OT: Archery in combat
 

The Frag newsletter has an interesting bit about the history of the english long bow. Something in it raised a question for me. Maybe some of you know.
Does this make sense? I can believe that it would take years to train a guy to shot a bullseye from 100 yards, but in battalion level combat does an archer need to be that accurate? Isn't the idea to have a couple hundred archers shooting a constant stream of arrows and blanketing a target area? Couldn't a guy be taught in a few minutes how to shoot an arrow into a target field the size of formation of hundreds of soldiers? I would think anyone with just basic hand eye coordination could probably do that with no training whatsoever given some arrows and few minutes to figure it out on their own.

I suspect a better (and perhaps more accurate) reason to choose muskets and balls over bows and arrows is the ability to produce the ammunition rapidly and lug it into combat. I imagine just about anyone could melt lead and use a mold and produce hundreds of balls an hour, while it would take a highly skilled fletcher to produce combat useable arrows, and he'd do so at a much slower rate. And it's easier to carry a bag of balls and enough powder to shoot it then to lug around a full quiver.

Am I on track here?

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

I suppose they could've trained an elite few in the use of the longbow and sent them out on commando raids. It would slow down your enemy a little by making them wear armor.

It probably wouldn't be worth it to train a whole army to use longbows though

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

That's when everybody lined up together in rows to shoot, right?

Proper archery, pshaw http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif
That's like demanding sharpshooters for your musketeers.

All you need to do is get the arrow to fly far enough, and you're almost guaranteed to score a hit on somebody!

---

I agree that making ammo would be much harder...
You wouldn't have to use it in every battle though.
Save up production, and pass out the arrows for a special operation. Attract a big opposing force, and surprise (read slaughter) them with a rapid-fire barrage of arrows http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

wouldn't cheap to make tower shields with holes cut in them for muskets foil the "blanket archerey'?

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Interesting. I had a go at archery recently, and after an hour of training our entire group (including teenagers as well as adults) were burying arrows two or three inches into metre-round targets (or into the ground sensibly near the targets) at about 20 metres or so (what's that in yards?) Probably a third of arrows fired were going into the targets. I had plenty of distance left in mine as well, but I'm reasonably strong with a long reach and I'm still not at all sure I'd be able to fire one of those things to a hundred yards without a LOT more training. As distance increases, I imagine accuracy decreases exponentially, with training time to become an effective weapon increasing at the same time, so I could believe a years would be necessary to fire effectively at anything more than close range.

mind you we were using training bows rather than longbows, which probably skews my observations though, since by definition I would expect the training bow to be easier to use.

Longbows, used skillfully, really are devastating. Obviously they have nothing on modern rifles, but the power behind them really is startling when demonstrated, probably at least equal to antique muskets and such. At the height of their era, a skilled archer could loose a good half-dozen or more arrows per minute, all of them well aimed, which again is probably well in excess of what early firearms were capable of. Once on TV (a documentary, not LotR http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif ) I saw a longbow fired at an armoured dummy designed to have the same sort of density/ toughness/ whatever as a human. It was fairly close range, admittedly, but the arrow went clear through the armour, through the dummy and stuck out the other side. I wouldn't have thought it possible before seeing that.

As to answering any of your questions... ummm.... don't know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Something to think about is the bow (not necessarily the longbow though) did go up against the early muskets. It was the colonization of North America. A native american warrior armed with a bow fired at least twice as often as a soldier with a musket.


Also while I dont know about much about archery... I do know that the upper body strength required with the longbow was fairly impressive - even for a warrior. The entire army may not have been strong enough to use the longbow. Additionally didn't the bow have to be matched to the warrior? It had to be a certain measure depending on the height and strength of the archer?

