Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Ashtagon]

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).

I know — we can call this feat "Martial Weapon Proficiency"!

[Spiryt]

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).

Historically, a lot of things that would go as "longbow" would have very 'mundane' draw weights, so there's no reason to do require 14 Str for 35 pound bow that can be used by any reasonably fit person with training.

[Straybow]

Historically, a lot of things that would go as "longbow" would have very 'mundane' draw weights, so there's no reason to do require 14 Str for 35 pound bow that can be used by any reasonably fit person with training.

Yes, but those "longbows" would have performance like the shortbow. Some high draw weight longbows were designed for long range flight arrows that do much less damage, less than a shortbow.

[Spiryt]

Yes, but those "longbows" would have performance like the shortbow. Some high draw weight longbows were designed for long range flight arrows that do much less damage, less than a shortbow.

They would have performance like ~ 50, maybe a bit more pounds shortbows, assuming that "shortbow" here is constructionally like longbow, but too short to store energy effectively.

If one takes such shortbow of 100 pounds, it would still have better performance.

I'm not really aware of longbows and other selfbows being optimized specifically for flight shooting, but I guess they could happen.

Still one could easily fire heavy arrow from them, doing 'more damage than shortbow'.

The bottom line is that in thread about "real world weapons" talking about rather silly weapon categories from 3.5 doesn't really have much sense.

[Yora]

What's actually the deal with these fancy modern plastic and pulleys bows?

After all, isn't the amount of energy transfered to the arrow always the same as the amount of muscle energy used to pull the string?
Or does that construction make it easier somehow to hold the arrow in place to aim, while putting a lesser strain on the muscles that keep the bow from springig back. (Kind of like pulleys in general, spreading the same amount of energy over a longer amount of time, reducing the effort at any given moment.)

[Spiryt]

What's actually the deal with these fancy modern plastic and pulleys bows?

After all, isn't the amount of energy transfered to the arrow always the same as the amount of muscle energy used to pull the string?

no

To actually elaborate, amount of energy used to pull the string is very loosely connected to energy transfered to arrow, there are quite a few different energy transfers here.

You can quite easily build bow that will require a lot of energy to pull, without propelling arrow very much.

The trick is to don't do it.


Modern compound bow basically offer huge mechanical advantage with pulleys - by drawing the 60 pound bow at, say, 30 inches one is able to turn the pulleys quite a lot, storing huge amount of energy in the short bending arms of the bow.

Traditional bows obviously cannot have that excellent efficiency in storing energy, all reflexes, siyahs, recurved tips, etc. can only go so far in providing good leverage/mechanical advantage.

The problem is still somehow amount of energy wasted for pulley movement itself, as they are still pretty heavy, even with modern materials and engineering.

[DrewID]

Modern compound bow basically offer huge mechanical advantage with pulleys - by drawing the 60 pound bow at, say, 30 inches one is able to turn the pulleys quite a lot, storing huge amount of energy in the short bending arms of the bow.

A science article I read years ago pointed out that when you draw and loose a self bow, much of the stored energy goes into moving not the arrow, but the bow. Think about it. The ends of the bow arms move about half as far as the arrow, and the grip hardly at all. But the bow arms weigh much more than the arrow. It doesn't matter that the arms are moving themselves, physics demands that the energy to propel them from a dead stop to rapid forward motion must come from [i]some[i/where, and it's from the stored energy that you expended drawing the bow.

On a modern compound bow, with it's pulleys and whatnot, the arms of the bow move very little, and less of the stored energy has to be expended in moving the bow arms, and so more is available to propel the arrow.

DrewID

[Straybow]

They aren't just pulleys, they are cams. That means they are egg-shaped, having more leverage on one side of the cam than on the other. That way when the bow is in the fully drawn position the smaller force required to hold the string is multiplied by the greater leverage. On release the cam rotates and within a few inches the force is back up to the full value. Making the string go between the cams also allows a 2:1 mechanical advantage, so the limbs only travel half as far and use up less energy despite the extra mass of the cams.

[Straybow]

The bottom line is that in thread about "real world weapons" talking about rather silly weapon categories from 3.5 doesn't really have much sense.

Well illustrating how huge the draw force would have to be to require strengths of 16 or 18 or more is part of examine real world weapon design.

For a game one can simply close the eyes and think of England.

[Spiryt]

On a modern compound bow, with it's pulleys and whatnot, the arms of the bow move very little, and less of the stored energy has to be expended in moving the bow arms, and so more is available to propel the arrow.

