|
they said disregarding ease of use though and what do you mean by ease of use anyway, are you including how matchlocks don't fire every now and then for reasons of their own
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:When did firearms overtake the bow in terms of performance. Disregardimy ease of use, when would 100 long bowmen be outmatched by 100 fire arms? In my opinion you're either looking at the Kentucky Rifle or the Minié Rifle. Probably around the American Civil War with the advent of the Minié Ball, would be my guess. It's hard because you can approach the question from a lot of different angles - ballistic performance, tactics, logistics, hypothetical battles, etc. In many ways the technical capabilities of firearms outpaced the techniques used to fight with them. I mean a Revolutionary War sharpshooter used a handcrafted Kentucky Rifle and and had years of experience, quite similar to that of a medieval archer - but the average Minuteman was using a stock musket and had only a few months of training. A hypothetical company of sharpshooters that were trained to fight together and armored against arrows would probably do very well against a company of archers, but that formation didn't actually exist. On the other hand, a Union company would probably wipe the floor with any force of bowmen (and the Indian Wars were a clear example of that). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini%C3%A9_rifle Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:When did firearms overtake the bow in terms of performance. Disregardimy ease of use, when would 100 long bowmen be outmatched by 100 fire arms? That's probably best answered by HEGEL, who might even be able to call out a particular war as a turning point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's probably best answered by HEGEL, who might even be able to call out a particular war as a turning point. nope, my only answer is "long after my period because every now and then matchlocks just don't fire no matter how you loving baby the thing"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nope, my only answer is "long after my period because every now and then matchlocks just don't fire no matter how you loving baby the thing" Sometimes bows gently caress up too, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The deception/ruse tactics they used during the war... holy poo poo Are you going to make a post about this too, or no? I've heard a little about the reports of fake surrender, suicide bombing, and the infamous photograph.  severed head  quote:“We came to a big opening on the beach,” Morse says, “and there was a tank with a skull on it, right near the turret. The sergeant leading the patrol looks at it and says, ‘Guys, that skull has been put there for a reason, and the Japanese have probably got mortar shells aimed right at this spot.’ A disgusting scene like that will always draw people in, and the idea, of course, was that any American troops who came along would obviously want to stop and take a look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Did any other armies have armored shields like the one above for their snipers? I would imagine not, but specialist sniper equipment isn't really my forte. I believe that in/since WWI there were quite a lot in use in some armies as 'trench shields'. The Dutch Army used loads of them in the 1940 invasion, not only for snipers but for regular riflemen as well. A lot of the shields, which were called 'infanterieschilden' were used by the Germans in the Atlantik Wall. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:When did firearms overtake the bow in terms of performance. Disregardimy ease of use, when would 100 long bowmen be outmatched by 100 fire arms? I think you might want a cut and dry quantitative answer, but I have to argue against even giving one. The question doesn't really have a satisfying answer when framed this way. What we think of as a group of archers or musketeers is only an image of archers and musketeers taken from their real historic context. It's meaningless to take that and extrapolate it to a hypothetical. So if some 30YW musketeers stood off against 100YW archers, the musketeers would come off very poorly, because archers just shoot more quickly and can nick them in the arms and legs. But of course, armies aren't just musketeers and archers. The musketeers aren't fully armoured because their compatriots who are in the melee need that armour more. Same for the archers. Transplanting them directly into this scenario creates a meaningless situation because the full picture is lost. The full picture is this: plate armour in the 15th century (Not even the 30YW's) had advanced to the point where an armoured man might be functionally invulnerable to arrows. They were also slightly bulletproof. Dress the archers and musketeers in the same gear, and the musketeers will slowly blow away the archers. I guess there is one answer to give, but there needs to be a caveat. No armour, no groups, just two guys in a field. The archer can just outshoot any guy with an unrifled musket. But Rifling is actually pretty old tech. Supposing an early rifle that's accurate out to 200m, then both guys stand a chance and it's a matter of luck. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Are you going to make a post about this too, or no? Yeah, I just like getting posts out quickly sometimes. That and they are two different topics. Molentik posted:I believe that in/since WWI there were quite a lot in use in some armies as 'trench shields'. Good to know! I'd never seen Japanese ones, and it is specifically labelled "Sniper's shields" so I assume that it wasn't used much by the regular infantry. They had several machine guns with shields as well. Actually, it should be pointed out that the US studied their qualities. VS .30 cal AP ammunition: 33 yards, 10-15 degrees: Clean penetration, and heavy flaking. 100 yards, 30 degrees: Do. (?) 200 yards, normal: Clean penetration 500 yards, normal: No penetration Not all that great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
slim jim pickens, that was an excellent post. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:slim jim pickens, that was an excellent post. Thanks, I'm at my best when desperately ignoring essay deadlines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
This thread talks way too little about fortifications. So, can someone tell me about how defensive fortifications evolved through history? What were the early priorities, how did people start building huge fuckoff walls, and what would be considered a functional defensive fortification today? For a start, I live an afternoon's walk away from this beauty:  Look at that crystal math! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Japanese Deceit Tactics of WWII According to US manual(s), the Japanese commanders relied heavily on ruses and deceit (these play a very important part of their operations) and were known to do some pretty dispicable stuff in order to kill allied troops. One such tactic would be to fake surrendering in order to get close to the enemy. The same mentality could be seen with the IJN/Aircraft pilots where, in at least one well known recording, a downed pilot is seen producing a grenade from his clothing, pulls the pin and commits suicide while US sailors can only watch on in horror. In any case, the use of ruses was quite numerous and, although most of these were used by other armies and on other fronts, it seems that the Japanese in particular are known for this behaviour. So frequent was there use that Gen. Bill Slim (of XIVth Army HQ, at the time) compiled a list of known ruses and published them in an appendix to "Notes from Theatres of War no.19: Burma 1943/44". That list will be reproduced below as-is, with some supplementary from another U.S. War Department text, with follow-up Japanese comments that I find pertinent and/or interesting. Use of British and Indian Languages On many front, the Japanese have used the language of the troops opposing them with the object of persuading them to act on false orders, encouraging them to surrender, or pin-pointing their positions. Although the enemy's accent is often bad, it has sometimes been good enough to deceive our troops. Some typical examples are given in the follow paragraphs. (a) The enemy has been heard to call out in English. 'Where is the CO?' or shout an order such as 'No. 1 Section, cease fire.' (b) In Burma, the names of units, as well as the names of officers and men have often been called out in Urdu with the intention of confusing our troops. (c) At night, a voice has been heard to shout in English, No.1 Section, by the right - advance,' which is followed by a burst of fire but no movement; or a voice may call out in bad Urdu, 'Do number section, hamla kya,' at which there is a burst of fire from the enemy, but again no movement. (d) During an attack by Bengali-speaking troops, a voice was heard calling out to them in their own language, 'Don't shoot, we are (naming the battalion concerned). Where are you?' (The answer was a burst of automatic fire.) (Supplementary) -2- English speaking Japanese have called out commands in English in order to confuse their enemy. -3- They have listened for the names of certain individuals and later called out to the by name. When the person addressed showed himself, he was shot. Use of Wounded and Dead Bodies as Decoys The Japanese sometimes leave the bodies of British and Indian soldiers, who have become casualties in previous attacks, lying on tracks or in front of their positions, and covered by machine