• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Archaic Siege Weapons & Primitive Artillery:

The Ewoks were supposed to be able to take on giant sized beasts by working togather in pack attacks. They could concieviable take on a high tech force and survive.

Contrary to the movies, Custer and his troops caused very few casualties among the indians. The tech advantage they had over the indians was mostly in Custer's head. The Sioux warriors lived combat from birth, while Custer's troops were raw recruits being led by civil war era sargeants. The last couple of ingredients to Custer's suprise was the number of Sioux warrios and their knowledge of the terrain. This was all it took to destroy a trained force completely.

This type of situation has happened several times.
The common threads were a group raised as warriors and an opposing force that did not appreciate the true deadliness of the low tech savage.
 
But again it leads to the question:

If you drop a man-sized boulder on a guy in battledress, does it defeat the armor?

Precedent set for high tech materials would lead me to say no. I know that logistically, in the rules any weapon can damage a BD suit with a good hit, but just how durable are these things?

I would be mad at the emperor if my Stormtrooper armor could be defeated by a teddy bear with a stick. And in ROTJ, they do it. They show arrows killing stormtroopers.
 
If you drop a man-sized boulder on a guy in battledress, does it defeat the armor?
Click to expand...
Nope. Doesn't hurt the armor at all.

It scrapes of sensors. It overextends limbs, damaging both the joints in the suit, and the joints in the occupant. Misaligns seals (no longer NBC compliant, and certainly no longer vac capable) and damages any other exposed components and expensive external paraphenalia.

This is an effective kill of the BD anyway.

The modern equivalent would be jamming a turret and striping off a tread of a modern tank.

Don't knock arrows for armor penetration, there is a documented case of longbowmen firing at battering ram crew... through the 8 inch thick oak main doors of a castle.
 
Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
I would be mad at the emperor if my Stormtrooper armor could be defeated by a teddy bear with a stick. And in ROTJ, they do it. They show arrows killing stormtroopers.
Click to expand...
The arrows penetrate the joints of the armour, or where the armour ends and the underlay fabric begins. Stormtrooper armour is resiliant to projectile weapons. /Warsie nerd

I doubt the Emperor would care about the properties of his troop's armour given he had more immediate problems, namely experiencing terminal velocity as he was thrown down the Death Star's pit.
file_21.gif
 
heh... Don't knock arrows... heh

I know that with the right tip, at the right range, and with the right bow, you could shoot into a cinderblock. Longbowmen were the Battledress of their day, and that is no stretch.

But shooting through oak and shooting thru superdense or other Space Metal is another story.

BTW, the Ewok I saw kill the trooper shoots him in the back, apparently where that square bit with the circle is. That "backpack" thing.
 
Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Actually in Afganistan Rocks were used to take out a few Hind Helicopters. Granted from above and in large numbers but it did happen. However, a helicopter is much more fragile than a Tank of any tech level. Rocks, given musclepowered tech, are unlikely to do real damage to a TL5+ tank. Remember that unlikely is not the same as impossible, but once you get to TL7+ forget about taking on armor with medieval tech. Just ask the Poles, that used Horse Calvary and lances against TL5 tanks in 1939. Or look at what early machineguns did in places like Verdun in WWI.

<cut>
Click to expand...
Actually the "Polish charge against tanks" is a myth. And one produced by "Clumpfoot" Jo himself.

What happened is that a polish lancer unit on either withdrawl or recon found itself face to face with a unit of german tanks, mostly models one and two (with twin MG or MG+20mm canonen - good infantrykillers). Since they could not withdraw without being slaughtered from behind, they charged through the tanks (thereby blocking some fire - the 20mm could penetrate the side armor) and into the cover of the woods behind the german unit.

No "charge with lances" more a desperat charge to escape with the least losses possible. After all the polish army was quite aware of tanks and their immunity against infantry rifles. Lousy tactics and bad luck does not equal stupidity.
 
On "primitiv arms vs. modern armor":

If you include "defensive postures" in the "arms" categorie, Spanish riders (the X-Form barricades made from steel grinders), dragonteeth and ditches still can stop modern tanks[1]

Some late WWII AT-Guns (TL6?) can still punch holes in modern (TL7-8) battle tanks.

As the US-Army has proven, flooded fields (Like the Dutch did quite a few times) can still stop modern MBT. Even today.

Not sure about Molotov cocktails and tanks. But they are still in the manuals so I guess they still work.

Dropping large amounts of rock on anything will immobilise it. Once it is immobilised, the long knives will find a kink in the armor. Large amounts of blackpowder properly applied will blow the turret from a tank and the head from a battledress.

"If you are left for dead on Afghanistans plains, and the woman they come to cut up your remains, then roll on your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your god as a soldier" was true when Kipling wrote it and is still true today.

