Results 2,341 to 2,370 of 2635
-
2010-08-19, 06:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
At 300 yards, yes, the question is some where in between, say about 100 yards or 150 yards.
Muskets were often fired at a high angle for distance fire. I don't think bows were ever fired higher than a forty five degree angle.
I think somewhere there is a blind spot., where bolts fly straight as an arrow (ha!) for a hundred yards then fall to earth, while arrows must be arced to fly 50 yards. This is ridiculous.
For similar draw weights at similar ranges, I don't think we're talking "aim at his head, or aim at Venus to hit him in the chest" I think we're talking "aim at his head, or aim a foot over his head."
I refuse to believe that with battlefield weapons, say an English Longbowman at Agincourt versus a Genoese crossbowman of the same era, that there is any range at which the archer would have to drop the arrow on your head while the crossbowman could shoot it straight into your chest.
G.
-
2010-08-19, 08:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
The reason I used meters is that they had a different 'yard' then the rest of the regions around them which was closer to the meter then the English yard.
As for the shooting at that range, they did indeed have crossbowmen who would be accurate at that range in hitting single targets.
However you need to keep in mind the terrain they fought in, hilley, forested and so on.
Oft quite outnumbered also.
To even the odds they learned to shoot at individuals at the range of 300 'yards' for the pure crossbowmen.
The trained specialists.
The non-specialists made a far worse showing, from what I could see they made a good shot if they hit a single target at 80 yards and the trained specialists often remarked upon this lack of skill with derogatory remarks.
So, militia with crossbows, 80 yards...
Specialist crossbowmen who did nothing but that...300yards.
Heck, I am sure any military or ex-military person can happily say the same thing about sunday shooters and they happiness at hitting a stationary target at 50 meters, most of the time...with a rifle.
-
2010-08-19, 08:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Quick question - about how long would an infantry spear be? I'm thinking a bronze age to early iron age spear designed for thrusting in close range.
-
2010-08-19, 09:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Laughing with the sinners
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
150 yards is way too far for a straight shot from anything that doesn't eject brass. Between 50 and a hundred I might believe, but I think I need to see a crossbow leveled at a target a football field and a half away and not dig up turf .
Yes. At least 30 degrees. I've seen referrences to the drill command "Elevate" given to musketeers engaging troops at long range.
Look at the long range leaf sights on older rifles. Look at how elevated the barrel has to be to line up the rear sight and front sight. And those are much flatter shooting than muskets.
Bullets drop quickly, especially spherical, relatively low velocity musket balls. I doubt you could level the weapon and hit a guy above the knees at a hundred yards.
First, we need to make sure we aren't comparing Schroedinger's Crossbow, where we use siege bows when we want stats that favor power and light crossbows when we want to compare rate of fire and specially made hunting crossbows when we want to compare accuracy.
I doubt the Genoese were carrying boiws with a 1200 lb draw.
And if they were, the draw length is much shorter, imparting power to the bolt over less distance, which reduces overall "oomph."
Drawing on what I've read, and what I've shot, I need to be persuaded that there were crossbowmen making 200 yard, flat shots and hitting individuals. Not everyone can do that with a modern rifle.
-
2010-08-19, 10:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Kanagawa, Japan
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Probably 5-7 feet. Longer spears certainly existed, such as for ship to ship fighting in the Illiad, and Hoplite spears got longer, perhaps as much as 9' (or perhaps even more, though that would be unwieldy in one hand) before making the transition to the prototype for the sarissa, which ranged anywhere from 18-24', though more usually 18-21'. The "standard" one-handed infantry spear, though, ranges most often around 5-7 feet, as far as I am aware.
