On 13 Oct 2004 11:12:22 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

I was just repeating what I read in the Museum that had the extensive display
of crossbows.

btw, IIRC it took two men most of two minutes to load and fire a crossbow,
while a longbowman could pump out three shafts a minute. That made the lowbow
the artillery of its time and the crossbow the armor-busting handgranade.

Did that tidbit about repeating rates come from the museum also? It was
obviously written by someone who has no experience firing either a
crossbow or a longbow.

Steve


Jim Richardson
Date: 10/13/2004 5:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 01:10:16 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)

as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet, as compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow,
however, could penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed
for war (except against the infidels) by some pope.


I assure you, that "as a weapon of war" crossbows are not limited in
range to 30 feet. Nor were long bows limited to 100 yards, (ignoring
obvious typo)

A good yew longbow, is capable of penetrating iron mail, at a distance
of greater than 100 yards. It's effectiveness on unarmoured targets goes
beyond that range.

A strong crossbow, with a metal prod, of about 200lbs, is quite capable
of penetrating light mail at 50 yards (not feet) The heavier quarrel
does have less effective range than a longbow or modern compound bow
shooting longer, but lighter arrows. The main advantage of the crossbow
was the simplicity of use, a longbowman took years to develope the
needed skill, crossbows could be used with far less training and
practice.

The last use of crossbows in general warfare, rather than as indigenous
weapons (like the Hmong bamboo crossbows in Vietnam) or special forces
type uses, was in the 1894-95 sino-japanese war, where many of the
chinese troops were armed with repeating crossbows, they weren't
particularly powerful, but they were interesting devices none the less,
and they were certainly lethal at a far greater range than 30 ft



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.

Last time I used a crossbow, it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On 13 Oct 2004 11:12:22 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

I was just repeating what I read in the Museum that had the extensive
display
of crossbows.

btw, IIRC it took two men most of two minutes to load and fire a crossbow,
while a longbowman could pump out three shafts a minute. That made the
lowbow
the artillery of its time and the crossbow the armor-busting handgranade.

Did that tidbit about repeating rates come from the museum also? It was
obviously written by someone who has no experience firing either a
crossbow or a longbow.

Steve


Jim Richardson
Date: 10/13/2004 5:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 01:10:16 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)

as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet, as compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow,
however, could penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed
for war (except against the infidels) by some pope.


I assure you, that "as a weapon of war" crossbows are not limited in
range to 30 feet. Nor were long bows limited to 100 yards, (ignoring
obvious typo)

A good yew longbow, is capable of penetrating iron mail, at a distance
of greater than 100 yards. It's effectiveness on unarmoured targets goes
beyond that range.

A strong crossbow, with a metal prod, of about 200lbs, is quite capable
of penetrating light mail at 50 yards (not feet) The heavier quarrel
does have less effective range than a longbow or modern compound bow
shooting longer, but lighter arrows. The main advantage of the crossbow
was the simplicity of use, a longbowman took years to develope the
needed skill, crossbows could be used with far less training and
practice.

The last use of crossbows in general warfare, rather than as indigenous
weapons (like the Hmong bamboo crossbows in Vietnam) or special forces
type uses, was in the 1894-95 sino-japanese war, where many of the
chinese troops were armed with repeating crossbows, they weren't
particularly powerful, but they were interesting devices none the less,
and they were certainly lethal at a far greater range than 30 ft



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:40 -0400, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:

Last time I used a crossbow, it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault
No, he was likely thinking of a ballista, the crossbow-like field
'artillery" piece common since the Romans.

Now, if you could rig a mast-based trebuchet, you'd really have a
pirate deterrent, but I suspect it would only work on an unstayed rig
G

R.

"Doug Dotson" wrote:
Last time I used a crossbow, it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault

Nobody, including Jax, knows what Jax was really thinking of.

rhys wrote:
No, he was likely thinking of a ballista, the crossbow-like field
'artillery" piece common since the Romans.

Or an onager.


Now, if you could rig a mast-based trebuchet, you'd really have a
pirate deterrent, but I suspect it would only work on an unstayed rig
G

Might have a problem with accuracy. However, if you are attacked by
pirates who have built a protective stone wall around their boat, you'd
be all set!

DSK

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:52:42 -0400, DSK wrote:

"Doug Dotson" wrote:
Last time I used a crossbow, it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault

Nobody, including Jax, knows what Jax was really thinking of.

