How far up in time were medieval units used?

[Grenouille]

Originally posted by Hauptman
Polish "Cavalry" charged german tanks with Lances in 1939. I think that qualifies...

You are mistaken, Herr Hauptmann. Polish cavarly never attacked german tanks with their lances, that`s a german propaganda lie.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry :

The same day the German war correspondents were brought to the battlefield together with two journalists from Italy. They were shown the battlefield, the corpses of Polish cavalrymen and their horses, as well as German tanks that arrived to the place after the battle. One of the Italian correspondents sent home an article, in which he described the bravery and heroism of Polish soldiers, who charged German tanks with their sabres and lances. Although such a charge did not happen and there were no tanks used during the combat, the myth was used by German propaganda during the war. After the end of World War II it was still used by Soviet propaganda as an example of stupidity of Polish commanders and authorities, who allegedly did not prepare their country for the war and instead wasted the blood of their soldiers.

[Zoid]

Re: Re: How far up in time were medieval units used?

Great post Mace

Originally posted by Mace

Arquebus, 1400's. This was a crude firearm, using a matchlock mechanism. If it rained, your matchlock gun would not fire. And when they did fire, it took 2 men and a good several minutes to prime the gun again. Sadly, this isn't really modelled in Civ, they skip the early firearms and go straight to Musketmen...and ignore the fact that pikemen were the dominant defensive unit in the late middle ages/early renaissance period!

I didn´t know this. It´s funny because there´s a swedish word called "arkebuserad" which means "to be executed by a firing squad". Now I know where the word comes from

[Last Conformist]

I knew the word "arquebus" since years, but I never made the connection to arkebusera.

The Swedish name for the weapon is hakebössa "hook gun". The German is Hakebusse, also "hook gun", which gave italian archibuso, which gave French arquebuse, which gave English "arquebus".

[Jim Cobb]

"Bayonet. I researched the bayonet one time, but I can't remember it all. I think it was either 1590 or 1690"

The plug bayoney was introduced by the French in the 1680s. The socket bayonet was introduced around 1700.

[Mace]

Re: Re: Re: How far up in time were medieval units used?

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg
It´s funny because there´s a swedish word called "arkebuserad" which means "to be executed by a firing squad". Now I know where the word comes from

Hey, thanks for telling me about the Swedish word "arkebuserad". I don't know any Swedish words, except that one, and whatever I heard from the Swedish chef on the muppet show.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Jim Cobb
"Bayonet. I researched the bayonet one time, but I can't remember it all. I think it was either 1590 or 1690"

The plug bayoney was introduced by the French in the 1680s. The socket bayonet was introduced around 1700.

Yes that's right, thanks for clearing it up. As I recall, the early bayonets were not very good, as they tended to break easily, or get in the way of firing the musket ball. The ones that fit _around_ the barrel (I think those are the socket bayonets you refer to) were much better.

In my Civ3 mod I considered having a bayonet advance, along with matchlock and flintlock. I thought the bayonet was that important in its effect on warfare.

[Zoid]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How far up in time were medieval units used?

Originally posted by Mace


Hey, thanks for telling me about the Swedish word "arkebuserad". I don't know any Swedish words, except that one, and whatever I heard from the Swedish chef on the muppet show.

The swedish chef just mumbles nonsens.

[Mace]

hehhehheh. At the time (age 7) I thought I was fluent in Swedish.

"Byde skidde forde mude!!" -- The Swedish Chef

[Tau]

Originally posted by MadDjinn
plate armour was rendered useless by the English Longbow

Where did you hear that? There's a very slim chance for an arrow to penetrate 14th century plate (it was fluted for deflection).
link

[Dr Strangelove]

At what distance would an arrow penetrate armor? Just because you can make an object travel a certain distance doesn't mean that it still retains its penetrating power at extreme ranges.

Another thing to consider is that arrows are visible. What is the flight time of an arrow travelling 300 yards? Would a soldier have time to move out of its way? Would the arrow be travelling so slowly and have so little penetrating power that at that range it would easily be deflected by a shield or dodged?

[johnmcd]

I think anything coming down from on high over that distance, with a pointy end will certainly hurt and, on occassion wound, deffo got to make you think.

Also, if the effective range of an arrow is say, half it's maximum range then the longer the max range the better I'd have thought.

Finally, with that many arrows in the air, I don' think you could dodge really, especially if you are just trying to close the distance.

