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.

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.

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.

On 14 Oct 2004 12:28:53 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

Lol. That's what YOU said, not me. I just said you're way off on the
firing rate, on the low side. It doesn't take 2 men 2 minutes to
re-fire a crossbow and it doesn't take 20 seconds re-fire a longbow.
Those numbers are gross exaggerations... just like your IQ.

Steve


(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.

On 14 Oct 2004 12:28:53 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

I don't think even Robin Hood could manage to pull, aim and release in
0.6 seconds, JAX. That would be premature archeration.

Try "six per minute" and not sustained, either, as it is very tiring
to volley arrows. If you wanted to "shoot your load", a modern longbow
can loose up to 14 arrows in a minute (see

http://www.channel4.com/history/micr.../longbow1.html

but if you got six a minute for 20 minutes at say, Agincourt or other
real-life battles where the longbow was the primary offensive weapon,
you would be doing very well indeed.

R.

rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

real figures for bows as weapons of war were about one bolt even two minutes
for the crossbow, and about 6 shafts a minute for the longbow. the crossbow
had a net effective range of about 30 feet, the longbow about 100 yards.

rhys
Date: 10/14/2004 11:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 14 Oct 2004 12:28:53 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

I don't think even Robin Hood could manage to pull, aim and release in
0.6 seconds, JAX. That would be premature archeration.

Try "six per minute" and not sustained, either, as it is very tiring
to volley arrows. If you wanted to "shoot your load", a modern longbow
can loose up to 14 arrows in a minute (see

http://www.channel4.com/history/micr.../longbow1.html

but if you got six a minute for 20 minutes at say, Agincourt or other
real-life battles where the longbow was the primary offensive weapon,
you would be doing very well indeed.

R.

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

No, you were making yet another of your stupid statements.

Steve

schlakoff, admit you were the source of the conclusion, **IF** you are capable
of understanding the ramifications of your statement. otherwise, admit you
abject stupidity.

(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/15/2004 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

No, you were making yet another of your stupid statements.

Steve

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

real figures for bows as weapons of war were about one bolt even two minutes
for the crossbow, and about 6 shafts a minute for the longbow. the crossbow
had a net effective range of about 30 feet, the longbow about 100 yards.


Your range figure for crossbows is silly. Effective range of a crossbow
of medieval pattern, against armoured targets, is about 50 yards. Rate
of fire numbers are a bit bogus also, 6 shots/min for a longbow is
doable, for a very short time period. A std crossbow could do about 1
shot per min, or perhaps a bit more. Slower for some designs, faster for
others.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If guns cause crime, mine must be defective." -Ted Nugent

jim, you seem to not understand that crossbows used shorts bolts that had no
fletching. that means the bolts weren't much more than frisbees past a very
short distance. 30 feet, the museum stated. having seen a bolt, I don't doubt
that figure.

Jim Richardson
Date: 10/15/2004 3:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

real figures for bows as weapons of war were about one bolt even two
minutes
for the crossbow, and about 6 shafts a minute for the longbow. the
crossbow
had a net effective range of about 30 feet, the longbow about 100 yards.


Your range figure for crossbows is silly. Effective range of a crossbow
of medieval pattern, against armoured targets, is about 50 yards. Rate
of fire numbers are a bit bogus also, 6 shots/min for a longbow is
doable, for a very short time period. A std crossbow could do about 1
shot per min, or perhaps a bit more. Slower for some designs, faster for
others.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If guns cause crime, mine must be defective." -Ted Nugent