Results 21 to 28 of 28
Thread: Guns (long)
-
08-30-1998, 04:01 PM #21Darryl WillisGuest
Guns (long)
> Not at a distance, man. Crossbows are "direct fire" weapons, and bows
are
> "indirect fire" weapons. Arrows on the battle field were fired at an
area,
> not necessarily at individuals. Everybody in that targetted area was
> extremely likely to get "hit". Crossbows were designed to be fired at
> individuals. They used the same basic "lever" principle as bows, but a
> mechanical crank was used to pull the string back, rather than raw muscle
> power. Since a bows arrows followed an arc to their target, they
generally
> struck with the same amount of force that they left the bow with.
Crossbow
> bolts did not strike with the same additonal impact force provided by the
> acceleration of gravity. They followed a fairly straight (line of sight,
> almost) trajectory, and dipped earthward at about 10 meters a second per
> second, so you really HAD to be close to your intended target to hit it.
Gravity isn't quite THAT effective. A crossbow bolt with no kinetic
energy(i.e. stationary) will fall at the 10m/sec/sec rate. But one fired
from a crossbow now has oogobs of energy to burn off. gravity will affect
it, no doubt there. But not so effectively as that. It's a formula with
lots of sin(x) and stuff, but it's gotta burn off some enegry that the bolt
got when it was fired. Otherwise, Firearms in real life would SUCK.
>
>
> > Now, if you don't want guns, it would be easy to say that in BR, the
> crossbows are even more penetrating, and can penetrate plate. There
would
> then exist a super-heavy class of crossbows, probably used by pairs of
men,
> that would ignore armor and non-magical protection, dexterity and magic
> would still apply I guess.
>
> Actually, such weapons DID exist at one time, in the AD&D game (im not an
> expert, and cant say whether they existed in the Real World :), and they
> were called "ballista". Ballistae (mangonels, scorpions) fired heavy
spear
> like projectiles. Their hits did 2d6 damage to S/M sized opponents, and
> 3d6 to L-sized opponents. With a crew of 4 men, they fired 1 shot every
> other round, and a crew of 2 men allowed one shot every fourth round.
> Chapter 8 of Comabt & Tactics changes this dramatically, however.
Yeah, they were real. I don't know the exact damage, but they were real.
Darryl Willis
-
08-30-1998, 04:04 PM #22Darryl WillisGuest
Guns (long)
> The official TSR explanation was always that since the Brechts make their
> lives on the water, they need light weaponry. I mean, if you fall
overboard,
> you can't have that bastard sword weighing you down...
>
> But I don't like that answer. =)
>
Why not? It's practical! IRL, did you ever read about "Blackbeard,
fearson Claymore pirate"? No. Large weapons were not practical on ships
becasue of weight, yes, but more importantly, space. You can't be swingin'
that big two-hander, cutting through rigging AND shipmates, mind.
- -Darryl Willis darryl42@gate.net
-
08-30-1998, 06:39 PM #23Tim NuttingGuest
Guns (long)
Sorry, I have seen real battle crossbows - history channel or no.
A hand crossbow - 150# pull and not hand held (you had to put your foot in
the stirrup to pull it back)
A battle crossbow (what D&D rates "heavy crossbow") had a pull of up to
1500# at 8" from the tip, and you had to use a windlass with weight
reduction pulleys to get it to work. These people (RW) were not stupid.
With 2000 years of experience forging steel, they KNEW how to make the
weapons very well. Tech was primitive, but primitive does not mean
unrefined.
If I may - "designed to deflect" armor, and the refinements to get it
there, did not appear till the Maximillian style plate armor (through
which a pin could not drive in between joints) and its immediate
predecessors. Chain mail will not stop a crossbow, and a flat plate in
the way of one of these bolts is not going to help. I would ask if a pick
axe is going to hit with more force than that 1200 to 1500# crossbow? Yet
these picks and hammers certainly made mincemeat out of a knight in field
plate.
Later
Tim Nutting
-
08-30-1998, 09:30 PM #24Daniel McSorleyGuest
Guns (long)
From: Tim Nutting
>Sorry, I have seen real battle crossbows - history channel or no.
>
>A hand crossbow - 150# pull and not hand held (you had to put your foot in
>the stirrup to pull it back)
>
>A battle crossbow (what D&D rates "heavy crossbow") had a pull of up to
>1500# at 8" from the tip, and you had to use a windlass with weight
>reduction pulleys to get it to work. These people (RW) were not stupid.
>
>With 2000 years of experience forging steel, they KNEW how to make the
>weapons very well. Tech was primitive, but primitive does not mean
>unrefined.
