5 weapon myths from the movies

[aramis]

IMTU, the "prestige gun" is the 2mm Caseless Hiveloc... a 2x20mm DU dart, massive TL15 detonation propellant at 8x80mm, in 100 round blocks for rifles. Tends to just overpenetrate vs humans... it's throwing it at Mach 8 or so... and it throws 3m of visible flame past the barrel, and makes a nasty boom... but for big game, it gets to shed much more of the energy.

It was designed using 3G3, and the MT conversions. Pen was insane. Recoil was high. Sig was high.

Definitely unsubtle.

 

[saundby]

Yeah - my suspicion, Saundby, is that the key lies in the fact that these bowstaves were brought up from a ship.

In sixteenth century naval warfare, the advantage of a teensy bit of extra range for your principal anti-personnel standoff weapon could be immeasurable. And whilst the additional range acquired for each additional pound of draw weight tails off quite spectacularly at these sort of weights because of the impliciations of the draw weight for the arrow used, there is nevertheless an increase in maximum range with each additional pound.

On land, you'd say "Sod it - I'll just take three steps closer to the enemy and use a bow with a 10lb lighter draw". At sea, you can't always do that without getting wet.

I think you're right there, but control is still going to be an issue, even if you're Beefy McBuff. It may be that they were for a special operation, or an experiment. *shrug*

I haven't looked at these bows, is there a chance they were used as foot bows?

Of course, aboard ship, there's a regular upper body workout for the crew. The question is whether the archers would have got that, too.

 

[HG_B]

I think you're right there, but control is still going to be an issue, even if you're Beefy McBuff. It may be that they were for a special operation, or an experiment. *shrug*

I haven't looked at these bows, is there a chance they were used as foot bows?

Of course, aboard ship, there's a regular upper body workout for the crew. The question is whether the archers would have got that, too.

If one studies the period (King Henry VIII reign) it is known that the long bow men were not regular crew men. They were drawn as needed for the ships (almost never) against the French Fleet in the Narrow Seas. (Spain was an ally of Henry most of the time due to his wife). They were drawn from the yeomanry (militia) established by Henry VII. The bowmen & the bows found on the Mary Rose were NOT atypical.

 

[Epee]

What are your thoughts on this premise?

By Henry VIII's time longbows were facing obsolesence in the face of firearms, therefore the bows being produced were "magnums" compared to the earlier bows in an attempt to tighten the race with the arquibus. Indeed Henry VIII was a bit of a gunnut, having his own bodyguards outfitted with notably advanced, custom-made, firearms of very good quality and undoubted servicability. Perhaps the bowyers were "compensating" past practical limits for "common issue" weapons.

 

[HG_B]

What are your thoughts on this premise?

By Henry VIII's time longbows were facing obsolesence in the face of firearms, therefore the bows being produced were "magnums" compared to the earlier bows in an attempt to tighten the race with the arquibus.

There's no historic docs to back up that theory.

Indeed, they thought about using longbow men to fight at Waterloo as the handheld firearms, even then, were that poor in performance. There just weren't enough guys at the time who were proficient to do so. (see Churchill's research using primary sources)

 

[BlackBat242]

You never FIRE an arrow, Carlo - it is an anachronistic term in the context of a weapon which pre-dates gunpowder, and inappropriate in any event as there is no fire involved in its discharge.

You only ever SHOOT an arrow.

Ummm... I was taught to "release" the arrow (common alternate terms are "loose the arrow" or "loose the shaft").

"Shoot" refers to the overall act of using the bow.

 

[Epee]

There's no historic docs to back up that theory.

Indeed, they thought about using longbow men to fight at Waterloo as the handheld firearms, even then, were that poor in performance. There just weren't enough guys at the time who were proficient to do so. (see Churchill's research using primary sources)

Agreed, there is no documentation for my hare-brained idea.

I hadn't heard about the Napoleonanic purposal; I would not be surprised if there was a similar suggestion for the Home Guard in WW2. It seems that, ever since it became obsolete, armchair generals have suggested bringing back the longbow; early 17th, late 18th (Ben Franklin, no less), and now, early 19th centuries that I know of. Generally the reasoning is based on rate of fire and purported range.

Wasn't the last significant battlefield use of the longbow (not just archers showing up) against the Scots at Flodden?

 

[HG_B]

Agreed, there is no documentation for my hare-brained idea.