[Jim Cobb]

The killing range of a longbow against plate armor at Agincourt was around 20 m. Of course, arrows could make life miserable at much longer range but not penetrate good armor.

Little known event: Napoleon was ambushed by bow-wielding Cossacks on the retreat from Moscow. His personal guard drove them off.

[Delta-V]

Originally posted by Grenouille


You are mistaken, Herr Hauptmann. Polish cavarly never attacked german tanks with their lances, that`s a german propaganda lie.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry :

There is some video footage of Polish cavalry apparently charging some German armored cars (PSW 222's from the look of it). Bearing in mind that the PSW 222 has the same main gun as the Panzer II (the primary tank of the Panzer corps in Poland), it gives the impression of charging tanks. In reality, the armored cars were a bit of a surprise to the Polish cavalry, as they were attacking an infantry column when the armored cars showed up, and the cavalry were attempting to withdraw.

However, Polish cavalry units did have anti-tank weapons: 75 and 37mm horse-drawn guns. Because of their mobility, they were able to successfully conduct ambushes of German columns and screen the withdrawl of other Polish units. Cavalry continued to be used throughout WWII in the reconaissance role.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by johnmcd
I think anything coming down from on high over that distance, with a pointy end will certainly hurt and, on occassion wound, deffo got to make you think.

Arrows obviously are subject to much greater drag and air resistance than are bullets. Consequently an arrow should slow down much more rapidly than a bullet. Air resistance isn't a linear phenomenon, as the arrow slows so will resistance, and the rate os slowing will lessen. By launching the arrow at a high angle the flight time is extended, and therefore so is the range, but nevertheless tha arrow will continue to slow. As the arrow surpasses the peak of it's ark gravity will begin to accelerate the arrow somewhat, but I doubt that the terminal velocity of a wooden shafted arrow with a feather fletch at its end is very high, so the arrow will not gain much speed from its fall.

Also, if the effective range of an arrow is say, half it's maximum range then the longer the max range the better I'd have thought.

Finally, with that many arrows in the air, I don' think you could dodge really, especially if you are just trying to close the distance.

At extreme ranges they're going to spread out quite a bit. Remember these archers aren't using a guage to standardize the angle of launch. At the longer ranges the infantry should be able to raise their shields over their heads and expect pretty good protection. Arrows are considerably more bulky than bullets. Quivers rarely hold more than a dozen arrows, so how many shots does the archer actually get? Volleys fired at extreme range waste preciuous arrows.

[MadDjinn]

ok,

first, the link provided talked about low velocity musketballs... not high velocity sheaf arrows....

I did say the English Longbow, and not just a Longbow as well:

one site

The English Longbow, more than any other weapon of its time, was responsible for vast changes in the nature of medieval warfare. In doing so, it made England the foremost power in Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries. England's armies became the most feared units in Europe, and with good cause. Almost every battle fought was won by an intelligent utilization of massed archers and men-at-arms. Upon many occasions, English troops were sorely outnumbered, only to win the day.

Such was the power of the Longbow, that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow fired from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak. The armored knight, considered at one time to be the leviathan of the battlefield, could now be felled at ranges up to 200 yards by a single arrow. One account recalls a knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that passed through both armored thighs, with the horse and saddle between!

Modern tests have verified that this was indeed possible. A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards. No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards.

Another aspect of the Longbow was the archers themselves. Archers began training at a very early age, traditionally at the age of seven. Training at long ranges was mandatory, complete with fines for violations. Local tournaments were held regularly, and the best archers were chosen for military duty. As these were all hand-picked troops from among the best archers in England, the archer units were an elite group of infantry. These were no base peasant levies; they were all hand-picked craftsmen who well knew their worth in battle.

The average English Military Archer could fire 12 to 15 arrows per minute and hit a man-sized target at a minimum of 200 yards. The maximum range was about 400 yards with flight arrows. An archer could not even consider himself skilled at his art if he could not shoot 10 arrows a minute!

another site

From the thirteenth until the sixteenth century, the national weapon of the English army was the longbow. It was this weapon which conquered Wales and Scotland, gave the English their victories in the Hundred Years War, and permitted England to replace France as the foremost military power in Medieval Europe. The longbow was the machine gun of the Middle Ages: accurate, deadly, possessed of a long-range and rapid rate of fire, the flight of its missilies was liken to a storm.1 Cheap and simple enough for the yeoman to own and master, it made him superior to a knight on the field of battle.2 Yet, important as this weapon was, most of our present day beliefs concerning it are based upon myth.