guns. When our troops make attempts to recover the bodies, heavy fire is opened at close range. Bodies have also been seen propped up against trees or in front of the enemy's positions, apparently with the object of discovering other advancing troops. Again, a party of Japanese once lay up near one of our wounded in the hope of ambushing any troops who went out to rescue him. (Supplementary) -4- Booby traps have been fastened to dead soldiers, fused to detonate when the body is moved. -5- They have placed a dead Allied soldier in a conspicuous place and sited an automatic weapon to cover it. Thus, when Allied troops attempted to remove the body, they were shot. -6- Even when badly wounded, or apparently dead, they have produced hand grenades from their clothing and attempted to kill medical personnel who would aid them. Use of Dummies In the Chin Hills and elsewhere Japanese positions have been manned by dummy figures with dummy weapons, with the twofold object of drawing our fire or giving a false impression of their own strength. The dummies, dressed in correct uniform with steel helmets, are often very realistic. Use of Animals (a) The Japanese sometimes tether dogs near their positions. They beat and maltreat the animals so that they bark and howl whenever they hear anyone approaching, and thus give the enemy warning of the presence of our patrols. (b) Small enemy patrols have advanced towards our positions driving cows before them. On one occasion they were heard striking a wooden clapper which they removed from the neck of a cow. (c) In Northern Burma, two Japanese were once seen driving a mule ahead of them with long bamboo poles. They were advancing up a little-used jungle track and the mule's lot clearly was to spring any booby traps that might have been laid on the path. Use of Noise (a) In all theatres the Japanese have made much use of noise to deceive and demoralize our troops. For example, bullets that explode on impact have been fired over the heads of our troops (the sound of explosions coming from behind and from the flanks is apt to deceive inexperienced troops into thinking they have been surrounded). (b) To give the impression of greater firepower, the Japanese have been known to imitate the noise of machine guns either with wooden rattles or by beating two bamboo sticks together. (c) Chinese crackers thrown into our positions at night, mortar bombs bursting with a loud explosion, and rattling rifle bolts are some of the devices that have been employed to give an impression of strength and lower the morale of our troops in the hope of causing them to withdraw prematurely. (d) From the SW Pacific it has been reported that the Japanese have kept absolute silence while they have been moving forward to take up their positions, but that when they have reached their objective they have made as much noise as they could in order to suggest that they are a larger force than they actually were. Similarly, enemy troops making a frontal advance have created a noise in order to cover the silent move towards the flank of the main attacking force. (Supplementary) -1- Lighted cigarettes, firecrackers, mvoing vehicles, and barking dogs were used opposite one of the beaches on Singapore Island to lead the defenders to believe that the main attack would be made at that point. -8- They used firecrackers to simulate machine gun fire. -11- They shake the bushes by ropes or other means in order to draw hostile fire and so locate gun positions. Use of Uniforms and Civilian Clothing (a) Japanese patrols have been seen wearing British uniforms and Gurkha-style hats with the object of deceiving our troops into believing that they are a friendly patrol. (b) During attempts to infiltrate through our positions the enemy have sometimes adopted the dress of the local villagers, and un Burma, Japanese have been seen wearing lungis (loincloths) and the yellow robes of priests. Use of Our Own Troops as Decoys (a) In New Guinea, Japanese advancing against our positions would sometimes turn and flee when they met machine gun fire. With their usual cry of "After the bastards", the Australians would rush forward with bayonets fixed. Almost immediately the fleeing Japanese threw themselves to the ground and the Australians ran into withering machine gun fire from the Japanese rear. (b) The enemy once made an attempt to draw our troops into the same trap in the Chin Hills, when Japanese were seen running away during an attack, shouting and screaming and displaying every sign of panic. But our troops were wise to the ruse and resisted the temptation to walk into a possible ambush. (c) Another trick which the Japanese often attempted was to cut our signal lines and then set an ambush for the repair party, or wait for it with snipers. (The enemy is not the only one to carry out this