860 réponses à ce sujet

[mybudgee]

Well, two fingers rather than one finger, which is still the vulgar hand gesture of choice in the UK, although the US-style one-fingered greeting has become more popular recently.

you mean this stupid one?

 

[vometia]

you mean this stupid one?

No.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Somebody needs to write a guide on how to offend your enemy like a proper Englishman.

[Dermain]

What kind of finger?

 

My favorite is:

 

 

Which means the people inside the Coliseum survive.

 

Hollywood got it wrong.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Last I read on that subject they still don't know for certain if thumbs down meant kill him or spare him.

[ME_Fan]

The British and American finger gestures have two different origins. The American one is from Italian/ Latin origin afaik. The English one I believe is indeed from the Hundred Year's war, when the French would cut off the first two fingers of captured English prisoners, that they couldn't draw a bow again. That led to English soldiers giving the sign as a taunt, effectively saying 'I got my fingers , frog, so I'm gonna kill you.'

 

 

With regards to the longbow, one need only look at the Hundred Year's war and such battle as Agincourt to realise that they certainly were quite effective for their time.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Which means the people inside the Coliseum survive.

 

Hollywood got it wrong.

 

But it seems the gladiator is commanded to kill the loser who is on the ground by a blade from the top.

[ME_Fan]

Somebody needs to write a guide on how to offend your enemy like a proper Englishman.

 

Us brits do certainly curse and swear like no other.

[bEVEsthda]

Very important:

 

It needs to be said that the bow does half the job. What you people refuse to consider is the arrow itself. War arrows were thicker and longer. Some had heads that were made specifically to penetrate armor. Bursting chainmail links is one thing. Pushing through a steel plate is another. Another which would be a pretty hard feat. Could be managed.

With the strength of the bow itself and a good war arrow, there is very good potential. 

 

 

Well, yes. But it's been demonstrated many times, starting back already in the late '70ies by a couple of English museum curators, that even the weak, nobles' 50 lbs "longbow" penetrated armor with the right arrow heads.

What the much more powerful warbow would do, is to push that arrow all the way for a lethal injury. I've never seen a test with a 170 lbs bow yet. But I think I will.

 

Probably, arrow proof breast plate armor could be created by some metallurgically advanced smiths in Italy and Germany from sometimes in the 1400's. But it would cost a lot and weigh a lot. It's the old situation of defensive measures vs offensive. Those caught out with old, obsolete equipment, weapons or armor, would be those most in trouble.

[bEVEsthda]

And here's a treat for you. Seems I was wrong about that no one today would deform his body just to be able to draw a bow. Note that he's also doing it in modern drawing style.  ...And listen to the sound of that bow shooting.

 

 

 

 

 

You have to visit Youtube to watch it though. No problem, just click on the link in the video window.

[bEVEsthda]

Well yes, the ability of armour to resist penetration depends on it's ability to absorb energy. The more it can give, - i.e. softer, thicker padding and the less mass that needs to be taken up, moving backwards - the better its chances. You see this clearly in tests against plate as well. How big the plate is, how much it's shape allows it to flex, how stiff support it hangs on, all affects the results.

 

As for "diminishing returns", no. When the bow stops giving more velocity, more range, you just use heavier arrows to soak up the energy.

[Nattfare]

As far as I know. The stronger the bow is that you shoot with, the thicker the arrow you need. Shoot with a too weak arrow and it will shatter during flight or during launch.

[bEVEsthda]

Heavier arrows? That seems odd. Increasing the weight of an arrow in the middle of a battle is impossible, and increasing the weight of it would affect things like range and could change numerous variables. Can you site some source that says the English would increase the weight of their bows to better deal with arrows? Gotta be honest, that just seems like something you made up on the spot.

Also, and I completely forgot to touch on this in my last post. Most men on a medieval battlefield will definitely not be wearing a full mail hauberk or a fully articulated coat of plate. That would be much rarer, and most men will not have such good protection. So the notion that "the English longbow played a large part in a few of their most famous victories, therefore longbows wreck armor" is so simplified and silly that it boggles my mind that is an argument. Numerous factors came into play at crecy and agincourt, from terrible french leadership, to mud, french bveing forced to fight on foot at crecy, etc. Did the longbow play a large part? Yup, of course it did. But you cant just assume from those two battles that the longbow renders armor ineffective. If that was the case the English would have never lost a battle, armor would not even be bothered with by the upper class, the longbow would have played a bigger part in the war of the roses and there would be no doubt as to the longbows effectiveness vs armor. There is no conspiracy among historians to make the longbow look bad, that is such a silly notion that I cannot help but chuckle at it.

 

No, you misunderstand me, because you are just seeing this from your viewpoint, the argument that you are making. That doesn't concern me.

Of course british archers would be using those arrows provided. I don't even understand why we're arguing this?

 

My point was that there is a gain in making a bow heavier. The background is this, the stronger you make the bow, unless you vary the weight of the arrow, the more of the energy will get lost in just straightening the bow and the internal friction in the bow. There is a limit to the velocity a bow will give an arrow. But you can give an arrow more energy.

