Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America's Worst Enemy in History
mongyu    1/2/2008 8:16:10 AM
The title says it all: Who do you think has been the greatest enemy ever to threaten America? My vote goes to the British hands down. No other country ever came as close as the British to physically ending the United States in our history. The Germans and the Japanese were formidable in their own right, but neither [or even both] could reasonably invade the United States. The Soviet Union had the theoretical potential to destroy the United States, but I think everyone agrees that this was not a practical capability in the way the British Empire's ability to take Washington DC was. The Soviets were a dangerous enemy ideologically in the way it could convert adherents in America, but they never out-did the British who successfully supported a rebellion in the United States by funding, arming, and giving moral support to the Confederacy. So what country would you choose?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
SA!"£$    Gerald .   1/9/2008 4:09:42 PM
You still have not looked at those stats properly have you; what are you on about you supplied the data and the analysis Im jus telling you you got it all wrong, the data was missing, what you were implying was complete bobshite and youve been digging your own grave ever since!  Maybe you should look up BRITISH EMPIRE (the stats for Britain are for UK only none of her territories or colonies) and then you will read why France, China and especially the USA (Giggle) were no contest for Britain you pillock. The Empire had 20-24% of world GDP from 1820-1920 DUH while the US reached parity at the end of WWI but in 1820 had 1.8% is it starting to make sense yet . I tried to tell you in my last couple of posts but you fell for it scrambling thru the stats for a quick response and a few quips here and there you didnt bother to read your own data thouroughly.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/9/2008 6:18:26 PM

Your 45 gram clothyard arrow launched at 20 meters per second has a potential of 900 joules.

Where did you pluck 20mps from? Quote your source.

I used to do target archery and I can tell you that 6 arrows per minute is easily exceeded,

My arrows at 100 yards would penetrate a couple of inches through a hard packed straw target and it had a draw weight of only 36lbs. Longbows had variable draw weights in excess of 90lb. I saw recently a 90lb longbow penetrate a modern manufactured tempered steel breastplate at 40yards. At 100 yards it still broke through the steel. This was using bodkin heads. Imagine the result of facing that essentially unarmoured.

Also consider tactics. In the 100YW archers in pitched battles shot from behind set stakes and dug pit holes. Essentially, the cavalry couldn't get at them. As for the caracole tactics using wheel lock pistols, they were a joke. To be sure of hitting the infantry, they needed to be at the most 40 yards away. Try that in the face of fast firing bowmen. Caracole was abandoned when snaphaunce and flintlock muskets arrived because the practice was no longer survivable for the cavalry.

1.  Engagement range is typical for longbow at 120 yards in the loft. Flat trajectory was not the norm
2.  Your typical .023x28 inch by 3inch fletched modern  arrow in the 90 pound draw leaves the bow at the snap at around  278 feet per second. I made a math error. recompute 85 mps @ 45 grams = 3825joules. Shoot me. I make mistakes.
3. Swedish cavalry did not use the caracole, and as for that neither did  Cromwell's goons. They charged at the galloip using the saber.
4. British archers once they went into position couldn't move from their prepared positions or they would be cut down, as the French repeatedly did to them once the French cavalry learned not to attack the British frontally. Joan of Arc TAUGHT them that.
5. Sorry but that BS about a clothyard arrow punching through plate ignores two realities. Those test shots you claim you see are against a rigid static target and not a natural shock absorber bouncing around on a horse, and wearing a quinlin under that cuirass or wearing a padded buffcoat with metal reinforcement. Arrows do not pierce deep enough to cause a horseman a problem, unless its an arm or leg hit.
6. Archers in battle no more make aimed shots than a musketeer.  In fact their effective flat engagement range  is about the same. Loft range is at most 150 meters and then the arrows start to fall  short.

I do archery too Heorot.  Strike as you measure it will be from 90-130 foot pounds of force in English units. I tend to use joules instead.
But for grins and giggles if you do the math for a 0.69 musket ball at 600 fps [pistol], the strike works out about to around 85 footpounds.

Its a wash. Nevertheless despite my math error you don't win this one, Heorot. Bullets punch through, arrows don't.

Read here. 