[1] Actually the WWII tanks where worse in crossing ditches than their WWI counterparts
 
Originally posted by vegascat:

Contrary to the movies, Custer and his troops caused very few casualties among the indians. The tech advantage they had over the indians was mostly in Custer's head. The Sioux warriors lived combat from birth, while Custer's troops were raw recruits being led by civil war era sargeants. The last couple of ingredients to Custer's suprise was the number of Sioux warrios and their knowledge of the terrain. This was all it took to destroy a trained force completely.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on whose account you read. If you read the material from the victors, perhaps it will read that way. (Sioux.) As there was only one known survivor on Cavalary side and he wasn't talking a direct account from the losing side wasn't possible. (It was a horse that made it back to Ft. Riley and the Horse wasn't named Ed.) However according to what was found when virtually the entire Post at Ft. Riley sortied and got there there was evidence that Custer's men aquitted themselves quite well. At least according to what was in the Ft. Riley Museum.

In all fairness I have never seen a Hollywood recreation of that Battle/Massacre. Taking Custer's military record and previous combat experience he and his men probably would have aquitted themselves well. For example, he might have been in the right place at the right time at Gettysburg but once he found himself there he did the job right. (Got promoted to Lieutenant Colonel there.) He stopped the Confederate Cavalary from hitting the back of the line when Pickett's Charge hit the front of the line.

Custer, like Arnold, was actually quite a capable leader. They both get a bad rap based on the end of their military career. (Which, granted, in both cases was quite a noteworthy end.
)

However History is written by the victors and we may never know what actually happened.
 
Custer was considered a hothead from the getgo, even Phil Sheridan didn't like him on a personal level. Where Custer really shone was in the political arena, one reason he didn't get busted down to a senior lieutenant after the Civil War was over, like so many other generals.

As for the tech advantage, it was with Sitting Bull, mainly dueto the fact that the war office had tons of guns left over from the civil war and they weren't going to spend money on new guns, like the repeating rifle, until the old ones were used up, a common failure in logistics.
Sitting Bull on the other and, had been buying new civilian repeater rifles or at least his braves had, for several years.

The advantage of the repeaters were numerous, including the number of shots you could take while relading 8-15 vs 1 to the single shot rifles of the cavalry. The repeaters were not as heavy as the rifles issued to the cavalry and the bullets were actually smaller and better produced than the ammunition that the cavalry had, all left over from CW. Add to this that it was easier to reload, when the bullets ran out and was probably more accurate than the issue weapons.

As for if they did well, according to many current historians, they did a decent enough job, given they were outnumbered by better armed troops. Their fire discipline was greater, at least until their numbers grew too few and they were scattered by the Sioux. Despite what many think of the battle, the Sioux and their allies fought well and with some discipline, from behind barricades of all sorts, just like the cavalry did.

The Indians did get hurt, they knew where Reno was at and if they hadn't been bogged down most of the day with Custer and taken severe (to them) casualties, they would have probably rolled over him as well.
 
Originally posted by Lochlaber:
Custer was considered a hothead from the getgo, even Phil Sheridan didn't like him on a personal level. Where Custer really shone was in the political arena, one reason he didn't get busted down to a senior lieutenant after the Civil War was over, like so many other generals.

As for the tech advantage, it was with Sitting Bull, mainly dueto the fact that the war office had tons of guns left over from the civil war and they weren't going to spend money on new guns, like the repeating rifle, until the old ones were used up, a common failure in logistics.
Sitting Bull on the other and, had been buying new civilian repeater rifles or at least his braves had, for several years.

The advantage of the repeaters were numerous, including the number of shots you could take while relading 8-15 vs 1 to the single shot rifles of the cavalry. The repeaters were not as heavy as the rifles issued to the cavalry and the bullets were actually smaller and better produced than the ammunition that the cavalry had, all left over from CW. Add to this that it was easier to reload, when the bullets ran out and was probably more accurate than the issue weapons.

As for if they did well, according to many current historians, they did a decent enough job, given they were outnumbered by better armed troops. Their fire discipline was greater, at least until their numbers grew too few and they were scattered by the Sioux. Despite what many think of the battle, the Sioux and their allies fought well and with some discipline, from behind barricades of all sorts, just like the cavalry did.

The Indians did get hurt, they knew where Reno was at and if they hadn't been bogged down most of the day with Custer and taken severe (to them) casualties, they would have probably rolled over him as well.
Click to expand...
The real question is what percentage of Sitting Bull's army was actually armed with the repeaters. (Though whether the early repeaters were actually qualitatively actually better is still a matter of opinion, the Early Winchesters were generally better quality but most of the Henry's weren't all that good.) Lighter caliber and reduced accuracy were the trade off for more ammo.) But yes Custer's troops did get wiped out. The Sioux fought well and did accomplish the mission. Some of the Sioux did have repeaters. The Sioux did take serious casualties, and the only known survivor of Custer's side was a Horse.

