|
I finished the guns of august yesterday and liked it a lot. What would be a good book for the rest of WWI?
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
Kaal posted:That's an interesting idea, but it doesn't really explain why composite bows were fairly universally restricted to areas with low humidity. And yes, that includes the Indian subcontinent, which is predominantly arid throughout the year, except for the summer rainy season when all the rain comes at once and campaigning is impossible in any case. British, French and German bowyers, for example, had the capability for making composite bows ever since they were introduced by the Roman garrisons, but they never really caught on until the advent of medieval crossbows more than 1,000 years later. It's pretty commonly accepted that animal glues are water-permeable, and that the constant exposure to humidity, rather than rain, makes any amount of field covering undependable and renders the weapon itself unreliable. The glue might stand up to a day of submersion, or even a week, but month after month of rain and 90% humidity will eventually loosen the glue and fatally weaken the bow. It's apparently an issue that military conservators are quite familiar with: http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/68229-did-the-romans-have-the-composite-bow.html?start=30 I wouldn't call Russia a place with low humidity. Birchbark all over. Or the Balkans. Where did you get the idea from that India is relatively dry? That place is like almost the worst place for any material to be put out in the open. Either it's hot and dry, or so wet and hot that the cloth will rot from your body, alternating. What I'm surprised is, that these armchair scholars do not point out that hornbows could not have been used in deserts or hot climates....because, you know, the glue starts to liquidify at 60°C and about 1/6th of such a bow is glue. A composite bow of 62# is nothing. At best a toy or a training bow. There are several reconstructions of the Zargalant bow with proper dimensions and they're around 90#. Everything for war ranges between 90 and 140#. It's not too much for a grown man to be able with some training to pull at least 100#. Also, these bows only start to outperform selfbows above 70#, as sinew and horn are heavier than wood. First, since you posted the link, do you know more about the type of bow in question here? Symmetric/Assymmetric, bone plates/no plates, shape, etc. There is no mention in the the link that you posted about problems with humidity or conservation, unless I skipped it. I wouldn't be surprised that conservators have problems with these items, since it's a natural material and all kind of insects and mammals like to eat from them. You wouldn't do too great if you'd get dumped in some improper storage for the first 300 years. It's a miracle that there's still pieces around that are 500 years old that weren't dumped somewhere in the desert. You want a reason why it wasn't more widespread in Europe in absence of the Roman Empire? Horn. There aren't many places where you can get horn of proper size from in Europe. The Hungarians had a breed that could deliver such horn. Anywhere else? Nope. No long horn, no hornbows. Bubalus bubalis was and still is the best horn that you can use for composite bows, and you can easily look it up, where there's populations. Bows like the Mongols used, or a later offshoot like the Crimean Tartar bows are larger, ranging from 120-150cm ntn, with something like 135-140 being most common. I will build such a bow next year and the horns that you need for such a bow would have to be about 75-80cm long to have sufficient width. Those are rather uncommon and expensive, even today. You can't just take any horn. A piece might be sufficiently long, but lacks wall thickness at a critical spot. Or there's twists. It has to be straight and flawless. Like I said somewhere else, 60cm isn't too hard to get and you can cover a 3cm wide limb for about 50cm. If you do a little research, this is about the standard length and width of an Ottoman war bow with 106-108cm ntn. You can never, never get rid of twists reliably. You can steam it out, but horn "has a memory", it will always return to it's initial state sooner or later. That's why ram horn is poo poo. Do you know how the scythians used their Ibex horn? It wasn't on the belly of the bow, it was in the middle. Sandwiched by wood and wrapped in sinew. Ever wondered why they built it in this wild shape? http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/Scythian_bow_ATARN.pdf There's bows that have surprising width, up to 7cm!, like persian Quajar bows. It is a common feature of construction in this area to build the limbs wide, with multiple strips of horn, so that horn of lesser length and quality can be used. These are about 120-130cm ntn Building such bows is no secret or overly hard. It is tedious. I have no training in woodworking or bowmaking and by the end of the year, there will be 5 more hornbows on this world. V-Splices and making things plane are basic stuff, that a trained woodworker will laugh at. You need a bunch of basic tools and patience. The raw materials are the tricky part. This was used in northern Italy in the 15th century.  There's a few museum pieces in Venice or somewhere. I lost the image in my dropbox Crossbow bro from Italy posted it a while ago  That dude makes some pretty great crossbows, but he's weird.  