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one’s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
– Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
-
2010-08-20, 02:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
@Deadmeat.GW
Ok, I would believe that the professionals (if that's the right word to use for them), would have more experience with long range shooting. And if you adapted meters as the closest measurement to whichever was originally quoted that's fine. I'm still a bit skeptical, as there could be exaggeration (both intentional and unintentional), and my impression is that they didn't seem to care too much about precise measurements at the time. Early tables of cannon ranges, typically given as point-blank and max, must be treated with much suspicion, and reflect general opinions rather than any realistic measurements (almost invariably they show culverins as shooting farther than cannons, for instance).
@Mike_G
A 1200lbs crossbow would have been rare, but based on the discussion here, 400-800 lbs probably were fairly common? That's still quite a bit more than the heaviest of longbows (and for that matter, it's probably safe to assume that most longbows had a draw weight of less than 125lbs?). The shorter bow is also more efficient in transferring energy to the arrow/bolt.
Holding a musket at 30 degrees would be pretty strange. However, I think most people would be surprised by the amount of elevation used on a rifle-musket --> maybe about 10+ degrees (which doesn't sound like much, but it is). My Carcano has volley sights that go out to 2000 meters! With a very stable, but less aerodynamic, roundnose bullet, it's a pretty steep angle. It's also different to aim, because your face is nowhere near the stock at that point.
-
2010-08-20, 03:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Hey, when you state something like that without anything to qualify it, don't be surprised when people offer corrections.
Pretty close, actually. It depends on the instructor. Mine (and his) advocate a 70/30 split in longsword and sword & buckler, though I've seen other groups do a 60/40 split.
There's rear-weighted stances too, of course, but they're used only in conjunction with certain guards or actions. A rear-weighted stance lengthens the time necessary to perform any offensive action from out of measure.
I'm not seeing how the advice for equal weight distribution helps you to your intended objective.
When you do a forward passing step, it's your rear leg that needs to transfer weight to your lead leg. A lightly loaded rear leg allows you to step forwards faster. It might slow down a rearward passing step a tiny amount if the person is unused to quick weight transfer, but it's nothing that can't be overcome with practice.
Just out of curiosity, what martial arts did you practice in that time?
Like I said to Psyx above, I'm not seeing how an equal weight distribution gets you what you want.Last edited by Brainfart; 2010-08-20 at 03:58 AM.
-
2010-08-20, 06:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Why are we still talking Bow vs. Crossbow after seven days, when at no point there was a disagreement that they are both good weapons and bows might get better results if the shooter is really well trained?
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2010-08-20, 06:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
but by around 80 meters they could aim point blank.
Drawing on what I've read, and what I've shot, I need to be persuaded that there were crossbowmen making 200 yard, flat shots and hitting individuals. Not everyone can do that with a modern rifle.
We keep hearing 'arrows aren't as accurate because they fire in a steeper arc'. I've only got my own experiences with 40mm and cricket balls to go on; but it really doesn't take much practice to be able to place either one pretty darned accurately out to a considerable distance. Quarterbacks manage to do ok, too.
Yes: The crossbow has a flatter trajectory, but it's not going to make a huge amount of difference to the accuracy in the hands of a trained man at shorter ranges. At longer ranges the crossbow's advantage of higher initial velocity is gone, and the drop-off is going to be steeper than the arrow's.
Not that any of that matters anyway when you're putting shots into a clump of men; which is essentially the goal here. What counts there is simply the chance of each chance delivering a disabling blow, multiplied by shots fired.
I refuse to believe that with battlefield weapons, say an English Longbowman at Agincourt versus a Genoese crossbowman of the same era, that there is any range at which the archer would have to drop the arrow on your head while the crossbowman could shoot it straight into your chest.
We don't need much in the way of tests: Simply apply some velocity formula and acceleration due to gravity on the back of a cigarette packet. Both arc. Arrows arc more (hence the whole 'archery' thing!), but the shooter is always going to have to compensate. I'd -personally- rather compensate 50% more with projectiles that are more stable and retain more killing power at those ranges.
To even the odds they learned to shoot at individuals at the range of 300 'yards' for the pure crossbowmen. The trained specialists.
