Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Malcolm Shaw <malhms@*********.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re Bows and Arrows
Date:	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:44:16 +1100

Message no. 1 <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
 
         One Ronin
<ronin@*******.COM>
wrote
 Let's see if I can help ya out a little be
here.....
>In setting up a new character for Shadowrun I was reminded of a
>weapon
 that I feel has been dealt with unfairly in all RPG's that I >have
tried
 - the bow and arrow - to explain:
Wise observation.
>Some years ago I was watching a documentary on TV about an
historian
 >who was also a specialist on armour and weapons explaining why
the
 >English army was so successful against the French at
Agincourt. 
To
 >demonstrate his theory he had a breast plate and back plate
of
 >mediaeval armour mounted and stuffed with some material to simulate
>a
 human body and then fired a .45 pistol  a high powered rifle,
a >heavy
 crossbow and finally an English longbow from a fixed distance >from
the
 target. (distance does not come to mind)  When he showed
>the
results of
 each weapon it was :
 >a) the .45 slug bounced off the armour
I'd have to see this to believe it.  I've seen ballistics
reports
on
 .45's and their penetration capability, and unless the armor was
several
 inches thick or the round was fired at more than 50 meters, the
.45
 should have penetrated the breast plate.  Besides, if this
were the
 case, muzzle-loaders never would have replaced bows on the battle
field.
 Remember, a trained soldier with a long bow can fire about 5 arrows
for
 every shot from a muzzle-loader.
>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?
I can't say that I disagree entirely with what you report.  The
person in the documentary reported that the main reason for the defeat
of the French (who were using the heavy crossbow) by the English was the
long bow and it apparently cut the French knights to pieces - where as
the heavy cross bows of the French did not do comparable damage to the
English knights.
  
In regards to the damage the  doco man stated it was something
to do with mass and inertia and movements - a physicist may be able to
explain - but as I understand it the smaller projectile can hit with a
much higher initial impact but the larger has moments of inertia behind
the point of impact which resulted in greater penetration??
Lastly the reason the French were using heavy crossbows and that the
long bow lost ground to them and the musket etc. was not the point of damage
but more that it took years of constant training to make a proficient long
bow man where as any grunt could be taught in a short time to point and
shoot a weapon like the crossbow and the musket - I know I may hear howls
of rage from some target rifle people about this but on the whole if one
considers the differences there is a great deal more to shooting with 
a long bow than there is to a rifle - this I have tried and it took some
months more using a long bow before I began to approach the skill I had
even starting with the rifle over same  25 meter range.
But in the meantime to this beginner in Sr you have helped a great deal
and thanks and my character is going to be a bit anachronistic and be a 
dwarf mage who uses a  Ranger-X bow. I think he will  be OK on
the streets being a mage but it could be fun to add the bow especially
against spirits or elementals?? and how would he go against the heavy troll
guy as mentioned recently?
Malcolm</html>

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Re Bows and Arrows
Date:	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:52:55 -0800

Message no. 2 --============_-1301999717==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>I can't say that I disagree entirely with what you report. The person in
>the documentary reported that the main reason for the defeat of the French
>(who were using the heavy crossbow) by the English was the long bow and it
>apparently cut the French knights to pieces - where as the heavy cross
>bows of the French did not do comparable damage to the English knights.
>
>In regards to the damage the doco man stated it was something to do with
>mass and inertia and movements - a physicist may be able to explain - but
>as I understand it the smaller projectile can hit with a much higher
>initial impact but the larger has moments of inertia behind the point of
>impact which resulted in greater penetration??
>

That's due as much to method of employment as anything. Arrows can be
arced, hence archery. Crossbows are basically line-of-sight straight
shooting weapons ballistically similiar to guns, except that drop and air
resistance is much higher, and velocity is much lower. Hence, an arrow
coming down in clouds upon the ill-fated knights are actually increasing
velocity due to gravitational acceleration: crossbows are constantly losing
velocity, due to air resistance. The range for the longbow is also much
better.

Also, the French did not have as many crossbowman as the English had
longbowman, and the French knights tended to ride right over their
crossbowman to get at the enemy, whereas the English did not.

Consult the history books on Agincourt and you'll see what I mean.

>Malcolm

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
--============_-1301999717==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"

<excerpt>I can't say that I disagree entirely with what you report.
The person in the documentary reported that the main reason for the
defeat of the French (who were using the heavy crossbow) by the English
was the long bow and it apparently cut the French knights to pieces -
where as the heavy cross bows of the French did not do comparable
damage to the English knights.

In regards to the damage the doco man stated it was something to do
with mass and inertia and movements - a physicist may be able to
explain - but as I understand it the smaller projectile can hit with a
much higher initial impact but the larger has moments of inertia behind
the point of impact which resulted in greater penetration??

</excerpt>

That's due as much to method of employment as anything. Arrows can be
arced, hence archery. Crossbows are basically line-of-sight straight
shooting weapons ballistically similiar to guns, except that drop and
air resistance is much higher, and velocity is much lower. Hence, an
arrow coming down in clouds upon the ill-fated knights are actually
increasing velocity due to gravitational acceleration: crossbows are
constantly losing velocity, due to air resistance. The range for the
longbow is also much better.

Also, the French did not have as many crossbowman as the English had
longbowman, and the French knights tended to ride right over their
crossbowman to get at the enemy, whereas the English did not.

Consult the history books on Agincourt and you'll see what I mean.

<excerpt>Malcolm

</excerpt>

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu

"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu

--============_-1301999717==_ma============--

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer