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 11:59:51 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

Jox, admit your conclusion that "a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty
bolts a minute, while a 100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a
minute" is a completely absurd extension from the simple statement that
your original firing rate of "it took two men most of two minutes to
load and fire a crossbow, while a longbowman could pump out three shafts
a minute" is on the high side. If you can't imagine a true firing rate
somewhere between those two extremes, you are even dumber than you
appear to be... and that's pretty dumb.

Steve


(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

schlackoff, are you drunk so early in the evening that you post this trip
without knowing it?


(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/15/2004 ----------------- 6:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
----------------------
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:51 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

Jox, admit your conclusion that "a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty
bolts a minute, while a 100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a
minute" is a completely absurd extension from the simple statement that
your original firing rate of "it took two men most of two minutes to
load and fire a crossbow, while a longbowman could pump out three shafts
a minute" is on the high side. If you can't imagine a true firing rate
somewhere between those two extremes, you are even dumber than you
appear to be... and that's pretty dumb.

Steve


(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 16 Oct 2004 01:20:48 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

schlackoff, are you drunk so early in the evening that you post this trip
without knowing it?

I didn't think you'd have the mental capacity to understand it. Here
you admit it's true.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/15/2004 ----------------- 6:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
----------------------
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:51 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

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.

Jox, admit your conclusion that "a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty
bolts a minute, while a 100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a
minute" is a completely absurd extension from the simple statement that
your original firing rate of "it took two men most of two minutes to
load and fire a crossbow, while a longbowman could pump out three shafts
a minute" is on the high side. If you can't imagine a true firing rate
somewhere between those two extremes, you are even dumber than you
appear to be... and that's pretty dumb.

Steve


(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

On 15 Oct 2004 12:02:22 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
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.


Actually, some of them were fletched. Often with thin leather, or wood,
occasionally with feathers, depending on the weight of the pull. Some
weren't, it all depended on a lot of factors. In either case, the range
was certainly not limited to 30 ft.



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
In Vino Veritas, In Cervesio Felicitas
(In wine there is truth, in beer there is joy)