|
Pathfinder does "realistic" archery fairly well up to the point that it's considering "realistic". IMO of course.Heh.
I don't think it does "realistic" archery at all (or other combat realistically either-- not with hit dice, hit points, AC entirely as deflection-- way too abstracted; speaking of arrows, getting to be a pin-cushion before you finally drop, or just presuming that as your hit points are being whittled away it's that many grazes and glancing blowss). But it's a fun game, so that's good enough for me to play it (and as far as it's abstracted-- it's not abstracted in a bad way that could ruin it for me).
Yeah, there are rules abstraction that one can float with because they're fun, realism and versimisomething be damned.
*looks worriedly at falling damage rules*
Pathfinder does "realistic" archery fairly well up to the point that it's considering "realistic". IMO of course.Heh.
I don't think it does "realistic" archery at all (or other combat realistically either-- not with hit dice, hit points, AC entirely as deflection-- way too abstracted;
...
Heh, yeah. That's why "realistic" was in quotes. The entire thing is abstract, but if you accept hitpoints and AC, then it feels fine in it's implementation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*looks worriedly at falling damage rules*
I honestly wondered why falling damage wasn't more "save for effect" based than straight up hitpoint damage. Maybe more similar to drowning (not that that is much better).
An exploding save mechanic might make very long drops dangerous at any level, yet leave that opening for those crazy slight chances of survival even for the level 1 flight attendant surviving (rolling 3 20s in a row sort of thing).
|
|
Heh, yeah. That's why "realistic" was in quotes. The entire thing is abstract, but if you accept hitpoints and AC, then it feels fine in it's implementation.
Heh.
I don't think it does "realistic" archery at all (or other combat realistically either-- not with hit dice, hit points, AC entirely as deflection-- way too abstracted;
...
Yeah, there are rules abstraction that one can float with because they're fun, realism and versimisomething be damned.*looks worriedly at falling damage rules*
Yepyep. I agree with the two of you on these things. :D
The longbow was fully capable when using a bodkin arrow of penetrating the best french plate armour of the period at short to medium range on a straight shot which landed squarely.
Volley shots were not as effective, but were known to penetrate the top of bascinets and go into the brain, go through gorgets, penetrate limb armour and of course hit your horse.
I have worked as an archaeologist on skulls with such damage. I have also been in the military and seen a longbow put up against a 9mm parabellum round against armour.
Lets just say the longbow was far better at penetrating even when shot (at up to 25 meters) against even kevlar or duplex plate. For those saying cm's of penetration was as good as it got I call foul. I have personally seen a 110lb longbow with a bodkin arrow penetrate period field plate at 25 meters and go through the arming jack behind it an go through 3 inches of pine behind that poking out around 1 cm. The 90lb bows were likely used for training younger bowmen - they were not used on the battlefield.
Skeletal damage (especially around the skapula) and raised muscle anchorages on archers is testament to the stress of pulling the powerful 'standard issue' bows. Modern studies on skeletal deformity and damage estimate the average draw weight to be 120-140lbs.
The longbow was good in volley, excellent in straight shot up to 100 meters against iron armour and a real threat even against steel plate at 50 meters or less.
At Agincourt the combination of extremely muddy ground, defensive stakes and English archers who could have three volleyed shots in the air at the same time was just devastating. Then if you were lucky enough to close you got straight shots which could go through your breastplate if they hit squarely. The French described the arrow fire as terrifying....
The English model of training was of course a MAJOR factor. Having every able man trained every Sunday by the Parish Priest (after church) with serious punishments for slacking allowed the English Monarchs to have a large body of well-trained archers at their beck and call. The Yeomanry trained all their active lives in effect, meaning that for the period in question the issue of how long it took to make a good bowman was not the great issue alluded to here. Coppiced yew trees and expert fletchers serving every population center also made availability ubiquitous.
The much quoted Battle of Verneuil (1424), and rout at the Battle of Patay (1429) were both caused by poor positioning and the archers not having time to set up stakes etc. They were not down to the longbow or it's mechanical effectiveness. The battle at Poitiers in 1356 did show that at usual engagement ranges the longbow was not as effective against the most expensive steel plate. But this was not cheaply available until the 15th century, so wasn't a massive factor
The Longbow was in truth a battlefield dominating weapon from it's introduction to its demise with the advent of cheap and widely available black powder weapons. It just became less useful against the best armoured knights towards the end of it's use, but then it was still good against their horses (and of course their rather less well-equipped troops!), and English Foot Knights were widely acknowledged as practically the best in Europe (mounted English Knights rather less so) which meant closing to melee this way didn't mean you improved your chances of success very much....
Coppiced yew trees and expert fletchers serving every population center also made availability ubiquitous.
Even so, I believe there was a law passed that ship traders had to bring back foreign supplies of yew in their holds because the local supply wasn't enough.
Hmm... I see a lot of totally unsupported claims for how the longbow was this ultra-super-weapon. That's nice. By the way, argument from authority isn't valid. "I'm an archaeologist!" "I was in the military!" Irrelevant.
Undocumented tests are also useless as an argument. Especially when the results fly in the face of numerous documented tests.
100m straight shots? Bows don't really do that you know.
I'd give a point-by-point reasoned reply, but there's too much ridiculousness in that post for me to bother.
@Alienfreak- Play nice.
Some parting thoughts for the reasonable people that may still read this: Nothing's foolproof. Although I think that a knight could have reasonable confidence in his armor's effectiveness, that's not a warrant for foolhardiness, either.
Numerous things can compromise that effectiveness, like-
1)extreme close range
2)lucky shots
3)possible undetected defects in your armor
4)multiple hits in one location (this is the best shot for piercing armor, once a dent is formed, and second hit in that spot is far more likely to succeed.)
And my more on-topic point: Rapid shooting as mentioned by the OP is possible in combat, but seems to have only been used in very special circumstances. Generally I've only seen it mentioned in connection with mounted archery.
