Alternatively Armed Armies

[kalos72]

So I was discussing this my group last night and we came up with a neat idea...

In my campaign, the group has alot of "poorly trained" civilians at its disposal. They were thinking of using some of them as fodder but didnt want to waste arms/ammo on them.

In your canons, do you see the rise of groups armed with swords and crossbows or what not, to counter the general lack of spare parts and ammo for the more modern weapons?

We were thinking lines of crossbow wielding civilians with a front line of shields man using those Police Ballistic shields...

[Mohoender]

Good idea

However, I would equip them with bows instead of crossbows. The rate of fire is much better while the kinetic power is almost as good as long as you use modern steel for the arrows.

[ChalkLine]

Crossbows are superior for the following reasons, IMHO;

- You can fire them prone.
- They need little tactical room.
- You can load your weapon and then hold fire until a shot is needed.

[leonpoi]

In tw2000 (at least 2.2) you could roll up "primitives" as an encounter, which were basically armed with spears, machetes, bows, and to a lesser extent crossbows. There existed post-war crossbows made from various parts - this was outlined in a challenge mag article at some stage. So yes, I would agree that armies armed with primitive weapons would exist, and would be at less of an advantage in built up areas and semi-rural fighting with shorter lines of sights.

[Targan]

There is a Challenge mag article on bows and crossbows, and one on black powder weapons too. There is also a Challenge mag article on mortars in T2K which would have been useful to mention during a recent discussion here on mortars. The problem is that while it is easy to look up all the T2K articles in Challenge issues 25 to 50 (Challenge mags started at 25 because issues 1 to 24 for were issues of the Journal of the Travellers Aid Society) because there is an excellent index in issue 50, there is no index for issues 51 to 77. I've started compiling an index for the latter issues but because I'm lazy it is some way from completion. I'll post my index here when I've completed it.

[Mohoender]

Have you ever used a crossbow? I did for several years and still have one at home (in bad shape). There is plenty of truth it what you all say but you forget a lot of things. Of course, if you can get your hand on a full load of modern types, I'll take them but from what I read, I assumed that was not the case (actually, you'll find much more modrn bows around).

First, a crossbow is relatively heavy. Don't forget that fiberglass is not available any more. Then, you have to go with wood and steel for the mechanism. You end up with something which is heavier than a regular rifle and that you use more like a light machine gun.

Crossbow are also fairly tricky to make unless you go for very simple type with a barrel, a light bow and a small hold to maintain the string in place (then, you end-up with less kinetic power than with a bow, and much reduced range). Otherwise, you need to have a skilled man to make them. The quarrels are also more tricky to make than arrows. Bows are easier to make, and you can start with simple models. When your bow maker gets better he can make you long bows and finally the small highly maneuverable type used by mongols (almost a light machine gun).

I agree that you need less training but some people use bows from instinct. Just select the good guys and train them (arrows are easy to make). I also remind you that the british archers who decimated the french chivalry were lightly trained peasants.

Have you ever tried to bend a crossbow? First it takes time. Then, it takes a lot of strength, even for the smallest modern ones. If you have to make ones using woods, you'll end up with something that can't be bent without mechanical device. I'll leave you the crossbows and take the swords, axes, spears and morning stars (Banzaï). With bows, you can train women and children to use them while the men wait for the shock.

Last and not the least important. bows can achieve indirect fire at a range of more than 200 yards. Therefore, I'll position my archers behind the walls (in second line) and fire arrows at you before you even can see me (not very accurate but I have plenty of supply and I'll clear your ranks). With crossbows you'll be using direct fire and your crew will be more exposed. In addition, with a bow I'll be able to fire 4-5 times before the ennemy get to my footmen (then they can continue to fire in direct support) while the crossbow will fire twice at most (In support of those same footmen your corssbowmen can do little because their weapon is too heavy and bulky and, then, your crews are killed trying to bend it once more).

Actually, ideally, I would use both weapons. Bows as regular second line, used in fair concentration. Crossbows (exactly as described) as support weapons provided I can fire them from cover (the shield is a fun idea). I leave my footmen in first line waiting for the shock.

Why do you think crossbows never supplanted bows IRL?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Crossbows are superior for the following reasons, IMHO;

- You can fire them prone.
- They need little tactical room.
- You can load your weapon and then hold fire until a shot is needed.

And, historically, it takes less time to train a crossbowman than an archer.

Additionally, a modern crossbow is held and aimed a lot like a rifle, so those with shooting experience can feel a little more comfortable using them.

OTOH, both of these are below the resolution of the official rules.