 

As for the "conspiracy of historians" - as you choose to ridicule it - the story is the same you have in EVERY academic debate. There are always people who will not readily change their old perception of things. This is a strength of science. That is how it should be. This very much affects the position of the consensus. Which moves extremely slowly. Which in turn is why you can find sources with formulations like "The Research director of the Mary Rose Trust and tests done at Imperial College indicated that the majority of bows found come in below these heavyweights."  ...As if that was relevant!  (note also that there is, in the context, no mention of the actual draw strengths). It should be bl*** obvious to anybody that bow strengths would be individual! The point is that it's of a completely different magnitude than what had been previously assumed, and was the foundation for a lot of existing historical speculations, arguments and theories.

 

I remember this debate, I may not have been up to date with things since, but I remember the discussions when the Mary Rose find turned everything historians thought they knew, about the English bow, upside down. The estimates of drawing strengths were sort of negotiated  down. With a lot of willing power.

 

 

P.S. As for the argument you seem to want to make - that armor protected against arrows -, I have no dispute. Of course it did. Some of the time. And some of the time it didn't. Same as always. Armor is of value because it protects. It's still of value today. It all depends on how much money it's worth spending on the soldier. But armor can always also be defeated. Same as always. And you will find accounts and tests showing both things.

 

As for the warbow as we now understands it, I have now learned that it actually has been tested against heavy breast plate, the ridged shape for deflection of points. It was done by "professionals", the british army, Royal ballistic research facility. At a distance of 20 m or less, a 150 lbs bow would fully penetrate the breast plate.

 

Edit: Note that I did say fully penetrate. In the meaning of making holes in the armor and putting the arrow-tip some depth into the body underneath, but becoming stuck in the armor plate, it did so also at longer ranges. Note also that the breast plate represented the level of armor that would be used in the 1500-hundreds of Mary Rose. Not the 1300- and 1400- of Crecy and Agincourt.

 

At longer distances, no. Is this an absolute? No. We have to assume that quality of armor varied. And the plate was a modern made attempt at a replicate. The quality of the steel makes a huge difference. I still believe they learned to make arrow proof breastplates during the 1400's. What is a sort of absolute, is that the direct effectiveness against armor was sharply reduced with increased range. Rains of arrows at distance, targeted unprotected opportunities.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

All these bow discussions reminds me of the handiest mechanical crossbow:

 

 

It has the difference between a 1860s rifle and a 1940s rifle.. comparing to a normal crossbow.

[Cknarf]

The new Taurus Curve.

 

It's designed for concealed carry, but I wouldn't use it for that purpose, as my Bersa does the job just fine.

But it totally looks like a space gun, and I think that's way cool.

[bEVEsthda]

In my venture to post Icons here, I'm going to continue with this. An extremely capable aircraft of WW2.

There's a lot of different meanings which can be applied to "best" and "finest", but I argue that this is both the best and finest fighter aircraft of WW2. And I could add that anyone who have any sense agrees.

North American P-51 Mustang.

 

 

 

This was one of two true air superiority fighters fielded during WW2 (the other being the Grumman F6F Hellcat - the most successful air-combat fighter of WW2). Fighters with sensational performance envelopes, which enabled them to dominate defensive, short range fighters over their own turf, despite the considerable weight penalties of much longer range.

Other aircrafts were fielded with the same mission in mind, notably Messerschmitt Bf110, Mitsubishi A6M Zero, Lockheed P-38 Lightning, but with less complete success.

[bEVEsthda]

All these bow discussions reminds me of the handiest mechanical crossbow:

 

 

<SNIP>

 

It has the difference between a 1860s rifle and a 1940s rifle.. comparing to a normal crossbow.

 

 

I don't think that analogy is quite fair. The entire point of the Western crossbow was that it was an accurate and powerful weapon. This was a necessity for it to be useful at all. And the more powerful it was made, the slower the firing rate became, due to the complex winches required to draw the bow.

There was no point to add weight with a cumbersome bolt magazine.

 

If I'd try an analogy, I'd say a Mauser bolt action rifle and a fine caliber auto-pistol. In some circumstances the pistol has an advantage. But mostly not.

[Fidite Nemini]

I don't think that analogy is quite fair. The entire point of the Western crossbow was that it was an accurate and powerful weapon. This was a necessity for it to be useful at all. And the more powerful it was made, the slower the firing rate became, due to the complex winches required to draw the bow.

There was no point to add weight with a cumbersome bolt magazine.

 

If I'd try an analogy, I'd say a Mauser bolt action rifle and a fine caliber auto-pistol. In some circumstances the pistol has an advantage. But mostly not.

 

Actually most of the western crossbow's significance was that you could put it in the hands of an untrained peasant, point at a target and say "shoot", with reasonable success rates, especially compared to the alternative that was decades of hard training to become a good bowman. It being a powerful weapon only happened to be a welcome byproduct, same as the time consuming rewinding process was largely irrelevant as the crossbow was mostly a defensive weapon to be used behind walls where you can't be shot during the reload. Pretty much every time people tried to use the crossbow offensively as a primary ranged weapon, the results were desastrous.