IMO there was alot more craftmanship in the average "archaic" darkage/middle age weapons then in the average weapon of the modern era.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

1 meter = 1.094 yards,
so 20 meters = 21.87 yards

www.convert-me.com is a really handy site for converting things.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Remember that during the heyday of longbows, the English army was small, even by standards of the day. For example, the French had them way outnumbered at all three decisive battles of the 100 Years War (Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt). Perhaps this was because the English army in all 3 battles was only an "expeditionary force" or perhaps they could never muster large numbers of trained longbowmen.
Anyway, by the Napoleonic era, armies were much larger. Agriculture had undergone a revolution, freeing up a lot of manpower for warfare. Plus, more of that manpower lived in urban areas where there was less opportunity for practicing archery. Plus, governments began relying more on conscription and the "citizen soldier," especially during times of crisis. Lastly, the generals were a bunch of retards who used up the lives of the foot-soldiers like they were squirrels. So the government didn't want to spend large amounts of money training them. (In fact, some governments put criminals into the army, perhaps explaining somewhat the generals' attitude toward footsoldiers.)
Oh, five more things: 1) muskets are easier to use in trenches and forts and lying down; 2) you can put bayonets on them; 3) you can have several muskets loaded and ready, so the initial rate of fire can be quite high; 4) non-combatants can load the muskets behind the lines, again upping your rate of fire; and 5) gunpowder and lead can be used as ammo for muskets, pistols, rifles, cannons, and petards.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

With progress old skills and technology are phased out. Think of the skill one would have had to have to be an archer in midevil times.

I would love to go back in time and bring someone back and show them what the world has become. I think they would cry.

With each new technological advancement we leave behind a skill that in time does fade into the fog of history. How many of you can ride a horse? How many of you can make a saddel? How many of you can forge steel, let along mine it?

How many of you can make something usefull out of a block of steel?

It saddens me to think that if something were ever to happen to the US, most people would die because they lack the simple skills needed to stay alive. I am sorry, but your cell phone cannot be used to kill dinner. No, that big SUV does not make for a good wagon once its out of gas.

No you cannot drink something all because it is clear... rule one... unless you KNOW its water, don't drink it.

What would be do now if we had no technology? I know I can shoot a bow, and fish, hunt too, but build a shelter or make a bow?

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

In past days it wasn't very common to own a horse, the ones who could afford had oxens or mules, horses where for the welthy (Talking robin hood europe).
making a saddle, forge steel, mining and making something useful out of steel has never been common knowledge, it's handicraft for specialized workers, was so then and is so now.
I'd guess more people today forge steel than in midevial europe (In numbers, not percentage) as the population is much larger now.
There is plenty of smiths making hand forged objects, art, horse shoes, nails etc.

A simple bow is easy to make, haven't we all made several when we where kids?
Making a good bow is much harder but with practice perhaps..

Darned, edited in alot about mining but the computer fouled up and I can't get the entusiasm to rewrite, just imagina I've written alot useless info on mining.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

There have been a number of shows on The History Channel discussing ancient arms and armor. The training to use the longbow was extensive and took a few years, you need a lot of upper body strength to pull it back so as to have the devastating effect.

The crossbow was the early answer to the training a longbow required. It was all about using technology to achieve a powerful flight without the need for human strength. From what I've seen on The History Channel, French soldiers and Italian mercenaries armed with crossbows were soon ablative meat when they met a force of trained British longbowmen.

Ha. Take that. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! Ummm, wait no that doesn't work here. Uhhh. OK. Rule Britannia. Yeah. That works.

Now for my question. On The History Channel, there was this series about some guy who taught a group of amateurs to fight in each episode with ancient weapons. He did Roman legions, Vikings, even Pirates. He was a bald headed guy. Don't think he was British. Did anyone remember the show's title? I can't find it on the History Channel website, and I want to program it into Tivo in case it's rerun. Note, it's not the latest series on the History Channel, "The Weapons That Made Britain" -- which is pretty much the same topic. I saw that one.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Sort of on the same topic, I saw a great documentary on the BBC about this study they conducted of WWI soldiers shortly after the war and were shocked to find that only something like 10% of soliders were actively trying to kill the enemy. The other 90% were just firing above or off to one side etc. A more recent study of battles in Vietnam found the figure at about 98% and out of the 2% that were trying actively aiming to kill their enemy, half were certifiable sociopaths who enjoyed the experience, and the other half were what's considered the 'model soldier' just doing what his country required of him and who, assuming he survived, would return to normal civilian life easily after his tour was finished.