@Finn K- Nice chatting with you. It's always nice to get the chance to talk to someone interested in an actual debate, rather than a shouting match. :)
|
|
Hmm... I see a lot of totally unsupported claims for how the longbow was this ultra-super-weapon. That's nice. By the way, argument from authority isn't valid. "I'm an archaeologist!" "I was in the military!" Irrelevant.
Hmmm... argument from authority is not always a fallacy (irrelevant), but in this case-- yeah, probably wrong.
Three things are required for it not to be a fallacy (you probably know all of this, but for readers who don't): 1. Authority cited (including personal experience) must in fact be a legitimate authority (have actual credentials and/or experience). 2. Experience and/or subject of authority's expertise must be relevant to subject of discussion at hand. 3. Authority's testimony cannot be unduly biased and/or flying in the face of consensus among other authorities on subject (esp. if it is without extensive supporting evidence).
So-- that poster is lacking credentials and backing evidence for his/her say-so (especially since this is the internet)-- if he/she is an archaeologist, he or she needs to provide more of his/her background in order to fairly judge whether he or she is an expert in the relevant field (among other points); and I do not know of any modern military that has wasted the time in comparing an old-fashioned longbow to a 9 mm pistol. Now, if I was gonna talk to you about the firing characteristics of the M16 rifle, my military experience would definitely be relevant, and I'd be justifiably pissed off if you questioned my standing/knowledge in speaking of that weapon...
@Finn K- Nice chatting with you. It's always nice to get the chance to talk to someone interested in an actual debate, rather than a shouting match. :)
Likewise-- I'll keep an eye out (in my spare time) for continued discussion between reasonable people on this and other issues. I will extend the same courtesy to Alienfreak if he (or she) desires to play nice and stick to civil discussion (I'm still not just gonna take his word for it without evidence though). As you and I have already observed, the longbow would not have been used for as long as it was if it was totally ineffective.
I suppose I will add, sincerely even-- that if I have been less than properly civil to Alienfreak-- my apologies to him, and to any others I may have offended by rude or insulting posts. I will not, however, apologize for holding a different opinion. :)
I think the military experience posts were talking about how people perform under pressure, not so much about the longbow itself.
Performance under pressure was a specific point in the discussion, so I'd say it was valid to address that individually.
Considering we are talking about Heroes, who charge into battle against things that would be physically terrifying regardless of personal familiarity (angry things 20 feet tall+ is prone to scare you, regardless of whether you've ever seen a giant before or not), I'd say we can safely assume the PCs are "battle hardened" when it comes to performance under pressure.
My point still stands though. It's not 6 shots a round we should be worrying about on the "reality" scale, it's more like 3 shots (and that's assuming a LOT of skill and training involved). I'd say that three targets in a round, moving or not, combat or not, is quite within the realm of "amazing but possible".. anything beyond 6th level and 3 shots can fall into the "It's a game about Hercules. Awesome trumps real!" camp.
Yeah, I suppose I'm especially harsh on arguments from authority when it comes to messageboards. I get really suspicious when someone mentions military service as if it is somehow relevant to the state of warfare 600 years ago.
I had planned to rip it up point-by-point when I read it at work (Can't post from there), but I realized it wasn't worth the time it takes to do the formatting. The errors were too numerous and blatant.
I'd personally LOVE to know how an archeologist can know that a specific wound was caused by volley fire.
EDIT: A better use of argument from authority (from another archaeologist) would be in one of the Falcata threads, where ColdNapalm was commenting on the handling of the weapon based on several examples in his lab that were recently uncovered on a dig.
|
|
Studies on penetration of longbow arrows vs Armor:
Matheus Bane’s study, using a 75 lb bow, found at: http://www.isegoria.net/2011/08/longbow-vs-armor/ Also found at: http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf
By Bane’s own admission, his test simulates the impact from a battlefield weight bow’s arrow striking at 250 yards of range. No-one (or at least no-one discussing this matter seriously) has argued that the English longbow could punch through plate armor at 250 yards. Bane also concludes, in his own test notes, that “Most soldiers on the battlefield would have been at risk from the longbow. The average archer would have had the tools to wound or kill most armour types. Even with the advent of coat of plates, the archer would have had an impact on an advancing army. Only the most expensive and well made plate armour wearers would have had an advantage.” (note that he does not say that those wearing plate armour would have been invulnerable—only that they would have had an advantage).
From Wikipedia, on draw weights:
“Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N) .[9] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[10] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.”
One should note, very clearly, that the estimate from the British Long Bow Society predates the recovery of bows from the Mary Rose. Every source I’ve read since those bows were recovered is largely in agreement that the estimated weight of the Mary Rose bows, is the correct draw weight for battle bows of the Middle Ages, and that the earlier, lighter weight, estimates were wrong.
There are no readily available tests, but more than a few vague references (with sources in disagreement) about what happens when armor is hit at point blank by a bodkin arrow from a 150 lb bow…
So, conclusion stands—armor was good, heck of a lot better than nothing, but longbows would not have been in use if they weren’t fairly effective in their overall effect on the battlefield.
|
|
I think the military experience posts were talking about how people perform under pressure, not so much about the longbow itself.
Yeah, I suppose I'm especially harsh on arguments from authority when it comes to messageboards. I get really suspicious when someone mentions military service as if it is somehow relevant to the state of warfare 600 years ago.
Regarding specifically this point: I do think Kaisoku does have a good point, on this particular part of the issue related to ancient and modern warfare. Those of us who have been to war can say a lot from personal experience about how people perform under pressure. While it's not necessarily the definitive answer, because each person's experience is different-- on that subject, modern military experience is relevant (so, when someone brings up their military background-- it depends on what argument/issue they're trying to support with that claim of experience, because sometimes it's not a fallacious point, sometimes it is).
Gotta agree entirely with the rest of your post, Shadrayl.
The ones on the Mary Rose had higher draws. I pointed that out long ago. But it is a ship of the line...
Those also used 40 pound cannons and stuff...
And nice that you quote Bane which we all quoted already. Gives you some credibility here.
He still uses his bow made on a 90° shot towards the tested material which is highly unrealistic to occur in a real battle, but I also said that before. And even with that he would have made not a big impact against a coat of plates worn in a proper manner and against a plate worn in a proper manner (even at the thinnest point which he tested).
Also his energy calculations for his 110lb to 75lb conversion is a bit odd so to say ;)
Are you sure you read the thread? Because the conclusion of Bane is that even against an army of common composition during 1350 (mostly made out of coat of plates) a Longbow Army would have stood not a real chance.
Keep in mind that the claims for a longbow killing someone at extreme range with a single shot was generally drawn from mass combat. With a bunch of arrows firing into a closely packed army, you're bound to get a few folks drop in a volley.Hmm... I see a lot of totally unsupported claims for how the longbow was this ultra-super-weapon.
A high draw bow (such as 100lb is) is almost impossible to shoot directly anyway. It is a weapon made solely for the purpose of angular long range shots with a high number of arrows in the air.
You don't have to kill someone to take him out of combat or slow him down. Also due to the high number of arrows you will most likely hit the weak point of someones armor (visor, rivets...) or horses (legs...). Not to mention the psychological effect of standing in a volley of deadly arrows raining down...The longbow was a good tactical weapon to use for harrassment of other troops but people potray it as KILLER WEAPON which it never was and never will be.
And as such it is potrayded in PF in a totally wrong way. It is a direct shot armor penetrating high damage high rate of fire killer weapon.
That's not a composite longbow, however. It doesn't have a heavy enough draw. She's also not firing at moving targets or multiple targets from 100 feet. It doesn't prove Pathfinder archery realistic.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with Pathfinder archery. This is fantasy, after all. I just don't bear the impression that I could do any of that stuff in real life, just like how I don't actually believe I can throw lightning bolts at people who make me mad.
Don't confuse composite with compound. Composite bows are just bows made of more than one material. The bow in the video looks like a composite recurve. The handle is a seperate piece from the arms.
A compound bow has gears that lower the weight at full draw. These are not designed for snap shooting. They are fired at a slower rate, with time allowed for aiming than a standard longbow or recurve.
Bows are drawn with back muscles rather than arm muscles. Training improves capability for drawing heavier bows.
|
|
Credibility: so far, the person asking for it, has not produced anything to give his posts credibility. The papers he erroneously cites research from, do not support his conclusions (this is true of Bane, this is also true of the Royal Armoury studies). The battles he looks to, will only support his preconceived notions if one badly misunderstands what occurred (and in what order) at each of these battles. The other sources he looks to (notably the British Long Bow Society, among others) have already retracted the conclusions he cites as current fact (estimates of longbow draw weights, for instance).
He is still talking about "super-weapons" when most of the people discussing the issue have concluded that neither bows nor suits of armor were "super" at all. He accuses others of not reading the thread, yet ignores what is actually posted by others (the exact quote I included from Bane's own paper, in Bane's own words, is NOT ambiguous-- among other points made by several people, and ignored by that poster).
He is unaware that people who shoot traditional long bows, even very high draw weight bows (for those strong enough, that is), can shoot them directly with a high degree of accuracy (after all, before the "English" Long Bow was a mass weapon of warrior, the Welsh Long Bow was the chosen weapon for solo hunters and individual marksmen opposing Longshanks's efforts to seize control of Wales). He does not cite any evidence for the view that they are even difficult to shoot directly, but on this I am quite sure no such evidence exists, since this is an area where I can not only look to books but also to the evidence of my own eyes-- having seen people shoot high draw-weight traditional long bows before.
There are other people reading this thread-- so the above issues need to be clarified for the benefit of the others. Other than that, I'm done discussing the above issues-- there's no point continuing to pulverize the horse's corpse when someone is so set in their ways that they are unwilling to change, yet they are not providing any supportable reasons for others to heed their opinion.
I removed some posts. 1) Be civil. 2) If you're going to ignore someone, do so. Posting to say so is just trying to get the last word.
Some groundlessly dismissive posters here - who in citing lack of documented empirical proof in what I made perfectly clear was personal experience only underline their own lack of said proof.
I studied Archaeology at Leicester University UK and my time in the military gave me the opportunity to see a longbow made by a craftsman skilled in doing so put against a 9mm browning pistol. I lost the bet on penetration on both counts. It left an impression on me so to speak.
I don't see the point of posting my CV or service record to make a point - this is a roleplay forum, not an interview panel....
What I meant by straight shot was a projectile still travelling under a significant amount of it's own kinetic energy - not relying on gravity from being volleyed.
I would suggest you actually watch a REAL longbow being fired by a REAL person before discounting the experience of others. The proof of the pudding and all that....
On draw weights - pay some attention to the Mary Rose studies - I worked on skeletal remains from that while studying for my BSc in 1987. The issue of the longbows they found came up at the same time.
Shadrayl - if you lack understanding on how an archaeologist can understand the nature of weapon damage to skeletal remains then I suggest you read Cox and Mays or any half-decent textbook on osteology.
For those who still think Bane is authoritative - well - enough said about their 'academic rigour'. As for claims that a 'high' draw weight bow could not be shot straight - I am speechless. The only significant functional difference between launching a straight shot and a volley shot is angle of release. Firing a bow angled up REDUCES pull strength, it doesn't increase it as this implies.
The longbow was not indeed a 'superweapon', but it was a lethal and effective one. The fact of the matter is, if it hadn't been, it would not have been so widely utilised by those with the good fortune to have it available for so long.
Argue all you want from your armchairs, but don't think for a minute that the English failed to start using the crossbow - which COULD penetrate heavy armour, because of a sentimental attachment to the longbow. They didn't - the longbow continued to deliver the goods at short to medium range whilst having better volley fire characteristics and greater maximum range.
|
|
Some groundlessly dismissive posters here - who in citing lack of documented empirical proof in what I made perfectly clear was personal experience only underline their own lack of said proof.
I studied Archaeology at Leicester University UK and my time in the military gave me the opportunity to see a longbow made by a craftsman skilled in doing so put against a 9mm browning pistol. I lost the bet on penetration on both counts. It left an impression on me so to speak.