form of ambush, and on several occasions our troops have used the same method to ensnare him.) (d) The Japanese take infinite pains to encourage their enemy to disclose the locations of their artillery and machine gun positions. Besides their usual tactics of firing Verey lights, flashing lamps, creating noises near our positions, and firing indiscriminate bursts from machine guns, they are sometimes prepared to risk casualties in order to draw our fire. (Supplementary) -9- They will expose themselves deliberately in an attempt to get their enemy to fire and thus disclose the location of his positions. -10- In one case, a wave of Japanese skirmishers turned and fled. The Allied troops pursued and suddenly the retreating Japanese threw themselves on the ground. At this moment, heavy machine gun fire opened up on the Allied troops from the Japanese rear. Civilians Forcibly Employed to Allay Suspicion Quite apart from the use of "Fifth Columnists", the Japanese do not hesitate to compel the local population to help them. They often employ villagers as guides, and in the Arakan natives have been posted on tracks to watch and give warning of the approach of our patrols. Again, civilians have been forced to drive private cars to bridges that we have prepared for demolition so that Japanese hidden in the cars could shoot up the troops guarding them. During the 1942 campaign in Burma the enemy carried out moves in daylight covered by Burmans whom they compelled to drive bullock carts in which Japanese and their arms were concealed. Deception with Artillery Fire When our troops have been advancing supported by a creeping artillery barrage, the Japanese have more than once put down artillery fire immediately in front of or among our troops with the object of creating the impression that our shells were falling short. The intention here is to destroy confidence of our troops in their own artillery, and discourage them from pressing home their attack. Booby Traps and Decoys (a) Besides using the usual rattling tin cans and laying trip-wires across paths and in front of positions, the Japanese show considerable ingenuity in planning boobytraps and decoys. Articles of equipment and clothing found in areas frequented by our patrols, or where the enemy has been contacted, may be so wired that they will detonate a grenade when they are touched; or a fallen tree may be so placed across a road or jungle path that it will explode a mine when it is removed. (b) Sometimes a number of empty cartridge cases or articles of equipment have been left strewn about on a track with the object of tempting our troops to remove them and thus disclose to the enemy the fact that we have recently passed through the area. Alternatively, this ruse is used to encourage our troops to halt and gather around the spot where the articles are found and, in doing so, provide the target for an ambush. (c) While searches were being made for enemy documents in the SW Pacific area, it was discovered that the Japanese were using a new type of booby trap with buried documents. A hole, partly filled in, was found to contain three haversacks full of documents and underneath them, mortar bombs, set to explode if they were struck by a spade or heavy instrument. Deceit (a) The enemy often uses small parties of men to move about his area and show themselves from time to time in order to confuse our observers and present a picture of greater strength than he actually possesses. This ruse is often adopted to create the impression that all his dug positions are occupied, whereas in fact he had not the resources to man more than a few of them. (b) Pretending to surrender, Japanese have approached our positions with both hands above their heads and, when only a short distance away, have tossed a grenade towards our troops from each raised hand. Similarly, they have used the white flag of truce to enable them to approach close to our forces in safety. (c) In order to draw our artillery fire the Japanese have sometimes sent patrols to light fires in an area some distance from their own positions. The smoke rising from these fires, by giving the impression that enemy troops are located in that area, encourages our artillery to open fire and disclose their positions. (Supplementary) -7- They have used the while flag of truce to get close to their enemy for combat purposes. Use of Civilians to Give Warning of Patrols (a) When our patrols have reached certain villages on the west bank of the Chindwin they have noticed that some of the villagers have immediately moved down to the river and made a pretence of washing red lungis, which they then place on the bank to dry. The villagers have been ordered by the Japanese to do this 'washing' in order to give warning to their OPs on the east bank of the rpesence of our patrols. After