When I was watching this, I actually thought about the Longbowmen, since they didn't really aim at anyone, but rather at some point up in the sky, whereas the guys with muskets, and later rifles and machine guns, actually had to look at the people they were killing, and I guess this 'personalization' of killing made it a lot harder. Now of course with cruise missiles, ICBMs, bombers and fighter-bombers, killings gone back to being nice and unpersonal. Wierd, huh?

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Arkcon, you're searching for the name Peter Woodward, and the show Conquest. I remember seeing this show a while back, very entertaining. I saw the Tournament, Bow and Arrow, and Knives and Daggers. From the episode list, a few others seem interesting, for various reasons... you'll see what I mean when you look towards the top of the list http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Unfortunately, it seems the History Channel isn't airing any episodes for the near future. Pity. I might have actually suffered spending some time in front of the idiot box for that show http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Will said:
"Arkcon, you're searching for the name Peter Woodward, and the show Conquest."

That was it. Thank you. They may rerun it some time late at night, or he may be on a similar show. Tivo will take care of the details for me.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

With deforestation in England, I wonder if there would have been enough Yew Trees to make long bows in Napoleonic Times. Hate to be sick, but have you ever wondered what the population of Europe would have been by now if there wouldn't have been so many huge wars? All of this mideval warfare talk is making me want to re-install Warlords 3 , or maybe buy Dominions II !

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Or if not for the bubonic plague, which killed 25% of the population in the mid 1600s...

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Yes, from a munchkin perspective, or from a "most effective unit type not considering how it comes into existence" perspective, lifelong-trained English longbows probably are a more effective unit type than typical musket infantry. "Lieutenant-Colonel Lee of the 44th Foot" had a good point. The rate of fire and accuracy was generally far superior.

From the perspective of what it takes to "get" lifelong-trained English longbows in one's army, though, it's not just a button the king clicks in Sid Meier's Civilization.

Those troops were exceptional, with specialized powerful bows, lifelong training including great skill and strength, bodkin arrowheads designed to pierce armor, etc. At Agincourt the battle conditions and French tactics from overconfidence were also large factors. It's interesting too that the English were almost as surprised as the French that these troops could defeat heavy cavalry. (Relevant to the "do you like to know the game values?" question. The French player probably got upset. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Less spectacular archers in other circumstances were not so great against armor. Shields are also fairly effective countermeasures to arrows. Even if an arrow goes through a shield, a shield penetration won't be killing the target.

Most archers though were specialists, even back through ancient times. Bows are not as easy to become competent with, as guns or crossbows are. Training time is important to the overall cost and difficulty of fielding a troop type. Also, most people in a society, government, and even the military, are neither munchkin-minded nor do they understand tactical issues very well. Most people think "gun > bow". After all, look at the fire and smoke. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

PvK

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

I would think that one sides artillery would make the other sides Longbow Archers hard to deploy If such a hypothetical use of archers was ever considered.
I saw something on History Channel that showed that the battle field in Agincourt was super muddy. The French bogged down and were then targeted at long range by the archers.
I should have bought stock in the History Channel!

Favorite SNL skit: What if Napoleon had a B-52, What if Sparticus had a Piper Cub.

Now when we talk Longbow, we're not talking about the Helicopter Gunship...right?

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

this feature alone goes a long way to making the gun superior to the bow. despite its poor reload time, accuracy, high manufacturing cost, and questionable reliability, the early musket proved to be the superior weapon of war.

more important than its actual efficiency, is the morale effects on the battlefield. the loud bang, bright flash, and smoke will shake most enemies. and being the cause of a loud bang will bolster the morale of those wielding firearms.

This is a particular good presentation on the evolution of weaponry:

http://www.killology.com/article_weaponry.htm

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Didn't he play the technomage in Babylon 5, the coolest figure in the whole series/movies..

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Aye, he did. I've seen him in a few other things as well, but I've mainly known him for the series on the History Channel, and a few other documentaries that he narrated. It would be cool if another project came up where he could act a little, I thought he played Galen pretty well in the few episodes I saw, even though the writing for it was... well, ****ty.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Why? The effective range of longbows is as good as muskets, and the force with longbows would have its own cannon and cavalry.
Yes, General Mud was a big factor. Also, even if the ability of bodkin longbow arrows to go right through armor at long range were slightly exaggerated, horses were not very heavily armored and were larger targets than the knights, and when they fall and get run into from behind by other knights, it gets messy.
I suppose. They're good at exposing the masses to something historical, though their authenticity and completeness is often pretty low.

PvK

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

>>PVK: Most people think "gun > bow". After all, look at the
>>fire and smoke.

>Puke: this feature alone goes a long way to making the gun
>superior to the bow.

Schlock agrees with you:
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20001111.html
and
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20020902.html
and pretty much every other strip http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

but why isnt there going to be any 'blam' on this mission?

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Small forces of longbow archers would certainly be effective. Reloading a musket is terribly difficult (doing it properly is, at any rate) but any imbecile can put another arrow on a bowstring.

After the battle of Gettysburg, thousands of Confederate muskets were found to be poorly loaded. The Confederates used recruited civilians as the backbone of their army, and this resulted in a massive lack of quality in fighting skills. Thousands of muskets were found to have two balls in their barrels. About two thousand had three balls. Several hundred had more, several dozen were found with over ten balls. One musket was loaded with 24 balls! Had its owner fired, he would certainly have killed someone - himself. The gun would have exploded in his face!

Had they used longbows, this would (possibly) be different. You can't fire 24 arrows at once, even an Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron could have figured that out. (Well...) If longbows outrange muskets as well, then it would CERTAINLY be handy to use them; it would be like a Napoleonic assault rifle.

African Americans browsing this thread, you should be pretty glad longbows weren't used after the Middle Ages. If the Confederates had used longbows, there would be a good chance they would have won the Civil War, and then you would probably all be working on Texan sugar plantations now.

Just speculating... what if Napoleon had used one Longbow? Firing guns and anti-tank missiles from a kilometre away, he could have wiped out the combined British and Russian armies without them even knowing what was hitting them. (Bye bye 1812 Ouverture...) He would have conquered EVERYTHING between the East side of the international date line, and the West side of the international date line. (in order east to west) How would the world look like now if Napoleon had founded "La France de la Monde"?

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Methinks thou doth switch from Longbowmen to Longbow helicopters........ :-)

Rasorow

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

One Longbow with infinite ammo and fuel?

I suppose he could drag it within range of one of the capitals, and use the rockets to blow up their seat of government.
It could turn the tide in one major battle, and instill fear in the entire army if you don't reveal the lack of supply, ordnance and spare parts. Not to mention capable pilots.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

One modern, nuclear powered aircraft carrier, fully supplied, in any time period up to 1950.

What could it do? (Be an interesting story...)

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

One decent modern-day library would probably trump them all in the hands of an open-minded society.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Depends how long they would have to prepare.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

As long as it appears at a reasonable time before the collapse of the civilization, and they have somebody who understands the "olde" version of the language the books are written in, they should be OK.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Fall into disrepair and irradiate something big?