Correct.

I hadn't heard about the Napoleonanic purposal; I would not be surprised if there was a similar suggestion for the Home Guard in WW2. It seems that, ever since it became obsolete, armchair generals have suggested bringing back the longbow;

I never knew that Wellington was considered an "armchair general".

Interesting description of him, if not unique...

 

[Epee]

So, I suppose the Iron Duke, well after the fact, expressed some serious desire of bowmen at Waterloo? Under what circumstances and to whom? Amazing that, during his terms as Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Army he was never able to bring his longing for clothyard shafts to reality.

There was a reason the English abandoned the use of the longbow and it wasn't that it gave unfair advantage over firearms...

 

[HG_B]

So, I suppose the Iron Duke, well after the fact, expressed some serious desire of bowmen at Waterloo? Under what circumstances and to whom?

Go study to docs, it's all there. Do you still think that he was an armchair general?

You may also want to study the political dynamics in the House of Commons at the time vis-a-vis the Torries (Wellington's party) and the Whigs. The Reform act ,etc.

 

[sabredog]

So, I suppose the Iron Duke, well after the fact, expressed some serious desire of bowmen at Waterloo? Under what circumstances and to whom? Amazing that, during his terms as Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Army he was never able to bring his longing for clothyard shafts to reality.

There was a reason the English abandoned the use of the longbow and it wasn't that it gave unfair advantage over firearms...

I had heard over the years that reportedly Wellington requested a Corps of bowmen but that it was for the Peninsular Campaign, not Waterloo. Though, if they had materialized, and the story was true, might have put in appearance at Waterloo if they were of any prior success.

It might have been true, since Wellington was direly short of troops when he went to fight in Spain, and the terrain there would have been better for bowmen than Waterloo, or other northern European battlefields since it is bad terrain for cavalry and cannon. Bowmen could find plenty of cover without having to pound in stakes to keep the horses away first, and then send volleys into the enemy faster than most (French anyway) regiments could hope to match.

Waterloo would have been pretty bad for bowmen, though. No cover, and Napoleonic cavalry was faster and more maneuverable than the knights of Crecy and Agincourt - and not confined to a narrow strip. They, supported by cannon, would have made short work of bowmen who couldn't have gotten into a square properly that was defensive unless every bowman also had a spear or bayoneted musket ready to defend with. Stakes might have helped, but they wouldn't have protected them from French cannon like they did French knights.

Interesting idea of Wellington's, though. I wonder if he encountered much of that in India and it planted a seed?

 

[HG_B]

I had heard over the years that reportedly Wellington requested a Corps of bowmen but that it was for the Peninsular Campaign, not Waterloo.

It was Waterloo he was referring to. AND, it was a recommendation he made after he fought that battle.

 

[Carlobrand]

IMTU, the "prestige gun" is the 2mm Caseless Hiveloc... a 2x20mm DU dart, massive TL15 detonation propellant at 8x80mm, in 100 round blocks for rifles. Tends to just overpenetrate vs humans... it's throwing it at Mach 8 or so... and it throws 3m of visible flame past the barrel, and makes a nasty boom... but for big game, it gets to shed much more of the energy.

It was designed using 3G3, and the MT conversions. Pen was insane. Recoil was high. Sig was high.

Definitely unsubtle.

Isn't DU pyrophoric? Is the Imperium going to tolerate a radioactive civilian big-game round that could leave little radioactive fragments behind in the environment or create a little radioactive oxide cloud if it hit something too hard? Superdense armor's almost as dense as DU and would serve well in that role without the radioactivity issue.

 

[sabredog]

It was Waterloo he was referring to. AND, it was a recommendation he made after he fought that battle.

I have read both that he asked for it and merely mused on it. Also both that he asked for it prior to the Peninsular Campaign, and after Waterloo. Also that it was just a tossed off remark by him after Waterloo because it was such a "near-run thing" and thought a higher rate of fire might have helped end it sooner. The last being what I think is the more likely, though I still think they might have been useful to at least the guerrillas in Spain. Silent, no smoke, good range.

But nowhere have I heard or read definitive proof of any of the above in any biography I have read of Wellington, or history of the Peninsular or 100 Days Campaigns. Just hearsay. Similar to the sort of thing argued about the Battle of Britain and Operation Sealion, or if Germany got the atomic bomb first, etc.. The endless what-ifs of war.