[bEVEsthda]

Actually most of the western crossbow's significance was that you could put it in the hands of an untrained peasant, point at a target and say "shoot", with reasonable success rates, especially compared to the alternative that was decades of hard training to become a good bowman. It being a powerful weapon only happened to be a welcome byproduct, same as the time consuming rewinding process was largely irrelevant as the crossbow was mostly a defensive weapon to be used behind walls where you can't be shot during the reload. Pretty much every time people tried to use the crossbow offensively as a primary ranged weapon, the results were desastrous.

 

Certainly.
Thankyou, but... While your contribution is appreciated, what you say is the reason for ALL crossbows, not the Western as you specify, so the context for making your point could have been better.
I commented on the perception, that the addition of a simple bolt magazine suddenly made the wimpy Asian crossbow into a much more modern weapon than all other crossbows.

[bEVEsthda]

Here I am again, posting another Icon, and another aircraft.

Aircraft is valid, because as war-weapons, they have been the most important weapons of all in modern times.

(Problem with old aircrafts is to get hold of a good, representative image, from the time, which one can use.)

 

 

"Junkers Ju 87Ds in flight Oct 1943" by Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-J16050 / CC-BY-SA. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikim...ht_Oct_1943.jpg

 

 

Anyway, this well-known silhouette has come to be interpreted as 'evil' and to represent the nazi blitzkrieg.

The Germans did not invent the dive-bomber. I don't know who did, but the Germans got the idea from USA, where there was a lot of interest in using dive-bombers for sinking ships, during the inter-war years. The American navy went on to have their own famous dive-bombers, of course, the Dauntless which sank most of the Japanese aircraft carriers, and the Helldiver which sank the big Japanese battleships. The Germans also used their Stuka against shipping, in the channel early in the war, and in the Mediterranean. But mostly, and primarily, they used it for close air support. I don't know if the Germans invented that, but they certainly advanced the art.

 

The Ju 87 made its debut already in the Spanish Civil war, and it can be criticized for being obsolete for most of WW2. But it was accurate. Allied test pilots, trying the aircraft after the war, called it the "King of dive-bombers".

 

Using it in the West or South, was a disaster when Luftwaffe did not have air superiority, which they mostly didn't.

In the East, otoh, it soldiered on throughout WW2. A remarkable testimony to the inefficiency of the Soviet air force, which enjoyed a massive dominance from summer, August 1943, when Germany had to pull back all aircraft, but two wings, to try battle the West.

Only Schlachtgeschwader 2, Immelmann, under the legendary Hans-Ulrich Rudel, and Jagdgeschwader 52, with the equally legendary Erich Hartmann, remained on the eastern front. The impact this had on the military outcome of the war on the eastern front, cannot be overrated or exaggerated. Air power is literally all. Yet it seems every historian does exactly this?! (just my passing comment).

To put it in some perspective, in summer 1939 Luftwaffe had 9 fighter wings, 4 long-range fighter wings, 11 bomber wings, and 4 dive-bomber wings.

 

Equally amazing (as that historians gloss over this) is how little it impacted German air operations in the east. JG 52 went on, shooting down soviet aircraft in droves, claiming more than 10,000 kills. SG 2 went on, operating even the "obsolete" Ju 87, destroying thousands of soviet tanks and uncountable vehicles and artillery pieces. All this despite a massive Soviet, numerical air dominance, which certainly wasn't healthy for the German ground forces.

By contrast, a Luftwaffe fighter taking off in the West during 1944, would often be dead in minutes. The first week, after USAAF early in 1944 had released their P-51 and P-47 fighters from escort duties, for free hunting of German fighters over Germany, Luftwaffe lost a third of its fighter aircraft and a fifth of its fighter pilots in dead. In a single week! And USAAF did this virtually without own losses.

 

Another comment I wish to make, is that while the P-51 above, and the Ju 87, are indeed very Iconic, and definitely put their stamp on the war, is that I do not think any of them really was much important for the outcome of the war operations. If they had been removed, out of existence, other aircraft would have filled their shoes. Maybe not as cheaply and efficiently, but they would have done the same job in the end.

This is not true about some other WW2 aircraft, 'Iconic' or not.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Don't know much about Fighters. Messerschmidt BF-109 was cool and effective until better fighters utilized by Germans and their enemies.

 

 

One of my wishes is to fly with that!

[Nattfare]

The Supermarine Spitfire is of course the most iconic fighter RAF used. The pilots flying this and the Hurricane must have been very good pilots as most other fighters at the time outperformed this one?

[Fidite Nemini]

The Supermarine Spitfire is of course the most iconic fighter RAF used. The pilots flying this and the Hurricane must have been very good pilots as most other fighters at the time outperformed this one?

 

 

Not really. There have been many generations of Spitfires, each one coming with improvements over its predecessors. Some Spitfire versions were better aircraft than others and sometimes they had to make a better version because other aircraft were superiour. Let's not forget that WW2 was like the cold war armsrace on metamphetamines (an invention originating in WW2 btw). Several fields of technology and designs were so contested that by the time you put your newest invention on the battlefield, it could already be all but obsolete due to the others having advanced just as much or more than you.