I don't see the point of posting my CV or service record to make a point - this is a roleplay forum, not an interview panel....
Caliburn--
My apologies if I have offended you unnecessarily. My post, 2 posts above yours, was not a response to anything you've said, and if my other posts came off as attacks-- again, sorry 'bout that-- I should know better than to post when I'm pissed off, but sometimes I do it anyway; and sometimes I'm guilty of snapping at other posters as well when I'm really irritated with a different person. That being said-- this is the internet. Anyone can say anything... so sometimes, I do want to know a little more about someone's background when considering what they have to say-- your statement above is sufficient to satisfy my curiousity on that score, however. My apologies also for doubting your experience before.I am still a little surprised that the British military put a longbow up against a 9 mm for armor penetration tests, but I'll take your word on it-- how did the 9mm fare against plate armor though? You stated how the longbow did, but not the results from the pistol, and I admit-- I want to know.
For those who still think Bane is authoritative - well - enough said about their 'academic rigour'. As for claims that a 'high' draw weight bow could not be shot straight - I am speechless. The only significant functional difference between launching a straight shot and a volley shot is angle of release. Firing a bow angled up REDUCES pull strength, it doesn't increase it as this implies.
I found Bane's tests interesting, but I do not think his tests were authoritative-- and I respect your point, that his tests and paper were not up to the standards expected for academic research (I quoted Bane's study, because it had been quoted earlier to try to prove a point that Bane himself explicitly rejected). In general, I agree with everything you've said in the post quoted (esp. including the sections cut for space).
I have just one issue here (having done a fair amount of archery myself, as well as having read about it and watched others)-- firing an arrow from a bow at an elevated angle only reduces pull strength (to the best of my knowledge and experience) if you change the angle by lifting your bow arm. If you change the angle of release by leaning your whole torso back, keeping your bow arm out the same way relative to your shoulder, back and chest that you do when making a level shot, and your draw the same relative to your torso-- it doesn't change your pull strength at all (neither an increase nor a decrease). Please correct me on that if I'm wrong-- let me know what I'm missing in that understanding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Caliburn--
My apologies if I have offended you unnecessarily. My post, 2 posts above yours, was not a response to anything you've said, and if my other posts came off as attacks-- again, sorry 'bout that-- I should know better than to post when I'm pissed off, but sometimes I do it anyway; and sometimes I'm guilty of snapping at other posters as well when I'm really irritated with a different person. That being said-- this is the internet. Anyone can say anything... so sometimes, I do want to know a little more about someone's background when considering what they have to say-- your statement above is sufficient to satisfy my curiousity on that score, however. My apologies also for doubting your experience before.I am still a little surprised that the British military put a longbow up against a 9 mm for armor penetration tests, but I'll take your word on it-- how did the 9mm fare against plate armor though? You stated how the longbow did, but not the results from the pistol, and I admit-- I want to know.
The 'British Military' didn't - but an enthusiast (a Sergeant Major friend of mine who was a member of the Sealed Knot re-ennactment group) and the range officer set the demo up.
One of the first things they do with new recruits is take them to the range to familiarise them with what guns actually do - not what Hollywood shows them doing. Metal jacketted assault rounds are FAR better than portrayed and soft rounds (and pistols ) are far LESS capable. For instance the Sterling submachine gun (which fires 9mm parabellum) can be stopped by a folded woolen blanket soaked in water at 100 meters. I kid you not....
The Browning did not penetrate the kevlar (as one would have expected), but the bodkin from the longbow went through it like it wasn't there frankly. The heavy breastplate deflected the browning (leaving an admittedly massive dent) but once again the bodkin went through. We even drafted a joke letter to the SAS recommending they be resupplied with a new 'carbine' version of the longbow....
...
For those who still think Bane is authoritative - well - enough said about their 'academic rigour'. As for claims that a 'high' draw weight bow could not be shot straight - I am speechless. The only significant functional difference between launching a straight shot and a volley shot is angle of release. Firing a bow angled up REDUCES pull strength, it
On your second point - I had a chat with someone far more knowledgeable than me and was assured that with modern bows the relatively low pull weights you are correct here. The issue comes when dealing with what it now thought about the extreme longbow poundages which were actually used. The bowmen did indeed bend over backwards to volley fire, but apparently the strain at this angle meant less draw. This however is received wisdom and based on educated assumptions about the nature of shoulder blade (scapula) damage on archer skeletons (the non-undead variety of course...)
In any case - my thanks for the reasoned rejoiner Finn.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the first things they do with new recruits is take them to the range to familiarise them with what guns actually do - not what Hollywood shows them doing. Metal jacketted assault rounds are FAR better than portrayed and soft rounds (and pistols ) are far LESS capable. For instance the Sterling submachine gun (which fires 9mm parabellum) can be stopped by a folded woolen blanket soaked in water at 100 meters. I kid you not....The Browning did not penetrate the kevlar (as one would have expected), but the bodkin from the longbow went through it like it wasn't there frankly. The heavy breastplate deflected the browning (leaving an admittedly massive dent) but once again the bodkin went through. We even drafted a joke letter to the SAS recommending they be resupplied with a new 'carbine' version...
Gotta love Sergeant Majors and their ability to improvise new and exciting "entertainments". In the US Army (I joined up many years ago, but I understand this part hasn't changed), weapons training starts in the 3rd week of Basic-- but at that point, a demonstration of weaponry and its actual effects and capabilities is the first event for us also, before recruits are ever allowed to handle any weapons themselves.
I believe the results-- especially re: the woolen blanket soaked in water stopping 9mm-- that's not bad as improvised protection against fragmentation for thin-skinned huts either. I've never been impressed with the ability of 9mm pistols for penetration and damage, so the other results also do not overly surprise me (I doubt that .45 ACP pistols would do any better though-- most pistols just don't do that well against modern body armor, let alone vehicle armor)-- there's a reason the U.S. military keeps looking to carbines like the M4 series rather than submachine guns for troops who need a shorter/smaller weapon than the full rifle. Also good reason why the current 5.56mm NATO round has a hardened steel core (we got rid of lead-cored bullets for more than just green/environmental reasons...).
Regarding the reduced effective draw in high-angle fire-- the reasons do seem to make sense. I'll keep that in mind. :)
I don't know, I think the P90 has a solid amount of penetration, but that gun is weird, and has a rate of fire so utterly ludicrous that all you would need are a bunch of extra magazines.
|
|
I don't know, I think the P90 has a solid amount of penetration, but that gun is weird, and has a rate of fire so utterly ludicrous that all you would need are a bunch of extra magazines.
I don't know enough about the P90 but it looks like it uses a special new round developed for it, not a standard pistol round. So-- it might do alright. Lemme know if you get the scoop on how effective it is.
I don't know, I think the P90 has a solid amount of penetration, but that gun is weird, and has a rate of fire so utterly ludicrous that all you would need are a bunch of extra magazines.I don't know enough about the P90 but it looks like it uses a special new round developed for it, not a standard pistol round. So-- it might do alright. Lemme know if you get the scoop on how effective it is.
I wouldn't call it new per say, it's been around since '91, and it was the weapon of choice for Stargate SG-1, picked for it's armor-piercing ability, huge magazine, and staggering rate of fire. Admittedly, it's range leaves something to be desired as an all-purpose weapon, but it's a "personal defense weapon", whatever that translates to aside from close-ranged-murder-device.
EDIT: Found out what personal-defense weapon means, it means sub machine gun +1 more or less.
Kindly note that Kevlar is meant to disperse impacts from blunt munitions and deform. It has no more protective ability then good leather against anything with an edge or a point...you can saw through Kevlar, stab someone through kevlar. An average blowdart or spring dagger can go through kevlar.
Now, Kevlar with ceramic strike plates might be a different issue. The ceramic plates are in there specifically to deal with assault rounds and edged attacks.
==Aelryinth
There are no readily available tests, but more than a few vague references (with sources in disagreement) about what happens when armor is hit at point blank by a bodkin arrow from a 150 lb bow…
Well, it's hardly the final word, but the study I mentioned earlier is rather informative, at least. They really were very thorough. It was conducted with an accurate weight bow, and includes analyses of the metal targets with comparison to period originals, so it's getting a lot closer than previous tests. (I would like to add that I misspoke- it's in the Royal Armouries' journal 'Arms&Armour', but the testing was performed by the Defense Academy.)
It's one of those things that people will never agree on... I think it's one of those things where we're seeing some one-off results historically that are very difficult to reproduce in a test. It's a dead horse argument at this point, though.
|
|
Kindly note that Kevlar is meant to disperse impacts from blunt munitions and deform. It has no more protective ability then good leather against anything with an edge or a point...you can saw through Kevlar, stab someone through kevlar. An average blowdart or spring dagger can go through kevlar.
Now, Kevlar with ceramic strike plates might be a different issue. The ceramic plates are in there specifically to deal with assault rounds and edged attacks.
==Aelryinth
Hmmm... you do realize that the individuals discussing this are already well aware of how Kevlar works and what it's good for? BTW-- have you actually worn a military fragmentation vest, or seen how many layers of Kevlar a typical frag vest includes in each panel (talking the old school ones, btw-- not the new vests with ceramic plates)?
A blow-dart will punch right through a few layers of Kevlar, sure... it's not going to go right through a whole vest, and it would take a really strong guy, stabbing with all his might, with a really sharp, tough, pointy knife to make it through in one stab-- yeah, about like leather or maybe a little better, actually-- but that's a LOT of layers of "leather-equivalent" so it's quite a bit better against edges and a little better against sharp, piercing points than you may give it credit for.
And, you're at least partly wrong-- though the ceramic plates will deal with edged weapon attacks (once each), the entire intent of those plates is for stopping high velocity bullets... we don't get into hand to hand combat often enough to worry about designing military body armor for protection against melee weapons anymore, at least not for the standard-issue gear. Considering the limitations of the ceramic plates-- very brittle, tend to shatter on the first hit and not be so good at protecting you if you get hit twice-- yeah, not meant for close combat, although not useless if someone tries to stick a bayonet in your back.
Not that any of that will feel good.
|
|
Armored Saint--
did you actually read the thread? or did you just go off on what you assumed the state of the discussion was at the time you posted?
You're a bit late for the "super longbow" party-- the main consensus has been that the longbow was still effective on the battlefield at least through Agincourt-- or else the English would have stopped fielding it, but that it wasn't a super-weapon; and that the armor wasn't super-duper-magic-invulnerability (through Agincourt at least), but that it was still pretty good at stopping a lot of arrows, otherwise people would have stopped wearing it. And the point that armor kept getting better as years went on past Agincourt-- that it was the gun that really brought in the penetration to discourage use of armor-- was already made on this thread.
Lots of nice info in your post though.
Not really... same page
The longbow was fully capable when using a bodkin arrow of penetrating the best french plate armour of the period at short to medium range on a straight shot which landed squarely.
This faction is still alive and kicking.
And the English didn't field the Longbow in Agincourt because they thought it would be the uber weapon.
You know what? They had them and they used them for harassing. And guess what!? It worked!
Combined with the glory hogginess of the royals and the missing of some combatants the French plus the horrible ground conditions managed to slow the mounts down (which gave them alot of time to be wounded by arrows) and then they reached the fortifications which they could not break through with their (due to ground conditions) poor speed. They ended up between the archers and other dismounted knights which slew them.
Not to mention that archers were mostly low caste warriors which were not attractive targets for the infantry of the french so they didn't bother taking on them.
So the resume is: don't attack enemies with poor tactics on poor grounds if they have fortifications or they will most likely win no matter what weapons they use.
Pathfinder archery works better than previous systems IMO. Original D&D for example I always thought it was far too weak and it remained so even in computer RPG's like EQ1 where it was useful only for pulling an enemy.
The problem is that it seems apparent that the rogue shooting an enemy from behind in the darkness should kill that guard with it. And realistically he would - the problem is that too many times the guard is built to be a heroic monster with mega hit-points. Savage Worlds, GURPS, and even (boo hiss I know) D&D4e handles this right away by creating "minions" - cannon fodder to be the enemies that simulate cinematic play of enemies who go down with one shot but have the power to mess you up if they hit you first or you miss.
IOW archery and other artillery fire whether its fireballs or what have you can be done in an exciting fairly realistic way if your GM has written the adventure well.
Like everything YMMV. Just my 2copper.
D&D 4e created minions. SR 4e created minions.
Both failed.The idea of minions is just a mockery of rewarding heroic combat.
If you dislike heroic combat don't play such a game.
One aspect where archery is definitely not realistic is when an archer is confronted in melee combat. In real life, they're pretty screwed, you're not getting a single shot off if I'm trying to stab you or you're being mauled by a bear. With a bow and arrow, you basically have no defense, and you're going to get stabbed pretty easily if you just stand there trying to fire again.
In PF, it's all too easy to get out of melee with a 5' step and get all of your shots off, or at least get one shot off my moving substantially. I find that unrealistic and also imbalanced in favor of archery.
In general, when I have a powergamer, he quickly realizes that archery has none of the drawbacks of melee combat, and all of the advantages, so it raises the question, "Why bother with melee when archery is so much better?". And that's an excellent question.
One aspect where archery is definitely not realistic is when an archer is confronted in melee combat. In real life, they're pretty screwed, you're not getting a single shot off if I'm trying to stab you or you're being mauled by a bear. With a bow and arrow, you basically have no defense, and you're going to get stabbed pretty easily if you just stand there trying to fire again.
In PF, it's all too easy to get out of melee with a 5' step and get all of your shots off, or at least get one shot off my moving substantially. I find that unrealistic and also imbalanced in favor of archery.
In general, when I have a powergamer, he quickly realizes that archery has none of the drawbacks of melee combat, and all of the advantages, so it raises the question, "Why bother with melee when archery is so much better?". And that's an excellent question.
The real thing that broke archery a little is that you can easily get a feat that lets you attack in melee with a bow without provoking AoOs. Plus mounted archery is ridiculous. And don't forget deadly aim.
Earlier you could easily get rid of an archer by having reach or by having more than one opponent at him (so he can't 5ft step out of threatened areas).
Nowadays an archer moves 100 ft towards you, full attacks you and watches the Tiger he is riding pounce raking you. If that fails he can still shoot in melee without any disadvantages.
|
|
This faction is still alive and kicking.
It's a dead horse, AF.
The sources you provided don't support your arguments or the super-weapon arguments either. Your conclusions about the battles you've brought up have been wrong (and still are-- though not entirely). I'd suggest you leave it alone and concentrate on the game issues, rather than arguing historical points that you can't support.
BTW-- what is your academic/professional background? Do you actually have any verifiable training and/or expertise in the areas being discussed? Or, just another hobbyist?
This faction is still alive and kicking.It's a dead horse, AF.
The sources you provided don't support your arguments or the super-weapon arguments either. Your conclusions about the battles you've brought up have been wrong (and still are-- though not entirely). I'd suggest you leave it alone and concentrate on the game issues, rather than arguing historical points that you can't support.
BTW-- what is your academic/professional background? Do you actually have any verifiable training and/or expertise in the areas being discussed? Or, just another hobbyist?
1.
I'm an engineer currently in his promotion.2.
The sources I provided support my claims. Even Bane does if you read it right. At real world distances against real world armour with real world trajectories (in case of not hitting perfectly in 90°) even he proves that not even cheaply made armour could be defeated.
3.
And the conclusions of my battles are right, if you care to read more about Agincourt you will see why the French have failed. And the reason was NOT the Longbow. Well at least not because it killed a lot of people but because it was used successfully for harassing and baiting.
Care to enlighten me where I am wrong?
4.
Its not a dead horse because even you claim that a Longbow STILL WAS A VIABLE WEAPON AT AGINCOURT in regards of being able to kill people. And that is just plain wrong as has been proven over and over here.
People at that time wore at least a coat of plates and that one was almost invincible against arrows. Especially considering the horrible firing rate of Longbowmen.
Not to mention that you insisted and most probably still do that heavy cavalry was at its end after Agincourt. Heavy cavalry was even successful against muskets which are heavily superior to longbowmen.
|
|
I'm an engineer currently in his promotion.
So, no special expertise-- at least not any more or less than the rest of us. Whereas Caliburn actually has some relevant expertise...
The sources I provided support my claims. Even Bane does if you read it right. At real world distances against real world armour with real world trajectories (in case of not hitting perfectly in 90°) even he proves that not even cheaply made armour could be defeated.
From Bane (straight from his article, exact quote):
“Most soldiers on the battlefield would have been at risk from the longbow. The average archer would have had the tools to wound or kill most armour types. Even with the advent of coat of plates, the archer would have had an impact on an advancing army. Only the most expensive and well made plate armour wearers would have had an advantage.”Note that it does say that those wearing well made plate armour would have had an advantage-- NOT that they would have been invulnerable. Not an ambiguous statement either.
And the conclusions of my battles are right, if you care to read more about Agincourt you will see why the French have failed. And the reason was NOT the Longbow. Well at least not because it killed a lot of people but because it was used successfully for harassing and baiting.Care to enlighten me where I am wrong?
Sure.
Biggest effect of the Longbow at Agincourt, and Crecy and Poitiers before that wasn't harassment and baiting-- it was a LOT of dead French horses. Better speed would not have helped cavalry ride through the stakes and caltrops in front of the archers (on both wings), or through the lances and spears of the dismounted knights, squires and men-at-arms in the center. Though it would have gotten them there a lot faster, so would have resulted in less dead horses and less casualties due to archery in general. When the French did reach the English lines-- they apparently hit along the whole line, and did not ignore the archers (except possibly for that portion of archers that were in the woods on either side of the battlefield, rather than dispersed in blocks of troops on the main line). The English archers were as much a part of the melee combat, using every weapon and tool they could use for it, as all the rest of the English troops.
