Swords, crossbows and spears
r031Button
Active member
Wasn't there a case of one of the Queen's Life Guards beating down some moron with a ceremonial sword?
Missileer
Active member
A friend of mine was shot under the lower left rib by a bolt from a crossbow while serving in VietNam. The medical people told him that the bolt was from a US crossbow being used by Special Forces. They often fell into the hands of the bad guys and, like a lot of our other weaponry, used against us.
EagleZtrike
Active member
The SEAL's use crossbows??!! That's wicked!!
AsianAmerican
Active member
Some Special Forces and PAP in China use the crossbow.
MadeInChina
Active member
crossbow is damn nice, its a sniper's best friend when hes surrounded and in a very dangerou ssituatiion when he does not want to give away his position
although longbow with scope is more effective
although longbow with scope is more effective
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
AA said:
You're surrounded. You got a friggin' crossbow. I guarantee you you'll be using up all the swear words you know, including inventing some.
You know how hard it is to shoot a long bow? Do you know that the direction in which you are pointing your longbow differs from where the arrow will land? Not to mention, you know how clumsy it is to haul that thing around along with your regular gear?
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Now I could see how a crossbow could be of use. In fact, I've seen video clips of PT boat guys using longbows to shoot firearrows into the bush. But obviously, NO SCOPE. A scope on a longbow is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who suggests this, obviously has never used a longbow before. I have. I did some archery in high school. And if you need a friggin' scope to aim on that thing, you have a SEVERE eyesight problem and shouldn't even be anywhere near the front.
Crossbows are an inexpensive, and EXTREMELY quiet alternative to supressed weapons. As you know, suppressed weapons are often louder than one would think they'd be.
Crossbows are an inexpensive, and EXTREMELY quiet alternative to supressed weapons. As you know, suppressed weapons are often louder than one would think they'd be.
NZ army still teaches taiaha to some troops. the british once thought that the bayonet was the deadlest close quater weapon....before they came up against maori warriors armed with these.
http://www.tu.co.nz/taiaha.htm
During World War 2, a 28 Maori Battalion soldier armed with a taiaha defeated a bayonet instructor from the Scots Guards during a public demonstration at Maadi Camp, Egypt in 1943.
The NZ Army has incorporated the taiaha into its physical training and parade ceremonies. All military dignitaries receive a Maori ceremonial challenge.
At one end, the taiaha is decorated with a stuck-out tongue — the traditional sign of Maori defiance used before one's enemies.
But the taiaha is not a spear. The pointed end and the flat bladed end are both used by the fighter in combat — with devastating effect.
The taiaha can be a formidable attack weapon.
After nearly 120 years of British based insignia, the NZ Army has now incorporated the taiaha into its official crest.
http://www.army.mil.nz/default.asp?CHANNEL=ABOUT+NZ+ARMY&PAGE=Army+Crest
(just on a side not, it's 1230 am here and M*A*S*H just came on TV....i'm stoked!)
http://www.tu.co.nz/taiaha.htm
During World War 2, a 28 Maori Battalion soldier armed with a taiaha defeated a bayonet instructor from the Scots Guards during a public demonstration at Maadi Camp, Egypt in 1943.
The NZ Army has incorporated the taiaha into its physical training and parade ceremonies. All military dignitaries receive a Maori ceremonial challenge.
At one end, the taiaha is decorated with a stuck-out tongue — the traditional sign of Maori defiance used before one's enemies.
But the taiaha is not a spear. The pointed end and the flat bladed end are both used by the fighter in combat — with devastating effect.
The taiaha can be a formidable attack weapon.
After nearly 120 years of British based insignia, the NZ Army has now incorporated the taiaha into its official crest.
http://www.army.mil.nz/default.asp?CHANNEL=ABOUT+NZ+ARMY&PAGE=Army+Crest
(just on a side not, it's 1230 am here and M*A*S*H just came on TV....i'm stoked!)
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
That weapon is no different from a bayonet. A bayonet is really what, a knife stuck on the end of a long stick isn't it? It's that these warriors who train on that weapon are far more skilled at its use than any soldier of most armies are in bayonet fighting.
Indonesian resistance fighters often fought the Dutch with sharpened bamboos, and they worked just as well as bayonets did, though perhaps some of the wounds left from the bamboo were in fact nastier. In principle it was the same. And the Dutch feared it.
But the usefulness of those weapons are far less. Bayonet fighting happens FAR less today than it used to in the past. Why train off a stick with a knife at the end, when you can train off a stick that shoots bullets that's also got a knife stuck on the end of it?
Indonesian resistance fighters often fought the Dutch with sharpened bamboos, and they worked just as well as bayonets did, though perhaps some of the wounds left from the bamboo were in fact nastier. In principle it was the same. And the Dutch feared it.
But the usefulness of those weapons are far less. Bayonet fighting happens FAR less today than it used to in the past. Why train off a stick with a knife at the end, when you can train off a stick that shoots bullets that's also got a knife stuck on the end of it?
MadeInChina
Active member
lol redneck 13, dont bash with words please
so ur bashing about longbows, rather bows with scopes. ever seen the olympics, unless you have mental disabilities or ur a stumpy with no arms or legs, then ya, u cant use a bow with a scope
in the olympics, 300 m wiht a bow and scope and the person could shoot pretty well
so ur bashing about longbows, rather bows with scopes. ever seen the olympics, unless you have mental disabilities or ur a stumpy with no arms or legs, then ya, u cant use a bow with a scope
in the olympics, 300 m wiht a bow and scope and the person could shoot pretty well
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Scope ain't attached to the bow though now is it?
Olympic Archery is done at the range of roughly 70 meters
http://www.archeryweb.com/archery/olympics.htm
Us, at school who shot for fun shot at targets 50 meters away.
Do you have any idea how far exactly 300m is? I really take it that you haven't shot an arrow before, and I also think you haven't run track either to fully appreciate 300m. Anyone who's run can appreciate how difficult it could be to shoot at a moving target at even 100m... now that's with a gun. To hit even the round target itself at 300m would be an incredible feat.
Yet, this is a distance you can clearly see the target.
I've seen people use scopes to get a better view of where their arrow hit, but in terms of actually AIMING the thing, I've never heard of such a thing. Now if you can give me a link to prove me wrong, then by all means do so.
This Dutch archery shop/facility:
http://www.vbs-archery.nl/service.htm
its archery range is 50m. If Archery was ever meant to go anywhere near 300m, this range would be woefully inadequate.
Sure, that "longbow" from some counterstrike game might fly all the way across the "map" and hit someone in the face, but it's not going to happen in real life.
The effective range of a bow launched arrow isn't great. The maximum range, however, is a different story.
I got a bit ticked off because you obviously had absolutely NO idea of what you were talking about, yet continued to trudge along like an expert.
If you can find something that goes against my archery experience (which I admit is basic), then go ahead and tell us about it.
Olympic Archery is done at the range of roughly 70 meters
http://www.archeryweb.com/archery/olympics.htm
Us, at school who shot for fun shot at targets 50 meters away.
Do you have any idea how far exactly 300m is? I really take it that you haven't shot an arrow before, and I also think you haven't run track either to fully appreciate 300m. Anyone who's run can appreciate how difficult it could be to shoot at a moving target at even 100m... now that's with a gun. To hit even the round target itself at 300m would be an incredible feat.
Yet, this is a distance you can clearly see the target.
I've seen people use scopes to get a better view of where their arrow hit, but in terms of actually AIMING the thing, I've never heard of such a thing. Now if you can give me a link to prove me wrong, then by all means do so.
This Dutch archery shop/facility:
http://www.vbs-archery.nl/service.htm
its archery range is 50m. If Archery was ever meant to go anywhere near 300m, this range would be woefully inadequate.
Sure, that "longbow" from some counterstrike game might fly all the way across the "map" and hit someone in the face, but it's not going to happen in real life.
The effective range of a bow launched arrow isn't great. The maximum range, however, is a different story.
I got a bit ticked off because you obviously had absolutely NO idea of what you were talking about, yet continued to trudge along like an expert.
If you can find something that goes against my archery experience (which I admit is basic), then go ahead and tell us about it.