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Actually it was a movie. A Nimitz-class carrier somehow gets transported back in time to WWII. What should the captain do? What is his duty? Unfortunately, the film-makers spent most of their time on dumbed-down philosophical discussions rather than action, so it was OK to watch once on TV but not worth remembering the name. (On the other hand, I was much younger then, so maybe I just didn't have the depth to appreciate it.)

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

The Final Countdown. A mostly forgettable movie starring Martin Sheen and Kirk Douglas.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

I nominate that for best answer yet.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

What would Napoleon do had he had the USS Voyager?

Try to burn it for being a blasphemous heresy?

Try to man it for exactly the same reason?

Pray to it?

Accidentally jettison the warp core, blowing the entire Eurasian plate into oblivion?

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Hmmm, interesting...

A modern FULLY SUPPLIED aircraft carrier would include NUCLEAR weapons... can anyone say WORLD DOMINATION?

... now back to the original discussion -
The English Longbow.

One limiting factor would be the need to strenght train the bowmen - An English Longbow had a pull strenght requirement of 90 pounds or more. That is a lot of pull for those who are not archery buffs. (An average bow had a pull of only 50 to 60 pounds.) And remember that this is a single shaft bow, not a modern day compound bow. The average man would quickly tire out if he had to use such a bow for long...

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

There's a slight catch to that - until they had seen the effect up close, few rulers would believe the tales of the survivors (and those who do see the effect from close enough to be considered "up close" would die shortly afterwards), and the reliable scouts sent to the devastation zone would tend not to come back (radiation poisoning over a few weeks travel to get to an area that looks like something more than a bad storm had hit the place) so they would probably have to keep "demonstrating" the nukes until after they were out to get any real use out of the threat.

However, a single fighter using a single missle to demolish one of the castle's towers, followed by a "tour" of the ship sufficient to note that the carrier holds many such, and each fighter carries many such missles, about five or ten times (once per bigwig ruler), would be sufficent threat to have most of Europe bowing and scraping.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

One word: 1632. It's a series of books from Baen Publishing, that deals with a small town (from west virginia, of all places) being transported intact to 1632 Germany, and how they deal with it and such. The Baen forums have entire sections dedicated to discussing the way our tech would transfer to their time, etc. It's pretty interesting, all told.

So far as longbows go, my thought is simple: thier hard to manufacture in terms of men, bows, and arrows. If it were my call i'd use them as snipers hiding in forested areas to demoralize the other troops and force them to use men and ammunition trying to flush them out. To use them en masse might work a few times, but i just can't envision a scenario where they'd really make a huge difference. Another thing to consider is that - for a great while there - the tactics of europe were pretty standardized on the "line up and shoot at the enemy" model; this is often brought up in reference to the geurilla tactics employed by the americans during the revolutionary war.

Just a thought,
Deth

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Forget the USS Voyager. Napoleon could have acchieved his dreams and been Emporor of Europe with a couple dozen 5 dollar walkie-talkies from Radio Shack. Just a little better real-time battlefield communication and he probably could have turned Waterloo around.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

How long before a modern warship becomes inoperable due to complete lack of supply and replacement parts?

How many people on a US warship have archaic international language and diplomacy skills?

How well does morale, discipline, and mental health survive this time warp scenario?

Why would the captain decide to become a world-dominating powermonger, and if he did, how would his command structure and loyalty of subordinates evolve?

One of my cousins and a friend got into this discussion once about twenty years ago. I think my dad had the correct answer (besides just ignoring it as multidimensionally silly): if a handful of time-warped modern people with some modern equipment thought they could use the equipment to rule the ancient world, the contest would not be about combat, but about guile and politics, and older generations had that in abundance.

PvK

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

geoschmo said:
"The Final Countdown. A mostly forgettable movie starring Martin Sheen and Kirk Douglas."

I remember seeing this movie on late night T.V., and I found it fascinating, in a campy sort of way. I won't say I love it, but the philosophical dilemma it presents is very compelling for me.

*SPOILER SPACE*


Stop reading unless you want to jump in on my questions.









