point. You said that the idea of strength increasing damage "assumes that you can cut through armor if you are just real strong." I was countering that assumption.

But there is no changing the fact that steel weapons aren't very good at cutting through steel armor, and fighting with weapons requires skill (and courage) not just strength.

Which is why I pointed out that a side sword, wielded with enough strength, can impart an impact as great as would require a polearm for a "normal" person, which doesn't need to cut through steel.

[Straybow]

The axe blade, even from a running start, doesn't seem to even badly dent the helmets in these re-enactor events. But if they had a proper back-spike on them, you could punch through some of those helmets without even that much force as we have seen in some tests.

But you don't have to punch through the steel to incapacitate. A heavy blow like that can stun the man and drop him to the ground. Another could knock him out cold.

[Spiryt]

Longbow max range for area shots (people argue about this alot) probably around 300 meters, more for very powerful 'great bows / war bows',

Very powerful bow won't improve the velocity, in fact it will generally tend to get slower - thicker, more 'lazy' arms are not good here, so very powerful war bows will be able to shoot even heavier arrow at the same distance, not the same at greater one.

Range will be generally lower too, anything around 300 meters is already more of a flight range.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.c...ts2012_EN.html

Those guys have very solid data compared to most, including precise construction of arrows those records are attained with.