>
>If I may - "designed to deflect" armor, and the refinements to get it
>there, did not appear till the Maximillian style plate armor (through
>which a pin could not drive in between joints) and its immediate
>predecessors. Chain mail will not stop a crossbow, and a flat plate in
>the way of one of these bolts is not going to help. I would ask if a pick
>axe is going to hit with more force than that 1200 to 1500# crossbow? Yet
>these picks and hammers certainly made mincemeat out of a knight in field
>plate.
>
They showed a crossbow, said it had a rather large pull (I'm thinking
1200 pounds, but I'm not sure). It was a windlass one. They shot it
straight on at a piece of armor plate, so that it would hit dead on, 90
degree angle. And it did not penetrate. It left a mark on the plate, but
it bounced off and broke.
These guys, by the way, were weapons experts from the Royal Armory museum
in London. So they would probably know what they were talking about.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
-
08-30-1998, 11:13 PM #25Sindre BergGuest
Guns (long)
Daniel McSorley wrote:
> From: Tim Nutting
>
> >Sorry, I have seen real battle crossbows - history channel or no.
> >
> >A hand crossbow - 150# pull and not hand held (you had to put your
> foot in
> >the stirrup to pull it back)
> >
> >A battle crossbow (what D&D rates "heavy crossbow") had a pull of up
> to
> >1500# at 8" from the tip, and you had to use a windlass with weight
> >reduction pulleys to get it to work. These people (RW) were not
> stupid.
> >
> >With 2000 years of experience forging steel, they KNEW how to make
> the
> >weapons very well. Tech was primitive, but primitive does not mean
> >unrefined.
> >
> >If I may - "designed to deflect" armor, and the refinements to get it
>
> >there, did not appear till the Maximillian style plate armor (through
>
> >which a pin could not drive in between joints) and its immediate
> >predecessors. Chain mail will not stop a crossbow, and a flat plate
> in
> >the way of one of these bolts is not going to help. I would ask if a
> pick
> >axe is going to hit with more force than that 1200 to 1500#
> crossbow? Yet
> >these picks and hammers certainly made mincemeat out of a knight in
> field
> >plate.
> >
> They showed a crossbow, said it had a rather large pull (I'm
> thinking
> 1200 pounds, but I'm not sure). It was a windlass one. They shot it
>
> straight on at a piece of armor plate, so that it would hit dead on,
> 90
> degree angle. And it did not penetrate. It left a mark on the plate,
> but
> it bounced off and broke.
> These guys, by the way, were weapons experts from the Royal Armory
> museum
> in London. So they would probably know what they were talking about.
>
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
>
> ***********************************
> ***************************************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
> I am not an expert at this field, but I know that the TSR book "Arms
and Equipment
guide" has a paragraph detailing the power of the longbow.
My historical encyclopedia (Aschehoughs Verdenshistorie) says this about
bows and crossbows. An english longbow had a pull of 45 kgs (about 95
pounds), it had a range of 250 meters and could penetrate platearmor at
half the distance, if it hit it at 90 degrees. The crossbows were
heavier and had a 100 meter longer range. Because of their enourmous
penetrating power they were banned by Pope Innocens II in 1139.
Another thing is the english killed hundreds of french khnights in the
Hundred Years war, this was mainly because of the english longbow. The
battle at Crecy in 1346 is a good example.
Though the book says later that the firearms was the ther real "killers"
of the knights on the battlefield...(though then we are talking
1400-1450 and out)
Sindre
-
08-31-1998, 02:26 AM #26Darryl WillisGuest
Guns (long)
> Another thing is the english killed hundreds of french khnights in the
> Hundred Years war, this was mainly because of the english longbow. The
> battle at Crecy in 1346 is a good example.
>
> Though the book says later that the firearms was the ther real "killers"
> of the knights on the battlefield...(though then we are talking
> 1400-1450 and out)
Hmm....Same as the battle of Agincourt, if I'm not mistaken. But, and this
is a big "but", the reason the English longbow was so devastating to the
French knights was not the extreme penetrating power, but the fact that the
knights were riding horses. Horses are killed by arrows rather quickly,
just like an unarmored human. The knights were pretty well protected from
the longbow. Their horses, however, were not.
Darryl Willis
darryl42@gate.net
-
08-31-1998, 09:19 PM #27Sindre BergGuest
Guns (long)
Doyle (Dubhghaill) wrote:
> Sindre Berg wrote in reply to Daniel McSorley;
>
> > Though the book says later that the firearms was the ther real
> > "killers"
> > of the knights on the battlefield...(though then we are talking
> > 1400-1450 and out)
> You got that bit from an encyclopedia ???
> 1415 was the year that Henry V whipped the French at Agincourt -
> with
> longbow, I recall no use of firearms, with the possible exception of
> cannon. There were also Swiss cross-bowmen present, but that's
> another
> story.
