Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HeavenShallBurn" data-source="post: 3364929" data-attributes="member: 39593">It wasn't force, it was an issue of armor placement.&nbsp; Even after battleships and other heavy naval combatants got deck armor it wasn't nearly as heavy as the main belt.&nbsp; So you tried to lob it up and drop it through the weaker deck armor where it would explode after penetrating the hull.&nbsp; They're assuming physics when it was other factors that made it favorable.&nbsp; Same reason modern anti-tank missiles are frequently top-attack somewhere the armor is weakest, that's usually the top.Also I'd like to point out that by the middle rennaissance there were arbalests using steel prods spanned by winches that could have draw weights of up to 900-1000lbf.&nbsp; These were reported to have ranges of around 350-450 yards.The limiting factor of bows and x-bows is not nearly so dependent on the draw weight as the ammunition.&nbsp; Modern arrows are somewhat lighter than their late medieval-rennaisance counterparts but ultimately had the same aerodynamic characteristics.&nbsp; Modern x-bow bolts have very little in common with their earlier counterparts.&nbsp; This is why x-bows in tests frequently fall short.&nbsp; The bolts in use at the time of the Rennaissance were shorter, stubbier and much heavier.&nbsp; The cross-section for wind to work on in flight was smaller and the greatly increased mass allowed them to carry farther before drifting too far off course or becoming unstable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HeavenShallBurn, post: 3364929, member: 39593"] It wasn't force, it was an issue of armor placement. Even after battleships and other heavy naval combatants got deck armor it wasn't nearly as heavy as the main belt. So you tried to lob it up and drop it through the weaker deck armor where it would explode after penetrating the hull. They're assuming physics when it was other factors that made it favorable. Same reason modern anti-tank missiles are frequently top-attack somewhere the armor is weakest, that's usually the top. Also I'd like to point out that by the middle rennaissance there were arbalests using steel prods spanned by winches that could have draw weights of up to 900-1000lbf. These were reported to have ranges of around 350-450 yards. The limiting factor of bows and x-bows is not nearly so dependent on the draw weight as the ammunition. Modern arrows are somewhat lighter than their late medieval-rennaisance counterparts but ultimately had the same aerodynamic characteristics. Modern x-bow bolts have very little in common with their earlier counterparts. This is why x-bows in tests frequently fall short. The bolts in use at the time of the Rennaissance were shorter, stubbier and much heavier. The cross-section for wind to work on in flight was smaller and the greatly increased mass allowed them to carry farther before drifting too far off course or becoming unstable. [/QUOTE]

Verification