Ship of the Line

[wodan11]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Anything designed to be bulet proof is going to be even more effective against slower moving projectives such as Crossbolts.

Not necessarily. This ignores mass. Velocity is not the only contributor (and carrier) of kinetic energy.

e.g., imagine getting hit by a catapult rock. A bullet-proof vest is going to do you absolutely zilch. You're going to be squashed no matter how you look at it.

ps the vest is also only good if you're wearing it. Medieval armor had the same liability. Unless the troops sleep, shower, eat, and poop with it on.

Also, to continue what others have said... a "casualty" was usually not caused by a death (KIA). It also includes WIA. So, a crossbow bolt through the leg would be just as effective as a bullet.

Wodan

[Lord Avalon]

Actually kevlar won't protect you from a crossbow bolt, which will punch right through. You'd also have to be wearing additional armor plates for protection against such pointy weapons.

[xenophile58]

Originally posted by Quillan


Dreadnought. HMS Dreadnought was the first "modern" battleship constructed. Prior, the large battleships had a mixture of big and medium guns to engage different targets. The Dreadnought went with only big guns in the main battery, so they could put more of them on the ship and standardize the fire control. It revolutionized naval design in the early part of the century, and obsoleted the old ones.

The move to all big guns was significant (although the secondary armament was was later uprated) but the Dreadnought was also the first capital ship to use the powerful and efficient steam turbine engines. This permitted either a faster speed or heavier armour (the British Admiralty chose the greater protection although the already relatively fast design speed was met). So, Dreadnought was faster, theoretically better armoured (the design fell down on this - the thickest armour belt was too low) and carried more of the big, long range guns than everything previously built. This is why capital ships of this era are either Dreadnought class or pre-Dreadnoughts. The earlier designs, even if recently built, were almost as obsolete against the newer as a wooden Ship-of-the-line had been against a steam powered ironclad.

[joncnunn]

Wodan does make an excelent point, the historic low-tech solution to anyone in armor too powerful for your weapon to penterate is to aim where the armor ain't. The legs were indeed the weak spot for dismounted Knights and still are today with Kelvar.

On Lord Avalon's comment: If Kelvar vests are useless against Crossbows then why aren't Al Quadia and the Talaban using them in masse against us in Afghastan and Iraq instead of firearms?

[Hobie819]

bullets and guns are easier to aim precisely, have longer range so they can escape and also are more easily available than crossbows. Crossbows are expensive to produce in the modern world (thus why it costs more to get a decent sword than it does to get a decent gun). You also doesn't see them using catapults either, which as mentioned earlier are effective agaisnt kevlar and could do good damage against a military base.

[Kuciwalker]

On Lord Avalon's comment: If Kelvar vests are useless against Crossbows then why aren't Al Quadia and the Talaban using them in masse against us in Afghastan and Iraq instead of firearms?

Because firearms are nonetheless more effective and (probably) cheaper than crossbows? I also suspect crossbows wouldn't be particularly lethal, either, given the medical care available.

[Quillan]

In point of fact, crossbows and swords are not more expensive than decent firearms in the modern world, but they are such a niche product now that they are much more difficult to find. Crossbows now are primarily a product for hunting enthusiasts, swords are for collectors or reenactors mainly, while guns are one of the most manufactured products in the world.

I spent a little over $220 plus shipping on the sword I own; it's a replica roman gladius (Mainz pattern), fully tempered, and fully sharpened. A good katana (and by good I mean both folded and differentially tempered) will cost you a couple of thousand, but that's because of the difficulty of manufacture. A good pistol will cost you $400 if not more.

Back onto subject, I do not know just how well bolts or arrows will penetrate kevlar. Modern body armor has more trouble with sharp projectiles than blunt ones, because they can dig into the weave of the fibres, but I don't know if the broadhead point of a lot of modern arrows and bolts would slow it down. Anyway, the subject wasn't really why you would prefer to use archaic weaponry against modern armor, but rather if the archaic weaponry was all you had would it still be dangerous. I'd have to say the answer was yes. Tactics would have to be adjusted to compensate is all.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by wodan11

Not necessarily. This ignores mass. Velocity is not the only contributor (and carrier) of kinetic energy.


Wodan

E(kin)=1/2mv²

figure out yourself, how much mass counts at sufficient high speeds...

[wodan11]

Uni, if this is your point...

A BAR (big ass rock) applied to the helmeted head of an infantry trooper at relatively low velocity will apply its energy equally over a (relatively) large area. This will subject the entire area to a (relatively) low amount of stress.

... then I agree with you. HOWEVER, we need to realize that every point of that (relatively) large area is subjected, and the weakest section will be the point of failure. In this case, I suspect it will be the neck vertebrae of the trooper. A broken neck is probably the best you could expect from getting hit by a catapult BAR.

