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.

[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.

[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?

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Why do you think crossbows never supplanted bows IRL?

Rate of fire. The rate of fire of the longbow was not surpassed until the advent of the repeating rifle.

Webstral

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

I have to correct you here. Yes the English longbowmen were peasants but they weren't your typical bonded serfs, they were for the most part a class of freeman called a yoeman. Yoemen weren't owned by their feudal lord like serfs were, they rented land from their lord and paid some or even most of their rent through military service. That military service was highly valued because yoemen were actually quite highly trained, just in a specialised area - in the use of the longbow.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

I have to correct you here. Yes the English longbowmen were peasants but they weren't your typical bonded serfs, they were for the most part a class of freeman called a yoeman. Yoemen weren't owned by their fuedal lord like serfs were, they rented land from their lord and paid some or even most of their rent through military service. That military service was highly valued because yoemen were actually quite highly trained, just in a specialised area - in the use of the longbow.

I knew they were not serfs; however, I didn't knew about that training. Thanks for correcting me.

[Graebarde]

This discussion is intesting. I would favor the bow over the cross bow for simplicity, but as has been stated, it takes longer to learn/master the bow. The English archer started training at the age of five or six. By the time they were of age for war, they were pulling 100 pound plus warbows and could have three or four arrows in the air before the first struck. It will take a generation to meet that, and practice.. practice.. practice. The King decreed that yeoman archers were to practice weekly. Many shot everyday as a matter of pride, others only the minimal amounts.

Wooden self bows are relatively easy to construct with minimal tools. A decent, not a master piece, can be done in less than a day with a knife and hatchet.. add more tools like rasps, shaves, etc, and time speeds, but speed can ruin a bow before the first draw. The stave is only one aspect of the bow as well. The string is a crucial element.. duh. Linen and hemp were the prefered for longbows, though aboriginals have used sinew and rawhide as well. You can't equip a force with archers without having at least one person around that is a good boyer that can teach others to make the bow, the string and finally the arrow.. which is typically a fletcher's job.

Hardwood shafts for the arrows must be rounded and straightened. Fletching is important for accuracy as well. It's a tedious job often done in the winter months when field work is done. Arrow heads are of two distinct designs for them, though there are more. The broad point, made from iron or steel unless you're going to work stone or bone. The stainless steel spoon makes a good point with metal working. The bodkin, a chisel tip designed to pierce armor, is basically a shaft of iron/steel.

SO you have woodworkers and metalsmiths, as well as cordage makers, to make the necessary elements of the system. I could see the settlement/s with cottage industry making bows, arrows, arrowheads, and strings, as well as leatherworkers to make the greeves and quivers.

Cross bows, with modern technology, would be built with 'quick load' ratchets or cranks. Bicycle gears or some such, or jacks, providing the reloading mechanism. Those types of gearing can be fired prone and reloaded prone.

In general though with the train of thought, I think there would definately be an increase in the use of the bow, as much for hunting as anything else. They are quiet, you can reuse the ammunition (if it's not too battered or lost), and as I said, relatively easy to make. Most places, in the US at least, have at least one archer around, though many/most of the modern archers can't build a system such as discussed, as they are hooked on the modern compounds with wheels. Fine weapons until they break I might add, as a person that's has problem drawing a 65 pound self bow can draw and hold the 80 pound compound much easier.

It was mentioned the 'women and kids' would be the archers.. The draw they can use would not be much, perhaps in the 20-40 pound range, which will NOT reach the 200 yard/meter range desired with much penetration. They would be harrassing fire though.

Just some of my rambling thoughts on the subject, one which I really like.
grae

[ChalkLine]

Here we go
(Disclaimer; I study 15th century Europe at uni)

Yeomen arrived around Henry VIII when the longbow was in decline. The longbow was last used in anger at Flodden (1513) where the Scots in their 'plate'* rolled right over the longbowmen and slaughtered them. The arms/armour pendulum had swung and the armour was invulnerable to arrows. Before that you could call them 'Franklins', but really serfdom went out of use well before The Black Death in 1365 and the labour shortage removed it almost entirely.
By law most sports were banned during the longbow phase in England and peasants had to practice the bow instead, this happened every Sunday. This may sound kinda hardcore, but legislation like that was in place all over Europe. The Swiss had their crossbowmen who were frighteningly accurate, deployed off horses and rode as skirmishers. They too practice pike, halberd and crossbow every Sunday.
The reason for this training wasn't accuracy, although that was certainly a by-product, but like most military training it was endurance and team building. Archers had to be taught how to function on a battlefield, and the vast majority of rural people in Europe were not notably military minded. In fact it was a widespread view that urban troops were the best, as they had a natural cohesion because of their subculture of guild membership.

The reason bowmen were valued is that they were very, very cheap. Just like in Twilight 2000, its the guy with the most cash (logistics) who is going to win. Most wars ground to a halt because the attacker ran out of funds and couldn't pay their troops. There was no logistics system as we know it now; the logistics were handled by free agent merchants who followed the armies called 'sutlers'. If you ran out of cash they simply went home.

For example, at Agincourt the archers were armed in padded jacks (actually very, very good armour with the drawback that it deteriorated on campaign). At any one time they outnumbered the French men at arms engaging them by at least 2:1 in a defensive position (so it's tactically like 8:1). It is estimated(1) that the archers ran out of arrows very early in the battle and fought as medium infantry. These men were professional soldiers, not feudal levies, and fought campaigns for years at a time if paid.

The vast majority of significant mediaeval engagements were sieges. Here the crossbow reigned supreme. The crossbowmen would sit behind his hoarding, pavise or gabion and await his shot - the precursor to the modern sniper. Sappers had to wear massive siege armour twice as heavy as normal plate, to survive this lethal environment. Fleeting targets were the norm, and the time to draw and fire was usually too long to get a hit. In fact, most soldiers never saw a pitched battle.

The ratchet crossbow, or 'crannequin' is simple to make with rudimentary tools. All you need is a supply of seasoned wood and good steel, something both in abundance in twilight 2000. I can make you a crossbow out of a car spring in an afternoon, and the crannequin in maybe two days, given power tools. This weapon can be spanned** in the prone position, in a car or in a tree; all useful qualities where the opponent may have a modern assault rifle.
It does take some experimentation to get the crossbow right; the stock ('prod' or 'tiller') has to be a certain weight to take the recoil. Spanish troops complained that their crossbows were 'en dente'*** or 'had teeth' they kicked so hard.

Finally, a word on penetrative power.
The steel limb crannequin put out phenomenal power; enough to blow through maille armour. Around 15kg/cm. That's fucking insane power, and will penetrate any body armour the PCs wear unless it's 15th century two-stage annealed steel.
However, to whet your appetite, the espringalde box siege crossbow (about the size of a KPV machinegun) put out 1500kg/cm . . .

* 'Cap a' pie' or 'white harness'
** This is where we get the term 'spanner' from. They were used to tension crossbow limbs.
*** This, of course, isn't Spanish. I assume the chronicler wrote it in Latin.
(1) Curry, A "Agincourt, A New History" (London, 2006)

[jester]

Yes, the English archers of old trained for a LIFE TIME! Ask the French Knights at Agincourt. And it did take a lifetime as well as a national culture of bowmanship <is that a word?> They have done excavations and you could even tell who was an archer by the skeletal developement which was much more pronounced with the ridges that were the attatchement points for muscle on the side that drew the bow.

As for other weapons, I could see something akin to a speargun also being used a ranged weapon of short range but none the less a ranged weapon, and easily made. I have seen folks on the dive boats with their own homemade weapons.

Another idea could be the making of primative muzzleloading weapons. A pipe or length of barrel, with a primative trigger, or even just a hammer on a spring that is pulled and released by the thumb hitting a precussion cap which fires the weapon. I am imagining a barrel on a half wooden stock and wrapped with thin cable or wire to add to the strength of the barrel, with a wicked looking broad blade on the end, so when the weapon is fired using buckshot it is then used as a pike or polearm and club.

Another form of weapon could be a zip gun. A gun that fires a cartridge, but otherwise similiar to the weapon above. A spring fired nail that hits the cartridges primer and a primative shoulder stock. A section of pip and on the read of the pipe a endcap. I would think a pistol cartridge of shotgunshell would be the best since they are straight walled cartridges. Thus, the cannon fodder has the benefit of a psuedo firearm, they have 1 shot, then they use their weapon as a club or pike with a fixed blade or similiar mounted.

And also, lets not forget about primtive handgrenades. A simple stick greande made from an old tin can with an inner charge of blackpoweder and a primative blasting cap, then some shrapnel material, bits of metal, chain or wire and glass, then the shell of the can, a simple stick drilled out with a length of fuse and a primative igniter at the bottom of the stick handle protected by an end cap. Maybe a piece of dowel rod with metal on the end, you slap it, the dowel hits a precussion cap igniting the fuse and you throw it. Or a bit of chemicals that when mixed combust after a few seconds.

And of course slings and sling shots. Not the most accurate for a novice. But, when used en mass it will be enough to keep the baddies heads down until your people with the single shot weapons can get close enough without being mowed down and do some damage and then of course when they fire their shots they charge to get in close and use their melee weapons.

[Matt W]

Don't forget to use all options: poisoned arrows sound nasty

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/14...stof.html?_r=1

Or some WW1 style weapons

http://preview.tinyurl.com/n5gxzy

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by jester

As for other weapons, I could see something akin to a speargun also being used a ranged weapon of short range but none the less a ranged weapon, and easily made. I have seen folks on the dive boats with their own homemade weapons.

You make me think of a kind of rifle that could be easily made and that use to fire anything (nails, metal peaces, small stones...). The name is "Tromblon" in French (also mean an uggly looking girl). As I don't know it in english, I put an image of one.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

You make me think of a kind of rifle that could be easily made and that use to fire anything (nails, metal peaces, small stones...). The name is "Tromblon" in French (also mean an uggly looking girl). As I don't know it in english, I put an image of one.

We called it a 'Blunderbuss' from the German 'Donderbusch', or 'Thunder Gun'.

[jester]

Yes, that is what we call a "Blunderbuss."

And that is pretty much what I was thinking when I posted the singleshot primative weapon issued to your masses.

Now, make it a large bore like the above, but not funneled. Add hammer that fires on a primer like the caplock rifles/muskets. These with todays knowledge are pretty easy, heck, they are common in childrens cap pistols so no big deal, and then mount a spike for thrusting and an axe for causing even more chaos when it comes to close quarters. Talk about the ultimate primative close quarters weapon

[Kellhound]

In Spain is a "trabuco", and the bell shape make them fairly easy to load.
It's fairly popular with muzzleloading communities and some folk festivities in several zones, so there are quite a few around, and in a post-nuke situation you could find some small towns armed with them.

Besides, it's very traditional here. Where have you seen a Sierra Morena bandolero without one?

[headquarters]

The English longbow men were in no way lightlky trained .They had years of experience in using and maintaining the longbows.

The crossbow on teh other hand takes a lot less practice -around 3 weeks - to get sufficient proficiency .

making a longbow,a recurve bow or a composite bow takes a lot of forgotten skill when it comes to selectring and prepping the wood .

taking the leaf springs out of a disabled car -or other similar steel band and rigging them to a barrel and trigger is way easier ,provided you can salvage whatever you need.

imHo the way to go would be the crossbow,cheaper and easier to make and maintain ,easier to use and of course the tactical advantages in built up areas.
A longbow is nearly 6 feet tall and has a pull of 60 kg !You cant run around doing cqb with that -a little more so a crossbow.

Also the massed battle tactics of the hundred years wars would not apply in
T2K maybe in T2K2300 ,30 years on and a steady downward slide for humanity..

making a bow is difficult .Making something to kill small birds and rabits isnt that hard -but a war bow? A whole set of trade skills on its own.

If you start massing ranks like in the 100 years wars to achieve maximum effect from your bowmen- the guy on the the other end will have a field day with whatever firearms he has left ...

I want to add a few other suggestions:
1) slingshot .Made from a Y shaped object and whatever rubber is available .Bicycle tires,elastic bands etc .It packs a wallop when fired with leadballs and can be cheaply made and trained with .Good for hunting small game and keeping pests at bay too.
Seriously - you could easily kill a man with a headshot from one of these with a leadball at say 50 yards.

2)
blackpowder gun
be it a simple matchlock , flintlock or doglock or percusssion or electrical ignition variety - the firearm is going to have its advantages.Electrical seamless tubing or other high quality steel tubing kan be used -or in a pinch whatever plumbing supplies available.
Lead is available to be salvaged from many sources - think wheel/tire wheights etc .
Gunpowder is a bit more tricky ,but they did it 700 years ago , so I guess someone would be able to in T2K.

Also blackpowder allows for a lot more fun medieval mayhem-machines like the bombard ,mortar,hwacha,firelance and fougasse ( an old claymore mine )

Gunpowder armed ruffians could operate in a pike and shot type organization were melee fighters protect the shooters as they reload ,with someone armed with a modern gun doing overall protection .They could advance and fire and then retreat again to reload again .

For all of trhe above I have to say I believe they would work better in defensive position where you have a room to prepare and keep stores dry etc . rather then on the attack.

Originally Posted by 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?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Kellhound

Besides, it's very traditional here. Where have you seen a Sierra Morena bandolero without one?

I think we have similar traditions around here (called "Bravadeurs"). My area has about 20 equipped with Blunderbuss and 40-50 musketeers.

My wife's native town (St Tropez) as a full company with about 200 muketeers.

Thinking about that. Several cities will have artilery pieces from the Napoleonic era that shouldn't be that hard to put back in working order.

HQ I said I was mistaken. I also said that the local man would be able to make simple bows only, at first. Whatever, I still go with the blunt weapons, axes..., and forget about frontal approach.

[Slappy]

To get back to the original question, I think arming raw civilians with either bows or crossbows would be of marginal effectiveness at best given the state of the world in most T2K campaigns.

I'm assuming that the players still have automatic weapons as do many of their adversaries. I find it doubtful that an untrained group with homemade crossbows will bring much to the party. The likelihood of doing much damage is low as is the likelihood that they will be able to stand and fight effectively. Remember, low morale and unit cohesion usually come with low training. They might actually be better off standing off with higher quality weapons. They'll probably stay in the fight longer.

Two other thoughts though. I'm not saying that a highly trained professional couldn't make useful tactical use of these weapons. An elite soldier with a crossbow is probably a better bet than a novice with an AK in close quarters. Also, these weapons should become more and more effective as technology recedes. Bowmen couldn't stand up to even primitive firearms and I don't expect they'd do very well against M249s either, but when these weapons wear out they will once again have a lot to offer. It's just that most T2K campaigns still have a higher tech level than the one at which this would be an effective strategy.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Slappy

To get back to the original question, I think arming raw civilians with either bows or crossbows would be of marginal effectiveness at best given the state of the world in most T2K campaigns.

I agree here. Mostly for the reasons given by Slappy.

I would say possible in some defense of the home type cases. But not offensive for sure. I especially can't imagine that people would put themselves into such a (cannon fodder) position.

[jester]

Ah yes a trained seasoned character who knows the primitive weapon would most likely be more effective than refugee armed with a primative weapon, and the refugee armed with a modern weapon would be more effective. But a trained veteran type with a modern weapon would be even further ahead and thus a force multiplier.

As for something else,

Novice types armed with primative weapons well, one needs to level the playing field.

So, slow the enemy up, force them to close so that range isn't a factor. We show alot of blunderbusses which are devestating at close range. So, build a trench or maze network where attackers need to get close, this will also channel them, so the advantage of range and accuracy is dispelled. And limit the numbers in which they can attack as well and you improve the chances of the novice defenders.

Like I said, I would build a maze of trenches leading to the blockhouse where the novices armed with primitive weapons made a stand, so the well trained well equiped attackers could not use their training and weapons to their full advantage.

[Targan]

I agree that a PC party armed with the normal plethora of high powered military weapons would slaughter a rabble armed with primitive weapons but that doesn't mean that such an engagement would be risk-free for the PCs.

When the 78th ID (Light) decided to leave NYC and got ambushed (losing the NYC gold reserves in the process) it had more to do with sheer numbers of opponents and effective use of road blocks and channelling than with the relative effectiveness of each side's weapons.

I can imagine situations where poorly armed opponents who outnumber a PC party would be willing to take their chances with a well prepared ambush and primative weapons. The potential rewards (a bunch of military weapons, ammo and equipment) would be great and if the poorly armed folks are already living in really bad conditions and have a high mortality rate anyway they really haven't got much to lose.

I've described on this forum before an occassion in my campaign where Major Po's XO, a USN SEAL officer, came within a hair's bredth of having his face shot off by a half starved teenager with a zip gun firing reloaded 12 gauge rounds stuffed full of nail heads and broken glass. The SEAL had been stalking the kid through long grass and the kid, panicked and scared into immobility, stayed perfectly still until the SEAL was less than 10 feet from him. The SEAL's body armour stopped a couple of fragments and he took a piece of glass in the cheek. A sobering moment for him I think.

[jester]

Targ;

That is my point on how to mount a defence. Force the attackers to come in at close quarters and break up their cohesion as well as limit their numbers which will reduce their effectiveness. And in the end if you have to rat through a maze while under the eye of even the greenest of folks they will be able to take a pot shot at you. And if they are using ALOT of buckshot well, they will take casualties.

Then if the stronghold is on a raised section nothing like a vault over an open area which sucks for you and gives you the same danger and chances if you are a seal or a member of the local boys chior. The risk is the same.

And the same goes if you want to STOP! Crawl to the EDGE to get a view and a shot. You will stand out, you will be a target and most likely have some lead thrown your way which is usualy an unhealthy proposition.

[WallShadow]

In the case of the Ruins of Warsaw", the good guys are short of weapons and ammo, to the extent that several companies are only partially armed or without weapons. Here is where the crossbow can come in to solve several problems at once. First, it and its ammunition can be manufactured out of materials at hand--salvaged wood, metal rods and hardware by the local metalworkers and/or the Krolowa's machine shop.. Next, it can be the weapon of choice for those lurking in the rubble to ambush the Baron's men--quietly. Further, the now-dead or surrendered Black Guardsmen or other allied troops no longer need their weapons and contribute them and their ammo to the Milicye's armory. And rumors of the whispering death get back to the Baron's troops to give them pause about what can happen outside of their safe encampment.

Another case for using bow-type weapons can be seen on old re-runs of "the Dukes of Hazzard", where one of the "Good ol' boys" can be seen wreaking destruction by loosing off a few dynamite-bearing arrows as the General Lee roars away. Without the need for exceptional accuracy, a volley of explosive arrows whishing silently in before their big Ka-Boom might be very disorienting and demoralizing, rather like a WW2 Soviet Katyusha rocket attack only without the whoosh of the rockets.

[manunancy]

Originally Posted by jester

Targ;

That is my point on how to mount a defence. Force the attackers to come in at close quarters and break up their cohesion as well as limit their numbers which will reduce their effectiveness. And in the end if you have to rat through a maze while under the eye of even the greenest of folks they will be able to take a pot shot at you. And if they are using ALOT of buckshot well, they will take casualties.

Then if the stronghold is on a raised section nothing like a vault over an open area which sucks for you and gives you the same danger and chances if you are a seal or a member of the local boys chior. The risk is the same.

And the same goes if you want to STOP! Crawl to the EDGE to get a view and a shot. You will stand out, you will be a target and most likely have some lead thrown your way which is usualy an unhealthy proposition.

Even worse here would be grenades - in that sort of trench warfare situation they get really nasty and care even less about aiming. They also have th neat feature that you can lob them over your cover without exposing yourself. Even better, inculde some inclined pipe drains sections into your earthworks to get your grenades in place without the need for even minimal throwing experience.

Here a well equiped attacker relying on grenade launchers would be be worse off as they can'tbe used at that sort of range. thoough they would probably have hand greandes of their own.

No matter what, it(s going to ne messy.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

First, a crossbow is relatively heavy. Don't forget that fiberglass is not available any more

Yes fiberglass is not available any more, but want do want to bet that there are plenty of bows and arrows still in archery stores, sport good, ect.

When shit hit the fan and people start looting I can see a lot people passing them up for shiny guns and ammo, that is unless your a bunch of high school students led by Patrick Swayze who decided to take a combine, Soviet, Cuba, Mexcian, Invasion.

[mikeo80]

I think that as WWIII drags on into 2000-2001-2002 etc, you would start to see more and more "primitive" weapons with maybe one or two "modern" weapons held in reserve.

The black powder gun would probably be one of the first "primitive" weapons developed. Along with the wooden bow, and maybe the cross bow for the first line of fighters, backed up with the "Brown Bess" musket, or if you have a gunsmith with real talent, you have either the "Kentucky" long rifle, or possibly the American Civil War "Springfield".

The way I look at it, if my "primitive" Brown Bess Musket keeps you from stealing my pigs, so what.

My $0.02

Mike

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by manunancy

Here a well equipped attacker relying on grenade launchers would be be worse off as they can't be used at that sort of range.

That's where indirect fire comes into play - launch almost straight up into the air and line of sight distance doesn't matter so much with regard to arming distances.