e: found the Italian bows  There's also something interesting that I've heard from a chinese guy. In south China, there's a certain species of wood that translates to "bow wood", as it turns out, it is related to Osage Orange, which is about as awesome and horrible as Yew. I also forgot about the Yumi. Wood laminations were also common. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Regardless of whether the use of composite bows was limited by humidity, its clear the Mongols didn't FEEL limited by their bows. It's the kind of thing I'd expect the Khans to account for when planning campaigns, but they went right ahead and invaded notably wet and humid places like Burma, Java, Yunnan, etc. Today Seoul, South Korea has humidity of 82% for example. Really I don't see why we have to reach for such theories to explain the limits of the Mongol empire. The campaigns 1230 campaign against Hungary played out very much like the expeditions to Burma and Java and other places on the Mongol periphery. Initial victories in the field shortly culminating in unceremonious withdrawals despite the Mongol advantage, never again to return in force. Places like Hungary and Burma were just to far, and the political ties within the Empire too weak, to sustain expansion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:There's also something interesting that I've heard from a chinese guy. In south China, there's a certain species of wood that translates to "bow wood", as it turns out, it is related to Osage Orange, which is about as awesome and horrible as Yew. What's yew's deal? We grow pikes in special plantations in Rheinhessen, of course (they take the same climate as wine grapes, go figure). It's a really heartwarming sight to see them growing in the summer sunlight, each surmounted by a single spear at the tip, kind of like asparagus. You harvest them before they're fully mature for a half pike or a sturm pike, or let them ripen in the fall for your fifteen-to-eighteen footers. (If the spear has begun to unfold and produce seeds, you're too late--that's how we get sarissas, and nobody wants sarissas these days.) Pluck them when you're ready, and then just strip the bark off and you're almost done. After generations of selective breeding, the seeds produce nearly pure linseed oil, which is a plus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
It has lots of knots and every kind of nasty surprise that you can imagine. Not exactly easy material. It's also relatively soft. Osage on the other hand has even more stuff like that, thorns that grew into the wood and that are invisible when you have the stave in hand, it's also often warped and twisted It also splinters like hell. Very easy to destroy a stave with impatience or the wrong tool. But like nature's cruel humor, it also has exceptional qualities. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
So I'm catching up on old Joe Rogan podcasts with guests that interest me and I'm watching the Dan Carlin ones now. They just touched on one of Ghengis Khan's grandkids laying siege to Baghdad by launching palm trees over the city walls with catapults. Can anyone expand on that? It's  as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
I have plenty of reason to believe that composite bows made it to Western Europe, or that the information, at least, was there. Kings of Sicily maintained a number of "Saracen" archers under their command, and the excavations at Novgorod in the 70s revealed a bow of maple and juniper wood, bound with sinew (no horn, interestingly). What I think the more likely explanation is for the lack of proliferation into Europe is that there were perfectly serviceable bows available at the time. If, as I do, you agree with Matthew Strickland, that the longbow far predates the 14th century, then there is no reason to replace a much cheaper instrument with a more expensive one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I finished the guns of august yesterday and liked it a lot. What would be a good book for the rest of WWI? uPen posted:Dreadnought by Robert K Massie covers the pre-war period from about 1890 to the 1910's, focusing specifically on German-British relations and the arms race at sea. The Guns of August thread in TBB has a ton of recommendations. e: While we're talking about books, whoever recommended the Audiobook of Battle Cry of Freedom, the narrator is the same guy that did the audiobook of Snow Crash and it's driving me nuts. uPen fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
So, I have a few questions related to each other. 1. When have police forces been used in combat roles in military operations? The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Berlin 1945 2. When police have been use how have they fared? 3. In the 19th Century how notable were the various national Gendarmeries in combat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Various precursors of the RCMP fought in the Boer War and WWI, IIRC. They seemed to do pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
What was labor organization like in Germany during WW2? For that matter, what was the Nazi regime's stance towards organized labor/labor unions during the inter-war and war years?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Someone will have to go into more detail for your first question but for the second all labor unions were banned and replaced with the Reich's Labor Front which was the umbrella organization for the various sub-unions all of which were nazified. The RLF was this weird quasi-'socialist' group that half nationalized industries and oversaw factory improvement, social security and the 'strength through joy' organization that ran cheap holidays for workers and things like sports arenas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