 

[sabredog]

Isn't DU pyrophoric? Is the Imperium going to tolerate a radioactive civilian big-game round that could leave little radioactive fragments behind in the environment or create a little radioactive oxide cloud if it hit something too hard? Superdense armor's almost as dense as DU and would serve well in that role without the radioactivity issue.

I agree - why not just a big bore APHE round? Punches in and then detonates deep like a whale harpoon. And who wants a radioactive trophy sitting in their drawing room or on their safari ship?

And what do the animals that need that sort of thing to kill them with have for armor? Steel plate? Use a self-forging penetrator then. Or KEAPER. Or nuke them from orbit.

 

[Carlobrand]

So, I suppose the Iron Duke, well after the fact, expressed some serious desire of bowmen at Waterloo? Under what circumstances and to whom? Amazing that, during his terms as Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Army he was never able to bring his longing for clothyard shafts to reality.

There was a reason the English abandoned the use of the longbow and it wasn't that it gave unfair advantage over firearms...

As I understand it, longbow fell by the wayside mostly because it required so much skill and strength. You can slap a firearm in the hands of any damfool willing to make his mark for the pay, drill him on the load-and-fire routine, drill him on the use of bayonet, and end up with a tolerably decent and versatile light infantryman - all he needs to do is to shoot in the general direction of a mass of enemy to achieve results. Longbow required much more in the way of training to maintain the level of strength needed to handle the bows, they need to carry a second weapon if they're expected to also go into melee, and replacing casualties means finding or training people to the same level of strength, so you'd be trying to minimize casualties in that unit.

All other things being equal, you can get more potential musketmen out of a given population, it's easier to train up a company of musket, and its just plain easier to replace them when they get killed. Henry brought between 5000 and 8000 archers to Agincourt; Wellington marshalled 50,000 infantry for Waterloo, about half of them English, after England had already sustained 300,000 casualties over 12 years of war with France.

 

[HG_B]

Also that it was just a tossed off remark by him after Waterloo because it was such a "near-run thing" and thought a higher rate of fire might have helped end it sooner.

Actually, he analyzed it pretty thoroughly. But, what stopped his idea from going further was the lack of highly trained (years & years of practice) longbow men. Wasn't feasible. But, that wasn't the point. The point was that massed, it would have been better in combat than the massed use of firearms as they existed in that day... Hence, the bows found on the ship were not some atypical, super long bows...

 

[Epee]

Apart from the lack of trained archers there is also the matter of flexibility of deployment and expense. By the end of the Hundred-Years War the archers were loosing some of their cache; blasted by cannon and overrun by cavalry if not in prepared positions. The same would have been metted out in spades at a later date. As sabredog points out, the inability to maneuver and then pose a credible defense against cavalry would have been a deal-breaker.

Additionally, the bow was at least as vulnerable to weather and "operator error" as the musket and its ammunition, was far more subject to the physical condition of the user, the ammo was more bulky and fragile, and an arrow probably cost what 20 musket balls and powder cost. Accuracy was probably similar with a sub-ten percent chance of hitting a man at 200 yards; quality of the training and weapon having no small bearing on both.

Could a company or battalion of archers been useful in the Napoleonic era? Yes, but conditionally. Like riflemen in the American Revolution they would make a useful tool in a commanders toolbox but not a replacement for the period's standard. Fifty bowmen in a regiment of grenadiers might raise the number of projectiles headed toward an approaching column by an amount worthwhile to their expense. But after the gunsmoke became thick and the opposing ranks closed they would best beat a hasty retreat to the rear rank and look for fallen muskets should the situation turn against them. It would probably be easier to assign a light cannon with grapeshot to each regiment.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Isn't DU pyrophoric? Is the Imperium going to tolerate a radioactive civilian big-game round that could leave little radioactive fragments behind in the environment or create a little radioactive oxide cloud if it hit something too hard? Superdense armor's almost as dense as DU and would serve well in that role without the radioactivity issue.

The Imperium won't care. It only regulates nuclear weapons, not things that "leave little radioactive fragments behind in the environment".

 

[Carlobrand]

The Imperium won't care. It only regulates nuclear weapons, not things that "leave little radioactive fragments behind in the environment".

They'd best be more careful. Start leaving little radioactive fragments everywhere, you could end up facing hordes of teenage mutant ninja turtles riding kaiju.