 Chinese military using crossbows?, Thought you guys might want to see this |
  |
 Jul 25 2007, 03:31 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 249 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando Member No.: 815  |
Haven't the Chinese had a whole slew of specialized silenced pistols and rifles for fifty years or so?
I stick to the assumption he's firing a Batman like bolt into the wall for the rest of the Chinese super-team commandoes to climb up (although the press would actually just turn the camera sideways and make it look like they were Bat-climbing up the terrorists' nest). Sigh. Silly communists. |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 25 2007, 03:32 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
i was actually going to suggest the use of poisons and other agents. but i suppose that's still better suited to a dart gun or something....
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2007, 04:05 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 932 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando, Florida Member No.: 1,042 |
If you want nonlethal there are gases, tasers, rubber bullets, and clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2007, 04:57 PM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
They have an auto-load feature (SR4 p. 306), too, and it even implies that if they didn't it would only take a Ready Weapon action to do so. Actually, the implication I get from the text is that it would be SA to fire one even though SS still makes the most sense to me (Simple Action to fire, "free" Simple Action for it to reload itself). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 25 2007, 04:59 PM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 249 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando Member No.: 815 |
Why couldn't the errata address this issue? It's not going to affect game-balance or take much skull sweat to figure out.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2007, 05:05 PM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,514 Joined: 31-December 06 Member No.: 10,502 |
My guess is that we don't pay for errata. So they'd rather have their guys working on the next book than keeping up with errata or the FAQ. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 25 2007, 05:17 PM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
they've been pretty decent at keeping up with errata and FAQ stuff. honestly, this particular doesn't exactly come up very often... certainly i wouldn't define it as a *frequently* asked question. as far as errata, they're already up to the 4th or 5th time with errata for the main book. i expect there will be more... why not send this off to the appropriate people?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2007, 05:46 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,514 Joined: 31-December 06 Member No.: 10,502 |
Actually to be fair errata often isn't the best way to tweak things. I kind of like not having my book be rewritten. There is something to be said for putting stuff like that in Arsenal.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2007, 07:52 PM
Post
#59
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Which was pretty much my point. The fact that there were elite units that trained for years with the crossbow should not be taken to imply that it took years of training for someone to handle the crossbow properly. In the past, I've read several sources that state that it was quite possible to take a random dude and train him to use a crossbow in a week. Would this guy be a veteran soldier? Heck no. But he'd be a sight more effective with the crossbow after a week's training with any other weapon, and certainly effective enough to kill a heavily armored knight, given a little luck. And if you put the guy on a battlement or behind some other fortification, all that training about formations is less important, yes? And the fact that crossbows were fairly expensive might suggest that it wasn't done very often, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. Fact is, the crossbows were a pretty good equalizer. You didn't have to train for years and years like with the longbow or with other weaponry in order to stand a good chance against the heavily armored mounted cavalry. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 25 2007, 08:17 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 164 Joined: 9-December 04 From: former Bug City, now CFS Member No.: 6,875 |
But this was supposedly an anti-terror exercise. Maybe the Chinese really don't like showing off their actual military doctrine. Additionally, I've read that those bullup 5.8mm rifles their using actually don't function very well.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2007, 10:57 PM
Post
#61
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 249 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando Member No.: 815 |
The crossbow was certainly easier to aim and fire, it was maintaining it that was the problem. Thus the week-trained dude probably wouldn't fare too well as his infernal contraption of a weapon would be quite literally falling apart. The fact that the elite mercenary units were pretty much the only crossbow troops on the planet is a pretty good indication that using a crossbow involved more than aiming the pointy bit at the knight's horse. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 25 2007, 11:08 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
I'm sure price had a small bit to do with that, too. Not to mention the whole Pope Innocent II condemning them as an affront to God thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 12:01 AM
Post
#63
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
It probably wouldn't be falling apart in that first week, and if you assigned a few veterans to a group, I bet you could have them continue training after the first week; fact remains that they'd be ready to fight very rapidly.
On the planet? Uh, no. In China, they were practically standard issue equipment for the rank and file, specifically because they were so easy to train on. Much of the Chinese tactical doctrine required the extensive use of footmen with crossbows. Hell, the Chinese even had repeating crossbows during the Han dynasty (200BC-200AD), and were still using them during the Chinese/Japanese war in the 1800s. (To be fair, the Chinese didn't need to have as much power as the Europeans did; being supremely practical, they weren't above poisoning the bolts, so that even a scratch would be fatal.) To repeat: Just because crossbows were primarily used by elites (... in Europe...) doesn't mean that they needed elites to be used. EDIT: Oh, and speaking of China, I guess the fact that Chinese military doctrine greatly involved the use of crossbows for literally a couple thousand years might explain the original picture. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 26 2007, 08:18 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 249 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando Member No.: 815 |
Yes, China did have crossbows. But my God man, they were made of...wood! Blech! Yes, the repeating models were fairly spiffy, but they were plinkers compared to the (two thousand years down the road) European models. And you're wrong about the whole not falling apart thing. European crossbows required a lot of maintenance, being composed of complicated mechanics constructed in a variety of materials. Having a few veterans per unit to try to help with the maintenance would be like having four thirteen year olds trying to teach a platoon of great-grandpappy's how to use the internet to look for porn. I mean email. Yeah...email.
Now if you want to try to take a peasant with a Chinese crossbow and put him up against a knight...have fun with that. Bounce off, bounce off, hey, why isn't this thing working...skewer. Really, comparing Chinese and European crossbows is like comparing a ball peen hammer to a pneumatic air hammer. To repeat: as European crossbows were only used by professional soldiers, your comment about equalizing a peasant with a knight is erroneous. Hell, put ten or twenty professionals with a crossbow up against a charging knight and I'd still lay even money on either side. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 09:37 AM
Post
#65
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 251 Joined: 29-April 02 Member No.: 2,659 |
I most certainly wouldn't. (Providing they were heavy crossbows. Latch bolts might not penetrate.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 26 2007, 09:59 AM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 249 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando Member No.: 815 |
Even most heavy crossbow bolts wouldn't have a certainty of penetrating deeply enough to stop the big scary metal thing from carving up a bunch of lowly ground pounders. It's kind of like modern deer hunting with bows, an arrow or bolt hit kills by bleeding, not by shock, and most deer aren't wearing armor. Most strikes against the helm would be deflected unless they hit an eyeslot or exceptionally large or weakened breathing hole, most of the torso would be covered by a shield (or later plate armor that stood up fairly well against bolts), and the head, neck and chest of the horse would be heavily protected as well. The most reliable ways of bringing down heavy cavalry was to hit the horse's leg or slip enough shots into the man's legs or arms that he'd eventually bleed out. Plus you have to keep in mind that just as in every other war with every other type of weapon, most of the crossbowmen are going to miss. Completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 10:08 AM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 249 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando Member No.: 815 |
Any further news on what the hell the Chinese are doing with this crossbow? Anybody seen Raygun around recently?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 10:19 AM
Post
#68
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Surely you're kidding. Put up ten or twenty unarmed professionals against a charging knight, and I'll put money on the ten or twenty unarmed dudes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 26 2007, 10:25 AM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 249 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando Member No.: 815 |
Damn. I suddenly wish knights were a Vegas thing so I could make some cash off this. The advantages of heavy armor, high ground and high speed would be fairly hard to overcome unarmed without some highly specialized -fu. Wasn't there a kung fu technique for dismounting an assailant by grabbing his queue in some sort of weird backflip maneuver?
Regardless, I think you're discounting the overwhelming advantages heavy cavalry enjoyed for so many years, at least until massed rapid-fire volley tactics could put enough pointy bits in the air to slow down the charge and grind them down. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 10:37 AM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
I think you're discounting the fact that we're talking about 20 professional soldiers here and exactly one dude (professional though he may be) on a horse.
It's not even "specialized-fu" here, it's simply "accept that some of us are going to die, so all grab on to his ass and drag him off his fucking horse -- he can't kill even most of us in one go." (EDIT: It should be noted that I am talking a lancer or some such here, not a mounted bowman ;) ) |
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 11:27 AM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
I think the hang-up is on the "accept tha some of us are goin to die" bit. A lot of people would just break ranks and hope to get away, rather than standing square in the center and being relatively sure he's going to die.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 04:10 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 249 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando Member No.: 815 |
That's my take on the situation. I think most soldiers only willingly sacrifice their lives like that in strategy games. Of course they don't really know that they're dying...at least I hope not.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 04:28 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Before the dickering starts up again, and people go tit-for-tat stating cases where professional soldiers have broken and ran off, or where untrained civilians have cowboy'ed up and charged... I think we can all agree that both things happen, from time to time, and that trained fighting men are more likely to work together towards a common goal, even in the face of imminent danger, than untrained.
...even if we're kind of off topic by this point, as concerns the filthy Reds and their crossbows. ;) |
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 05:18 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Crit, you're totally right.
In a situation where you might survive, even if it means some of your friends don't, most people are inclined (inclined, not garunteed) to take the path of greatest chance of personal survival. On the other hand, where survival chances are all but nonexistant unless people coyboy up and charge, most people will go for the heroics. Interestingly, this can extend, too. In situations where your own survival is almost impossible, but by acting in a certain way, you can ensure others' survival, most people will still coyboy up. Like the passengers who stormed that 9/11 plane's cockpit. They may have failed to survive, but not only were their chances nil if they didn't try, but if they did try, fail, but succeeded in preventing the terrorists from reaching their objective, they could still save a lot of others. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2007, 05:44 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,514 Joined: 31-December 06 Member No.: 10,502 |
Of course a lot of that depends on what people's perceptions are.
http://www.armor.com/custom935.html And historically fighting men have been known to do suicidal stuff even when retreat was a valid option. Espirit de corps and so on. And to try for a SR4 tie in that's why the "leadership" skill is useful if you're using NPCs. I'm thinking that while they probably have something the crossbow does, the actual reason is that it's a traditional Chinese weapon and so they wanted to have one in the group. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd April 2026 - 04:54 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.