On 14 Oct 2004 01:29:49 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

Jox, your rate of fire on each are way off on the low side. As usual,
you are wrong.

Steve


(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.

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.


Repeating it doesn't make it true.

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.



I don't know where you get this kind of missinformation. While an archer
can far exceed the rate of fire of most crossbows. Crossbows do not
require 2 people, and 2 minutes to reload. A medieval type crossbow, of
some 150-200lb draw weight, can be cocked and loaded in about 30-45sec
using a goat's foot lever (google for details, it's a compound lever
that allows you to cock the relatively short, but strong draw on the
prod, relatively easily.

For some of the siege crossbows, large frame mounted devices, they were
often crew served, but those are a different kettle of fish.




--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and
visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and
quiet it would be until the looting started."

On 14 Oct 2004 01:31:32 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
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 :




Actually, a modern crossbow, with the fiberglas or composite prod,
compares rather favourably with the medieval type. The higher grade
metals used on the trigger system allow a higher pull weight, and the
draw is longer also, increasing the energy imparted to the projectile.
While many of the medieval style crossbows had pulls in excess of
200lbs, they also had short draws, often as little as 6 inches, due to
the nature of the prod (whalebone, horn, sometimes metal, although
good spring steel was not easy to make with the techniques known at the
time)

A modern hunting crossbow, with a draw weight of 150-175lbs, and a draw
of 12-14 inches, is actually more powerful than the older style.

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
RFC 882 put the dot in .com.

On 14 Oct 2004 01:29:49 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
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.



Two different weapons alright, it sounds as if you are confusing a
crossbow ( a man portable, single person weapon) with a ballista ( a
crew served weapon)

Windlasses were common on some crossbows, particularly on the larger
ones used in sieges. But the "common" crossbow, was usually cocked with
a stirrup, or a goats foot lever. Some had a crank mechanism in the
stock, and a removeable handle like a winch (hey! back on topic! but
those were fairly uncommon, being relatively expensive to make, and the
main benefit of the crossbow was low cost, and the low training
requirements compared to other missile weapons of the pre-firearms era.




--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Who was the sick-minded SOB who called it a "lisp"?
"What's wrong with you?" "I litthhp."
"You what?" "I *litthhp* ."

sure, schlackoff, a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty bolts a minute, while a
100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a minute.

anything you say.

(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/13/2004 11:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 14 Oct 2004 01:29:49 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

Jox, your rate of fire on each are way off on the low side. As usual,
you are wrong.

Steve


(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.

well, jimmy, it is like this. I trust a museum for valid information more than
I trust you.

notice how you dropped the size of the war grade crossbow from 350# draw to
150#, thusly dropping its already short range stopping power to an even shorter
distance and it penetration power by 60%. you also dropped its reload time
from two minutes to 3/4 of a minute.

I suggest you not consider a crossbow as a defensive weapon. the crossbow lost
out as a weapon of war long ago, and the longbow lost out first to artillery in
a French battle in 1369.

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


Repeating it doesn't make it true.

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.



I don't know where you get this kind of missinformation. While an archer
can far exceed the rate of fire of most crossbows. Crossbows do not
require 2 people, and 2 minutes to reload. A medieval type crossbow, of
some 150-200lb draw weight, can be cocked and loaded in about 30-45sec
using a goat's foot lever (google for details, it's a compound lever
that allows you to cock the relatively short, but strong draw on the
prod, relatively easily.

For some of the siege crossbows, large frame mounted devices, they were
often crew served, but those are a different kettle of fish.




--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and
visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and
quiet it would be until the looting started."

jim a crossbow of long ago would so easily go through metal armor of the time
at a distance of up to 30 feet, that a pope outlawed the use of crossbows
except against the infidels. the pope did not outlaw longbows.

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 :




Actually, a modern crossbow, with the fiberglas or composite prod,
compares rather favourably with the medieval type. The higher grade
metals used on the trigger system allow a higher pull weight, and the
draw is longer also, increasing the energy imparted to the projectile.
While many of the medieval style crossbows had pulls in excess of
200lbs, they also had short draws, often as little as 6 inches, due to
the nature of the prod (whalebone, horn, sometimes metal, although
good spring steel was not easy to make with the techniques known at the
time)

A modern hunting crossbow, with a draw weight of 150-175lbs, and a draw
of 12-14 inches, is actually more powerful than the older style.

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
RFC 882 put the dot in .com.

a hunting knife took even less training and worked at an even less distance.

anyone trying to "protect" their boat with a crossbow from 17 year old pirates
in loin cloths carrying rifles is taking a penknife to the fight. One wild
shot going way wide of the rifle toting boy and you bought the farm.

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.



Two different weapons alright, it sounds as if you are confusing a
crossbow ( a man portable, single person weapon) with a ballista ( a
crew served weapon)

Windlasses were common on some crossbows, particularly on the larger
ones used in sieges. But the "common" crossbow, was usually cocked with
a stirrup, or a goats foot lever. Some had a crank mechanism in the
stock, and a removeable handle like a winch (hey! back on topic! but
those were fairly uncommon, being relatively expensive to make, and the
main benefit of the crossbow was low cost, and the low training
requirements compared to other missile weapons of the pre-firearms era.




--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Who was the sick-minded SOB who called it a "lisp"?
"What's wrong with you?" "I litthhp."
"You what?" "I *litthhp* ."

In article ,
Jim Richardson wrote:

I don't know where you get this kind of missinformation. While an archer
can far exceed the rate of fire of most crossbows. Crossbows do not
require 2 people, and 2 minutes to reload. A medieval type crossbow, of
some 150-200lb draw weight, can be cocked and loaded in about 30-45sec
using a goat's foot lever (google for details, it's a compound lever
that allows you to cock the relatively short, but strong draw on the
prod, relatively easily.

Jim, your example points out the differences between types of weapons.
There were many variations of bows and and many crossbows used during
the height of bows (e.g., 12th and 13th century). But, my son and I
just got back from the West Point Museum.

According to the military's researchers, long bows made of yew had a
draw pull of about 150 pounds (6 times the pull of my son's tournament
olympic style bow) and archers could get 6 arrows off per minute and
shoot about 300 - 450 feet and pierce a metal helmet with an arrow and
archers "sighted" by feel, much like the Japanese horse archers.

The cross bows they had were operated by one person, had an opening by
the front to put ones feet so both hands could be used on the crank, had
a much farther range and draw pull (I don't remember the exact amount
but I am pretty sure both were more than five times that of a long bow)
and did take 2 minutes between shots to operate. According to the Point,
the difference was that a lot more folks could operate a cross bow than
could pull a long bow.

harlan

--
To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?

Doug Dotson wrote:
OOH! The new trebouchet rig! Could be a real hit!



I want to build a trebuchet on my old dock ruin, so I can sell rides
to tourists and finance the reconstruction of the dock.

I wonder how many riders I might get, and what I should charge. I
mean, if people go for bungy jumping, why not trebuchet rides?

The dock ruin is about 25 feet wide and 100 feet long, all torn up
by the river ice. It looks like a bunch of rocks and old tree
trunks, cribbing all scattered nearby.

Could I charge a little more because the riders would be landing in
fresh water?

Terry K