uPen posted:The Guns of August thread in TBB has a ton of recommendations. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:If, as I do, you agree with Matthew Strickland, that the longbow far predates the 14th century Wow I wasn't aware that anybody though the longbow just popped into existence in the 14th century
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Posted these in the medieval thread but figured they may be of interest here too. Here, have some pictures I took of ridiculous late-medieval/early modern weapons and armour from the Line of Kings exhibit at the Tower of London. I'm a sucker for that ridiculously-ornate-beyond-any-form-of-practical-usefulness look.  Almain corslet. German, 1540-50. Arm defences are from about 1570. The armour is composite, constructed from elements of armours embossed with fleurs-de-lys, the embossing bright on a blackened ground in the style associated with Nuremberg armourers.  This was King James II's armour, and I think dates from the 1680s.  "Burgonet. German, probably Augsburg, about 1600"  A double-barreled over-under wheel-lock pistol.  A mace that you can also shoot people with.  A nearby child said "I can't believe they made babies fight in the wars." "The armour is quite well proportioned and is correctly constructed and would be wearable by someone small enough. Hewitt in his catalogue of 1859 suggests that it was made for a dwarf and in this connection Jeffrey Hudson, the dwarf of Queen Henrietta Maria may be suggested as a possible owner. Hudson who entered the Queen’s service about 1630, is described as being about eighteen inches tall at this date though he later grew to a height of over three feet. The helmet is identical to that worn by Charles I in Le Sueur’s bust at Stourhead, Wiltshire. This has also lost its wings. The armour might therefore have been that of Charles I as a child aged about ten."  "This ‘ancient German saddle’ was displayed in the Western vestibule of the New Horse Armoury by the mid 19th century. Its bone plaques are decorated with dragons, and it is possibly a gift from the Emperor Sigismund to King Henry V on his joining the Hungarian Dragon Order in 1416."    "Pikeman’s Armour. English, about 1625.This is one of a small but distinctive group of very fine English pikemen’s armours. These were once attributed to the royal workshops at Greenwich, but it has since been shown that they were made by members of the Armourers Company of London. Their decoration was probably intended to reflect the pattern of the Bargello or ‘flame stitch’ patterns popular at the same time for interior decoration."  Apparently, a warhammer that you can also shoot people with. Early 17th Century. "The axe-head head contains five barrels, their muzzles concealed by a hinged cover forming the edge of the axe-blade. The topmost barrel is ignited by a matchlock fitted on one side of the axe-head, its mechanism concealed by a brass plate cut out and engraved in the form of a lion. The second barrel has a wheellock ignition system, the mechanism of which occupies most of the outer surface of the opposite side of the axe-head. There is a tubular extension to the pan of the wheellock intended to hold a length of match which would be ignited by the flash of the priming and then withdrawn to ignite the three remaining barrels. A sixth barrel, also hand-ignited, is concealed within the haft."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
Well, I guess final fantasy is real.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:Are there any theories as to what the tipping point was for the title of "most influential and technologically developed culture(s)" passing to Western Europe and its progeny? How much of it could be a deterministic series of events and how much of it sheer chance? Sea travel is really really cheap. I have read some peolple claim that it was much cheaper to move cargo from London to America than by road to Yorkshire. I think, that one da Gama reached India the road to western supremacy was pretty straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:So, I have a few questions related to each other. Well depending on your definition of combat operations you might include the Paris police during the insurrection in august 1944. They seized govermnet buildings and held out against the German garrison until Allied troops arrived. It was more of a popular uprising but they did engage german troops in combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Ok GunHammer is loving badass. Hit dudes AND shoot them at the same time! It sounds like something Robert Baratheon would commission.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What was labor organization like in Germany during WW2? For that matter, what was the Nazi regime's stance towards organized labor/labor unions during the inter-war and war years? Someone asked drat near the identical question a few months ago in the Nazi thread. Pretty sure I did an effort post on it over there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Re. composite vs self bows in western Europe, this is my hypothesis. Three main reasons why the self bow remained prevalent: 1) Much cheaper and easier to produce. A workable self bow can be made in a day or two versus several weeks for a composite; for archer corps that were largely part-time or levied this was an important consideration. 