Yamato

[Court Jester]

We start with the largest battleship of WW2, and arrive at medieval weapons.

Time to end this topic methinks.

yes sir... :roll:

:wink:

 

[captainsmirk]

On board the Yamato (in Japanese obviously...)

"We have the range on the offending thread sir."

"Good, open fire, full broadside."

:wink:

Nick

 

[Wulf Corbett]

A good heavy crossbow or arbalest had a draw weight around 300lbs, about double the biggest longbows, and delivered a solid iron quarrel at much higher velocities. It both outranged the longbow and outperformed it as an armour-piercing weapon.

Yes, a good heavy crossbow. As opposed to the ordinary ones of around 150 lbs shooting quarrels half the length and double the weight of longbow arrows - with a shorter accurate range and virtually the same momentum. And with that loss of accuracy, they could only be aimed straight at the target, without the more lethal plunging shot of a longbow arrow.

And guess which type outnumbered the other by a factor of 10:1? A single man could hardly carry an arbalest - it's like comparing an M16 to an anti-tank gun.

Wulf

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I wonder if you and I have been at the same reference material. Thing is, I am not sure I entirely buy the conclusions. I have a feeling it is impossible to fully replicate a longbow and the arrows used so long ago, and there is just too much anecdotal evidence (stories) of the effect of the longbow.

Not convinced, not convinced. . .

We know what the old bows looked like, Matt. We even have surviving examples from the Mary Rose wreck. From these, reconstructions can be made which can be used to test their capabilities.

The old crossbows are also well documented. Of course, we as individuals can't really be sure what's what without seeing the tests for ourselves, but aside from that, we can be pretty sure what these weapons were capable of. The longbow has a myth around it even bigger than the one around the Bismarck, that's all.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I do wonder how difficult it is to say for sure how good a longbow was in it's day, modern archers just don't have the level of practics, strength and experience that a medieval longbow would have....

I will just explain that comment. I saw an archaeology program digging up soldiers from the wars of the roses and they could actually tell which soldiers were archers because all the bones of one shoulder and arm were physically thicker and stronger than the other as a result of 20+ years continuous daily training. I presume we just plain don't have anyone like that alive today?

Whilst the tests I have seen suggest that the longbow is not quite as effective as many of us would like to think, it could easily kill lightly armoured men and horses at a respectable distance, and could penetrate all but the very thickest armour by the time you got down to 20 yards or so. As several others have mentioned rate of fire is a big factor. A good longbowman is going to empty a quiver into the face of a charging knight by the time he gets to him, most would probably be dehorsed by then which would cause chaos and the survivors would be hitting as a very ragged line of mounted and dismounted knights losing all real impetus, English men at arms should be able to finish off this shattered line with ease.

The longbow seems to have been very effective in defence, it's not so good at advancing against an opponent, and would be less effective by the time of the wars of the roses when armour was much heavier than the hundred years war and interestingly archers still featured very prominently in the WOTR. they only seem to be neutralised in most of those battles because both sides had them so there was no real advantage...

Cpt (King Maker) Kremmen

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Yes, a good heavy crossbow. As opposed to the ordinary ones of around 150 lbs shooting quarrels half the length and double the weight of longbow arrows - with a shorter accurate range and virtually the same momentum. And with that loss of accuracy, they could only be aimed straight at the target, without the more lethal plunging shot of a longbow arrow.

Aye, that's true. The lighter wooden crossbows weren't as effective as longbows for most jobs. As you said, they're far easier to learn to use and store, so were more desirable from a military viewpoint. Longbowmen were precious, elite troops, while crossbowmen could be trained and equipped quickly and cheaply. They were also more use in siege warfare where the wasn't room to use a 5'-6' bow, and the (relatively) short range wasn't a problem.

The arbalest did require more training and practice to use, and it was largely a two-man weapon when you factor in the pavise-bearer. Of course, the arbalesters behind the pavises were pretty much immune to arrows or bolts while reloading.

Horses for courses, really, but saying the longbow was the better anti-armour weapon is just not correct.