Oh, and fortifications? Caltrops, and long sharpened stakes dug into the ground and sticking up at 45-degree angle... hardly what we usually refer to as fortifications, and although they were effective at blocking cavalry-- not an impediment at all to French ground troops-- the mud was still far more effective at limiting/slowing French movement. The stakes did their job though-- which was to prevent cavalry from over-running English foot troops when they reached the English line of battle.
Now, your other battle you've brought up? Vienna, 1683? Yeah, if Cavalry was still the decisive arm of battle, the heavy cavalry would not have sat up on a hill watching the fight for 12 hours-- waiting until the Ottoman troops were tired, beat, probably low on ammunition after 12 hours of fighting, quite possibly already breaking-- spending those 12 hours watching the Austrian/allied army's foot troops fighting and bleeding and dying all day long-- if they could have successfully intervened earlier. They were great at "clean-up" and running the Ottoman forces off the battlefield after the infantry had done the really hard part of the fighting, but did not have the decisive role-- nor the capability to take part in such a decisive role-- that you claim for them.
Its not a dead horse because even you claim that a Longbow STILL WAS A VIABLE WEAPON AT AGINCOURT in regards of being able to kill people. And that is just plain wrong as has been proven over and over here.
People at that time wore at least a coat of plates and that one was almost invincible against arrows. Especially considering the horrible firing rate of Longbowmen.
You keep saying "as has been proven over and over here." I don't think you're very good at writing in the English language, because you appear to believe that "proven" is synonymous with "because I said so". You haven't proven a goddamn thing, yet-- except that you can make grand pronouncements of opinion as statements of fact, which is actually pretty much what all of us are doing on this page (yes, I include myself in that)-- unless you have thorough, solid, academically rigorous data and sources to present that will actually support the points you're trying to make.
Oh, and read the Bane quote again-- since he explicitly mentions that Coats of Plate were not proof against longbowmen. Not that they were useless-- hell of a lot better than not wearing armor-- but with that many arrows around, and the fact that I have yet to see or hear of a coat of plates that covers all parts of the body... hell of a lot less than invincible. You also keep going on about "horrible firing rate", and there's your claim that the longbow wasn't accurate at direct shooting in the hands of a trained archer-- on those two claims, you have been thoroughly debunked.
Although, lemme check-- how quickly did you think longbowmen could fire arrows again? The biggest limit on an archer's firing rate was how many arrows he has available to shoot. Other than that-- 1 arrow/2 seconds-- is quite possible, even probable, if not faster-- for archers who have spent as much time training as the English did and who were firing from static positions, unleashing rapid volley fire. They could probably sustain that rate for about a minute... after that, the archer's gonna start getting tired pretty quick and will probably need to slow down if he wants to keep going for an extended period... not to mention the fact that trying to sustain the fastest rate is going to burn through your arrows really quickly.
Not to mention that you insisted and most probably still do that heavy cavalry was at its end after Agincourt. Heavy cavalry was even successful against muskets which are heavily superior to longbowmen.
Hmm... if I said Heavy cavalry was at its end (which I didn't think I said), I was wrong, because that is incorrect. After Agincourt, especially since the gun was on the rise by the end of the century, Heavy Cavalry was no longer the decisive arm of battle that it had once been. It was on the decline as the main part of military force after Agincourt, not completely dead. And you really must define what you mean by "superior to longbowmen" for the musketeers-- although generally, yes, there's a lot of ways you can define that that do justify that description. There's a lot of reasons why muskets did in fact replace longbows even in Britain... ease of teaching someone how to shoot them is one reason, range, armor-penetration, and sheer deadliness to their targets are three more.
Heavy cavalry vs. musketeer-- pretty good odds for the cavalryman if he can catch the musketeer up close and personal while he's reloading. Sucks to be the cavalryman if the musketeer's loaded, match lit, and ready for him (even worse for the cavalryman after the flint-lock came into vogue-- of course, by that point, cavalrymen were using pistols themselves).
And we're still debating historical points on a board for a fictional game... when apparently nothing I write is convincing you of anything, and you have not proven any of your points to me-- so yeah, we're pounding the bloody paste that used to be an equine corpse. Keep on posting if you want to-- if you can come up with facts and supporting evidence, I'll look at it and maybe even reply.
Funny stuff.
The French clearly used to cut the fingers of English Longbowmen off because the weapon was crap. Unsporting to allow them to continue using something ineffective yes? How generous....
Obviously ALL the French Knights at Agincourt had the very best duplex breastplate (by far the thickest) armour covering every square inch of their bodies and didn't need to worry about getting hit regardless of location?
Also - it must have been that their horses were covered in duplex breastplates too huh?
Perhaps the English didn't bother to use swallowtail arrows which were specifically designed to be effective against horses becuase they didn't think the French would use their thousands of mounted knights eh?
.... and that the longbowmen were stupidly using the long bodkin designed to penetrate mail, rather than the short bodkin designed to penetrate plate? But then you would probably contest the existence and use of the short bodkin as 'longbows can't penetrate plate' right?
I wonder why they bothered to use the short bodkin when it didn't work? Those guys must have been stupid I suppose....
As for crap rate of fire - 13 arrows a minutes is crap? I wonder what you would think good was?
These men practised ALL their vigorous adult lives with a very high poundage weapon requiring them to be enormously muscular. You don't get bone deformation with wimpy muscles.
If the French didn't feel the longbow was effective against armoured knights, why did they complain so loudly against the 'unchivalrous' principle that commoners should be able to kill noblemen?
The fact is - the longbow was effective in battles where it was able to do it's work. In battles where it couldn't - NO bow or crossbow would have been effective due to positioning or particulars of engagement. Claiming the longbow wasn't effective as a weapon just because in 'Battle X' it wasn't efffective is merely stating your ignorance of the specific tactical elements which lead to it.
That is not to say that engagements like Agincourt didn't have overarching tactical reasons why the victory was so complete - muddy ground, bad French leadership and piss-poor strategy. However, none of this explains why an army made overwhelmingly of lightly armoured longbowmen conitnued to fire their 'inefective' longbows until they ran out of arrows. If the longbow was useless against the PRIMARY French 'teeth arms' of that war (i.e. Knights), I think Harry might have worked it out a little earlier don't you?