Herald
 


 

 
   

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/9/2008 6:31:50 PM

You still have not looked at those stats properly have you; what are you on about you supplied the data and the analysis Im jus telling you you got it all wrong, the data was missing, what you were implying was complete bobshite and youve been digging your own grave ever since!  Maybe you should look up BRITISH EMPIRE (the stats for Britain are for UK only none of her territories or colonies) and then you will read why France, China and especially the USA (Giggle) were no contest for Britain you pillock. The Empire had 20-24% of world GDP from 1820-1920 DUH while the US reached parity at the end of WWI but in 1820 had 1.8% is it starting to make sense yet . I tried to tell you in my last couple of posts but you fell for it scrambling thru the stats for a quick response and a few quips here and there you didnt bother to read your own data thouroughly.

You have no numbers and you have no data?  All you have is hysterical  drivel?

How was Britain supposed to raise and equip from the Empire at large again, cretin? Let me see, those British armies raised in England clothed in England and supplied in England magically were transported to India where they had all that wealth transferred to them by osmosis and then they were magically transported to America? 5.8% in the British isles is 5.8% in the British Isles. the bulk of India's GDP stayed in India since you could only transport about 15 of it by ship at the time-considerable though that financial wealth was.

So.....................................I'm dealing with imbeciles.

People who lack coherent imagination, or even the simplest knowledge of what it costs to do anything  across  DISTANCE are trying to tell ME that they know what the hell they write or even what logistics is.

Morons. Simply morons.

Heorot, that does NOT apply to you.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    HYW/ECW   1/10/2008 7:16:22 AM

For one thing the musket is more a massed direct fire weapon and the strikes would be more flat trajectory.

The bow being a rather low velocity weapon to get range relies on loft and  ballistic lob.

These factors plus your failure to show me you understand basic employment of type reveals to me that you continue to make asinine challenges and statements out of your league.

But for grins and giggles

Your 45 gram clothyard arrow launched at 20 meters per second has a potential of 900 joules.

Your 7 gram  lead ball  at 375 meters per second  has a  potential of  2625  joules.

Now the arrow has a surface strike area roughly equivalent to the bullet fired so you do the  SMASH  calculation for 24mm^2 strike area

THIS is why you are an idiot.

Herald




so far you have shown that you know very little about the ECW.
your basic postings that looks like you took the first google page summary of the ECW and plucked out ironsides (ironside foot!  hah!) and swedish style training as an answer against mass longbow volleys... 1 shows you didn't bother to check the battles and tactics used.... 2 shows you know jack about HYW or you might have twigged about the sheer firepower that longbows can put down as opposed to the rather pitiful firearm fire in the ECW.
 
and yet you persist in arguing about something that you have not bothered to research properly.
 
 
you now go off waffling about energy of musket balls ect... compared to the longbow... which must take more effort than actually doing some historic research......
 
as for energy of strike.... I could go off about your calculations being wrong because of various reasons but WHAT DOES IT MATTER???? look at the actual results in battle rather than trying to worm out of the facts with mathematical waffle.... the maths may tell you one thing but the massed dead bodies on the battlefield tell you the actual results.
 
longbows killed many people while they were armoured.... leather, mail and plate....  the men and horses are going to die in 1641- and be wounded in just the same way as everyone else was done 200 years before... more so since the ECW armies worse less armour. DEAD IS DEAD.
 
again, you fail to address the simple FACTS that longbow range, accuracy and rate of fire was far higher than the arquebus or musket.... while your 3000 muskets are advancing to within their range how many arrows do you think have hit you????? I am sure you will be really bothered that your musket ball wound have killed him even more... or might have done if you could have actually got into reange to fire it at hit the target...
 
 
clearly you have not really looked into longbow effect... prefering to concentrate on the firearm instead...if you have book access then look at the Robert Hardy book. even you tube has bow demonstrations...  try longbow penetration.
on tv try Weapons that made Britain with Mike Loads..
or if you cannot stand the infomation coming from someone British then try ... the comparrison between longbow and crossbow (similar to your beloved musket in that it has greater kinetic strike than a longbow, it actually had better effective range than longbow but strangely lost out.... perhaps down to the sheer number of arrows coming down on their heads as they try to reload) as that was narrated by an American.
 
 
go back to the simple point that you are arguing against......... a HYW longbow army would beat a ECW army.
 
the only benefit a firearm has is armour penetration... and strangely enough all the bullet proofing of cuirasses says a bit about the reliability of firearms to do the job as well.
 
so taking all this into account why do you STILL think the musket is a better ECW winner than the longbow?????
 