The non-specialists made a far worse showing...
Quick question - about how long would an infantry spear be? I'm thinking a bronze age to early iron age spear designed for thrusting in close range.
The shorter bow is also more efficient in transferring energy to the arrow/bolt.
Pretty close, actually. It depends on the instructor. Mine (and his) advocate a 70/30 split in longsword and sword & buckler
There is no point planting that much weight on one foot, as it adds nothing.
Like I said to Psyx above, I'm not seeing how an equal weight distribution gets you what you want.
Good footwork and weight distribution in martial arts - like dancing - is absolutely crucial. Moving forward is good in that it might allow you to get in a strike. But being able to quickly move back means that you are very likely to be able to void a blow.
Which to me means that I'd like to be able to do either, but I certainly want to be able to move back, because not getting killed is ultimately the primary objective - not killing the other guy.
-
2010-08-20, 07:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Not according to my sources, including the one which Matthew linked to above on the Teutonic Order in Prussia, which states that the stirrup crossbows were 150 kg draw and the cranequin crossbows were 500 kg draw.
It all depends what time period you are referring to but in the 15th Century I do not think the 500 kg crossbows were any more rare than the 120 lb draw longbows.
From the source:
In the fifteenth century, to compete with the longbow and the emerging use of firearms, the crossbow was equipped with a powerful steel bow, with the help of which the draw-weight increased to up to 500 kg. In the case of the stirrup crossbow with a horn bow, the draw-weight was up to 150 kg.107 The strong steel bows could be drawn only with the special help of mechanical devices such as a windlass (the so-called 'English winder') or the ratchet winder (the so-called 'German winder' or cranequin). Even after 1450, the crossbow was in no way inferior to hand-held firearms, and it was also used as a weapon of war in the sixteenth century.
It's a funny coincidence this guy apparently has the same bias that I do (especially when by the end of the article he's quoting the same pro-longbow propaganda everyone here is.)
Look, here is where I find this disparagement of the crossbow suspicious. It's really pretty simple. In order to believe the crossbow was vastly inferior to the longbow, you really have to assume that these people were stupid. I'm suspicious of such theories in general because they have repeatedly proven to be incorrect.
If you look at say, the Teutonic Order. They had access to the longbow, they had plenty of money. English Crusaders joined forces with the Order on numerous Crusades throughout the Middle Ages and there were strong direct trade links between the Baltic and England (and Scotland). In fact, many towns in the Baltic had sizable English populations, notably the town of Elbing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbl%C4...nseatic_Elbing
The city of Danzig fought a trade war against England in the late 15th Century (and won, incidentally)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Hanseatic_War
More to the point, they DEFINITELY had plenty of access to powerful recurves of the Mongol and Turkish types. At the risk of opening yet another can of worms, from everything I've read these recurves were just as powerful as longbows. So why didn't they adopt them, or, if you assume that it really did take 20 years to learn to shoot one, why didn't they hire plenty of Tartar or Turkish auxiliaries as archers instead of importing crossbowmen from as far away as Switzerland and Genoa?
They actually did this (with the so-called Turcopoles) in the Crusader Kingdoms in the Mediterranean, but these were eventually replaced by crossbows. Tartar mercenaries were available in the Baltic and were used by all sides, but again, were replaced by crossbowmen.
Was this due to stupidity? Perhaps. I won't rule it out. But experience tells me probably not.
In the long run, we'll see. Some people may not need or want to see data and think everything can be sussed out on the back of a pack of cigarettes but I think actually putting the kit together and trying it out will often give us surprising results. It wouldn't be the first time.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-08-20 at 07:27 AM.
-
2010-08-20, 07:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
-
2010-08-20, 07:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Some people may not need or want to see data and think everything can be sussed out on the back of a pack of cigarettes
I'm just saying that it takes about 30 seconds to figure out that the notion that crossbows can magically shoot straight and level for 80m is patiently absurd. As is the idea that they would be shooting anything like straight at greater ranges. In the hands of a skilled user, warbows are not at some massive accuracy disadvantage.