2) The main advantage of the compound bow (its compact size) wasn't really all that useful. Western European armies didn't use mounted archers very much and so having a powerful compact bow wasn't all that critical. In fact, some folks argue that a longer bow is actually easier to use while standing (for a given draw weight) as it requires less draw distance to gain a given energy state, which makes "laying into" the bow a bit easier. Mongol archers had lifetimes to learn the technique and gain the strength to draw compound bows; western archers didn't. 3) Composite bows were a lot more finicky with regards to weather. It is almost certainly hyperbole to say that they'd fall apart instantly if the humidity got above 80%, but they did require more careful care in wet/humid conditions than did self bows, that were largely unaffected by moisture so long as the string was kept dry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:1. When have police forces been used in combat roles in military operations? The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Berlin 1945 quote:The eastern column pressed its attack with more determination. It reached the river, took all of Grbavica, and even fired some tank rounds into the Presidency building. Nonetheless, Bosnian TDF, police, and Muslim irregulars-armed with a few crucial anti-tank weapons-fought from the surrounding buildings and halted the advance. One key shot took out a lead Bosnian Serb vehicle on one of the narrow streets leading to the bridge at Skenderija, thus blocking a large part of the attacking force. Other portions of the Bosnian Serb attackers were reluctant to advance into kill zones, and they would not dismount to clear the defenders from the surrounding buildings. Although the ground attacks had stopped, the heavy shelling continued throughout 2 May and into the next day. One report claimed that the shelling was the worst yet in the war, "setting buildings ablaze and covering streets with debris and shrapnel."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:So, I have a few questions related to each other. Spanish Civil War, assuming you count gendarmes as police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardia_de_Asalto The war would have been over in a few weeks if it wasn't for them. Actually, I imagine most civil wars count given they start out as rebellions by citizens of a country against its government, which is sort of what the (riot) police are there to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
I've been reading up a little on the Schleswig Wars (because for some reason we never did really learn much about them in history class in  ) and it seemed a little funny to me that Prussia was supporting revolutionaries in Schleswig-Holstein (which is completely out of character for them) while at the same time crushing revolutionary movements in Poland, Hungary and Italy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 19:38
|
|
That crazy Prussia, sure that doesn't become a habit haha. .
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Re. composite vs self bows in western Europe, this is my hypothesis. Three main reasons why the self bow remained prevalent: It's about a week raw production time. Drying to stabilize the green wood after steaming +3 months. Drying after glueup about a week or 1 month for safety. Drying after attaching the horn: 1 month. Sinewing is done in 2-3 Layers with a few days inbetween, after that the bow is seasoning for 6 months. Tillering takes a few days, it is done very slowly and mostly with heat. Then the protective layer is added, which is either birch bark or horse leather, the bow then needs proper drying time, which is greater for the bark. After that it is varnished and painted. Depends how long that takes. 1,5 years for a bow aren't so unrealistic. If you know what you're doing and it's an assembly like in Korean workshops, alot faster. Maybe 6 months in warm climate. bewbies posted:2) The main advantage of the compound bow (its compact size) wasn't really all that useful. Western European armies didn't use mounted archers very much and so having a powerful compact bow wasn't all that critical. In fact, some folks argue that a longer bow is actually easier to use while standing (for a given draw weight) as it requires less draw distance to gain a given energy state, which makes "laying into" the bow a bit easier. Mongol archers had lifetimes to learn the technique and gain the strength to draw compound bows; western archers didn't. You misunderstood what a force/draw curve tells. The force increase that you can measure in a longbow for each inch that you draw further is relatively linear, while a composite bow, depending of style, size and length of ears and rigid section increases a bit more in the first inches to about half the drawlength and then get's easier to pull, because of the recurve's work (greater recurves, more letoff). As seen here:  So what does that mean? It's more pleasant to draw in the first inches. Laying into the bow is a Longbow technique that has nothing to do with anything that we know from asian archery. Short bows are usually