View previous topic | View next topic

Hundred Years’ War

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

585972.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:34 pm Reply with quote

I find your interest in weaponry education and amusing Sadurian :)
I did not understand the way Ballistas operated until your explaination (i knew they were different to crossbows, didnt know how)
Stone age bows involved alot of complexity themselves :D
That guy (ray mears??) bushcraft was very educational on stone age bow construction, much of which was continually in use in modern bow making. Their stone tools changed to steel, the wood was more selectively chosen etc, but damn I really like the stuff that guy does :)

Anyways what was i saying -_-
Yeah erm which of the following kicks more ass;
?? Its probably the crossbow for its stealth and functionality; chu-ko-nu is older than modern crossbows, and more for warfare than enemy infiltration.

Sadurian Mike
585978.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:58 pm Reply with quote

Crossbows have the potential for greater power because they are mechanically drawn. This, however, makes them very slow to reload and slower still as you increase the power. They also have the advantage of being easier to learn.

Longbows are faster to use and more flexible in the amount of power you use to loose the arrow, thus allowing for more accurate "indirect" fire (such as dropping arrows over a wall to fall closely behind it).

Which was best? In fortifications the crossbow's limitation were not as obvious, but in open battle the longbow won out time after time.

The Cho-Ko-Nu (repeating crossbow) was inaccurate and weak, but allowed a decent volume of fire to be put down by poorly-trained troops. In the right circumstances this could be important, but the weapon would have been very out of place and of little use on a European battlefield of the medieval period.

585982.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:06 pm Reply with quote

I think I'd go with a crossbow, just because ive used a toy one before (made of metal and string with a plastic body) and based on that experience, they are remarkably easy to use, powerful and accurate.

However the composite rambo style bow is cool, so are longbows, so are chu-ko-nu, infact weapons generally are fun and cool... like drug abuse or smoking...

good advice for children :)

585993.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:53 pm Reply with quote

From another thread - with depleted uranium discarded sabot armour piercing rounds, the projectiles are shaped in the form of a crossbow bolt.

How about a machine gun with a few clips of that?

586004.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:11 pm Reply with quote

I would imagine this sort of setup could be used in caseless ammunition :) Also I assume the kind of round depends on what youre shooting at...

Do I shoot at tanks with this round? :P

Sadurian Mike
586009.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:28 pm Reply with quote

post 385267

One of my own posts (sort of self-quoting), but it explains what discarding sabot rounds are for and why.

586130.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:32 pm Reply with quote


Youtube footage of (non-scientific) penetration tests.

Thank you for this Mike and for your explanations.

Sadurian Mike
586132.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:35 pm Reply with quote

Glad to be able to use the stuff I have secreted in my brain over the years. You'd be amazed at just how often military history isn't useful in real life.

586135.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:41 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian you make me a very sad man :(
that and having no friends, but, without military history...
what do I have to aspire to???
I cant shoot up a mini mall without the necessary knowledge in weapon skills.
Future career down the pan now -_-

If its not useful why do I find it so damn interesting??

586190.  Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:16 am Reply with quote

Gyndawyr wrote:

Do I shoot at tanks with this round? :P

Yup the penetrator goes 'straight 'through' the armour, basically it uses its kinetic energy for the kill. The HEAT round (High Explosive Anti Tank) used to be used but as armour effectiveness improved, an explosion, even with a shaped charge, on the outside became less and less effective. Most rounds used from a tank are 'sabot'[1] ones .

[1] APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot)

A sabot being a wooden shoe. Any truth, or is it an urban myth, that french weavers used to throw there clog type shoes into machinery to stop (a la luddites) them, hence sabotage?

586192.  Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:34 am Reply with quote

Sadly not. The word entered English in 1910 when it was used to describe the actions of striking French railway workers, allegedly because the wooden sleepers were also called sabot after the clogs. That's not true either. Words derived from sabot were used centuries before either the Industrial Revolution or the later strike to mean anyone or anything which was noisy or clumsy because of the clogs' association with the more rustic type of person. Over time clumsiness developed into deliberate damage and we adopted it into English with that meaning.

586344.  Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:50 am Reply with quote

soup wrote:
Mike is it still called a Ballista if the torque is 'provided' by wound up skeins of rope as opposed to the deformation of that bow part?
Can remember Adam Hart-Davis (Local Heroes?) with a troop of re-enactors firing a 'Ballista' using twisted skeins, and the command to fire sounded like "Yaketah!".

It will have been 'What Did The Romans Ever Do For Us?'. That part of it was filmed at Lunt Roman Fort about 5 miles from me and about 50 yards from Coventry airport. Lunt was actually a cavalry training station but I think they said on the program that local enthusiasts had built the balista. The word being used will have been "iacta" as in

Alea iacta est

the famous quote from Julius Ceasar on crossing the Rubicon meaning "The die is cast" iacta being the cast/throw bit of it.

Quite Interestingly it seems Caesar never said those words, according to Plutarch (via Wiki) he actually spoke a phrase in Greek

"Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος" [anerriphtho kybos] - 'Let the dice be cast'

which was translated into Latin in the form more familiar to us.

590487.  Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:55 am Reply with quote

My question to you Brit Historians....why is it called the hundred years war? In 1360 France and England signed the Treaty of Bretigny? Of course France re-started the war, but why not divide the war up?

Here's the other weird thing: Joan of Arc didn't just fight British...but she also fought the French. Paris was run by Burgundians who was at war with the French King. It was they who turned captured her and turned her over to the english.

Sadurian Mike
591725.  Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:08 pm Reply with quote

It was called the Hundred Years War (by later historians) because it lasted approximately 100 years (1337 to 1453, actually 116 years) and it was a convenient label to apply to the series of small wars fought by France, England and an assorted supporting cast over sovereignty of parts of what are now France.

Plenty of treaties were signed along the way, but new conflicts broke out.

Burgundy at that point, by the way, wasn't French. It was an independent Duchy, as were many other places which are now considered part of France.

591842.  Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:36 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Burgundy at that point, by the way, wasn't French. It was an independent Duchy, as were many other places which are now considered part of France.
It was even on the tube, close to Pimlico... and required a passport.

Or was that a film... :-D


Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group