|
Koesj posted:You mean the English?
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I made it 3 minutes 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What's the term for English weeaboos, because that longbow article's writers are that: weeabows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:32
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
HEY GAL posted:germanosphere A good nickname for Hermann Göring.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What's the term for English weeaboos, because that longbow article's writers are that: On second glance that map uh, has a few problems. The fact that it comes from a UK government page might explain the short shrift it gives the French Crown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not to mention the longbow actually originated in Wales, which was also not exactly a model of security. The longbow was pan-European. There are examples going back to the neolithic era. Koesj posted:You mean the English? OHHHHHHHHHH Squalid posted:On second glance that map uh, has a few problems. The fact that it comes from a UK government page might explain the short shrift it gives the French Crown. They deliberately chose times when Royal French power was particularly weak lmao. This is England's "Greater Srbija"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:The longbow was pan-European. There are examples going back to the neolithic era. I think Otzi the Iceman was found with a longbow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:weeabows. We have a winner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What's the term for English weeaboos, because that longbow article's writers are that: teaboo edit: dammit Hegel
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:teaboo lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Just in time for longbowchat. I got the chance to shoot some bows lately, and discovered it's crazy hard to keep a non-curved bow drawn when you aim. I think i shot over a dozen times and hit the target once. How strong was the draw on historical warbows and were the bowmen just medieval equivalent of bodybuilders? Also how tough on a historical scale i am for managing a shot on a 90 pound draw longbow? (my back is killing me)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:germanosphere is the word english speakers use to say deutsche sprachgebiet and i giggle every time i say it allemanosphere, if you'd prefer
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:How strong was the draw on historical warbows and were the bowmen just medieval equivalent of bodybuilders? Stronk as gently caress, and yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:Just in time for longbowchat. The draw on medieval english longbows was probably over 100 lbs, potentially ~200. They were in fact the equivalent of bodybuilders in the sense that excavated skeletons of archers show signs of skeletal warping due to the extensive, long-term training they received. Stuff like joint deformations and evidence of RSI. In plain terms, the life of an archer turned these guys into fiddler crabs: quote:In fact, on one of the skeletons we have looked at, the surface area of the joint between the lower arm and elbow is 48% larger than on the joint on the other arm. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-17309665 That said, 90lbs isn't anything to sneeze at. These guys trained from probably their teens through adulthood and over a good couple decades or more they built the muscles, skeletal structure, and technique which made it more routine to just arc an arrow into a moving target at 100+ yards. On a historical scale no, probably not that tough, but you weren't FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The draw on medieval english longbows was probably over 100 lbs, potentially ~200. They were in fact the equivalent of bodybuilders in the sense that excavated skeletons of archers show signs of skeletal warping due to the extensive, long-term training they received. Stuff like joint deformations and evidence of RSI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
Is there any good historical data for how fast a longbowman (or any other archers) could actually shoot over a sustained period of time. That 12 arrows a minute figure that crops up all over the place seems to be based on the idea of a bowman shooting as fast as he can, and not caring what sort of condition he was in after the minute was up. Presumably if there are enemies headed your way, you don't want to be knackered when they arrive? I'd be interested to know how the arrows an hour figure compares to crossbows, and if the bow is actually so superior to other options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Is there any good historical data for how fast a longbowman (or any other archers) could actually shoot over a sustained period of time. That 12 arrows a minute figure that crops up all over the place seems to be based on the idea of a bowman shooting as fast as he can, and not caring what sort of condition he was in after the minute was up. Presumably if there are enemies headed your way, you don't want to be knackered when they arrive? If you're a bowman and the enemy arrives at all, knackered or not knackered you're probably hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:A large Franco-Castilian