shot with a ring, but there's other aides that help avoid getting your fingers crushed. bewbies posted:3) Composite bows were a lot more finicky with regards to weather. It is almost certainly hyperbole to say that they'd fall apart instantly if the humidity got above 80%, but they did require more careful care in wet/humid conditions than did self bows, that were largely unaffected by moisture so long as the string was kept dry. Composite bows are carried in bowcases or bowbags when on campaign. If it's hot, they lose a few pounds, if it's cold, they gain a few. That's that. The string is the only thing that is really sensitive to moisture so that it could gently caress up everything. E.g. stringbreak and a piece of wood stuck in somebody's head. Selfbows also decrease performance when exposed to moisture due to the nature of wood to establish an equilibrium of moisture with the environment that it's in. The technical term for this is Wood Equilibrium Moisture Content. If it's exposed to high humidity, the wood will soak up water and get heavier. This affects stiffness (more moisture = less stiff) and also more weigth. Two-wood composites are also not unknown in Europe and Asia. A friend of mine wrote his MT on Scandinavian two-wood bows. Bamboo laminations are something for the common man. I have posted on this some time ago, but there is no perfect medieval varnish in the west. Linseed oil and certain varnishes from tree sap provide good protection against water, beeswax also plays a part in old recipes. China is lucky, because they have Tungoil/Linseed mixtures and also Urushiol based laquer, which is on par with the best what the modern chemical industry can produce. I'm surprised that none of you heard of birch bark containers or the properties of that stuff. There's some great things that you can do with it. Like making funny hats, cups or canoes that are waterproof.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:If it's hot, they lose a few pounds, if it's cold, they gain a few. That's that. There are a lot of sources that disagree with this. What are you citing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:German forces at Legnica amounted to an unknown number of volunteer miners (i.e. non-professionals). There is also some doubt that any Teutonic Knights participated. So actual forces involved were almost entirely Polish with some number of French knights in the military orders. Also, again, the Mongol force that won the Battle of Legnica pressed towards Bohemia but withdrew when the King of Bohemia approached with his army, which indicates that if Subutai considered moving in, he reconsidered it when he saw the extent of the force he was facing. Just something that irks me about this, after listening to Dan Carlins podcast about the Mongols: Apparently they often employed fake retreats as a tactic to draw vastly superior forces into traps. There's a high chance that if the King of Bohemia had blindly stormed after the Mongols they would have trapped and annihilated his army, too. You just have to hear about the earlier recon they did into Russia with just a third of their later forces. It gets goddamn disturbing. At one point the entire Mongol army is trapped in the Ural mountains with the pass into Russia blocked by a large army of Russians and local nomads and what do they do? They first bribe the nomads to retreat, then they slaughter the Russians, then they follow the nomad army and surprise and slaughter them, too. Just to take back the stuff they bribed them with. Then there was another battle were a Russian army several times larger aproached their force like the king of Bohemia did, but of course the Russians immediately stormed after the retreating Mongols into a prepared death trap. What I'm saying here is, we should be really careful in pretending to know what would have happened in an alternative universe. I would've bet on the Mongols, to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The German generals select the line of the River Aisne to retire to; it's a wide, fast river that runs in deep valleys and ravines, with few remaining bridges, little to no cover on the south bank and a conveniently massive ridge that begins to rise just clear of its north bank. Digging in there will allow them to control the river and the Chemin-des-Dames, an important arterial road that runs along the top of the ridge. Meanwhile, the Allies are beginning to advance back through territory that has been occupied, however briefly, by the enemy. The phrase "Rape of Belgium" is somewhat melodramatic, and the propaganda stories about the hideous misdeeds of the evil Hun that appeared in contemporary French and British newspapers are just that; but this is another case where the reality of what happened all through northern France and Belgium is quite bad enough without needing to make things up. The worst of the crimes were not necessarily apparent to the blokes on the ground, but they saw plenty to engage their spirits. quote:Sgt Sanderson, 2nd King's Royal Rifle Corps quote:Sgt Peacock, 1st Wales Borderers quote:Driver Martin, 15th Field Ambulance And, due to the speed of the retirement, the Germans are now having the same supply issues that the BEF faced on the way back from Mons. quote:Cpl Holbrook, 4th Royal Fusiliers I love the image of all these blokes marching along with spa water in their packs, certain they've just liberated some looted champagne...