Comparitively, the high velocity of a bullet, striking a small area, depends entirely on where it strikes. If it strikes the Kevlar vest, which is designed to absorb and/or dissipate that kinetic energy, then the attack is contained. We then must rely upon supreme skill or random chance in order to strike the weak points (the neck).

So, basically, Unimatrix you are totally right and yet you imply the wrong conclusion.

Going on from there, a catapult is an extreme example, and difficult to employ en masse. Nevertheless, it illustrates the point that a rock, falling wall, brick, or whatever can kill a modern infantry trooper just as effectively as a bullet.

The other point that has been discussed is crossbows etc. Personally, I think the reason the Iraqi insurgents use rifles is not because of their effectiveness, but because of their ease to obtain them. A smuggled AK-47 is probably much easier to obtain than to find a craftsman to create a crossbow. Now, if they had to actually MAKE the AK themselves, then I daresay they would find it a lot easier to find that craftsman.

Wodan

[Brizey]

An assault rifle round to the chest with body armor is pretty damn likely to cause a casualty. Broken ribs, etc. Plus thigh wounds and upper arm wounds can be lethal, especially in a prolonged firefight where immediate medical aid is not available.

The biggest thing missing with a crossbow is ROF. Also effective range and ability to carry ammo.

[Unimatrix11]

Wodan, I just wanted to give what does contribute to kinetic energy - without any implication on weapons. Thats why i said to figure the importance out yourselves. I am not getting into this kind of gory discussion. I just hope no active soldier reads this... poor guys... got shot by all sorts of weapons in this thread already: crossbows, catapults and rifles in the open and from inside windows (well not with the catapults of course)... It all reminds me a little of my nephew asking me if tyranosaurus rex could take on a brontosaurus - with the discussion taken to soldiers´ snaping spines it takes the fun out of it for me.

But wodan, you are right with the AK47: After the NVA (nationale volksarmee - national people´s army - GDR) was dissolved you could buy warsaw pact weapons of all kinds for a penny (well at least not 400$ as someone else said... 40 would be a lot closer - or just say: for a vacuum cleaner), if you knew were to get them (and were dumb enough to want any- my opinion here).

Brizey: But crossbows also have pluses. No source fire, no sound. For the ammo thing, one might be able to design some kind of magazine. Does "effective range" mean accuracy ? would it be feasable to design a crossbow with a barrel (like the pipe the bullet goes through in a rifle - sorry i lack vocab again) ? Would that increase effective range on the cost of range of fire ? hmmm... better not even think about it... this isnt space-rocketry - its killing.

[wodan11]

Well that's exactly my point, Unimatrix. This whole discussion is about how a spearman can beat a tank, or a longbow can beat an infantry. We're talking about the 1% - 5% odds where things like surprise and hitting them when they're eating breakfast and nobody is wearing their kevlar and don't have their guns. About how a thrown brick or a knife in the dark can beat a modern-equipped trooper.

Nobody disagrees that guns are superior. That's why they have 95% - 99% odds to start with. And, nobody disagrees that the high velocity is one of the things that makes a bullet better than a crossbow bolt. My point is that that is not what we're talking about.

Wodan

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Brizey
An assault rifle round to the chest with body armor is pretty damn likely to cause a casualty. Broken ribs, etc. Plus thigh wounds and upper arm wounds can be lethal, especially in a prolonged firefight where immediate medical aid is not available.

The biggest thing missing with a crossbow is ROF. Also effective range and ability to carry ammo.

(nods) Rate of fire, range, penetrating force at range, and ammo. The only real advantage of a crossbow in the modern world is that it's nearly silent, and therefore it's harder to figure out where your buddy got shot from.

But, yeah; on the large scale, over the long run, the people with that mich superior tech will tend to win, but in individual battles, that's not necessarally the case. Anything could happen, and pretty much anything has in the history of warfare; as another example of something that's actually happened, no matter how much better armed then they are, if you suddenly run short of ammo in the middle of battle, you lose. Tanks break down, planes crash, ships sink, units get the wrong message and charge when they should have retreated, the enemy makes a crude bomb out common materials. Sometimes, stuff just happens; that's true everywhere, and it's especally true on the battlefield, and that's where that 2% loss comes in.

[Jaybe]

I still say that anyone who thinks that an archer unit in the modern age represents archers has not got their head screwed on straight! Instead, it represents poorly trained or led people with obsolete or improvised equipment -- it just represents a 3 strength unit. I don't care what their tech level is, I don't care how old the non-upgraded unit is!

[joncnunn]

I was on the wiki a few days ago, and found that there are now modern crossbows complete with "silencers" and "sights".

Apprently there are five classes of body armor. The 5th (best) is designed to prevent a person being killed if directly hit by an anti tank projectile. (But from only one hit).

On the other range of the scale, Class one (lightest) is only designed to protect against handguns. (.22) This is probably the class of shirts that Honor rountinely wears.