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
paul1970    Aquebus/longbow   1/11/2008 9:22:23 AM

I've found by chance this brief analysis comparing longbow, crossbow and arquebus, it might be interesting, and probably gives some clues about why early firearms had an edge over other missile weapons, even being inferior in range, accuracy and rate of fire. That might explain also why armies equipped with early firearms defeated armies equipped with other kind of missile weapons, as Spanish conquistadores against Aztecs or Western infantry against Turk ottomans.

 

>>
 

Tercio

 
not going to use the figures put as they represent the early arquebus rather than 1640s musket and so make the firearm look like a joke compared to the longbow. safe to say that the musket got a lot better in terms of energy over then next 100 years.
 
 
 
the two main problems with the longbow is that.
1. its penetration of later plate armour is not great.
2. its takes a lot of time and effort to train someone to use effectively... you can get accurate over short distance fairly easily (those who fire recreationally will confirm this) but you need constant training for ranging and the strength/stamina to be there to use the weapon throughout a battle.
 
neither of these factors plays a significant part in the fantasy scenario that I put which was that a HYW longbow army would beat a ECW army. this seems to be something which is not being digested by H.
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       1/11/2008 10:22:45 AM
Actually, #2 does make a bit of difference in your debate.  The English had longbowman in the HYW because the peasants used longbows for hunting etc. etc.  Also, if I recall correctly there was a law somewhere in the UK where the peasants had to practice with a longbow for a certain amount of time everyday.  Correct me if I am wrong on that last part but I was fairly certain I read it somewhere. 
 
After the onset of firearms it was cheaper and easier to arm and train an army with musketeers/arquebusiers than longbows.  Plus, longbowman werent nearly as expendable as their firearm-armed cousins given the training time required for a truly good longbowman.  The only thing you need to teach to shoot an old firearm like that is how to load it, point it, and pull the trigger.  Add in some basic advice to keep the powder dry, etc. etc. and your total training time to make a basic musketeer/arquebusier can be done as fast as one day if you are a quick study. 
 
The physical training for a longbowman takes far, far longer let alone the amount of practice necessary to make it accurate at a given range. 
 
Thus, your HYW army could not have met an ECW army in battle on practical terms rendering the debate about who would win academic. 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    Aquebus/longbow   1/11/2008 10:38:28 AM

I've found by chance this brief analysis comparing longbow, crossbow and arquebus, it might be interesting, and probably gives some clues about why early firearms had an edge over other missile weapons, even being inferior in range, accuracy and rate of fire. That might explain also why armies equipped with early firearms defeated armies equipped with other kind of missile weapons, as Spanish conquistadores against Aztecs or Western infantry against Turk ottomans.

 

>>
 

Tercio

 
not going to use the figures put as they represent the early arquebus rather than 1640s musket and so make the firearm look like a joke compared to the longbow. safe to say that the musket got a lot better in terms of energy over then next 100 years.
 
 
 
the two main problems with the longbow is that.
1. its penetration of later plate armour is not great.
2. its takes a lot of time and effort to train someone to use effectively... you can get accurate over short distance fairly easily (those who fire recreationally will confirm this) but you need constant training for ranging and the strength/stamina to be there to use the weapon throughout a battle.
 
neither of these factors plays a significant part in the fantasy scenario that I put which was that a HYW longbow army would beat a ECW army. this seems to be something which is not being digested by H.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    Aquebus/longbow   1/11/2008 10:55:14 AM

Actually, #2 does make a bit of difference in your debate.  The English had longbowman in the HYW because the peasants used longbows for hunting etc. etc.  Also, if I recall correctly there was a law somewhere in the UK where the peasants had to practice with a longbow for a certain amount of time everyday.  Correct me if I am wrong on that last part but I was fairly certain I read it somewhere. 

 

After the onset of firearms it was cheaper and easier to arm and train an army with musketeers/arquebusiers than longbows.  Plus, longbowman werent nearly as expendable as their firearm-armed cousins given the training time required for a truly good longbowman.  The only thing you need to teach to shoot an old firearm like that is how to load it, point it, and pull the trigger.  Add in some basic advice to keep the powder dry, etc. etc. and your total training time to make a basic musketeer/arquebusier can be done as fast as one day if you are a quick study. 

 

The physical training for a longbowman takes far, far longer let alone the amount of practice necessary to make it accurate at a given range. 