 
 
if you still don't get it then I suggest you stick with whatever is your specialisation because this subject certainly isn't yours and you not actually being influenced enough by the HISTORIC EVIDENCE to change your original opinion just makes you look like a fool.
 
but carry on if you wish... its nice having someone take on Herk and FS's role for comedy relief.....
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Answer to a clown.   1/10/2008 7:28:03 AM
Heorot questioned my arrow strike energy calculations. Not you. I looked at them. Found the error and corrected.

Nothiong you said specifically proves a thing as Heorot did or wqas specific to the discussion.

What massed firepower?  Arrow vollies?  Answer me this? Why did the longbowmen fail after the Rheims campaign in the HYW? What did the French do differently after the Maid that consistently defeated the English?

HMMMMMMMM?

There's a REASON why the longbow failed against the French and why the Tercio [maneuver] subsequently tore the same French to ribbons.

Now quit assuming facts not in  evidence  and learn that I know this stuff a lot deeper than you think.

And stop making assertions. Try some facts.

Herald
 



 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    HYW/ECW   1/10/2008 8:35:32 AM



Your 45 gram clothyard arrow launched at 20 meters per second has a potential of 900 joules.

Where did you pluck 20mps from? Quote your source.

I used to do target archery and I can tell you that 6 arrows per minute is easily exceeded,

My arrows at 100 yards would penetrate a couple of inches through a hard packed straw target and it had a draw weight of only 36lbs. Longbows had variable draw weights in excess of 90lb. I saw recently a 90lb longbow penetrate a modern manufactured tempered steel breastplate at 40yards. At 100 yards it still broke through the steel. This was using bodkin heads. Imagine the result of facing that essentially unarmoured.

Also consider tactics. In the 100YW archers in pitched battles shot from behind set stakes and dug pit holes. Essentially, the cavalry couldn't get at them. As for the caracole tactics using wheel lock pistols, they were a joke. To be sure of hitting the infantry, they needed to be at the most 40 yards away. Try that in the face of fast firing bowmen. Caracole was abandoned when snaphaunce and flintlock muskets arrived because the practice was no longer survivable for the cavalry.



1.  Engagement range is typical for longbow at 120 yards in the loft. Flat trajectory was not the norm
2.  Your typical .023x28 inch by 3inch fletched modern  arrow in the 90 pound draw leaves the bow at the snap at around  278 feet per second. I made a math error. recompute 85 mps @ 45 grams = 3825joules. Shoot me. I make mistakes.
3. Swedish cavalry did not use the caracole, and as for that neither did  Cromwell's goons. They charged at the galloip using the saber.
4. British archers once they went into position couldn't move from their prepared positions or they would be cut down, as the French repeatedly did to them once the French cavalry learned not to attack the British frontally. Joan of Arc TAUGHT them that.
5. Sorry but that BS about a clothyard arrow punching through plate ignores two realities. Those test shots you claim you see are against a rigid static target and not a natural shock absorber bouncing around on a horse, and wearing a quinlin under that cuirass or wearing a padded buffcoat with metal reinforcement. Arrows do not pierce deep enough to cause a horseman a problem, unless its an arm or leg hit.
6. Archers in battle no more make aimed shots than a musketeer.  In fact their effective flat engagement range  is about the same. Loft range is at most 150 meters and then the arrows start to fall  short.

I do archery too Heorot.  Strike as you measure it will be from 90-130 foot pounds of force in English units. I tend to use joules instead.
But for grins and giggles if you do the math for a 0.69 musket ball at 600 fps [pistol], the strike works out about to around 85 footpounds.

Its a wash. Nevertheless despite my math error you don't win this one, Heorot. Bullets punch through, arrows don't.

Read here. 

Herald
 


 

 
   

this is supposed to be about longbow against ECW but it keeps wandering off onto irrelevent points...
 