DrewID

Yes, but much of it has to be expended to propel the wheels themselves, which with all modern materials are still pretty heavy, have not very aerodynamic shape and are obviously located in the worst place possible - very end of the arms which move rapidly.

That's the main limitation of compound bow, and why as far as sheer dynamics go, they beat traditional bows 'just' soundly, not by several times.

[Yora]

There always is also the factor of style, which is an area in which they just can't compete.

[Autolykos]

That way when the bow is in the fully drawn position the smaller force required to hold the string is multiplied by the greater leverage.

THAT is actually the important point. Everything else is just small details that wouldn't warrant all those complicated mechanics. With a longbow, the required force rises pretty much linearly with draw distance, making it pretty hard to hold the bow steady to aim. With modern compound bows, the force drops massively over the last few inches, which means that the draw weight is only limited by what you can pull once, not by what you can hold comfortably. You can easily use compound bows with about twice the (nominal) draw weight you would have on a longbow.
In theory, you can't cheat conservation of energy - every Joule in the arrow has to be put in it by the archer. In practice, the total energy isn't the limiting factor (it's a few hundred Joules, at most), it is the maximum force required to pull and hold. And with clever use of mechanics, you can distribute that force along the draw distance pretty much any way you like (and compound bows do that better than longbows).

[JustSomeGuy]

Well illustrating how huge the draw force would have to be to require strengths of 16 or 18 or more is part of examine real world weapon design.

For a game one can simply close the eyes and think of England.

As i understand it, STR is an imperfect measure of numerous physical abilities - the ability to knock someone out with a punch, break a door off it's hinges, lift heavy awkward stuff overhead, carry heavier stuff, endure arduous physical exertions for hours/days on end, etc.

So a STR 10 guy operating a bow technically requiring STR14+ is just one facet of his STR, which is generally low enough to justify his 10 (would Bruce Lee qualify as having a massive STR score, and huge powerlifters who tire after 30 seconds walking upstairs - do they get penalised similarly?). I can accept bows as they are, butthen again i'm certainly no expert!

[JustSomeGuy]

Well illustrating how huge the draw force would have to be to require strengths of 16 or 18 or more is part of examine real world weapon design.

For a game one can simply close the eyes and think of England.

As i understand it, STR is an imperfect measure of numerous physical abilities - the ability to knock someone out with a punch, break a door off it's hinges, lift heavy awkward stuff overhead, carry heavier stuff, endure arduous physical exertions for hours/days on end, etc.

So a STR 10 guy operating a bow technically requiring STR14+ is just one facet of his STR, which is generally low enough to justify his 10 (would Bruce Lee qualify as having a massive STR score, and huge powerlifters who tire after 30 seconds walking upstairs - do they get penalised similarly?). I can accept bows as they are, but then again i'm certainly no expert!

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

There always is also the factor of style, which is an area in which they just can't compete.

I'm with Yora: the pulley bows are really ugly, I like simpler bows!

[Kalaska'Agathas]

So, I've got a question: what would be the potential naval applications of a stealthy Ekranoplan? I know the Lun carried missiles, and I suspect that an Ekranoplan-***-DDG could be a pretty excellent surface-to-surface missile platform, given their potential speed and maneuverability. Similarly, I suspect they could perform well in the littoral, as a sort of high speed Corvette. Would they be suitable for any other roles, however?

Edit: And apparently certain terms in Latin have the unfortunate ability to upset the forum's censor. No offense intended, simply trying to say "an Ekranoplan which has been designed and built to fulfill the role of a Guided Missile Destroyer."

[Raum]

We're already using ground effect vehicles in the littoral. I don't remember the exact number, but they allow landing forces on several times as much coast land as you can with WW2 era landing craft. That alone probably makes them worthwhile.

That said, I think most modern GEVs are on the hovercraft model rather than fixed wings. The fixed wing / ekranoplan appears to be too much of a compromise - the disadvantages of an airplane without the advantages.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

We're already using ground effect vehicles in the littoral. I don't remember the exact number, but they allow landing forces on several times as much coast land as you can with WW2 era landing craft. That alone probably makes them worthwhile.

That said, I think most modern GEVs are on the hovercraft model rather than fixed wings. The fixed wing / ekranoplan appears to be too much of a compromise - the disadvantages of an airplane without the advantages.

A hovercraft isn't really a GEV - it's an Air Cushion Vehicle, so it's taking advantage of a different (albeit similar) effect. Do you have any sources on the ekranoplan being too much of a compromise?

