And before anyone else notices that deer don't wear armor, the penetration
of an arrow was just as good, if not better, than firearms for a long, long
time. :-)


- ----------
From: John Campbell[]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 3:48 PM
To: 'birthright@MPGN.COM'
Subject: RE: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Bang!

I disagree. It is about training costs, not lethality. Go ask any deer in
your local woods.

They did not bother with amputation back then because it was better to
mercy kill someone that was going to die anyway.

If you wish to continue this argument let us move it to Email.



- ----------
Reply To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 2:44 PM
To: 'birthright@MPGN.COM'
Subject: RE: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Bang!

Armor is effective against bows. It was effective for the Hoplites at
Marathon and Plataea, for legoniars in inumerable campaigns, and though
the rise of the longbow and better crossbows led to the shift from chain
to plate mail, that was effective. A 75 caliber ball penetrates armor and
destroys the internal structure of the human body. That explains the rise
in amputation during the are of black powder.

Kenneth Gauck