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
Herald12345       1/29/2008 11:14:01 AM



Why don't you refer to the reply I gave to Ehran or the data Tercio just supplied?.

That kinetic energy calculation is important if you understand that plate that STOPPED a bodkin head arrow was unable to stop a musket ball, and know why.

You just sort of flounder around there, don't you?

Like shooting a flounder in a barrel. {I love puns!]

Herald




and for about the 6th time we come back to the original question... HYW versus ECW.... you keep avoiding this trying to waffle on about smash this and ke that.... it is irrelevent.

 

the ECW chaps don't wear full plate and are less well protected than early HYW armies. then it is fairly obvious what the longbow will do to them. it will do at least the same as it did to the HYW armies....   faster, more accurately and at a greater engagment range than the musket can do.... 3 things that you have failed to address......

 

pray tell how accurate you think the musket was? at an individual or at a massed target?

 

 

Paul

 

 


Trying to sneak the last word in, cretin?

Answer  is simple. You don't get as many archers, as musketeers, archers don't do the kind of damage you think they do [Kinetics matters! CREF SMASH above] and finally, Tippacanoe cretin.

Tippacanoe.

See if you can figure it out.

Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    still off on a tangent...    1/30/2008 7:14:45 AM







Why don't you refer to the reply I gave to Ehran or the data Tercio just supplied?.

That kinetic energy calculation is important if you understand that plate that STOPPED a bodkin head arrow was unable to stop a musket ball, and know why.

You just sort of flounder around there, don't you?

Like shooting a flounder in a barrel. {I love puns!]

Herald






and for about the 6th time we come back to the original question... HYW versus ECW.... you keep avoiding this trying to waffle on about smash this and ke that.... it is irrelevent.



 



the ECW chaps don't wear full plate and are less well protected than early HYW armies. then it is fairly obvious what the longbow will do to them. it will do at least the same as it did to the HYW armies....   faster, more accurately and at a greater engagment range than the musket can do.... 3 things that you have failed to address......



 



pray tell how accurate you think the musket was? at an individual or at a massed target?



 



 



Paul



 



 




Trying to sneak the last word in, cretin?

Answer  is simple. You don't get as many archers, as musketeers, archers don't do the kind of damage you think they do [Kinetics matters! CREF SMASH above] and finally, Tippacanoe cretin.

Tippacanoe.

See if you can figure it out.

Herald

 


you have still not addressed the question of ROF, accuracy and effective engagement range....
you still do not acknowledge that ECW armies were less well armoured than HYW armies
 
now you are intelligent and can research well enough so why don't you bother to address these points?
I think you are deliberately avoiding this because you realise that it kills your argument.
 
 
smash/kinetic what you want? okay... longbows smashed HYW armies which had better armour protection than ECW armies. therefore longbows have enough smash/kinetic to do the job against ECW armies? why do you not address this??????
as for specific KE from arrows.... who cares... dead is dead.
 
 
 
you now go off on another tangent  moaning about numbers of archers..... why? the question is a hypothetical clash between an English HYW army versus an ECW army.... there is no need to recruit and train.... but just to humour you.... Crecy or Agincort army against Parliment Naseby or Martson Moor so you get the bigger numbers.....  oh hang on still less men than those well armoured French armies that got beat 200+ years before....
 
and a side point... you don't get more musketeers on a man per man base because the pif firepower of the muskets mean that you have to support them with pike blocks to protect them from cavalry attacks...
 
 
 
had to look up your battle ref.... regular infantry with 1800+ musket against an native Indian force.... this is your counter????? what part of the Indian army makes you think of English longbows???????? not only that but the US outnumbered them and lost more men in the fight....
 
 
 
so anyway..... I threw a load of references at you for battle descriptions and tactics in response to your NMA waffle about ironsides (foot hah!) and tactics used by the cavalry which you seem to have ignored.... closed mind or do they destroy your argument so you cannot bring yourself to comment?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/30/2008 7:29:20 AM
ON POINT.