the patrols have left the area of the village, the information is conveyed to the east bank by a display of white clothing. (b) In the Arakan, villagers have been placed by the Japanese in front of their posts to act as sentries and give warning of the approach of British patrols. They have been forced to cooperate in this way under threat of reprisals against their families. False Orders Issued by Wireless In the Arakan, false orders have been issued by wireless. One of our units, which had been ordered to move to a certain area, received a bogus wireless message which cancelled the first instruction and ordered it to proceed to an entirely different area. In the main, however, the Japanese seldom attempt to pass false orders; their aim was chiefly to cause delay to our communications and confusion among our operators. So what did the Japanese think of the Allies by October, 1944? a. The Australians and Americans are better trained and equipped than their 'former enemies.' b. When making frontal attacks, it is essential to neutralize Allied firepower. c. The enemy (Allies) have great firepower. On defense they try to annihilate us before we enter their position. Sometimes they withdraw gradually and then bring heavy concentrations of artillery and mortar fire on us. It is essential to keep close on their heels; breaking through the heavy concentration in front of the enemy's position is difficult, but once through it the attack becomes unexpectedly easy. d. Plan to split the Allied advance through the use of artillery and machine guns, and counterattack to destroy the divided groups. e. Allied artillery is accurate. Positions constructed of coconut logs will stand up under mortar and light artillery fire, but will be destroyed by delay-fused shells and "rapid fire guns". f. Allied troops make good use of the correct approach and do not open the attack except at extremely short range. Therefore, the Japanese should clear lanes of fire for about 50 yards in front of their position. g. The Allied troops take limited objectives then halt to reorganize before continuing the attack. h. The Japanese are cautioned against replying to the fire of patrols as this discloses their gun positions. i. The Allies attempt to hold frontally and envelop; the Japanese are advised to "envelop the envelopment". j. Infiltration is regarded as easy, because Allied outposts are not located at regular intervals and are often far apart. k. Allied outposts can be located by seraching out the wire communications leading into them. l. Australians are excellent guerrilla fighers. m. When two patrols meet unexpectedly, the Japanese think that a few rifle shots or bursts from a light machine gun will rout the enemy. n. Troops are instructed to concentrate on the personnel carrying automatic weapons as these are regarded as leaders. o. Dawn and dusk, especially during rain, are considered by the Japanese as the best times for launching attacks because the enemy have tents over their trenches and are not alert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:n. Troops are instructed to concentrate on the personnel carrying automatic weapons as these are regarded as leaders. Does this make any sense? I would have thought the responsibility of operating a support weapon would distract and detract from an NCO's ability to command.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Does this make any sense? I would have thought the responsibility of operating a support weapon would distract and detract from an NCO's ability to command. It could refer to submachine guns, which would make sense. Edit: The text that comment comes from makes no mention of what kind of automatic weapon, so I have no clue if it refers to any, or a specific sub-set, of automatic weapon(s).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:It could refer to submachine guns, which would make sense. The officers hog them because they're lighter than hauling a rifle around?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:The officers hog them because they're lighter than hauling a rifle around? I wouldn't say hog; prioritized maybe? In the jungle, you're going to want something smaller and lighter so you've either got an M1 Carbine or an M1 Thomspon (Or if you're unlucky, an M1 Garand). Since anything else that was larger would be incredibly heavy, and impractical to run around with in a command position, I'm forced to assume they refer to submachine guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Yeah, it's kind of Gentle redirection doesn't work when someone is trying to punch you on the chin/choke you out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:21
|
|
when you consider that the entire rest of the art that you are learning up until getting your hands on a weapon is about gentle redirection.
|
my dad posted:what would be considered a functional defensive fortification today? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I learned sword when I did Chinese martial arts and their big thing was always No Why Are You Parrying What Are You Doing Wrong. You were always supposed to go Things that kill > Disable the weapon > Okay fine we'll consider parrying (why do you suck?). Conversely, when Antonio Manciolino wrote about the single-handed sword and buckler in the early 16th century, his first defence against a strike to the head is a cut to the incoming hand. It's only way later in the book he goes into detail on the binds. I'm writing this from a dueling standpoint instead of a military one, so maybe we should take this to the fencing thread instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:nope, my only answer is "long after my period because every now and then matchlocks just don't fire no matter how you loving baby the thing" Surely the answer is 'the 16th century', because that's when this actually happened. Henry VIII still had longbowmen, Elizabeth didn't, and this change happened for a reason. Even if it's just logistics or 'it's easier to train people to use muskets than bows' (which it was), that's still a perfectly valid reason - having 100 longbowmen doesn't do you much good if your opponent has 500 musketeers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Someone asked how you mine a paved road; well this was posted in Eastern Europe politics thread... That's like 60kg of TNT in those. And laid that close to each other it would all go off at once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:That's like 60kg of TNT in those. And laid that close to each other it would all go off at once. The purpose being to also leave a bloody great crater to stop the rest of the convoy getting through?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Someone asked how you mine a paved road; well this was posted in Eastern Europe politics thread... That's pretty boss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:The purpose being to also leave a bloody great crater to stop the rest of the convoy getting through? Possibly. Or maybe they just thought that digging them into 2-3 rows would be too much 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Surely the answer is 'the 16th century', because that's when this actually happened. Henry VIII still had longbowmen, Elizabeth didn't, and this change happened for a reason. Even if it's just logistics or 'it's easier to train people to use muskets than bows' (which it was), that's still a perfectly valid reason - having 100 longbowmen doesn't do you much good if your opponent has 500 musketeers. Hmm. Or you could argue that Elizabeth didn't have any major land wars going and didn't expect to be getting into one, which means the continual expenditure in terms of training to maintain an archer force didn't make any sense any more. Especially considering how Elizabeth inherited a terrible financial situation. Fangz fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Hmm. Or you could argue that Elizabeth didn't have any major land wars going and didn't expect to be getting into one, which means the continual expenditure in terms of training to maintain an archer force didn't make any sense any more. Especially considering how Elizabeth inherited a terrible financial situation. Um, the Spanish Armada would like a word with you. But I meant more in general that post-Henry-VIII whenever England put an army together it didn't feel the need to staff it mostly with longbowmen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Um, the Spanish Armada would like a word with you. But I meant more in general that post-Henry-VIII whenever England put an army together it didn't feel the need to staff it mostly with longbowmen. The Spanish Armada was not a land war. EDIT: Anyway, my basic claim is that there's a difference here between pre-Elizabethan kings, who tended to entertain some fantasy of surging out of Calais, and carving out some part of mainland europe, and the situation afterwards where the English had no more european possessions, and which limited themselves mainly to small expeditionary forces to assist one side or another in some current crisis. And this saw the Navy (originating in this period) as the main part of the defence of the kingdom. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The Spanish Armada was not a land war. I dunno, it certainly finished up as one!  This is a long and excellent post, but I wonder how any cynical fellows might be easily able to verify its accuracy for themselves without having to go to too much trouble? quote:(a) In New Guinea, Japanese advancing against our positions would sometimes turn and flee when they met machine gun fire. With their usual cry of "After the bastards", the Australians would rush forward with bayonets fixed. Ah, that'll do nicely. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The Spanish Armada was not a land war. Dude, it was an attempt to land an invading army in England. The English government didn't know that they would fail to do that. That famous speech about the body of a weak and feeble woman? It was delivery to the English Army at Tilbury.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I guess there is one answer to give, but there needs to be a caveat. No armour, no groups, just two guys in a field. So, i'm going to disagree with you here. Even early firearms were reasonably accurate at a close range with aimed fire, but they were not often used this way, instead in drills focusing on rate of fire. Archers are not actually more accurate when firing at the long range because at long range they're just loosing arrows into the air, hoping to land in an area. A lot of archers throughout history did not use their bows this way and tended to instead use them as direct fire weapons and in many ways they were inferior to firearms at this role. For example, the Japanese Yumi was primarily a skirmisher's weapon- used by horse archers and it was almost entirely replaced in Japanese warfare with the introduction of matchlocks. Ease of use had a lot less to do with it than people think- most soldiers of that period were trained professionals and could've gotten good with bows. There are just a lot of practical ways crossbows and firearms are more effective than bows- reload time isn't everything. Oh, and, of course, the general improvement in armor during the late medieval-early renaissance period pressured armies to adopt weapons better against armor, like crossbows and firearms. In another example, Native Americans in the Eastern US ditched their bows for the trash-tier trade muskets the French sold them whenever they could. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Ease of use had a lot less to do with it than people think- most soldiers of that period were trained professionals and could've gotten good with bows. For the longbow in particular there's actual physical development over time to worry about too, though, not just skill. There are skeletons of archers from the Mary Rose and they look like hunchbacks because the body had physically adapted to the muscular needs of the bow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Dude, it was an attempt to land an invading army in England. The English government didn't know that they would fail to do that. That famous speech about the body of a weak and feeble woman? It was delivery to the English Army at Tilbury. The English Army at Tilbury was a force of 5000 facing a force of over 55,000. Prior to the Queen's visit the Queen's Privy Council were already planning to disband the camp. The main effort was very much the naval interception, not whatever small force they can scrape together at the last minute as a last-ditch measure. EDIT: I think the specifics here are less important than the overall trend, which is that of the diminishing importance of the army and the rise of the navy in this period, together with changes in English strategic ambitions. When I implied that previous monarchs 'expected' to get into a major land war, I meant that they expected (or hoped) on some level to *launch* such a war themselves, usually to seize the French crown. Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Gentle redirection doesn't work when someone is trying to punch you on the chin/choke you out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I think you might want a cut and dry quantitative answer, but I have to argue against even giving one. Fyi, the bow was one of the main weapons of the ottoman army who faced these heavily armored imperial armies - it was in the aftermath of the battle of lepanto in 1571 that firearms officially took it's place. In 1683 you still see soldiers armed with bows. So either they were short on muskets and they had to make do somehow, or their archery had some use in the context of their system of warfare. One of the last books that I read on the ottomans claimed that it was the sipahi who resisted firearms the longest, as they didn't take any of the traditionally valued skills and the smoke would stain their fancy garments (which seemed to rank pretty high on the list of important things). e: Just to preempt stuff like the imagery of hollywood that seems to have been imprinted on people's minds how archery was used, they weren't shooting from several hundred meters away, but basically from pointblank. Not more than 30m. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:For the longbow in particular there's actual physical development over time to worry about too, though, not just skill. There are skeletons of archers from the Mary Rose and they look like hunchbacks because the body had physically adapted to the muscular needs of the bow. This is specifically for war bows capable of punching through armour. A hunting bow with a lighter pull can be used by anyone with a bit of practice, but works badly against anyone with any kind of protection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Never tried the second, but it does for the first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Siivola posted:I've understood a big part of boxing is gently parrying the fist coming at your chin. If Bones is to be believed future archaeologists will be able to tell that we're all nerds from the repeated mild impact caused deformations on our fingertips. VVVV Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:For the longbow in particular there's actual physical development over time to worry about too, though, not just skill. There are skeletons of archers from the Mary Rose and they look like hunchbacks because the body had physically adapted to the muscular needs of the bow. People often quote the archer's skeletons as if that's something out of the ordinary. These men weren't hunchbacks or seriously deformed. Modern warbow shooters aren't either. Just yesterday I've spoken to Hegel and she told me about the Wittstock mass graves and how you can tell who did what by looking at the bones. The body also adapts to alot of riding, so you can tell if a person spent most of his time in the saddle. It's nothing unusual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
Siivola posted:I think the dimensions of the longsword are, at least in part, the reason why. It's slow to redirect compared to a single-handed one, but also long and pointy. Binds are what happens when you try to hit the other person dead, but she puts her sword between you and threatens to hit you if you don't react properly. Or, conversely, when you go to parry but can't quite smack the sword clear. The way I see it, the bind is essentially a jostle for the center, and the various techniques are a way to control the opponent's sword, move it aside and kill 'em dead safely. Many German masters recommend to use the blade of your own sword to both control and strike, Fiore prefers a more hands-on grappling approach. HEY GAL posted:nope, my only answer is "long after my period because every now and then matchlocks just don't fire no matter how you loving baby the thing" HEY GAL posted:i successfully got drunk with peter wilson...and he likes my project
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:50
|
|