Basically, Kirk Douglas figures out that some sort of temporal rift in the Pacific Ocean has shot his nuclear powered carrier back in time to just before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

His plan is perfectly clear to him from the outset. Truly, he barely debates his decision, either internally with himself or with anyone else -- He has info about an attack on his nation, he is going use his knowledge and capability to defend his nation, then report to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Then the same rift appears just before the attack and he orders his fighters back so they can all go through. Total rip-off cop out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Is what to do so obvious? Yes he took an oath to defend his nation, but he's back in time before he took said oath. Does it still apply? And after he's done, he's going to float on into Pearl Harbor, drop anchor, and report for duty? Ready to take orders from President Roosevelt? Sure it all makes sense from a military standpoint, but its not the sort of question people usually have to worry about.

I'd like to be there when they put in for refueling. "I don't know where you came from or what class ship you are, but do you need fuel?" "Uhh..no thanks, the reactor can run for about ten more years without refueling, which, if the Manhattan project is on schedule, means you'll have the fuel just about when we need it." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Here's another question. The fighters are much more impressive than what the Japanese had, but are they really going to rule the skies? I knew a guy who said that modern jets are fuel guzzlers, and can only stay up a short time. A fleet of carriers can square off against another fleet of carriers, but one Nimitz class carrier against the entire Japanese fleet, a little unmatched. He said it, me, I don't know. What were Japanese fighters back in 1941, canvas over a wood frame? Still, its got a gun, can they even penetrate modern fighter jets' skin?

I always figured the next mission would be to go to the enemy ports in sequence and start hitting them with the long range missiles until the obvious technical superiority scared the living s... out of Japan and Germany and ended the war, I gave it about 6 months tops. Many people don't agree it would be so cut and dry. It would ruin everything if the Nimitz got sunk by a lucky shot. Another friend told me my plan was way off.

After the carrier returns, the crew is debriefed, and put on a special mission, one which pretty much involves them all living alone far away from contact with anyone else. Particularly their parents, who will soon meet and give birth to them some years later. Meanwhile the ship and jets are deconstructed and analyzed, to insure that, when the time is right, they can be constructed. The historical information the crew has is likewise used for one purpose -- to insure everything happens exactly as it is supposed to. Even the bad things, the only reason they happen as they do is because an even worse outcome is avoided. Because there's nothing a bureaucratic government craves more than the status quo.

In a way, that last outcome is like the ancient Roman legend of the Cybaline Books (sp?). Basically, a group of history books from the future are sold to an empire, which uses them solely by reporting the future a little bit before it is to happen. As unsatisfying as that outcome is, it always works as an option. The timeline is preserved. In fact, it could be happening all the time, as long as the temporal Men In Black are there to fix things.

Ah well, just a bunch of stuff that bounces around in my head because I saw some camppy movie. Move along all you sane people. Nothing to see here.

I always wondered that if the temporal races in SE4 could really control time, wouldn't they try to bring a ship from the future to help in a war they're fighting? You could model this by letting them design and build a ship with 2 or 3 levels of tech higher than they've researched, but only let it exist for 5 or 6 turns.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

The Japanese navy fighters on Dec 7 1941 were all-metal monoplanes, not wood and canvas. The army might have had some scout planes that were wood and canvas, but the only front-line fighter plane in WWII that wasn't all-metal was the Hawker Hurricane flown by the British.

One Nimitz class nuclear carrier would have obliterated teh task force the Japanese sent to attack Pearl Harbor. Interestingly I'm not sure they could have stopped the attack so much. Modern Jets vs WWII fighters would be an interesting fight. The Modern jets would have a great advantage in that they could launch air-to-air missles from great distance. I'm not sure either could get guns on the other with the great speed diference. The WWII fighters would be much more agile at the slow speeds, but the jets would be so fast it would bascially take blind luck for either to hit an enemy target. Except the missles, and I'm not sure how many missles they would have. The Japanese had hundreds of planes in the air that day.