[Raum]

Do you have any sources on the ekranoplan being too much of a compromise?

Well, longitudinal stability is a major issue. WIG craft will generally be slower than aircraft due to increased air density at sea level - this really affects small craft, larger craft are more cost effective. The wikipedia page you linked also mentions the dangers of banking at low altitudes...along with the possibility of large waves and the inability to react to steep terrain changes on land. Add to that the tactical limitations of low altitude and low relative speed if you're considering it for military use.

A boat or hovercraft will carry more weight and an aircraft will have a higher rate of speed and more space for avoidance and recovery. The WIG ends up with a compromise not as good as either.

[Thiel]

A boat or hovercraft will carry more weight and an aircraft will have a higher rate of speed and more space for avoidance and recovery. The WIG ends up with a compromise not as good as either.

On the other hand it'll carry more weight than an aircraft and it'll be a whole lot faster than a boat.
From a tactical perspective the Ekranoplan isn't without its advantages.
Since they skim along the surface they're significantly harder to spot than aircraft, and while aircraft can fly at those heights as well, an Ekranoplan is optimised for it and takes full advantage of the extra carrying capacity the Ground Effect grants to carry more payload and fuel.
It's hardly surprising that the few operational Ekranoplans have all been either transports or Fast Attack Craft.

[deuxhero]

Is the "low" stance from the Way of the Samurai series based on anything from reality?

Spoiler

Show

[kugelblitz]

Is the "low" stance from the Way of the Samurai series based on anything from reality?

Spoiler

Show

Dunno about the series, never watched it. I can say that a knees flexed stance IS used in some japanese sword stances, especially when the sword is held with the point close to the ground. Since much of your leverage comes from the movement of your hips, you are increasing that force by doing so.

Regards.

[Brother Oni]

Dunno about the series, never watched it. I can say that a knees flexed stance IS used in some japanese sword stances, especially when the sword is held with the point close to the ground. Since much of your leverage comes from the movement of your hips, you are increasing that force by doing so.

I believe that Suio-ryu uses a fairly low stance for certain techniques. In popular culture, it's the style used by Ogami Itto from Lone Wolf and Cub.

[Spiryt]

Stances looking about like that seem to appear in sources, like Fiore for example:

Spoiler

Show

Here
you have some interpretation of it.

And as such are used in all kinds of European martial arts recreations.

Here fellow with longswords tries to engage the rapier guy quite a lot with right leg forward sword held down. Roughly similar to your picture, although guy on it has really radically bent knees, as if he was skiing or expecting double leg takedown whole time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7VWIQCHvM

[Fortinbras]

This isn't a weapon/armor question per se, but does anybody know of some good sources on what went into preparing a medieval nation for war.

Specifically, what would Edward I have had to do to prepare for his invasions of Scotland. Did the army do any training once it was assembled or was it assumed that all of archers and men-at-arms were ready to fight when they were called up? Who (job titles) was in charge of what?

Same goes for Henry V's invasion of France.

[J.Gellert]

Is the "low" stance from the Way of the Samurai series based on anything from reality?

Spoiler

Show

That seems similar to the "fool's guard", I think?

[Spiryt]

Specifically, what would Edward I have had to do to prepare for his invasions of Scotland. Did the army do any training once it was assembled or was it assumed that all of archers and men-at-arms were ready to fight when they were called up? Who (job titles) was in charge of what?

Same goes for Henry V's invasion of France.

Archers would certainly do some shooting just to stay in rhytm, knights would quite probably do some lance competitions or hunting to stay in shape as well, but obviously no real 'organized' trainings.

Organizing a march of medieval army generally depended on people who 'naturally' emerged to be in charge of certain units, due to feudal hierarchy, or nomination of king/lord etc.

At Agincourt, Henry's forces would be probably divided to 3 main battles - under Henry himself, Duke of York and Thomas de Camoys.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

If a space suit was strong enough to withstand direct hits from space debris, would it be effectively bulletproof? Wikipedia says that the micrometeoroids can move at relative speeds of kilometres per second, which is faster than a bullet, no?

[Yora]

Yes. Most bullets would be peanuts against small space debris. .50 BMG is a different matter, but most bullets would be stopped very effectively.
That is, if you were able to make space suits that durable.

[Yora]

That seems similar to the "fool's guard", I think?

Even though it's called the Fool, it's not really stupid but works quite well in certain situations. But even centuries ago, when this style was state of the art, master swordmen were very well aware how stupid it looks.