The accuracy of the Brown Bess is just slightly worse than the modern handgun against a man-sized target over the same effective range {about 25 meters]. Against a barn beyond 100 meters it is questionable you will hit the barn. What is NOT questionable is the EFFECT of the strike. Depending on the arrow and the musket ball both do about the same amount of work on you, its that the musket ball kills you more efficiently by unloading work into you and punching through any hard plate or soft armor you might effectively wear with far greater efficiency than any slow arrow.

So while armor makes sense against a rube armed with the bow as it provides reasonable protection, it makes no sense to wear armor against a musketeer as it actually makes the bullet more efficient in harming you or don't you realize that?

The Tippacanoe Lesson directly applies as that was musketeers against archers.

Herald


 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    still off on a tangent...    1/30/2008 7:38:49 AM

Trying to sneak the last word in, cretin?

Answer  is simple. You don't get as many archers, as musketeers, archers don't do the kind of damage you think they do [Kinetics matters! CREF SMASH above] and finally, Tippacanoe cretin.

Tippacanoe.

See if you can figure it out.

Herald

 
"archers don't do the kind of damage you think they do"
 
they do enough to have won all those battles.........
if they don't do the damage required then what exactly did put all those French out of action at Crecy????????? how many French actually got into H2H combat through the arrows???????? what do you think stopped the charges and put those (MORE ARMOURED THAN ECW HORSE AND FOOT) knights out of action? hey, why don't you blame the rainy weather.....  (obvious trap here....    :-))
 
 
Paul
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    still off on a tangent...    1/30/2008 8:48:49 AM

ON POINT.

The accuracy of the Brown Bess is just slightly worse than the modern handgun against a man-sized target over the same effective range {about 25 meters]. Against a barn beyond 100 meters it is questionable you will hit the barn. What is NOT questionable is the EFFECT of the strike. Depending on the arrow and the musket ball both do about the same amount of work on you, its that the musket ball kills you more efficiently by unloading work into you and punching through any hard plate or soft armor you might effectively wear with far greater efficiency than any slow arrow.

So while armor makes sense against a rube armed with the bow as it provides reasonable protection, it makes no sense to wear armor against a musketeer as it actually makes the bullet more efficient in harming you or don't you realize that?

The Tippacanoe Lesson directly applies as that was musketeers against archers.

Herald



finally..... so you acknowledge that the musket is not accurate. and that is an 18thC one not the 17thC matchlock which was slower loading, not as reliable and far less accurate (and heavy... lets not forget that, although that might be part of the reason it is so unaccurate.......)

there is documented proof of longbows killing at that range through all but best plate. there is documented proof of aimed shots hitting out to over 100m. there is documented proof of longbows hitting masses of men out past 200m. training was done at 200+ the English trained a lot as you well know..... so in a set peice battle the muskets are going to have to advance into a kill zone to get an effective strike in or trade shots at long range where they will be easily beaten.
 
you mentioned firing bows earlier in the thread. how often and at what range do you consistantly hit your target? I shoot about twice a year at Shefield Fair and the Robin Hood festival and can hit the targets there with fair ease.
 
as a side note on brown bess. British Napoleonic infantry got to train more with live ammunition that contempories which does help account for their general better accuracy in battle.
 
 
 
 
 
so the musket is not as accurate, it is outranged in general combat and  its rate of fire is lower....
 
your Tip lesson is against a relatively unorganised foe (certainly not as well organised as the US), barely a skirmish. I can only go off wike (unless you have another source) but it says...... "Throughout the morning Harrison's troops fought off several charges. When the Indians began to run low on amunition and the sun rose, revealing how small the Prophet's army really was, the Indian forces finally retreated." and the Indians still killed more US than the other way round even when outnumbered...... 
so this is fought at close range and mainly at night... hardly a set piece battle.......to compare native Indians with trained English/welsh longbows is ridiculous. why on earth would longbows need to to charge into H2H when they can pick off unarmoured targets with relative ease.....
but I would love to know what reaving English longbow band would do to a unit armed with matchlocks glowing at night.....    :-)
 
 
I agree on the armour to a degree (.... after all plenty of 17thC cuirass were bulletproofed.... but I don't want to go down that ally and no use when the archer can put one straight into your head at 20m...   :-) ) this is why ECW armies wear little armour (that and cost).... this is why they are now back to be vulnerable to the longbow.
 
yes a musket ball will probably kill the person it hits if it gets them in the right place but so will the arrow against someone not fully armoured. and there will be an awfull lot more arrows coming directly at each person than musketballs.
 
this is the whole crux. this is why I have mentioned it as being akin to rock, paper, scissors.
 
I also go back to my previous where I mentioned Ben Franklin....  wouldn't have worked for the US as they did not have the years of training and the musket can be used by anyone... but in trained hands it is a far better weapon.
 
 
Paul
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/30/2008 1:41:53 PM



ON POINT.

The accuracy of the Brown Bess is just slightly worse than the modern handgun against a man-sized target over the same effective range {about 25 meters]. Against a barn beyond 100 meters it is questionable you will hit the barn. What is NOT questionable is the EFFECT of the strike. Depending on the arrow and the musket ball both do about the same amount of work on you, its that the musket ball kills you more efficiently by unloading work into you and punching through any hard plate or soft armor you might effectively wear with far greater efficiency than any slow arrow.

So while armor makes sense against a rube armed with the bow as it provides reasonable protection, it makes no sense to wear armor against a musketeer as it actually makes the bullet more efficient in harming you or don't you realize that?

The Tippacanoe Lesson directly applies as that was musketeers against archers.

Herald




finally..... so you acknowledge that the musket is not accurate. and that is an 18thC one not the 17thC matchlock which was slower loading, not as reliable and far less accurate (and heavy... lets not forget that, although that might be part of the reason it is so unaccurate.......)

Look, what is it that you don't understand? Volley fire is volley fire. Which I might point out is reflected in musketeer threshing machine linear tactics.. Accuracy has nothing to do with effectiveness in that context. SMASH does. .


there is documented proof of longbows killing at that range through all but best plate. there is documented proof of aimed shots hitting out to over 100m. there is documented proof of longbows hitting masses of men out past 200m. training was done at 200+ the English trained a lot as you well know..... so in a set peice battle the muskets are going to have to advance into a kill zone to get an effective strike in or trade shots at long range where they will be easily beaten.

Latest archeology [dug up dead Frenchmen] shows that arrow penetrated plate to be a MYTH. Most of the dug up corpses have dagger wounds. WHY?

 

you mentioned firing bows earlier in the thread. how often and at what range do you consistantly hit your target? I shoot about twice a year at Shefield Fair and the Robin Hood festival and can hit the targets there with fair ease.

I use a modern compound hunting bow and hunt deer. I try to approach deer as close as I can. I confess I'm not very good. Anything beyond thirty meters is very iffy.

Target shooting is easy with sighting aids. I don't consider the modern bow to be a fair equivalent to a longbow.

I do use a steel short bow to practice shoot and with that I don't use sight aids. I bulls eye at 15 meters, and at  30 meters center  group  in the target.  Beyond that my shots scatter around the target depending on windage up to about 50 meters. Beyond 50 meters I miss-consistently.
 
as a side note on brown bess. British Napoleonic infantry got to train more with live ammunition that contempories which does help account for their general better accuracy in battle.

I'm sure the French appreciated it. 

so the musket is not as accurate, it is outranged in general combat and  its rate of fire is lower....

Who said it wasn't? 

your Tip lesson is against a relatively unorganised foe (certainly not as well organised as the US), barely a skirmish. I can only go off wike (unless you have another source) but it says...... "Throughout the morning Harrison's troops fought off several charges. When the Indians began to run low on amunition and the sun rose, revealing how small the Prophet's army really was, the Indian forces finally retreated." and the Indians still killed more US than the other way round even when outnumbered......

Wiki is not a suitable source ever.

TRY THIS.

http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Eusgenweb/ky/tippecanoe/tc08.gif" alt="Plan of tippecanoe camp " border="0" height="4
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       1/30/2008 8:38:24 PM
Not to pick sides here or anything as my knowledge is thoroughly dwarfed by both of you I do have to say that the all of the most recent studies I have seen show longbows as far less capable of piercing armor than is being discussed here.

In fact one study I saw showed the arrow head, pretty much just a steel sabot as well, bending upon contact with the contemporary plate armor and achieving zero penetration.  Also, the archaelogical evidence being recovered does not support massive longbow inflicted casualties as as historically believed to be the case.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       1/30/2008 9:04:19 PM





Now now, we both know it was the French that really won that war ;)

B.L.




Ugh...



Outdone by the French ?  Surely you jest! 



 



it isn't a fact americans bring up when they teach history but without french aid the revolutionary war was a foregone conclusion pretty much ending with a bunch of founding fathers getting hung for treason. 



It isn't? Funny, every history class I've taken in my 32 years in the US of A has talked about the Polish (Pulaski), Prussian (Von Steuben), and French (LaFayette) support for Washington (George not D.C.). Compte de Grasse's actions in the VACAPES was key to the victory at Yorktown, and yes that is taught in our history classes. 

What people chose to remember and what is taught isn't necessarily the same thing.
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       1/30/2008 9:20:28 PM
One thing though about the penetration factor.  Regardless of if a longbow could penetrate plate or not how is that relevant to the discussion?  Its opponent, the ECW army had generally little to no plate armor anyway.

One question I must pose however is how much ammunition was generally carried by either army?  Also, though the Longbows, I think, have a longer reach and definitely much higher ROF the trajectory of musket fire was superior when fighting the formations of either era (squares/ranks of soldiers).  The ammo question comes into play with the ROF.  

Also I must pose another amateur question in order to bring about another facet of this discussion.  WHat was the general composition of either army?  My basic (possibly innacurate) knowledge is that archers in an HYW army were not nearly as common as the musketeers in an ECW army.  The question is important because if it is true than by the basis of greater numbers musketeers will have more of an effect on the battle than archers due to their larger presence.

Also, as far as doctrine is concerned, I was under the impression that (again, could be wrong here) archers served more of an artillery purpose: soften up/demoralize the enemy before the infantry did the real killing.  Musketeers on the other hand WERE the artillery and the shock troops: they demoralized and obliterated.  In this case, during the battle even if archers were, man for man, more effective than the musketeers the HYW army would still be defeated because the heavily armored foot troops would be absolutely gored by the musketeers.  After this it would simply be a factor of approaching the archers and destroying them there.  No easy task, but still inevitable.  Dont quote crecy here on me as to THAT part failing as there was perfect terrain and the jackassery of French nobility that doomed them there.  
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    bows, armour and stuff.   1/31/2008 8:53:29 AM

Not to pick sides here or anything as my knowledge is thoroughly dwarfed by both of you I do have to say that the all of the most recent studies I have seen show longbows as far less capable of piercing armor than is being discussed here.


In fact one study I saw showed the arrow head, pretty much just a steel sabot as well, bending upon contact with the contemporary plate armor and achieving zero penetration.  Also, the archaelogical evidence being recovered does not support massive longbow inflicted casualties as as historically believed to be the case.

indeed.... they do a fair amount of testing all over the place and the quality of it varies.... both sides moan about tests that don't seem to back them up, as you might expect. but nobody actually tests against the plate actually used since they are antique and expensive. 
I can only direct you to the book by Hardy which has extensive tests. various clips on youtube (just look up longbow penetration). the Ch4 program specifically on the longbow made by weapon experts. and the Cranfield tests I mentioned recently....(these probably being the best recent tests)
 
 
as for archaelogical evidence..... just look at the casualty figures at those big battles. then take off all the ones killed in H2H but count all those left helpless to be slaughtered or ransomed by the ones who went out to claim the spoils from the dead and dying.
 
so at Crecy you see very few French actually getting into combat and most being taken out before getting into fighting....
no doubt a lot got very close before actually being taken out... ie got within 20m... and no doubt the repeated charges were because the French thought the next charge would do it... (melchard anyone...) and no doubt all those dying horses and men in front of the archers slowed down all the followup charges....  but what is certain is that the English won and that they killed 1000s and it was put down to the longbow...
 
and finally.... I go back to the simple point that H will not address............. this is not muskett or longbow versus armour... this is longbow versus an ECW army. and the ECW armies are not well armoured as HYW armies of any stage and so will suffer a worse fate than the French at Crecy. I even propose that the musket wouldn't do as much damage as the crossbow.... ie both well enough to kill the target but crossbow better engagement range and better accuracy.... about same speed?
 
Paul
 
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