Maybe instead of taking the word of other sources and regurgitating them, we should apply some high-school physics and elementary grade common sense to the problem. Call me a product of the modern eduction system, but I prefer using a bit of science to automatically believing everything an old book tells me.
Interestingly, when looking for some crossbow velocities; these two links came up first:
http://www.huntersfriend.com/product...rformance.html
http://www.hunting-fishing-gear.com/...play/1737.html
There's a couple of interesting comments regarding range, trajectory and velocity buried in the text.Last edited by Psyx; 2010-08-20 at 07:59 AM.
-
2010-08-20, 07:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Virtually all rings of mail ever encountered were connected with each other with rivets.
Most prevalent construction was rows of solidly shut, uniform links, alternating with rows of riveted rings.
While today, of course, with lack of tools, time, skill, smithy, or whatever, people who want to have something that resembles mail, take some metal rings and butt them together.
From whatever reason, some people "test" such stuff against different weapons - results are obvious, such "mail" falls apart quickly in the best case.
That's pretty much it.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2010-08-20, 08:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
It's not a dig, it's a disagreeement. (and i would have mentioned you by name but I didn't remember who had said that and didn't have time to look it up) I don't think you can figure everything out in advance because you don't always know all the variables. Thus we have been surprised by things like how effective armor was or how much swords really weighed.
I'm just saying that it takes about 30 seconds to figure out that the notion that crossbows can magically shoot straight and level for 80m is patiently absurd. As is the idea that they would be shooting anything like straight at greater ranges. In the hands of a skilled user, warbows are not at some massive accuracy disadvantage.
Maybe instead of taking the word of other sources and regurgitating them, we should apply some high-school physics and elementary grade common sense to the problem. Call me a product of the modern eduction system, but I prefer using a bit of science to automatically believing everything an old book tells me.
But that said, the physics cited upthread a little seems to support what I was saying, a higher initial velocity and higher weight means a more sudden drop off in energy for the crossbow, better aerodynamics and lower initial velocity means a better 'ballistic' performance by an arrow. The people in period felt that what they considered a straight shot (which may actually be 5, 10, who knows may be 15 degrees of elevation) was capable of hitting targets up to 80 meters or 150 meters or whatever, and they clearly distinguished that from 'indirect' shots up to 300 meters.
Interestingly, when looking for some crossbow velocities; these two links came up first:
http://www.huntersfriend.com/product...rformance.html
http://www.hunting-fishing-gear.com/...play/1737.html
There's a couple of interesting comments regarding range, trajectory and velocity buried in the text.
I've seen stats on modern crossbows in the 250 lb draw range which had up to 185 fps. I can only speculate on what a 1200 lb draw weapon would be but I don't think it would be a direct correlation. You might see up to say 250 fps or maybe as high as 300 fps, but there are a lot of other variables like the type of string, the length of the stroke, the different behavior of compound (pully) prods vs. strait prods, the shape, weight and length of the bolt (the old ones being much shorter and fatter). It's beyond me to measure all of these factors, which is why I'm impatient for a real test.
But a few replicas have been made and we will see tests eventually, maybe this summer.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-08-20 at 10:09 AM.
-
2010-08-20, 08:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
But the controversy was that people thought, because "butted mail" is very common at Renaissance Faires, surely it should have been common in Ye Olden Days. Even recently the RPG book "From Stone to Steel" claimed that riveted mail was rarely used due to being too stiff, and butted mail still shows up (more or less randomly) on lowbrow shows like 'Deadliest Warrior'.
A big internet flame war over this issue in the 90's was settled a few years ago when definititve studies were published showing almost all the mail armor which has been recovered in Europe and the Middle East before the 19th Century was either riveted or solid or welded (the vast majority being riveted or alternating riveted / solid links). Some really old, badly rusted examples they originally thought were butted turned out to be riveted when they looked at them with x-rays.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-08-20 at 08:37 AM.