You also entirely disregard the fact that in these battles the armoured knights had SHIELDS - which COULD stop a longbow arrow - and yet they didn't close effectively when the longbowman had time to concentrate fire on them.
If I had armour which was impenetrable and a shield to cover the tiny gaps in it I would not be routed or killed by the enemy unless I bent over and painted a target on my arse.
Yes - the longbow was not effective when archers were caught in the open or had to move too much or didn't have defences against rapidly advancing charges. GUNS are less effective in such situations too by the way....
If you want to continue this arguement then explain WHY the English continued to use the longbow for so long after armours which made it 'redundant' came into common use even by knights of modest means by the end of the 13th century?
If you can't explain it, then any number of modern experiments by approximated longbows fired by people with less skill and less strength against the thickest plate armour angled and struck in optimal conditions (for the armour at least) taking no account of every other factor involved in a medieval battle is pretty pointless isn't it....
|
|
Funny stuff.
Yes, yes it is (that was the poster for whom I have now quoted Bane a couple of times-- not because Bane did a full academically rigorous test, but because even Bane's tests and conclusions do not support the poster's positions).
BTW, Caliburn-- Since you've studied some of these battles more than I have-- anything you can see that I got wrong in my comments on Agincourt in the most recent reply, or on the utility of heavy cavalry in the centuries after Agincourt?
1.
Well... your opinion ;)
2.
Read his results again. Then read his testing enviroment.
As I have previously stated 3 times, which you obviously ignore or can't read or whatever, this concludes that at real world circumstances the arrow would have been defeated both by Coat of Plates as well as Plate Armour. Reading anything else into those results except the IT COULD PENETRATE IF SHOT PERFECTLY STRAIGHT AT THE THINNEST PART OF HIS ARMOR is ridiculous.
3.
The archers made the riders attack them in the first place. So no harassment took place. Sure , your opinion...
Better speed would have helped them breaching those stakes alot. But well... your opinion
They didn't attack the center, so what is your argument here? And speed certainly helps breaching lances and formations. Get your facts straight please.
And they joined into melee after they had no arrows anymore. Plus they most likely mostly killed off wounded and stray combatants. Against a formed french combat line an archer with an hatched would have been a moving corpse, nothing more.
4.
Those were pretty decent battlefield fortifications.
Not influencing the French Infantry? Those were heavily armored (unlike what you guys suggest they wore at this age) and against lightly armored enemies in an area which had stakes every 1 meter in several layers? Your opinion is interesting again.
5.
So the Ottomans were already beaten by the infantry? Where do you have that information from?
You with your opinions and attitude are the exact reason why the french failed. Because they though like you.
Watch some african nations using tanks. They get ripped apart by badly equipped people in some holes.
I head tanks are very bad against people in tshirts and featuring an RPG 7V...
Yet tanks are a very strong battlefield weapon. Unless you use them wrong. Just like heavy cavalry. You don't let them rush in without any cover against bad odds.
They used it perfectly. The Ottomans were exhausted from the day of fighting and then they lead an impressive charge against the elite troops of the Ottomans and smashed them to bits.
The exhaustion together with the demoralizing effect of smashing the elite troops freed the way for the cavalry straight into the camp.
Then the infantry from both sides joined and send the forces flying.
They were no clean up at all. The Ottomans were still doing pretty fine. They had ammo (unlike what you say which is completely baseless) and men. The cavalry with their breaking power turned the whole battle so that the HL won without great casulties against superior numbers. If you call deciding a battle cleaning up... well... you educated opinion again, I guess.
But according to your superior educated opinion it would have been better to equip 50.000 more troops instead of equipping 20.000 heavy cavalry. If the Holy League Commanders just had you for giving them advice. The battle could have been over in 4 hours, at most, then. Because 50.000 men each of which is better than one of those 20.000 means a power up of about 150%!!!!111
6.
Poeple of that time wrote that Armour was able to stop arrows.
Bane proved that at VERY CLOSE DISTANCE AT PERFECT TRAJECTORY AT PERFECT ANGLE AGAINST BAD ARMOURS AT THEIR WEAKES POINT you COULD possibly, if you hit an very important capilar or organ, kill a person with it. This is what he did. Reading anything else into his results is not academic at all, sorry.
7.
Did you read his data?
HIS BEST RESULT against coat of plates was a penetration of 1cm into the person with an object that is less than 1cm^2 in area. Highly deadly I'd say
Then read the results against the plate. The plate in his test performed WORSE.
Get the facts straight dude
8.
Longbowmen didn't use quivers at all. They either had a bundle of arrows with them or in the ground before them.
Now pull an arrow from earth, get it ready on your bow, lean back, pull the whole 100lb draw, aim, release. And now coordinate that with another 100 persons
You say its 2 seconds? Oh no wait. Its even faster. I would do that in one second. At most!
Your educated opinion again. In reality that is close to 10 seconds. Which is also the number commonly assumed, btw. and not some fancy I REANECT THE MEDIEVAL LOOKS I SHOOT THROUGH 4 PLATES BEHIND EACH OTHER wannabe elf data.
9.
Musketeers are easier to train.
Musketeer bullets are better against armour.
Musketeer bullets have a much better man stopping power.
Musketeers could more easily carry ammo.
Musketeers were more expensive in equipment.
So they were... BETTER
10.
The end of cavalry was the 1st world war with its machine guns. Not even the musketeers. Period.
The thing the musketeers did was making the cavalry a sole flanking and fast strike type of troops. So they were not as "important" anymore.
@ Caliburn 101
The French of that period didn't use shields. Because it was worse than fighting without one just out of the fact that Armour was that good.
But wait! IT WASN'T! ALL THE FOOLS! I bet if they have had internet armchair generals as advisors the holy league would have won with ease. Or no... the turks... because the HL did employ such a useless and non decisive troop type as their main weapon...
But good try anyway ;)