I was quite surprised at his claim to have visited a museum. Aren't
they "no shoes, no shirt, no service" institutions?

rhys wrote:
No, he was likely thinking of a ballista, the crossbow-like field
'artillery" piece common since the Romans.

Or an onager.

AKA the mangonel...if there's a difference I can't see it. The one I
like is the "Petraria Arcatinus", a bow-powered catapult. Combines the
best of both worlds, although I suspect pretty decent-sized backing
plates under the foredeck would be required. On the other hand, you
could use the windlass to tension the thing. Certainly would impress
the Commodore on Sailpast Day G


Now, if you could rig a mast-based trebuchet, you'd really have a
pirate deterrent, but I suspect it would only work on an unstayed rig
G

Might have a problem with accuracy. However, if you are attacked by
pirates who have built a protective stone wall around their boat, you'd
be all set!

That would adversely affect most powerboats with the exception of the
Magregor 26, which could use the ballast.

R.

OOH! The new trebouchet rig! Could be a real hit!


"rhys" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:40 -0400, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:

Last time I used a crossbow, it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault
No, he was likely thinking of a ballista, the crossbow-like field
'artillery" piece common since the Romans.

Now, if you could rig a mast-based trebuchet, you'd really have a
pirate deterrent, but I suspect it would only work on an unstayed rig
G

R.

schlackoff, weapons of war crossbows were not the kiddie toys you are thinking
of. They had draws, I believe, of 250 to 350 pounds, and two men with a
windlass drew them back into firing position. Hard to keep up with a longbow
with that.

two different weapons, with the tactical advantage going to longbows because of
their range and rate of fire.

(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/13/2004 8:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 11:12:22 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

I was just repeating what I read in the Museum that had the extensive
display
of crossbows.

btw, IIRC it took two men most of two minutes to load and fire a crossbow,
while a longbowman could pump out three shafts a minute. That made the
lowbow
the artillery of its time and the crossbow the armor-busting handgranade.

Did that tidbit about repeating rates come from the museum also? It was
obviously written by someone who has no experience firing either a
crossbow or a longbow.

Steve


Jim Richardson
Date: 10/13/2004 5:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 01:10:16 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)

as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet, as compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow,
however, could penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed
for war (except against the infidels) by some pope.


I assure you, that "as a weapon of war" crossbows are not limited in
range to 30 feet. Nor were long bows limited to 100 yards, (ignoring
obvious typo)

A good yew longbow, is capable of penetrating iron mail, at a distance
of greater than 100 yards. It's effectiveness on unarmoured targets goes
beyond that range.

A strong crossbow, with a metal prod, of about 200lbs, is quite capable
of penetrating light mail at 50 yards (not feet) The heavier quarrel
does have less effective range than a longbow or modern compound bow
shooting longer, but lighter arrows. The main advantage of the crossbow
was the simplicity of use, a longbowman took years to develope the
needed skill, crossbows could be used with far less training and
practice.

The last use of crossbows in general warfare, rather than as indigenous
weapons (like the Hmong bamboo crossbows in Vietnam) or special forces
type uses, was in the 1894-95 sino-japanese war, where many of the
chinese troops were armed with repeating crossbows, they weren't
particularly powerful, but they were interesting devices none the less,
and they were certainly lethal at a far greater range than 30 ft



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.

Last time I used a crossbow,

the kiddie toys sold as crossbows today have draws similar to less than kiddie
longbows sold today. The weapons of war crossbows of old were something else.

it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault :

Would it be possible to fling a pestilence ridden dead animal over the stone
wall with this rig? Where would you keep this animal? I would think you'd
want it close at hand, but far enough down wind....
"DSK" wrote in message
...
"Doug Dotson" wrote:
Last time I used a crossbow, it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault

Nobody, including Jax, knows what Jax was really thinking of.

rhys wrote:
No, he was likely thinking of a ballista, the crossbow-like field
'artillery" piece common since the Romans.

Or an onager.


Now, if you could rig a mast-based trebuchet, you'd really have a
pirate deterrent, but I suspect it would only work on an unstayed rig
G

Might have a problem with accuracy. However, if you are attacked by
pirates who have built a protective stone wall around their boat, you'd be
all set!

DSK

MMC wrote:
Would it be possible to fling a pestilence ridden dead animal over the stone
wall with this rig? Where would you keep this animal? I would think you'd
want it close at hand, but far enough down wind....

Sure. You could keep it downwind by hanging it from the spinnaker pole
prior to loading it in the trebuchet.

Umm, are we getting points for "silliest thread currently on usenet"?

Regards
Doug King