Back to the question at hand though. A typical medieval seige engine is unlikely to do serious harm to high tech troops, especially armored vehicles. If they are massed and sitting still, you might manage to hit something and do some superficial damage. But accuracy is too low and penetration is nil to be able to hit a TL 6+ armored formation using proper tactical movement proceedures. Even against TL6+ Infantry using Seige weapons, most of which have less range than typical Infantry support weapons, the accuracy is too low for effective fire against a tactically moving force. About the only weapons that would even make a difference against a Tl11 light infantry force is the Longbow and Crossbow. (Both of which have comprable range to an assault rifle.) However accuracy for a typical longbow force is still quite a bit less than an assault rifle. (There will of course be exceptional archers that will be at least as accurate as an assault rifle equipped soldier, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.) Longbows were typically employed in mass formations firing on large mass formations where accuracy was less important than volume of fire. Against a light infantry platoon, using tactical dispersement you might kill a few soldiers but the platoon's machineguns will make quick work of batalions of archers. (Generally from outside of the range of the bows.)
 
It's pretty clear that a stand up fight isn't an option for the low tech force. Ergo, the result would be guerrilla warfare. No siege engines need apply.

The most effective technique for the low tech force is to buy or steal high tech weapons from their enemies. This is particularly necessary given that even enemy infantry are likely too well armoured to allow low tech weapons to be effective.

West Papuan secessionists still use bows and machetes against Indonesian troops these days, at times with considerable success, but by TL 9/10 that isn't going to be an option. A crowd of unarmoured civilians is incredibly dangerous to present day troops, if the latter aren't allowed to open fire, or are extremely outnumbered. Or, of course, if the troops sympathise with the civilians, and are likely to turn their guns on their own officers...

Essentially, then, considering the question in a strictly military sense, the initial goal is for the low tech force to arm themselves. That means they either have to overpower a high tech soldier with the weapons they have, and steal his equipment, or else they steal, or buy, equipment some other way. Then they use this equipment to capture more equipment, and so on...

The Ewok thing was nonsense, of course.
 
Short note on the Trapdoor-Springfields used by the US cavalry:

The weapons are actually quite good and sturdy but the issue-ammo was lousy. This resulted in ripped casings where part of the case stuck in the weapon and had to be pried out.

Otherwise the .45-70 was a nice and powerful cartridge and the weapons used by Custer's man where actually re-builds of Civil War muzzle-loaders into a rear-loading cartridge rifle (Allen Conversion). Some of them still work today

The british forces had a similar weapon (Enfield-Snider conversion) and similar problems. The cartridge was also similar and after the problem was solved found it's way into the brand new (and still single shot) Martini-Henry

Most militaries actually refused repeaters back than because they feared the soldier would waste ammo. The best example is the Mauser 1871 designed and build after the Civil War (and talks between German and US militaries about it), a single shot weapon. Add in that the earlie tubular magazins and the sharp-nosed military bullets (unlike the round-nosed one used in the Winchester) don't match and magazin rifles where not that well liked by armies.
 
Ok, tactical question: High tech sensors, and which they use from base camp.

We're talking a TL9 force here, invading/hunting in the terrain of a TL1 or TL2 force. Would the TL9s, if not already terribly familiar with the terrain, even see the ballistae being pulled up onto the edge of a cliff a quarter of a mile away? Maybe the lowtechs could get the drop on them that way. I mean, ballistae and catapults have no engines, no electronics, hell, they don't even have to have any metal. And they don't fly, so if they stay under cover of trees and such, radar wouldn't do any good...
 
After reading the above responses, I feel I need to qualify my statement about archaic weapons; siege weapons might be effective against armored vehicles if used a) in an overwhelming manner, b) against immobile targets, c) without forewarning (i.e. one time only), and d) for shock value as much as damage.

If I may elaborate: A group of primitives, lead by an adventurous PC, plan to teach some pesky mercs a lesson. They lure the merc APC into a narrow ravine where they have created a trap worthy of the grandmaster trapbuilder, Wil E. Coyote. As the APC rumbles deeper into the wash, the PC signals the primitives to trigger a landslide, blocking the way forward. As planned (good rolls), the APC comes to a stop and the primitives push the large bolder down the slope, smashing into the APC, rolling it on to its side. Mercs bail out, guns a blazing, to a shower of smaller bolders. They quickly realize their armor can easily deflect a high velocity flechette round but is utterly useless against 20lb bolders falling from 50ft above them.

Again, this will only work once or maybe twice. It won't result in substantial losses to the more advanced force but the damage it does inflict, to morale, may be better than any done by a laser or gauss rifle.
 
Originally posted by Ran Targas:
Again, this will only work once or maybe twice. It won't result in substantial losses to the more advanced force but the damage it does inflict, to morale, may be better than any done by a laser or gauss rifle.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that you've just captured a whole bunch of lasers or gauss rifles that you can use in your next engagement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top