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
dwightlooi       1/31/2008 8:57:28 AM
The Greatest Enemy of America in History...

LIBERALISM

 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    bows, armour and stuff.   1/31/2008 9:51:45 AM

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.  
well longbowmen tended to have 48 arrows at the HYW period and then had runners going back for more as there is a good chance that they will run out if the fight goes on for too long... but of course they will resupply in between the combat rounds as each charge falters and the men slip back to their battles to line up to charge again.
10-12 a minute on average while engaging. so they run out after 4-5 mins. initial charge at Crecy took 40 seconds and stopped dead by the opening volleys.... 90000ish.... total fired in fight... 500000. total charges 15 (or 16) so you can see that the archers fire drew off as the charges became less strong and they resupplied throughout the fight. if they had of run out then the French would have slaughtered them...... (I quote Crecy as it is so well researched and easy for you to check up what happened.... I can come with Potiers and Agincort if you wish.. or Towton and St.Albans... Flodden if you want 16thC....... if you don't like the way the French fought then you won't like the way ECW armies fought either as most of the commanders there were jackasses as well. some with years of experience from the 30YW) a cleverer commander is likely to take one look at that formed longbow line and say sod that as he will realise that he cannot take it on with the archers facing him.
 
they killed 12000 (conservative estimate) 20000-30000 in some sources. so one could say they needed a lot of arrows to kill someone or you could say that you keep firing till the charge falters and sod the fact if you killed the same man 20 times. but the sure thing you can say is that it stopped the French dead and did the job.
 
 
so in theory the archers can run out of ammo in 4 minutes... but in practice they don't run out and don't have to keep up max fire volume because the opposition have been halted and retreated off so the archers can rest and resupply.
 
 
 
muskets.... 12 rounds on bandolier (sure some will have more in bags ect but 12 was base). 2 a minute if trained well. 1 if not..... run out in 6 mins... resupply again and firing by file rotation early and by 3 line salvo later. first volley always best as the muskets then suffer reload problems ect. hence most firefights happen at very close range when you can recognise your neighbor by the length of his moustache. very low casualties. most being caused when opposition run away or when push of pike overuns people falling over. or
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    The only enemy who can bring our defeat is US.   1/31/2008 10:02:27 AM

The Greatest Enemy of America in History...

LIBERALISM



"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?"
<Paul Harvey
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber     Another one....   1/31/2008 10:06:00 AM
We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.<Nikita Kruschev
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       1/31/2008 10:37:29 AM
Thanks for all the info Paul.  This era of warfare always interested me because of the transistion from Bows to Gunpowder weaponry.
 
I do have another, again, amateur question however.  The transistion from bow-armies into gunpowder armies did not occur overnight, so I would assume that the bow met with the musket at least a couple of times in battle.  What led to the full abandonment of the bow for the musket?  Was it simply a question of economics?  Musketeers could be made quickly, cheaply, and easily where as bowman took long amounts of physical training and practice.  That seems too trite however.  Obviously it was a large factor, but at some point between ecomonics and efficacy a general is going to say he wanst more bows if he believes they are better at killing.
 
Was there some other factor/tactic that led to muskets being superior? 
 
What effect would cannon artillery have upon longbows? Crecy and Agincourt I both know of and both were the english on a static position defending against a foolishly aggressive army.  Cannon artillery seems to me the answer to this question.  Instead of marching close to the Longbows and getting that arrowstorm falling down upon you just sit back and lob cannon balls at them.  Is the advent of more common/fairly long range artillery what led to the downfall of bows on the tactical level instead of the strategic level?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Paul's numbers are off.   1/31/2008 10:54:31 AM
And his description of the longbow use in battle is "fanciful".

The archeology and the testing does not support him, period.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       1/31/2008 12:01:07 PM
I generally take everything I read on this page that doesnt have an immediate citation next to it with a grain of salt.  His numbers sound a bit higher than I would have thought, but they do give me a general idea of how to approach this.
 
I just dont see how longbows could truly be as effective as all of the historical hype.  If they were then longbows would have been in use for much longer.  At the very least you would see quite a bit of hybrid armies, with both longbows and then muskets for close up work.  If they were as good as the historical hype that army would have been murder to go up against.  I just dont buy it though. 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    bows, armour and stuff.   1/31/2008 12:19:03 PM

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. .
 
are you now saying that longbows were not shot in volleys????? do you not think that a cloud of 50000+ arrows coming down on a relatively slow target will cause some trouble?
and accuracy has everything to do with it... if you don't hit the target then you can volley away all day long and achieve bugger all other than loud noise... early muskets threshed bugger all that didn't just stand there and take it. even the Napoleonic lines didn't do that much damage.
those archers hit their target with saturation fire. muskets armed men will suffer worse than genoise crossbowmen who at least had armour.



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?
 
 
 
one corpse does not prove a thing. what year, which battle????? what about all the references I gave you... ARE YOU IGNORING THEM.
corspes having dagger wounds but not near the actual English lines..... these are the ones dispatched by the longbowmen later when they go forward for hostage and plunder. wounded, imobile, whatever.....or do you think these fully armoured French knights were beaten by an Englishman with a dagger in straight combat??????
latest penetration tests are those at Cranfield. did you bother to look at them? if so what do you say about their results?


 

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.
 
 
so even though you are not a professional you still hit an individual target at 30m. do you acknowledge what range the HISTORICAL sources say was practise range for the longbowmen or do you dispute it,
 
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? 
 
this the first time you have agreed with the statement even though myself and Ehran have asked you several times.

your Tip lesson is agai
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    bows, armour and stuff.   1/31/2008 12:24:53 PM

And his description of the longbow use in battle is "fanciful".

The archeology and the testing does not support him, period.

Herald


which numbers?
if my numbers are off then please post what numbers you think are correct.
mine come from books about the specific period, battles... Robert Hardy, David Nicole,  Keith Roberts ect....and from the weapons that made Britian series....
 
paul
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    bows, armour and stuff.   1/31/2008 12:38:10 PM

I generally take everything I read on this page that doesnt have an immediate citation next to it with a grain of salt.  His numbers sound a bit higher than I would have thought, but they do give me a general idea of how to approach this.

 

I just dont see how longbows could truly be as effective as all of the historical hype.  If they were then longbows would have been in use for much longer.  At the very least you would see quite a bit of hybrid armies, with both longbows and then muskets for close up work.  If they were as good as the historical hype that army would have been murder to go up against.  I just dont buy it though. 


there are many reason why the bow fell from favour...
don't forget that the only army to really use the longbow was the English. many tried to copy its use but since they did not have access to the trained men in any good number...( it takes years of practice to get as profficient as the English were.)...... then their results were not as good as the English and so they turned to the cheaper firearms where you can train someone withing a week to be at least compitent.....
the fact that good armour got rid of a lot of its potency.
couple that with the English not being on the continent using it all the time after the HYW finished.... so it wasn't in view of those practising war and getting on with using firearms...
 
big factors for the English themselves... WOTR killed a bloody load of the experienced guys. and new army raising needed people ready to fight NOW not in 5-10 years time.
 
but perhaps the really big factor for the English which eclipses the actual deaths in combat is the simple fact that plague killed a ridiculously large amount of the peasant population that made up the trained bowmen and the Tudors needed new armies.
 
plague is very much overlooked because everyone wants to focus on the "glamour" of the actual fighting.
 
 
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