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Just something that irks me about this, after listening to Dan Carlins podcast about the Mongols: Apparently they often employed fake retreats as a tactic to draw vastly superior forces into traps. There's a high chance that if the King of Bohemia had blindly stormed after the Mongols they would have trapped and annihilated his army, too. You're confusing tactical and strategic withdrawal. After Legnica the Mongol forces pressed south towards Bohemia, spotted Wenceslaus's army, and then withdrew all the way to Hungary, a distance of several hundred miles. It wasn't a feint, they were really leaving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
You're also confusing Georgians with Russians, I'm assuming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
bewbies posted:There are a lot of sources that disagree with this. What are you citing? To my knowledge, there is no "big" empirical study about the effects of moisture on drawweigth, because nobody cares. Karpowicz did some hard fact journal articles on bow mass and performance, so you can look for the quality of his research. Below you can find some data from an article that just touches the subject slightly. If you want to have hard names that will guarantee valid point that probably not so much chair-farting, look to your literature and see if you can find McEwen, Bergmann, Dwyer, Grayson, Farrell, Koppedrayer, Karpowicz, Junkmann, Riesch, Rutschke and Stehli as given sources, then the claim about these items is probably on empirical data. I have asked a few people and we'll see if they know an article, etc. What we *do* know is that people have used them for war, practically anywhere east to west and currently use sinew backed and composite bows to hunt, so it's useful to know what they think about it. You can find reference to this in the Traditional Bowyer's Bible I. in the article about sinew backing p.213, a friend also pointed to Tan Danjiong (T'an Tan-Chiung), INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON BOW AND ARROW MANUFACTURE IN CHENGTU, Soochow University Journal of Chinese Art History Vol. XI. 1981, where you will find how bows were protected and cared for in a subtropical climate. We could easily fish out a few sources that "disagree" and state that composite bows are sensitive, etc and trace how the authors cited and if they have their information from a source that is footed in actual empirical evidence, in other words: reconstruction accodring to the old methods and then taking a hike with it. Let us take a representative article as an example to see how people argument that great humidity is a dealbreakter for composites: Nieminen T. (2011): The Asian war bow "Although composite bows are usually covered by a protective outer layer, they remain susceptible to damage due to high humidity, as the organic glues used will absorb moisture from the atmosphere and weaken [1,10]. This appears to be a key factor that prevented the spread of the composite bow into Europe, southern India, and South-East Asia. While it has also been suggested as a reason for the non-adoption of the composite bow in Japan, it should be noted that the composite bow was used in regions of Korea with a very similar climate, and that the Japanese yumi, of laminated bamboo and wood construction, was also vulnerable to humidity due to the use of similar glues." Ignoring the fact that there are actually composite bows in Japan, as visible in the Grayson collection and in form of a fine book probably available to you in a library, thanks to a reprint - Grayson E. (2007): Traditional Archery from Six Continents: The Charles E. Grayson Collection p.43, and that the Yumi in Japan for the nobility and comparable laminations that were popular for peasants in China and India are made with the same glue. So let's get to fishing out the relevant footnotes: Footnote 10 refers to C. A. Bergman and E. McEwen, “Sinew-reinforced and composite bows: Technology, function, and social implications,” in Projectile Technology, H. Knecht, Ed. New York: Plenum, 1997, pp. 143–160., where there is no mention of this problem at all or any damage from humidity, with the only reference about the subject being this: "After the bow was properly adjusted, a protective surface and/or decorations were frequently applied. Among the materials used to cover composite bows were birch bark, rawhide, varnish, pitch, paint, and metal foil. Composite bows such as the chahar-hham (or four-curved bow) of India are elaborately painted and, in themselves, represent works of art (see McEwen1979: Plates 94-97)." Footnote 1 seems more promising for an argument to be made against composites: A. Karpowicz, “Ottoman bows — an assessment of draw weight, performance and tactical use,” Antiquity, vol. 81, pp. 675–685, 2007. "The draw weight changes with temperature and ambient humidity for all materials of natural origin, including horn, wood and sinew of the bows. Higher humidity or temperature softens the structure to lower the draw weight. The new bows' weight was measured at a relative humidity of between 35 and 55 per cent and a temperature of around 16 [degrees celsius]. At high humidity in excess of 75 per cent and temperature above 25[degrees celsius], the bows may lose around 10lb of force. The bows will also gain force in very dry