Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: One Ronin <ronin@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows(AndrewS, this bud's for you......)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:11:17 PST
<Snip my response about the .45 bouncing off the plate armor.>

>
> >b) the high powered rifle made a small dent
>
>> Again, I'd have to see for myself. A true high powered rifle >>would
be shooting a 7.62 by 51mm round, travelling at about 840
>>meters/second. That could easily penetrate several pieces of plate
>>armor. Besides, the 4.7mm caseless round from HK, less powerful
>>than the aforementioned 7.62, performs as follows: "....a steel
>>helmet is penetrated with a soft-core bullet at up to 600 yeards."
>>This is quoted from the book Militry Small Arms of the 20th >>Century,
6th ed., by Ian V. Hogg and John Weeks. If this round can >>penetrate a
steel helmet at 600 yards, what do you think it can do >>at 50 yards?
Also, what can an arrow penetrate at 600 yards?

>It may be able to penetrate a FLAT steel plater at 600yards, or
>however far, but traditional breast plates were curved, that is why,
>in most cases, the bullet will ricochet off but the arrow, or bolt,
>will penetrate.

For those of us who were paying attention, the book said, "...a steel
HELMET....." Let me pose this question: When was the last time you wore
a Flat helmet? In my experiences, helmets have always been round. Andy
my boy, hat shopping must really be a pain in the ass for you. BTW, at
less than 100 meters, a 7.62mm NATO round will penetrate at steel plate
even if it hits a a 45 degree angle.

>Also the Gun replaced the arrow because:
>
>A) most soldiers didn't have armor, they only had a leather vest, or
>in some cases chain mail. The knights were the only ones with true
>armor when the gun was invented.

I won't dispute the fact that most soldiers didn't wear the big stuff.
But firearms worked just as good on the peasents as they did on the
knights.

>B) When the longbow was developed it got rid of steel armor because
>it could punch through it, it was then that the gun was invented so
>Traditional Armor was no longer in circulation, that is why the >arrow
was replaced.

Negative, Ghost Rider. Armor was still around long after the
development of the long bow, actually well past that point. The
crossbow (historically invented AFTER the longbow) was designed as a
tool that could be used to penetrate even the thickest armor on the
battlefield. Also, arrows didn't penetrate all that well at long
ranges. Watch the movie Braveheart. The English archers aimed their
bows at about a 45 degree angle so the arrows would actually reach far
enough to hit the Scottish soldiers. Crossbows could be fired along a
relatively straight trajectory out to those ranges.

>
>C) In most cases the gun had a greater intimidation on the oposing
>side, so they were more likely to jump, do something stupid, or run
>away when the guns went off.

This part I agree with. Muzzel loaders are pretty damned loud compared
to long bows. Hell, silenced HK MP5SD's are pretty freakin loud
compared to long bows. That loud noise and all that smoke is pretty
effective at lowering the enemy's morale. Good at frightening the
horses, too.





______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 2
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows(AndrewS, this bud's for you......)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:25:52 +1000
One Ronin writes:
> Negative, Ghost Rider. Armor was still around long after the
> development of the long bow, actually well past that point. The
> crossbow (historically invented AFTER the longbow) was designed as a
> tool that could be used to penetrate even the thickest armor on the
> battlefield. Also, arrows didn't penetrate all that well at long
> ranges. Watch the movie Braveheart. The English archers aimed their
> bows at about a 45 degree angle so the arrows would actually reach far
> enough to hit the Scottish soldiers. Crossbows could be fired along a
> relatively straight trajectory out to those ranges.

*cough* I have to butt in for a second.

The reason units of archers aimed upwards was so that they could also hit
the people behind the front row. Crossbows, by comparision, weren't much use
in battlefield engagements because they could only hit the front line and
took too long to reload (of course, in a defensive position, crossbows were
excellent). The bolts couldn't be angled ballistically like arrows as they
weren't stable (you wouldn't get the pointy bit going down).

The reason that firearms became popular had nothing to do with penetration
capability. A trained archer or crossbowman could outdo the early muskets.
Firearms became popular due to ease of use, which meant you didn't have to
train your soldiers as much, which in turn meant you didn't have to pay them
as much, which in turn meant you could have a bigger standing army, and a
much larger militia or conscript army.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 3
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows(AndrewS, this bud's for you......)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:00:44 +0000
and thus did Robert Watkins speak on 3 Nov 98 at 13:25:

[snip stuff that's right]
> The reason that firearms became popular had nothing to do with penetration
> capability. A trained archer or crossbowman could outdo the early muskets.
> Firearms became popular due to ease of use, which meant you didn't have to
> train your soldiers as much, which in turn meant you didn't have to pay them
> as much, which in turn meant you could have a bigger standing army, and a
> much larger militia or conscript army.

Erhm, that's not a right causality. The move away from the feudal
small and temporal armies to hired, and later standing armies is the
cause for larger armies. Those nobles were only available for
a part of the year, a king constantly needed to worry about them
cruising off to home when he was busy fighting a war, plus the heavy
horse was slowly being outdone by far less expensive infantry.
Chances in tactics actually were crucial in the demise of the knight
in heavy armour. Both long bow and crossbow had been around for
some time, but simply weren't used very much ("un-knightly weapon
wielded by untrained peasants who should leave the noble art of
war to the nobility kind of thinking"). The pope actually banned
the use of the crossbow for a period of time. The same way
knights tried to ban those nasty pole arms who were specially
designed to crack open armour (or just break the arm inside it).

So the more practical people started hiring mercenaries like the
Swiss (who had shown that they could hold their own against a
traditional army various times) and that started off the whole thing

Earlier all a knight had to do to defeat ten footmen was to charge
at them and route them in the process. The changes made those ten
footmen more than able to take on the knight, by keeping him away
with pikes and shooting him full of arrows or quarrels (and the odd
musket ball. Now a knight's armour would be prohibitively expensive;
fully custom made costs could be as much as 20 times that of a heavy
infantry soldier (I couldn't find the real numbers, but I remember
something along the lines of three to four times the yearly income of
an average noble).

Last thing that doomed the knight was the growth of the economy and
increasing prices for everything. Cities became richer and richer
while the nobles stayed on the same income level, making it more
difficult for them to maintain and equip a trained army.

Armour was still around much longer. Most soldiers had to buy their
own kit and mostly invested some money in a decent set. Later when
equipping armies became a matter of state, combined with the growth
of armies it dwindled into a breastplate (and the occasional helmet)
and later into nothing.

BTW, I did found a piece about a German armoury testing out their
breastplates with musket shots at thirty paces. If the bullet
bounced it was okay, else back to the forge.

Totally OT, but it does explain why soldiers do/did/will not always
get the things they should have in my opinion. And that's something
you can use in SR (fhew by a very thin thread it has a hint of on
topicness :)


Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Bows and Arrows(AndrewS, this bud's for you......), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!