raiding force made up of crossbowmen, shield bearers, and men-at-arms soundly defeated a similarly sized English force comprised primarily of longbowmen outside Poole in 1404. Do you have more info on this? I live right near Poole and know nothing about it. Doesn't some of the Longbow > crossbow come from Crecy where the Longbows obliterated the Genoese Crossbowmen. I always thought their reputation stemmed from that engagement and turned into a sort of Trafalgar thing in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Splode posted:If you're a bowman and the enemy arrives at all, knackered or not knackered you're probably hosed. Not really. They're not RTS units, these guys would be carrying a range of melee weapons from shortswords and daggers to axes and cudgels. At Agincourt the longbowmen were noted for joining in the melee after they'd shot through their ammunition and the implication is that as a light and fresh force acting to lengthen the English line against a compact and exausted French formation they performed pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Not really. They're not RTS units, these guys would be carrying a range of melee weapons from shortswords and daggers to axes and cudgels. Well, it depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? Already-exhausted, floundering in the mud French knights? Yeah, they can probably help murder those dudes. Fresh French knights on horseback actually charging into them? Those axes and cudgels won't do them much good, they're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Is there any good historical data for how fast a longbowman (or any other archers) could actually shoot over a sustained period of time. That 12 arrows a minute figure that crops up all over the place seems to be based on the idea of a bowman shooting as fast as he can, and not caring what sort of condition he was in after the minute was up. Presumably if there are enemies headed your way, you don't want to be knackered when they arrive? I don't know about the 15th Century but Sir John Smythe wrote in the 16th that an archer could fire 5/6 arrows for each shot made by an arquebusier. This incredibly accurate youtube clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD6SbAzdvc8 shows an aquebus being fired about every 20 seconds, which would suggest an archer could fire about 15-18 arrows per minute. No idea how accurate that is but Edward II ordered 2,600,000 arrows before invading France which implies that he expected his archers to go through arrows very quickly. PlantHead fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
The Book Fair is coming next week and I'm asking for Heer memoir recommendations. I'd ask for other book recommendations, too, but Lithuania seems to be mostly interested in Eastern Front Heer memoirs, because it happened here, maaan. Not Soviet memoirs, because anyone who might be interested in those might also be registering on lgmcouchsurfing.narod.ru or something. Or I can just buy the
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbYWkegobTU 100 Years Ago Another day of nothing at Verdun for the tension to build and Germans to desert. The Ypres salient is a hive of activity: the Chief is in town for an interview without coffee with General Plumer, Colonel Swinton continues trying to organise the Tank Detachment despite myriad petty annoyances (and some incredibly important ones), Henri Desagneaux takes up command of his new company (he's effectively now the 6th Battalion's equivalent of Captain Cros-Mayrevielle), Malcolm White is being sent as a replacement to the 4th Rifle Brigade, Evelyn Southwell (8th Rifle Brigade) gets inspected by Haig and Plumer on their way round (I do enjoy it when correspondents end up in the way of something else I'm talking about), and Edward Mousley brings us a detailed description of what it's like to be in an air raid. Particularly harrowing when you consider his final observation. quote:Now, a Supply & Transport wallah sprinting for cover is considered, not being a combatant, quite in order, but an infantry officer not so. As for an artillery officer, he is supposed to be so used to high explosives that if the table and everything thereon blows up while he is drinking his cup of coffee, he must nevertheless not take the cup from his lips until he has drained it dry. He's perhaps exaggerating here. But only || that much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Not really. They're not RTS units, these guys would be carrying a range of melee weapons from shortswords and daggers to axes and cudgels. The longbowmen at Agincourt were armored with at least a helmet and mail shirt and possibly more depending on the soldier, and they would have had swords and shields/bucklers. Fully armored men-at-arms, yeah that's not good odds, but against anything else they were fine. the longbow was not used like in the movies where they just aimed super high and hoped to hit something, they were shooting drat near level a lot of the time, and the enemy would not have been tremendously far away. However they were not front line troops because their value was in their ability to shoot longbows not stab people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The longbowmen at Agincourt were armored with at least a helmet and mail shirt and possibly more depending on the soldier, and they