 

[hangdog]

I have played the Yamato several times. And more often than not, it sinks. The damage it deals out is secondary to its sinking. Perhaps it is my dice.

 

[Court Jester]

I reckon 2 Battle level ships could sink the Yamato no problem...

 

[DSV1]

I wish the British (me) werent so bloody honest when it came to sticking to treatys or we might have had a 55,000 ton KGV with BIG guns, immense protection that would have kicked a yamato's arse !

BUT never mind I will stick with Hood in all her failings and still have the most beautifull warship ever built

 

[Lord David the Denied]

In all fairness, the King George V-class were decent battleships, and designed a lot earlier than super-dreadnoughts like Yamato. I daresay Vanguard could have stood up to the US and Japanese big names...

It is rather sad that we (the British) were the only ones abiding by the Washington Treaty by the Second World War, else we'd have had some battleships to make Johnny Foreigner tremble...

I'm still going to play the Royal Navy, though, regardless. Assuming I can find some players, that is... :?

 

[captainsmirk]

The Vanguard did suffer from having WW1 guns however, and the armour on its turrets was probably light compared to the rest of the ship (relative to the usually distribution on a BB anyway) due to to their source.


Nick

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Horses for courses, really, but saying the longbow was the better anti-armour weapon is just not correct.

I didn't say that, I said the knight had more to fear from the longbow. Armour penetration is only one factor, and evidence is disputed. But when he's sitting in his invulnerable tin can, on top of his huge fleshy soft target he calls a horse and my archers call emergency rations, charging at full tilt with 100 of his buddies behind him, is he going to fear one crossbow bolt or a dozen longbow arrows? Put one 3 foot long ash shaft into that horse, and he'll be in the mud right in the path of the rest of his troop. A half-ton of warhorse WILL penetrate armour.

Wulf

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I didn't say that, I said the knight had more to fear from the longbow. Armour penetration is only one factor, and evidence is disputed. But when he's sitting in his invulnerable tin can, on top of his huge fleshy soft target he calls a horse and my archers call emergency rations, charging at full tilt with 100 of his buddies behind him, is he going to fear one crossbow bolt or a dozen longbow arrows? Put one 3 foot long ash shaft into that horse, and he'll be in the mud right in the path of the rest of his troop. A half-ton of warhorse WILL penetrate armour.

Wulf

Or more accurately, it'll trample him into the mud where he'll suffocate...

By the time the arbalest was in commun use, though, horses were well protected with plate barding, and longbows had largely fallen out of favour. It was the arbalest that did for these late medieval knights.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

By the time the arbalest was in commun use, though, horses were well protected with plate barding, and longbows had largely fallen out of favour. It was the arbalest that did for these late medieval knights.

Actually, it's virtually impossible to effectively protect a horse from arrows. You can plate bard the head, neck, and back fore and aft of the saddle, but not the legs or flanks - too much movement is needed there. That's good against falling shot, but chain is the best you'll get on the flanks, and arrows just love chain... And meanwhile, you'll slow the horse down drastically. The cataphractoi were the heaviest ever horses, and could barely manage a trot. A bit like being charged by angry bulldozers...

Wulf

 

[Der Kommandant]

A bit like being charged by angry bulldozers...
Wulf

lol... awesome!

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Actually, it's virtually impossible to effectively protect a horse from arrows. You can plate bard the head, neck, and back fore and aft of the saddle, but not the legs or flanks - too much movement is needed there. That's good against falling shot, but chain is the best you'll get on the flanks, and arrows just love chain... And meanwhile, you'll slow the horse down drastically. The cataphractoi were the heaviest ever horses, and could barely manage a trot. A bit like being charged by angry bulldozers...

Wulf

How come Kataphraktoi were universally feared in ancient warfare, then?

There's a reason heavy crossbows were common in the late middle ages, and it's not because everyone in Europe bar the English and Welsh were too stupid to use longbows.

 

[captainsmirk]

One of the French's eventual victories at the end of the Hundred year war was won by a army of French Longbowmen backed up early artillery.
The French took a while to catch on but they did eventually, probably because they didn't want a peasent force which could stand up to the nobility...


Nick