-
2010-08-20, 08:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Really? Most of the interpretations of European sword arts that I've seen tend to place the majority of their weight on one foot. What you're saying might be true in an unarmed context (I wouldn't know), but you're going to need a heck of a lot more evidence to convince me that placing more weight on one leg adds nothing.
What's considered to be good is relative. Being able to move quickly in every direction is important, yes, but placing that much weight on one foot doesn't impede this. How exactly does it affect mobility negatively?
There's more than one way to void a blow as well. You can get the heck off the line by stepping to either side. You can step diagonally relative to your opponent, which will allow you to void while allowing you to stay in an appropriate distance to counterattack. Stepping backwards is probably the worst option unless you're already sure that the other fellow has completely misjudged the distance between you two.Last edited by Brainfart; 2010-08-20 at 08:42 AM.
-
2010-08-20, 09:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
What's considered to be good is relative. Being able to move quickly in every direction is important, yes, but placing that much weight on one foot doesn't impede this. How exactly does it affect mobility negatively?
Because you must weight shift prior to moving that leg. You absolutely cannot move your foot if 70% of your weight is on it.
That's before we address balance issues: You might not be fighting on a nice mat, and slipping with that much weight on the foot will have unpleasant consequences. You simply don't want to gamble your life that the grass under your feet isn't slippery. The importance of solid footwork is often missed by people who practice indoors all the while. Do you think that 70/30 is honestly a good idea when standing on a muddy, grassy field, slick with blood and rain, with threats in every direction?
And you're also a lot easier to trip; although that is less important in armed combat.
Finally and somewhat importantly, blatantly having weight on one foot is quite obvious, which means your partner automatically can reduce the possible number of things that you can do to him by degree.
'Interpreted' Western arts are just that: We have a bunch of pictures from 600 years ago and a lot of guesswork, with often very little said about footwork. There's a lot of lessons to be learned from fighting arts that didn't die out, and those arts invariably stress balanced footwork. There is no magical reason why Western arts should throw out every lesson taught in other cultures - it simply makes no sense.
You can get the heck off the line by stepping to either side.
-
2010-08-20, 10:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I obvously don't agree with the implication that I'm cherry picking numbers, but I will concede this, there were many different types of crossbows in period and they do get pretty confusing. I've found at least 5 distinct types of military crossbows widely used in Europe already. Here is what I've identified so far:
MILITARY CROSSBOWS
Simple yew prod crossbow aka Knüttelarmbrüste used from at least the 12th Century through the 16th. Marginally capable as a military weapon, similar to a modern hunting crossbow. This is the weapon which is usually compared to a longbow.
Composite prod stirrup crossbow aka 'Steigbügelarmbrust' . spanned with a stirrup, made of wood bow reinforced with baleen and / or sturgeon 'horns'. Later (stronger) composite prods were made uses goat foot ('Geissfuss')or belt-hook to span. made of wood, sinew, rams horn, bull horn, and other materials. Up to 150 KG draw.
Windlass siege crossbow "english winder", large powerful composite prod crossbow but very slow to span with a cord and pully 'Seilrolle' or Windlass 'Winde', popular in the 14th Century for seige warfare, gradually discontinued in the early 15th century. 300-500 KG draw.
Heavy composite arbalest. Small. Usable from horseback. Spanned with cranequin. Better in winter than steel prod. 300-400 KG draw (possibly more powerful in winter time).
Steel prod arbalest uses cranequin aka "German winder" small. Usable from horseback. 500 KG draw.
Gastrophetes / Scorpion old fashioned Greek 'Belly bow' used by Byzantine Ballistiari through the 14th Century.
Repeating Crossbow used by Chinese but also known in Europe. Shoots very light bolt with no fletchings, usually used with poison. Used through the 19th Century.