1. engagement range is debatable depending on who you ask. but since we know that at agincort the English opened up and hit French at 300 yards provoking them into advancing then it is safe to say that your figure of 120 is a bit low.
now I could suggest you check at what range did musketeers generally open fire in ECW battles? they tended to wait till they were very close because there is a good chance that they wouldn't get a 2nd disciplined shot off....
 
2. not in the slightest bit bothered about energy and calculations because the simple facts are that longbows killed armoured men in many battles and so they can do no worse against lesser armoured men that is relevent to the ECW debate. so wehther it does enough damage to kill you 3 times over is rather irrelevent since you are still dead....
 
3. please provide a real source that says that Cromwell's goons actually charged at the gallop rather than were supposed to because somebody saw the Swedes do it 10 years back. ands Cromwell's horse was 2 regiment
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    HYW/ECW   1/10/2008 8:52:45 AM

Heorot questioned my arrow strike energy calculations. Not you. I looked at them. Found the error and corrected.

Nothiong you said specifically proves a thing as Heorot did or wqas specific to the discussion.

What massed firepower?  Arrow vollies?  Answer me this? Why did the longbowmen fail after the Rheims campaign in the HYW? What did the French do differently after the Maid that consistently defeated the English?

HMMMMMMMM?

There's a REASON why the longbow failed against the French and why the Tercio [maneuver] subsequently tore the same French to ribbons.

Now quit assuming facts not in  evidence  and learn that I know this stuff a lot deeper than you think.

And stop making assertions. Try some facts.

Herald
 





again you manage to completely miss the point... are you doing it deliberately or are you really this dumb!
 
striking power is irrelevent as the ECW armies are not as well armoured as the armies that the English beat with longbow.... so pointless bringing it up.
 
feel free to bring up the failings of the longbow if you wish but neither that or the manouver of the Tercio have no relevence to the ECW.... why do you keep bringing them up when we are talking about the ECW??????
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Look moron.   1/10/2008 9:07:43 AM



Heorot questioned my arrow strike energy calculations. Not you. I looked at them. Found the error and corrected.

Nothiong you said specifically proves a thing as Heorot did or wqas specific to the discussion.

What massed firepower?  Arrow vollies?  Answer me this? Why did the longbowmen fail after the Rheims campaign in the HYW? What did the French do differently after the Maid that consistently defeated the English?

HMMMMMMMM?

There's a REASON why the longbow failed against the French and why the Tercio [maneuver] subsequently tore the same French to ribbons.

Now quit assuming facts not in  evidence  and learn that I know this stuff a lot deeper than you think.

And stop making assertions. Try some facts.

Herald
 






again you manage to completely miss the point... are you doing it deliberately or are you really this dumb!

 

striking power is irrelevent as the ECW armies are not as well armoured as the armies that the English beat with longbow.... so pointless bringing it up.

 

feel free to bring up the failings of the longbow if you wish but neither that or the manouver of the Tercio have no relevence to the ECW.... why do you keep bringing them up when we are talking about the ECW??????

As long as men have used distance weapons, SMASH and defense against it has always been relevent.

The NMA didn't adopt the French or the Spanish model for its base. It adopted the TYW model-basically the Protestant [Swedish] version from where some of the ECW veterans originally learned their trade.

NOW stop being stupid and marshal some FACTS. Your assertions like your jibes to me are meaningless noise.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/10/2008 12:15:19 PM

But for grins and giggles

Your 45 gram clothyard arrow launched at 20 meters per second has a potential of 900 joules.

Your 7 gram  lead ball  at 375 meters per second  has a  potential of  2625  joules.

Now the arrow has a surface strike area roughly equivalent to the bullet fired so you do the  SMASH  calculation for 24mm^2 strike area

THIS is why you are an idiot.

Herald



herald 20 mps is awfully low for a longbow arrow.
also you seem to be missing that arrows aren't blunt instruments like bullets especially back then.  as a practical demonstration of the effects of this difference a friend of mine tested his bow vs his ar 15 on compacted sandbags which had been in place for some years thus well settled.  he discovered that none of the ar 15 rounds penetrated the sandbags while his arrows on the average protruded 6" out the far side of the bags on average.  you can not run a simple calculation of relative energies and arrive at a valid understanding of the wounding mechanics of two such disparate weapons.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Cref Heorot reply.   1/10/2008 12:20:52 PM
And move on.

Ground covered.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics