Then you don't know what your looking for.
Alexander VS Qin dynasty
- Thread starter handifei880210
- Start date
Then you don't know what your looking for.
solarz
Brigadier
What are you talking about?
While crossbows have great punch at close range- out performed only by modern firearms they have several drawbacks.
1. lack of plunging fire. Crossbows are a short range weapon, the length of an arrow lets it travel farther and makes possible sustained arrow storms. Even if only 1 arrow in 100 finds soft flesh and arrow storm will produce thousands of wounds. A trained bowman can fire 10 aimed shots a minute. A thousand bowmen can thus fire off tens of thousands of arrow in the time it takes a foot army to close the distance. A crossbow might get 2 aimed shots a minute.
An army of 10,000 archers is firing 100,000 arrows a minute! The poet that described the battle of Carrhae wasn't lying when he said the Roman feet were literally nailed to the desert floor.
2. A bowman can load and fire on the move, a crossbowman has to stop to reload. You already can't back up as fast as you can walk forward. Now imagine a wall of pike coming at you- they are advancing faster than you are retreating- not good. The slow rate of fire + the slow rate of retrograde movement means few volleys get fired before the crossbows break and run to get behind friendly infantry and are now effectively out of the battle. many of the volleys that do get fired are aimed at peltast who armed with slongs, bows and javalins- not hoplites and phalangalist
3. Because of the lay of the bow, bowmen can pack in tighter formations than crossbowmen creating a denser volley.
4. The average archer is more accurate than the average crossbowman.
Crossbows were used because they could be mass produced and handed out to conscript armies. Archery training took years where as a crossbowmen could be trained in weeks.
Crossbows were also cheaper than bows. A crossbow could be made in weeks where a good bow had to cure for a year.
solarz
Brigadier
You really should watch that video before talking. Even if you don't understand Chinese, just seeing the size of that crossbow will tell you that it will easily penetrate bronze armor.
The video also narrates that the Qin used the same tactics as European riflemen: they were organized into 3 ranks and each rank would fire while the other two ranks reloaded.
Some of your arguments are pretty ridiculous. Crossbowmen don't need to run behind friendly infantry, they only need to loosen formation, or move to the side, to allow friendly infantry to charge forward.
Tightly packed infantry also move a lot slower than loose formation infantry, which is what makes them so vulnerable to missile troops.
But at what range, crossbows are not long range weapons. Then you have to factor in angle of impact, strength of the bolt, strength of the armor and accuracy. Musket armies would often have to fire 1000+ rounds to get a wound. Men shoot too high, too low etc. I am pretty sure crossbow armies are the same.
Which means the rate of fire is actually lower and the frontage covered smaller. 1000 crossbowmen will produce 2-3000 shots a minutes. Organizing them in 3 ranks does not speed this up and might actually slow it down as the files have to pass each other every volley. Organizing in ranks is for 1 of two reasons- a sustained but less dense output, or a maxmized volley on a shorter frontage.
Either way they are out of the fight.
Wrong, organized troops move faster not slower.
solarz
Brigadier
Uh huh... going back to pure conjectures again, I see. You do realize that the rotating firing tactic was actually proven on the field of battle, right?
After taking a heavy toll on the advancing enemy infantry, yes. Now the Qin pikemen, swordsmen, and cavalry can come into play.
LOL, who said anything about "organized"? I'm talking about tight formation infantry vs loose formation infantry. The latter obviously charge faster, especially over anything other than completely flat open terrain.
Actually the Qin Army is not just a loose military unit that move in loose formation. They are also a tightly knitted group and Qin army was among the first in the world to actually mix their army elements up, unlike many of the western counterparts at that time. As studied from the Terra Cotta Army formation, it seemed that each military formation actually consisted of a number of different type of soldiers, this is a clever move, because no matter how good an element is (eg. Pikeman) there are still weaknesses around it.
The Qin Army actually utilise the advantage of different military type to cover for the weaknesses of each type. It is very efficient. Plus if you would look at the formations, they are as tightly knitted as Alexandra's troop and with huge number of different formations that was design to counter different enemy.
The Qin Army actually utilise the advantage of different military type to cover for the weaknesses of each type. It is very efficient. Plus if you would look at the formations, they are as tightly knitted as Alexandra's troop and with huge number of different formations that was design to counter different enemy.
jack of all trades, master of none. The reason ancient armies don't mix arms at the lowest levels is becuase its a handicap. In a push battle where two sides heavy infantry push agaisnt each other you need men equipped to fight that battle. Before than when the skirmishers are squarign off the men have to be equipped to do that fight. If you mix arms you end up with less of each when you need it.
For example, most armies would lead with the skirmishers. Save you have 2000 of them. For the army that keeps them in a single unit thats 2000 skirmishers able to be used when the enemy is located. Now say Side B has the same number but has them divided among 10,000 other troops. The lead unit is only going to have 500 skirmishers to face off agaisnt Group A's 2000.
Just becuase ancient armies didn't mix at the squad level doesn't mean they were not combined arms. Unlike modern arms, ancient arms are harder to type mix successfully. Even the Mongols did not type mix but let each arm play its own role in the battle in support of the other.
Never mind that its not efficent- the Terracotta army can't be all things to all people. I ahve people claiming the army means X and someone else claiming the army means Y. For example I pointed out the lack of helms, only to be told thats becuase the amr y is in parade formation. Now your claiming its a combat formantion.....
Personally I don't think its either. I think they are positioned as space allowed and that what they have is what the living soldiers they are modeled on had. The armor and weapons indicate a loose order army not se tup to face a heavy infantry force in a push battle.
Its not pure conjecture. The rate of fire is a constant- it does not matter what formation you use you can only fire so fast. Using ranks does not change that constant. It merely spreads the fire out over a longer duration. Or provides for a heavier volley effect by concentratign the shooters. However to do this the line must be shorter. Instead of a line 900 men long, you have a line 3 deep and 300 men long.
First off cavalry won't charge pike. They'll already be busy witht he Macedonian horse and skirmishers as both sides try and force the flank. As for the rest- archers with greater range and a higher rate of fire would have inflcited more losses per archer on the Qin, than the qin did vs the Macedonians. The crossbow is not very effective past 100m or so. Bows can fire past 300m. No matter how you do the math the arrows are firign 3x as many for 3x as long. To match the volume of 1000 archers firing for three minutes from 300m-100m you'd need 15,000 crossbowmen firing from 100m-50m
Do me a favor, enlist in the army and learn how to march. Loose groups travel slower and also sift ranks with the bravest or dumbest ending up at the front while the others slink to the rear. They also form clumps with gaps in them.
Hell just watch video of how crowds act or go for a drive. Watch people clump up on roads get in each others way. Then watch the way race car drives get tightly packed at 200mph+
solarz
Brigadier
zraver:
1. I'd like to see some evidence that Alexander had missile troops with superior range and penetrating power than the Qin crossbowmen. (Good luck with that!)
2. You're confusing formation with organization. A loose-formation infantry isn't disorganized, they just stand further apart. In fact, your example of race cars vs traffic jam proves my point: the race cars are certainly further apart from each other than cars in a traffic jam. But then again, maybe it just demonstrates your confusion of formation vs organization.
3. Are you actually, honest-to-god, claiming that combined forces in a bad thing??? Maybe you should actually read up on Alexander, and how he *really* used your vaunted sarissa phalanxes. FYI, the Greeks got slaughtered when they started concentrating on pure phalanxes and eschewing the combined arms approach.
4. Are you seriously trying to claim that Qin soldiers didn't have access to helmets and shields?
Crossbowmen and riflemen use firing line tactics because it's not about the number of bolts loosed, but the concentration of firepower. A charging phalanx will inevitably be slowed as its front ranks fall from a crossbow barrage. The rotating firing line ensures that the enemy will receive a nigh constant barrage of bolts.
In a real battle scenario, there's no way Alexander would be dumb enough to charge his phalanx against 3 lines of Qin Crossbowmen, unless he really has no clue what crossbows were capable of. Unfortunately for Alexander, whatever else he has, the Qin probably had better: swordsmen, cavalry, archers, you name it.
1. I'd like to see some evidence that Alexander had missile troops with superior range and penetrating power than the Qin crossbowmen. (Good luck with that!)
2. You're confusing formation with organization. A loose-formation infantry isn't disorganized, they just stand further apart. In fact, your example of race cars vs traffic jam proves my point: the race cars are certainly further apart from each other than cars in a traffic jam. But then again, maybe it just demonstrates your confusion of formation vs organization.
3. Are you actually, honest-to-god, claiming that combined forces in a bad thing??? Maybe you should actually read up on Alexander, and how he *really* used your vaunted sarissa phalanxes. FYI, the Greeks got slaughtered when they started concentrating on pure phalanxes and eschewing the combined arms approach.
4. Are you seriously trying to claim that Qin soldiers didn't have access to helmets and shields?
Crossbowmen and riflemen use firing line tactics because it's not about the number of bolts loosed, but the concentration of firepower. A charging phalanx will inevitably be slowed as its front ranks fall from a crossbow barrage. The rotating firing line ensures that the enemy will receive a nigh constant barrage of bolts.
In a real battle scenario, there's no way Alexander would be dumb enough to charge his phalanx against 3 lines of Qin Crossbowmen, unless he really has no clue what crossbows were capable of. Unfortunately for Alexander, whatever else he has, the Qin probably had better: swordsmen, cavalry, archers, you name it.