>
What the books says is this...First cannon known 1326/27 english
illustration of a cannon shooting arrows. "Light cannons" was used in
the naval battle of Sluys 1340, defense of Quesnay and Tournai 1340 and
the siege of Calais 1346. But the author mentions that they had problems
with cannon tubes braking apart. Later came brass cannons and better
gunpowder. By the year 1400 there was large cannons weighing 4-5 tons,
with cannon balls of 130kg, the "Bombards". In the last field battles
firearms started making an effect. The english general Talbot fell in
1435 from a "culverines" bullet.Though he sums up with the great
breakthrough coming in 1470s with improved guns.
Hope this helps...
> Mid 1500's, field plate was still being used (check out Henry Niii's
>
> suit that he wore while campaigning in France), over the next century,
>
> it's use did dwindle out for a number of reasons. Historians did
> assume
> for many years given the evidence like so many breastplates with no
> other mark on them but a single bullethole. Sounds like a reasonable
> assumption, doesn't it? Museums (as they do), collected a lot of this
>
> stuff, shiny -as-new breastplates with a single hole (identifiable as
> that caused by a musket ball), and several very used breastplates with
>
> many dents. I don't recall who, but someone, this century, decided
> that
> this looked a little odd and got hold of the records from a company
> that
> rolled out bulk breast-plates during the time of Cromwell (late 1600
> or
> early 1700, I think) and found that each plate upon finishing was
> placed
> against a sandbag and were fired at with a musket from a certain
> yardage. If they were pierced by the shot, they were rejected, if
> not,
> they were proven as saleable!
>
> This was followed by Darryl Willis;
>
> Hmm....Same as the battle of Agincourt, if I'm not mistaken.
> But, and this
> is a big "but", the reason the English longbow was so
> devastating to the
> French knights was not the extreme penetrating power, but the
> fact that the
> knights were riding horses. Horses are killed by arrows
> rather
> quickly,
> just like an unarmored human. The knights were pretty well
> protected from
> the longbow. Their horses, however, were not.
> Ouch! Horses of the time wore barding, in the case of the French
> nobility (and don't forget the high percentage of titled French on the
>
> field that day), the barding was of the same type as the armor that
> the
> rider wore.
> Penetration power: bodies have been dug up from that field (not
> every
> corpse was placed in a mass grave, or carted home for burial in some
> family plot), and there are several examples of where a single arrow
> has
> pierced several layers of such armor. The most relevant to this
> discourse is where an arrow had passed through both sides of a full
> greave (lower leg armor), the leg bone, the PLATE barding of the horse
>
> and out the other side.
>
This is the incident I think the "Arms and Equipment Guide" refeers to,
(I borrowed the book to my girl-friend so I can't check now).
> I'll get off the soapbox now and be quiet again now shall I ?
> ;-)
>
> Regards all,
>
> > Dubhghaill (Doyle)
> > Victoria, Australia, 613 9563 5085
> > enq@completesystems.com.au
> >
Sindre
Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:
www.uio.no/~sindrejb
-
08-31-1998, 09:19 PM #28Sindre BergGuest
Guns (long)
Darryl Willis wrote:
> > Another thing is the english killed hundreds of french khnights in
> the
> > Hundred Years war, this was mainly because of the english longbow.
> The
> > battle at Crecy in 1346 is a good example.
> >
> > Though the book says later that the firearms was the ther real
> "killers"
> > of the knights on the battlefield...(though then we are talking
> > 1400-1450 and out)
>
> Hmm....Same as the battle of Agincourt, if I'm not mistaken. But, and
> this
> is a big "but", the reason the English longbow was so devastating to
> the
> French knights was not the extreme penetrating power, but the fact
> that the
> knights were riding horses. Horses are killed by arrows rather
> quickly,
> just like an unarmored human. The knights were pretty well protected
> from
> the longbow. Their horses, however, were not.
>
> Darryl Willis
> darryl42@gate.net
>
This "encyclopedia" states that the heavy armored riders (i.e. knights)
were fighting on foot, because they (mostly the french) suffered
grevious losses to the english soldiers on foot (says nothing about
armament) in the battle in Courtrai 1304 og against the archers at Crecy
1346.
Though you still got a point though, but the question is rather how
tight this armor was ? Was it plate mail or field plate ? At last the
first got some weak spots where arrows easily can penetrate...But wait
I'm killing my own argument..
Sindre
Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:
www.uio.no/~sindrejb
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Long bow
By Sorontar in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 01-31-2010, 09:33 AM -
Guns and Maps
By cvgawde in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 3Last Post: 12-09-2006, 10:36 PM -
Guns
By Tim Nutting in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 3Last Post: 08-26-1998, 08:13 AM -
Alternate Fantasy - was Guns
By DKEvermore@aol.co in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 08-26-1998, 12:03 AM -
Wish List (rather long, but fun
By Alexander Kunze in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 10-15-1997, 12:41 AM
Bookmarks