would have had swords and shields/bucklers. Fully armored men-at-arms, yeah that's not good odds, but against anything else they were fine. the longbow was not used like in the movies where they just aimed super high and hoped to hit something, they were shooting drat near level a lot of the time, and the enemy would not have been tremendously far away. Also, here's a 12th century account from a Welshman (per Wiki, citing Itinerarium Cambriae, 1191) by the name of Gerard: quote:In the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. Now there was a fair chance this was a bodkin point so penetration was what it was made for, but it literally nailed the guy's thigh to his horse, which was killed as a result of the wound as well. Training or not, advancing into that kind of fire probably did a number on unit cohesion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:How strong was the draw on historical warbows and were the bowmen just medieval equivalent of bodybuilders? The latest research these days points to about a 150lb draw being the top end. They were not bodybuilders in any unique sense, when nearly every weapon of the era required strength to use. The only real exception is windlass or cannequin-spanned crossbows. However, even in the early 15th century, according to El Victorial crossbowmen that spanned their weapon with a belt were preferred at least some of the time. They had to have very strong legs if they wished to shoot something with even a hope of penetrating armour. Also you don't hold the arrow back to aim, that will always tire you. Drawing and shooting is done in a continuous motion. FAUXTON posted:On a historical scale no, probably not that tough, but you weren't conscripted by a fief lord to start learning archery around the time you started growing facial hair, either. It's not conscription, and it's not administered by the local lord. Mr Enderby posted:Is there any good historical data for how fast a longbowman (or any other archers) could actually shoot over a sustained period of time. That 12 arrows a minute figure that crops up all over the place seems to be based on the idea of a bowman shooting as fast as he can, and not caring what sort of condition he was in after the minute was up. Presumably if there are enemies headed your way, you don't want to be knackered when they arrive? Even the slowest-loading crossbows could shoot about 3 times a minute. https://youtu.be/WEOeZTV9wiA I've read a rundown of how longbowmen would shoot (IE volley or fire at will) but cannot remember it for sure. I know, however that mass of arrowfire was extremely important to making longbowmen tactically effective. Not only does this have a demoralizing effect but it slows your enemy's advance and, at Agincourt, causes a bunching effect, where the men push closer together. The result is that the guys in the middle are squeezed and suffocate. Froissart mentions this. As the enemy gets closer and your trajectory levels out, you aim for the face which, if they've had a long and difficult march to get to you, will be uncovered so they can breathe. PlantHead posted:Do you have more info on this? I live right near Poole and know nothing about it. I'll come back to this later today, but it's in Gutierre Diaz de Gamez's El Victorial quote:Doesn't some of the Longbow > crossbow come from Crecy where the Longbows obliterated the Genoese Crossbowmen. I always thought their reputation stemmed from that engagement and turned into a sort of Trafalgar thing in Europe. It predates this, to a degree. Edward III and one of his generals developed the tactics that made the longbow effective in the wars against the Scots, Halidon Hill being the exemplary case. To whit: Draw your enemy into battle against your prepared, v-shaped position (where it is hard to be flanked, there are obstacles such as stakes in front of your archers, and ideally you are on a hill) and wear them down with arrows then finish off your exhausted opponent with men-at-arms. Crecy is the first time it happened on the continent, which is why it is so remembered, but there are many other examples. This tactical set puts huge advantages on the side of the English, so it is easy to see why it was effective. There was a tactical plan to defeat it, and Christine de Pizan has what we believe was a copy of the French battle plan (which they subsequently ignored) at Agincourt. The best way to get them though was when they could not choose and prepare their ground, like at Baugé, but that is just good tactics. feedmegin posted:Well, it depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? Already-exhausted, floundering in the mud French knights? Yeah, they can probably help murder those dudes. Fresh French knights on horseback actually charging into them? Those axes and cudgels won't do them much good, they're hosed. The array of stakes at Agincourt basically prevented any direct charge (though there was some possibility of a flank attack, if de Pizan's diagram is to be believed, but that is ultimately irrelevant). The knights needn't even be French, nor indeed that we'll armoured. It was only a small contingent of about 100 knights that destroyed the English bowmen at Bannockburn, and allowed the rather lightly armoured schiltrons to grind down the English footsoldiers instead of getting enfiladed. WoodrowSkillson posted:the longbow was not used like in the movies where they just aimed super high and hoped to hit something, they were shooting drat near level a lot of the time, and the enemy would not have been tremendously far away. No. This is wrong. High-angle fire was even done with crossbows. Why would you delay in harassing your enemy when range is one of your main advantages?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:
I meant only that. You would not rush to fire all of your arrows in a couple minutes at the bows maximum possible range and then have nothing for when the bow is at its most powerful. Harassing and making him get very very nervous about the next arrow catching in the breath of his visor makes total sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I meant only that. You would not rush to fire all of your arrows in a couple minutes at the bows maximum possible range and then have nothing for when the bow is at its most powerful. Harassing and making him get very very nervous about the next arrow catching in the breath of his visor makes total sense. To follow up on this, would there be more force behind the arrowhead at the end of a high-angle ballistic arc versus low-angle fire? Or were aerodynamics and bows advanced to the point where they were firing the arrows above terminal velocity (and thus faster than they could ever get via gravity)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:To follow up on this, would there be more force behind the arrowhead at the end of a high-angle ballistic arc versus low-angle fire? no
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:Just in time for longbowchat. Do you mean that you haven't got a history of archery and then go to shoot a 90# bow? You're lucky that you didn't do lasting damage to your shoulders or rotator cuffs. Did you even warm up? You don't ever start with anything else than 30, maybe 40# if you're a strong guy. Shooting heavy bows is more a question of technique than strenght. Strong people might be able to pull, but they don't hit anything. There's the difference between a bow-puller and an arrow shooter. Bodybuilders? No. Meet Joe. He likes to shoot heavy bows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY About speed shooting Middle eastern speed shooting techniques got more attention lately, as horsearchery is picking up in popularity. I've never taken any interest in it so far, but there's a reference to what was expected of a fully trained archer in Saracen Archery p.138 quote:Quickness and ease in using your hands are a commendable asset in battle. If you wish to determine your dexterity and rate of shooting, you take three arrows and stand and shoot over sixty bows' distance. If you can shoot the third and only see the dust of the first after that third arrow has already left your hand, you are fast enough. If you can't, you must practise holding the arrows all together between your fingers and shoot in this way. You keep on practising until you achieve your goal On p. 142 they calculated how fast that is (3 arrows in 1,5 seconds), but the arrow speeds are likely too slow, so they're even faster at shooting 3 arrows. That is....alot... with a warbow  I don't think anyone today is advanced enough to do that with 120#. Shooting with a ring, you can hold 3 arrows in the locking hand, which will speed up the whole process substantially. The technique to do that is described in the texts. There are some people in the horsearcher crowd that are really fast or strong, but the sport doesn't have a large number of people in it, nor is there any benefit to shoot a heavy bow within the current set of disciplines/rules. Training for the warbow is a substantial effort. The only person that I know of that can do it mounted is Gökmen Altinkulp. English warbow shooters are far more numerous, but it's also not a mainstream thing. You don't even need to bother to google for speed shooting, as almost any video on the issue is a geyser of stupid poo poo. Mihai Cozmei is one of the best horsearchers there is atm, and also really fast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR5Bbq7s-GA About the bow vs. crossbow stuff, there's an arrow guide called Majra that enables you to shoot back crossbow bolts with the bow. The Koreans had a similar device.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:To follow up on this, would there be more force behind the arrowhead at the end of a high-angle ballistic arc versus low-angle fire? Or were aerodynamics and bows advanced to the point where they were firing the arrows above terminal velocity (and thus faster than they could ever get via gravity)? That's just physics - it's impossible to shoot something upwards so that it's moving faster when it comes back down (unless you shoot downhill).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:To follow up on this, would there be more force behind the arrowhead at the end of a high-angle ballistic arc versus low-angle fire? Or were aerodynamics and bows advanced to the point where they were firing the arrows above terminal velocity (and thus faster than they could ever get via gravity)? Terminal velocity just means how fast an object falls as limited by air resistance. Objects fired on ballistic trajectories are always moving faster than terminal velocity. In other words, if you shoot an arrow or bullet at a 45 degree angle, when it hits the ground (or its target) at the end of its flight it will be moving a whole lot faster than terminal velocity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
I've got a bit of a (another) question on the Eastern Front and I'm not sure how possible it is to answer it. But generally did the upper command of the Wehrmacht actually believe they could win in this invasion and actually put the Soviets down? I know looking back they look absolutely bonkers for trying it and they were doomed to lose the War overall. I mean I know Hitler is a mentalist but was the attitude of the Wehrmacht generals more of a "welp this is my orders" or did they actually believe they could win?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:I've got a bit of a (another) question on the Eastern Front and I'm not sure how possible it is to answer it. But generally did the upper command of the Wehrmacht actually believe they could win in this invasion and actually put the Soviets down? I know looking back they look absolutely bonkers for trying it and they were doomed to lose the War overall. I mean I know Hitler is a mentalist but was the attitude of the Wehrmacht generals more of a "welp this is my orders" or did they actually believe they could win? This is an enormously complex question, but at least initially, yeah, they thought they could do it. Soon enough HItlers meddling and the growing Soviet military capacity would sow doubts, but in general the Wehrmacht was an extremely capable force and had confidence in their troops and equipment. Also, at least some generals were also fanatical anti-communists, and believed the nazi propaganda claims that the entire nation would fall like a house of cards once Moscow was taken and Soviet leaders dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Tias posted:This is an enormously complex question, but at least initially, yeah, they thought they could do it. Soon enough HItlers meddling and the growing Soviet military capacity would sow doubts, but in general the Wehrmacht was an extremely capable force and had confidence in their troops and equipment. Also, at least some generals were also fanatical anti-communists, and believed the nazi propaganda claims that the entire nation would fall like a house of cards once Moscow was taken and Soviet leaders dead. Not to mention France actually did fall like a house of cards (and Britain's army got chased off the continent with its tail between its legs). Not surprising they at least thought it possible lightning could strike twice, especially considering what happened to Russia in World War 1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Terminal velocity just means how fast an object falls as limited by air resistance. Objects fired on ballistic trajectories are always moving faster than terminal velocity. In other words, if you shoot an arrow or bullet at a 45 degree angle, when it hits the ground (or its target) at the end of its flight it will be moving a whole lot faster than terminal velocity. Yes, but still significantly less than its initial velocity, due mostly to drag as it goes through the air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not to mention France actually did fall like a house of cards (and Britain's army got chased off the continent with its tail between its legs). Not surprising they at least thought it possible lightning could strike twice, especially considering what happened to Russia in World War 1. Yeah, I was actually going to include "and Wehrmact leadership was high off the recent victories against Belgium, France and Poland", but I don't actually know how much this is true. A lot of luck went into the blitzkrieg going as smoothly as it did, and so the generals may or may not have known that Russia wasn't going to be as easy. Can anyone elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Tias posted:This is an enormously complex question, but at least initially, yeah, they thought they could do it. Soon enough HItlers meddling and the growing Soviet military capacity would sow doubts, but in general the Wehrmacht was an extremely capable force and had confidence in their troops and equipment. Also, at least some generals were also fanatical anti-communists, and believed the nazi propaganda claims that the entire nation would fall like a house of cards once Moscow was taken and Soviet leaders dead. 
Flipswitch fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
It's also very easy and comforting to make yourself believe that "if [RESPECTED FIGURE] says [IMPOSSIBLE TASK] can be done, then by golly we're going to give it the old college try!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Flipswitch posted:I've got a bit of a (another) question on the Eastern Front and I'm not sure how possible it is to answer it. But generally did the upper command of the Wehrmacht actually believe they could win in this invasion and actually put the Soviets down? I know looking back they look absolutely bonkers for trying it and they were doomed to lose the War overall. I mean I know Hitler is a mentalist but was the attitude of the Wehrmacht generals more of a "welp this is my orders" or did they actually believe they could win? They underestimated the RKKA's ability to raise reserves by something like a factor of 10, so yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:10
|
|