conditions. Climatic conditions could thus prove to be a decisive factor in warfare. The bows, although well protected by a covering of leather or birch bark and varnished, would eventually lose their power in bad weather. In the author's estimate, one week of exposure to rain can ruin a bow, or at least cause serious damage, unless it is protected. Even then, in the 100 per cent humidity environment, a bow should not be kept strung for more than two weeks to avoid permanent loss of power. Periodic drying would be essential in such conditions. The bow strings were made of silk, rawhide, gut or sinew. All these materials weaken when exposed to moisture, and no doubt the archers carried several spares. In extremely dry, desert conditions, the materials of bows become brittle and may not withstand the strains of use. The Mongols, whose bows were of composite construction, kept their bows in meat stores to provide moisture. "  So, that sound bad, but wait, what is the author talking about? Exposure. "...unless it's protected". Question: Do soldiers keep their weapons or ammunition exposed to the elements? Do you leave your sword out in the rain for a few days? To make it harder, let's pose the question for material that really get's hosed up instantly when it's wet. I'm sure Hegel or anyone else experienced with the handling of gunpowder  can give an answer how people kept their poo poo dry, so that they didn't have to resort to clubbing each other to death with sticks. A soldier is to maintain and care for his weapon or he fights with stones, sticks or fists, that's as true today, as it was 1.000 years ago.The funny thing is, you can keep composite bows strung for months with it losing almost no drawweigth in moderate temperature and humidity and then take the string off and put it in a warm and dry place, and it will creep back into the reflex that it had before. I leave it to you to find out what happens to a wooden bow if you keep it strung for even 2 weeks. Google "stringfollow". But...but....wood is easier to maintain! Here's how you care for a longbow that is sealed with modern varnish: http://www.yewtreearchery.co.uk/care-of-your-longbow.htm If we can agree that if we want to know something about a certain subject, it's probably not a bad idea to ask people who are occupied making these things (and then writing smart journal articles or books about it) or at least shooting them (read: properly understand and not ditching them in the backyard or close to the dog). To get back to the grand signeur, he left a bow exposed over night and wrote in Karpowicz A. (2008): Ottoman Turkish bows: manufacture and design, p.34 "The composites are often assumed to be delicate weapons and easily damaged by moisture. However, the sinew layer , as the most vulnerable to moisture was proected by bark or leather with several coats of oil paint and an oil-based varnish for waterproofing. I have used composites in wet weather and even left bows overnight in the rain with no ill consequences other than a slight degradation in performance, easily reversed by drying in a warm place." So the question that you really want to ask is, "How did soldiers protect their composite bows from moisture?" or "How do you care for a composite bow when on campaign?". Then you can go look for bowcases, oilcloth and boxes. And Russia. e: I think I'm done posting on this subject for some time. Here's a bow. 
Power Khan fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Literally bowing out 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Good post. Thanks, that was really interesting. So, archers with composite bows march with their bows strung and put in cases, and archers with self bows march with their bows unstrung and maybe wrapped in something? If they are ambushed, how long does it take to strung a bow? How about weather and crossbows? From Wikipedia about battle of Crecy: "Furthermore, the crossbowmen's weapons were damaged by the brief thunderstorm that had preceded the battle, while the longbowmen had unstrung their bows until the rain stopped – Froissart relates that they did not withdraw their bows from their covers or sheaths until the first volley from the Genoese failed" Couldn't the crossbowmen have covered their weapons to prevent this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
It's probably the strings that got damaged
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
You need to ask Rodrigo or somebody else about the procedures while marching. Stringing a longbow isn't particularly difficult if you're strong enough, but the more short and reflexed a bow gets, the more difficult and potentially dangerous it is. There are several methods to do it:  http://www.manchuarchery.org/content/composite-bow-care-and-maintenance This is from the Hidayat al-Rami, where you see the most common methods  Via a pegboard  Or via a heavy strip of cloth or silk with some loops on the ends, called "Kemend" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVPs9zRASfU You don't string a heavy hornbow quick, you need to check it for alignment afterwards and balance it, it depends how long it takes. Once you have strung it, you're grateful that you don't have to do the whole procedure constantly. In any way, any bow should not be shot directly after you string it (that doesn't mean that you can't) Bows with one or several of the following properties, much sinew or long ears, working recurves, extreme reflex or limbs that are narrow (I'd say below 2,5cm) are potentially unstable and need special care. Korean bows are a good example for this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jK7Qzd1wUY Warbows usually do not have the above characteristics or compensate with in features. E.g. Much reflex - wide limbs or narrow limbs - short and reflexed ears What you quoted probably points to problems with the strings. You can't unstring a crossbow with +800# in the field without tools or something like a bowpress. More birch bark? Look at the quiver in the upper right corner. You can also see the wrapping on the grip of the bow.  