Where the Nimitz would really rock would be in taking out the Japanese fleet. They have anti-ship missles that would take out every ship in the fleet and any Japanese planes returning form Pearl wouldn't have anything to land on but oily water.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

geoschmo: You're confusing the Hurricane (a single-engine air-superiority fighter which fought alongside the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain) with the Mosquito (a twin-engine multi-role aircraft). The Mosquito was constructed entirely out of wood, and received more than its fair share of criticism because of it. It performed quite well in combat however and proved its critics wrong.

More like lopsided http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Despite the agility of the slower piston-driven fighters, the jets could quite easily cut them apart with guns, as they are easily capable of flying slow enough without stalling to get in some hits. With slashing, high speed (relatively) attacks from any angle they wish the jets would rule the day. The slower aircraft would simply have nowhere to go. This is not to say that there wouldn't be casualties among the Tomcats and Hornets, but they would be very few.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Modern aircraft are not really armored - bullets will damage them... if they ever get hit.

Damage potential in the Final Countdown scenario would mainly be limited by lack of resupply, I would think... I wonder though if say the CVN sailed into Pearl Harbour before they figured out the date and the Jap strike hit just then with hundreds of planes, if the CVN could scramble and intercept quickly enough to avoid getting torpedoed.

PvK

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Not sure about that, but I have a hunch a modern nuclear carrier is much harder to sink than its World War 2-era ancestors.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

In the Korean war the first jet planes had major difficulties with the old piston-driven planes as they were flying to fast to score a hit with guns easily. If they would reduce speed they were in constant danger of a stall made worse but the recoil of their guns.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

That is what I was thinking about when I made my original post. But I think Sirvan is correct. I think that modern jets like the F-14 are much more capable at slow speed combat then the Korean war combat jets were. With the variable sweep wings and full flaps they could probably fly slow enough to be able to target the slow flying japanese zeros so one on one it would probably be no contest. I still think that the Zeros would have a manuverabilty advantage at those speeds though and IIRC they would have the Nimitz fighters pretty heavily outnumbered. I'm not sure how many F-14's it carries, but the Japanese had hundreds of planes in the air that day. They'd probably do better taking out a few with sidewinders and scaring the rest off with a few highspeed passes then mixing it up in a real dogfight. And then sinking the Japanese carriers before they could get back of course.

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

Something to consider is that in addition to the 14s 18s etc, you could use the A6Es which did carry guns and could carry sidewinders. While an intruder would not be considered front line fighter it is more then a match for a WWII fighter. The only problem the modern fighter craft would face is running out of bullets.

The Nimitz (or other super-carrier) could easily defeat the Japanese surface fleet but would be in danger from submarines. While not as quiet as todays submarines, electric motor subs are very quiet and could give the Nimtz fits if they could lie in wait.

Rasorow

Re: OT: Archery in combat
 

geoschmo said:
"They'd probably do better taking out a few with sidewinders and scaring the rest off with a few highspeed passes then mixing it up in a real dogfight."

Yeah, that's the angle I harp on that everyone seems to ignore. In the movie they capture one Japanese scout. They force him to land on the supercarrier, he's escorted to the brig, and he takes a long quizzical look at the parked jet, before he gets taken away, and pretty much nothing elese happens.

He should have gotten a sprained neck whipping his head around -- a supercarrier, jet fighters, a giant mast bristling with satellite dishes, guys with radios built into kevlar helmets -- all of that should make about as much sense to him as the engine room of the Enterprise would to us -- if you've never seen a scifi movie or tv show.

I still say, hit one city with Nimitz's guided missiles, then slowly steam a carrier group over to the European theater, and send them some newsreels of what we got and what it can do. I'd expect people would want to cut a deal to shorten the war.

But maybe tipping our hand so much is so uncertain, that keeping it a secret is the best plan.