HUNTING CROSSBOWS
Skĺne Lockbow - very light crossbow for small game, of a type found in Denmark.
Slurbow - shoots bullets or clay pellets.
Hunting arbalest cranequin spanned steel prod arbalest similar to the military version, remained in use for hunting into the 18th Century (these are mostly what have survived)
SPECIALIST
Ballisteri very small 'pistol' crossbow. Uses a screw to span. Either an expensive toy or an assassins weapon.
I doubt the Genoese were carrying boiws with a 1200 lb draw.
And if they were, the draw length is much shorter, imparting power to the bolt over less distance, which reduces overall "oomph."
Drawing on what I've read, and what I've shot, I need to be persuaded that there were crossbowmen making 200 yard, flat shots and hitting individuals. Not everyone can do that with a modern rifle.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-08-20 at 10:51 AM.
-
2010-08-20, 10:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
apparently the English Longbows were tried by the Teutonic order:
When, in the summer of 1390, Bolingbroke was preparing for his journey to Prussia he had, among other things, eighty longbows costing one shilling each and six broadbows, each at double the price, purchased for him.95 They were packed in hemp, tied up with straps made from Hungarian leather and provided with a lock. In addition, there were four bundles of broad arrows. Perhaps the wood for these bows came from Prussia, as the tough and elastic yew wood was an important article of export of the Ordensstaat. Thus, in the year 1396 the commander of Ragnit deposited no less than 7,600 unworked wooden pieces for bows (ywenbogenholcz) and 1,150 of the same for crossbows (knottelholcz) with a Danzig citizen on the Grand Master's behalf.96 We also know that Bolingbroke's bows were used in action because in a description of the siege of Vilnius (Lithuania) in autumn 1390 the Knights' chronicler, Posilge, writes: 'Also the Lord of Lancaster from England was there; he had many fine archers, who did much good'.97 The impression is that Posilge was very impressed by the effectiveness of the English longbows.
The Teutonic Order had, from the very beginning, preferred the crossbow to the ordinary bow. The oldest recorded use of the European crossbow dates from the fourth century AD, and one comes across them again in the tenth.98 During the First Crusade the crossbow was in general use. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries important improvements were made which led to the further spread of this weapon. The trigger, the notch for the bolt, the nut and its socket, and the stirrup were introduced, and these were only some of the changes made. The stirrup was fixed to the stock and served for spanning the bow. Already in the statutes of the Teutonic Order there was mention of the workshop in which the crossbows with stirrups (as well as bows) were produced: 'Marschalus potest accipere de domo balistarum minores balistas aptas pedibus ad trahendum et arcus pro fratribus, quibus sive balistas sive arcus viderit expedire'.99
G.
-
2010-08-20, 10:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- Anchorage, AK
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
While I am no where near an expert on arms and equipment from history. I have had expience with the modern rifle. We regularly trained to shoot out to 300 meters with the M16A2 and over 400 meters with the M249 SAW.
At 300 meters you still aim center mass on the target with the rifle. So any compensation for distance is negligible on a modern rifle.
-
2010-08-20, 11:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- raiding wales!
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Need a setting for your game? a character concept? any gaming related ideas? I make far to many to eat up myself, and therefor I am willing to share them. Free ideas! Get yer fluff here! PM me.
The friendly neighborhood gentleman perv is always ready to help!
on M&B:
Originally Posted by Celesyne
-
2010-08-20, 11:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Laughing with the sinners
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
One assumes you set the elevation knob on the rear sight assembly differently for 300 meters than you would for 200, or 500. If you set your windage and elevation, your point of aim is still center mass, but the rifle is actually angled differently.
At PI we shot 200, 300 and 500 yards (meters are for foreigners) known distance, adjusting our sights in reaction to where our shots were spotted. This is for your qual score, and to get familiar with the way the rifle works, so spending three weeks on you belly with a support sling strangling your left arm and a makrsmanship notebook beside you, you learn to shoot.
In an unknown distance situation, where targets could be at any range (like combat), you can set your battlesight zero for 300 yards, and if you aim center mass you may hit a closer guy in the head and a more distant one in the leg, but for miltary purposes that's fine. It doesn't mean the shot isn't arcing. Back in the day, when bows or muskets had a much less flat trajectory than .223 ammo, the leaders would estimate range to a target, usually an enemy formation, not a skinny third world teenager with an AK running from cover to cover, and the fring unit would adjust sights or elvate as per drill.
But the fact stand that all projectile motion is a parabolic arc. I'm not in any way saying either the crossbow or longbow was a bad weapon, but I would be suprised if the arc for those two weapons were all that different (like, arrows landing on your kettle hat while the bolts hit you in the belt buckle different), comapring battlefield versions of each.
-
2010-08-20, 12:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- Anchorage, AK
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
While yes you set your battle site zero to 300 meters as we did in the Army, the compensation you are talking about on a modern rifle is miniscule to that of what you weould need for a bow, or crossbow.
We shot at targets that ranged from 25 to 300 meters with the M16 , I never had an issue hitting center mass with my sights set to 300. Even with the M249 set to 300 hitting the 400 meter targets was done with little to no compensation.
-
2010-08-20, 12:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Ones used with a larger shield would be 5-7 feet, while the ones used with smaller shields or without any shields would go up to 9 feet. Also bear in mind the different kinds of spearheads and their effects (broad spearheads don't penetrate very deeply and are ineffective against armor but can be pulled out quickly, while narrow spearheads have the opposite effect.)
-
2010-08-20, 12:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Tell that to a sniper. They'll smile and tell you that's why you aren't a sniper...
The rounds drop less at a given distance because they are travelling at least five times faster than the fastest bolt. Any projectile not generating lift will drop 16 feet in a second. Now with a 'primitive' weapon that second might only get you a hundred yards or so of range, whereas with a 5.56mm NATO round, that second will get you 1000m of range.Last edited by Psyx; 2010-08-20 at 12:36 PM.
-
2010-08-20, 12:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
-
2010-08-20, 12:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
^It's kind of common sense, too.
Mail was expensive stuff as it takes AGES to make, and metal was often expensive too. The kind of people who could afford mail could afford the extra labour costs for the same material costs and armour that was far more effective, and didn't fall apart.
-
2010-08-20, 12:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Not to mention that especially in less "civilized" areas of Dark Ages, 25 pounds of suitable iron was usually true FORTUNE.
Making butted mail out of it would be somehow like using Ferrari 599 as a tractor.
Not to mention that they wanted to live. That's was point of armor.
Here is decent article anyway.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2010-08-20, 12:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Laughing with the sinners
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
That's been more or less exactly my point.
But it's still a turn of the dial to raise the rear sight assembly. Even at high velocity, the round is dropping, and will hit the guy at 200 yards higher up on the body than the guy at 300 yard.
With a corssbow, we are talking orders of magnitude less velocity than a 5.56 mm round. We're talking a proijectile that's a ton heavier, less dense,a dn more subject to all manner of factors that will throw off the accuracy.
Thus, I doubt that it "shot flat" out to 150 yard. I just don't really believe that.
And that's probably fine for a man sized target standing in the open. If you aim at his belly button, you can hit two feet high or two feet low and still ruin his day. If you are aiming at a head above the lip of a fighting hole, you may want to adjust that rear sight.
-
2010-08-20, 01:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Dan Howards article on mail is pretty good and he does mention this specifically.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html
Eric Schmid's "Mail Research Society" is probably the most definitive single source in the world on mail specifically. They will answer questions if you email them.
Royal Armoury at Leeds is also a good source, you can get email answers from them.
http://www.royalarmouries.org/visit-us/leeds
G.