I'll copy parts of the conversation that I just had with Jaap Koppedrayer in a group on FB, since I asked about the stuff in the previous post: Jaap: Guys what you mean about testing it has been done and done and done. We were just at the museum reading Klopsteg and Harry Drake and Nagel notes. They already did. Please bring something new and dynamic to this horn bow bow. For crying out loud just study history. All your answers are there. Me: I asked about sources. It's great that those people did it, but where did they write about it? Point me to a book. Jaap: You don't need a book. Just make a bow put oil on it and see what happens. These were notes not books and by the way books won't teach you how to make bows. You have to do it and use your natural brain. Heck we have done this for 10000 of years. He's funny. Looks like a seal and is almost always grumpy. Most of his answers amount to "gently caress you, learn to make bows." Power Khan fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
quote:Question: Do soldiers keep their weapons or ammunition exposed to the elements? Do you leave your sword out in the rain for a few days? To make it harder, let's pose the question for material that really get's hosed up instantly when it's wet. I'm sure Hegel or anyone else experienced with the handling of gunpowder can give an answer how people kept their poo poo dry, so that they didn't have to resort to clubbing each other to death with sticks. A soldier is to maintain and care for his weapon or he fights with stones, sticks or fists, that's as true today, as it was 1.000 years ago. I can't speak to blackpowder, but anything from the era of modern brass cartridges (so - basically ~1870s to today) is functionally waterproof for short term exposure, with a slow trend of things getting more waterproof the closer you get to the current day as things like primer sealants and factory bullet crimping techniques get better. I wouldn't want to count on a box of ammo that was left in a bucket of water for a week to work, but if we're just talking about general rain and dampness even the most basic of precautions (like keeping it in a magazine pouch and not dunking it in water for multiple days on end) there isn't that much of a concern. To anticipate the inevitable question about videos of soldiers wading across rivers with their guns over their heads - that has more to do with the tendency of water to get trapped in narrow tubes (think of the couple of drops that always stay put in a straw) and the damage that can happen if you try to chase out relatively incompressible liquids with a bullet. You'll notice in most of those kinds of videos that the guys crossing the rivers don't give much of a poo poo about all the ammo that they're giving a quick dunk as well. I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess that they probably dont want to re-lube their weapons as well. Dunking a gun isn't going to completely prevent it from functioning, but it's going to need more lube sooner rather than later. Note that this is all from a functionality standpoint. From a condition, rust, etc. standpoint getting firearms wet really doesn't do them any favors. hunters and target shooters will go to some effort to keep their poo poo dry for this reason, and even militaries issue things like muzzle caps because rusty bores aren't really a good thing for anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
So do tanks and stuff generally move around with caps on their barrels, or are they kept ready to fire during operational manoeuvres?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
What's the approximate ratio of muzzle caps to condoms over the barrel to giving zero fucks about your gun's condition?Fangz posted:So do tanks and stuff generally move around with caps on their barrels, or are they kept ready to fire during operational manoeuvres? During strategic maneuvers, all the caps and tarps and cases are kept on, and removed before battle. Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
So, hey, question for HEY GAL here - you mentioned a while ago how the common soldier during the 30 Years War tended to believe in sorcery, and further believed that the senior officers of the army were generally wizards. Do you have any idea what those senior officers tended to think of such beliefs and what they did about it? Was it something they promoted to enhance their own reputation, or something they tried to suppress as being superstitious nonsense, something they tolerated because they felt they couldn't change it, or something they just didn't know about period?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:44
|
|