 

Thus, your HYW army could not have met an ECW army in battle on practical terms rendering the debate about who would win academic. 


well obviously the debate is academical since it never actually happened.... it is a what if debate...
 
it ignores the whole cycle of recruiting, training and maintaining the armies and is purely this army versus that army. (like many of the other vesrsus debates all over the place between things that could never or will never meet.)

 
it like asking what would have happened if the Romans had of met the Han Chinese in battle or if the Europeans had of got involved with the ACW, or US had of joined with France and Britain in 1939... never happened but good enough to jack about...
or maybe more like Scipio versus Caesar versus Trajan since we are talking same country, diferent style army, different centuries....
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    Aquebus/longbow   1/11/2008 11:19:18 AM

Actually, #2 does make a bit of difference in your debate.  The English had longbowman in the HYW because the peasants used longbows for hunting etc. etc.  Also, if I recall correctly there was a law somewhere in the UK where the peasants had to practice with a longbow for a certain amount of time everyday.  Correct me if I am wrong on that last part but I was fairly certain I read it somewhere. 

 

After the onset of firearms it was cheaper and easier to arm and train an army with musketeers/arquebusiers than longbows.  Plus, longbowman werent nearly as expendable as their firearm-armed cousins given the training time required for a truly good longbowman.  The only thing you need to teach to shoot an old firearm like that is how to load it, point it, and pull the trigger.  Add in some basic advice to keep the powder dry, etc. etc. and your total training time to make a basic musketeer/arquebusier can be done as fast as one day if you are a quick study. 

 

The physical training for a longbowman takes far, far longer let alone the amount of practice necessary to make it accurate at a given range. 

 

Thus, your HYW army could not have met an ECW army in battle on practical terms rendering the debate about who would win academic. 


and yes there was a law in place to make sure that its use was practised....  sundays after church.... :-)
yeomanry, so it is based on income.
 
the English took on the longbow and instigated the laws after seeing how good it was when used by the Welsh.
 
'a first rate English archer who, in a single minute, was unable to draw and discharge his bow 12 times with a range of 240 yards and who in these 12 shots once missed his man, was very lightly esteemed."   
 Prince Louis Napoleon
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/11/2008 5:14:22 PM

you might want to read up on the antislavery patrols the RN maintained for about 70 years in the waters off central and western africa.  lot of gold and lives spent to suppress the slave trade and done for moral reasons.




Slavery was rampant in the British Empire until 1833. Though the Portugese and the Dutch began the slave trade (it was African chiefs who sold their own people to the Dutch and Portugese), the British capitalized on it and made it global. And you want me to believe that out of the clear blue one day they decided it was amoral? No doubt, many in Britain were anti slavery based on moral grounds, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Europe and the commonwealth often get on their moral high horses about their treatment of blacks in general. I have heard plenty of stories of black Vietnam veterans who went on R&R to Europe and Australia. The Brits and the Aussies asked the US government to not send black soldiers to their countries for R&R. The US government told them to go f&@* themselves. Again, there are several horror stories from black soldiers posted in Europe during the Cold War, all the way up to the 80's.

there was quite a bit of agonizing etc before the british banned slavery but they did it on moral grounds and once they had done so they spent a fair bit of time and energy inflicting their moral standards on those around them in finest imperial fashion.
couldn't speak to the modern treatment of black soldiers but i would certainly support the usg stance if those requests were made.

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/11/2008 5:20:58 PM

And move on.

Ground covered.

Herald


does not address the difference in penetration between bullets and arrows though.  i doubt a 60 lb bow would have had even half a 223's KE yet penetrated much better through the sandbags. 
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/11/2008 5:40:48 PM

and yes there was a law in place to make sure that its use was practised....  sundays after church.... :-)
yeomanry, so it is based on income.

 

the English took on the longbow and instigated the laws after seeing how good it was when used by the Welsh.

 

'a first rate English archer who, in a single minute, was unable to draw and discharge his bow 12 times with a range of 240 yards and who in these 12 shots once missed his man, was very lightly esteemed."   
 Prince Louis Napoleon


i've read it took 10-15 years of practice/conditioning to build up to using a full power longbow.  takes a damn good man to pull one of those monsters and pump 100 or 150 shafts down range during a battle. 
something i've wondered is if there was a shortage of yew that contributed to the passing of the longbowmen.  the lifespan of a longbow wasn't very long and it takes a large yew tree (by yew standards) to make a bow.  yew are fairly uncommon and quite slow growing trees.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/11/2008 10:49:01 PM



And move on.

Ground covered.

Herald



does not address the difference in penetration between bullets and arrows though.  i doubt a 60 lb bow would have had even half a 223's KE yet penetrated much better through the sandbags. 
 


Corrected calculations based on 130 pound pull.

Your complaint is therefore MEANINGLESS.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    Ehran   1/13/2008 5:41:37 PM
The English imported yew staves from Portugal as the wood was of a better quality. I believe that the yew bows found on the Mary Rose were Portuguese yew.

The range of the medieval weapon is unknown, with estimates from 165 to 228 m (180 to 249 yds). Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667N(150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328.0 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd).


 
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