|
Post by sherppa on Oct 22, 2008 23:21:01 GMT -6
AZ, Gravity and drag affect the arrow the instant that it leaves the string. And it has a greater effect on arrows traveling a slower speeds, simply because of flight time. As for terminal velocity and arrow launched reaching a height of 300 ft will develop a velocity of roughly 125 fps. (forgive me if my math is off). Which is only 25 fps less then the 150 fps average arrow speed for bows of the era, more then enough speed to penetrate flesh. Especially with a steal broadhead attached to it. sherppa Wrong There is no downward vertical velocity vector when a arrow is initially launched unless the angle of release was below horizontal. In your example the initial upward velocity vector is 150 fps. Your statement "could reached a velocity greater then that of the arrow when originally launched" is not correct 125 is less than 150 by your own example. My calculation without a drag factor is approximately 138 fps for velocity from 300 ft. Depending upon drag it would be reduced. Since the only thing slowing down an arrow shot straight up is drag and gravity how could it ever have a higher velocity on the return to earth due to the effects of gravity alone. If the initial velocity is greater than the terminal velocity of a particular arrow than it will have a greater velocity than the falling arrow. You statement that gravity has a greater effect on a slower arrow is incorrect. Gravity is a constant and it effect relates to the maximum height above ground obtained by the arrow and not the speed. An arrow shot straight up at a slower velocity will hit the ground after an arrow shot at higher velocity with 0 degrees of elevation. Drag value is not a constant and varies among arrows with such things as shaft diameter, shaft length, size of fletching, type of fletching, total weight, and point profile. Varying any of the drag factors will affect the amount of drag. So without the actual arrow component factors you can not accurately estimate terminal velocity. Drag increases with velocity so when the drag equals the acceleration of gravity that is when the terminal velocity is reached. AZ Ranger AZ, Let's be clear, you are saying that gravity and drag have no effect on the arrow when it leaves the bow? If not then when do these take affect? Gravity's pull is constant whether arrow is on the knuckle or leaving it. Drag becomes an issue as soon the arrow starts to move forward. As I stated could, reach a velocity greater then that of the arrow when originally launched. And if you would read what I wrote I did state that my math may be off, (I actually like your number better.) I had known there was a math test I wouldn't have let my dog eat my home work. So if it makes you feel better we can use your math skills and those special Apache arrows and launch the arrow 400 feet and see what we get. As for gravity's affect on an arrow, my comment was not directed at shooting an arrow into the air but simply shooting an arrow at a given target using direct fire. As for your statement about drag it is correct thus my reason for using the term roughly. Not knowing those factors would not allow for perfectly accurate calculations. sherppa
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Oct 22, 2008 23:31:18 GMT -6
Shooting in arcade is to shoot at a steep angle of about forty-five degrees to achieve the greatest possible distance. This results in the arrows dropping almost vertically on the target. Though inaccurate, it could be effective against a massed enemy and is, in any case, the natural effect of shooting to the extreme limit of a bow's range.Sherppa In your experience do you believe that an arrow shot at a 45 degree angle drops almost vertically? For shooting long distant wouldn't you want the arrow to continue horizontally after reaching its maximum height achieved from the angle of the release? AZ, I guess I am not fully understanding the first part of your quote??? No, it should not land almost vertically if launched at a 45 degree angle. (but this depends on ones version of almost vertically) And yes, for distance. sherppa
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Oct 22, 2008 23:39:50 GMT -6
Only weapons which are mounted and have a traverse system can be fired indirectly.For example the vickers machine gun could be fired indirectly because it had a mechanism which allowed accurate graded traversing which in turn allowed predetermined targets to be engaged.For example fire could be brought to bear on approach routes or assembly areas at night. Is this doctrine, theory or personal opinion? I have not seen a definition of indirect fire that required the weapon to be mounted and have a traversing system. sherppa
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Oct 22, 2008 23:41:42 GMT -6
Yes, AZ, I did mean the M79. And the 1897 was an excellent shotgun.
sherppa
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 23, 2008 6:45:10 GMT -6
Wrong There is no downward vertical velocity vector when a arrow is initially launched unless the angle of release was below horizontal. In your example the initial upward velocity vector is 150 fps. Your statement "could reached a velocity greater then that of the arrow when originally launched" is not correct 125 is less than 150 by your own example. My calculation without a drag factor is approximately 138 fps for velocity from 300 ft. Depending upon drag it would be reduced. Since the only thing slowing down an arrow shot straight up is drag and gravity how could it ever have a higher velocity on the return to earth due to the effects of gravity alone. If the initial velocity is greater than the terminal velocity of a particular arrow than it will have a greater velocity than the falling arrow. You statement that gravity has a greater effect on a slower arrow is incorrect. Gravity is a constant and it effect relates to the maximum height above ground obtained by the arrow and not the speed. An arrow shot straight up at a slower velocity will hit the ground after an arrow shot at higher velocity with 0 degrees of elevation. Drag value is not a constant and varies among arrows with such things as shaft diameter, shaft length, size of fletching, type of fletching, total weight, and point profile. Varying any of the drag factors will affect the amount of drag. So without the actual arrow component factors you can not accurately estimate terminal velocity. Drag increases with velocity so when the drag equals the acceleration of gravity that is when the terminal velocity is reached. AZ Ranger AZ, Let's be clear, you are saying that gravity and drag have no effect on the arrow when it leaves the bow? If not then when do these take affect? Gravity's pull is constant whether arrow is on the knuckle or leaving it. Drag becomes an issue as soon the arrow starts to move forward. As I stated could, reach a velocity greater then that of the arrow when originally launched. And if you would read what I wrote I did state that my math may be off, (I actually like your number better.) I had known there was a math test I wouldn't have let my dog eat my home work. So if it makes you feel better we can use your math skills and those special Apache arrows and launch the arrow 400 feet and see what we get. As for gravity's affect on an arrow, my comment was not directed at shooting an arrow into the air but simply shooting an arrow at a given target using direct fire. As for your statement about drag it is correct thus my reason for using the term roughly. Not knowing those factors would not allow for perfectly accurate calculations. sherppa The velocity due to gravity is zero at launching. Zero is not much of an effect. Gravity is a constant rate of acceleration and it's effect on velocity increases with the height above ground . The arrow rests on the bow without gravity allowed to take effect until released even though it is accelerating from the string. Drag begins as soon as the arrows moves and increases with velocity. At some point the arrow has maximum horizontal velocity from the string and zero velocity from the acceleration from gravity. It was your statement that it "could" have a higher velocity coming down, That seems to defy Physics to me but would help solve the energy crisis. If you can gain velocity then convert it to energy you would be producing more energy out of it than you put into it. I think we have had enough physics this is more like what I have to do for a living in investigations of crime scenes. We just got through with an investigation on how far from a house would you need to be to fire safely in the direction of the house if your intended target height above ground was the lung area of an elk. Apparently the indirect fire method of shooting under an elk and bouncing the arrow off the ground causes it to go further than anticipated and the arrow stuck in the house at approximately 145 yards with the height greater than the aim point. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 23, 2008 6:49:02 GMT -6
Shooting in arcade is to shoot at a steep angle of about forty-five degrees to achieve the greatest possible distance. This results in the arrows dropping almost vertically on the target. Though inaccurate, it could be effective against a massed enemy and is, in any case, the natural effect of shooting to the extreme limit of a bow's range.Sherppa In your experience do you believe that an arrow shot at a 45 degree angle drops almost vertically? For shooting long distant wouldn't you want the arrow to continue horizontally after reaching its maximum height achieved from the angle of the release? AZ, I guess I am not fully understanding the first part of your quote??? No, it should not land almost vertically if launched at a 45 degree angle. (but this depends on ones version of almost vertically) And yes, for distance. sherppa Look at Conz's post in reply 210 that is where it came from. It also states something about 400 yards being beyond the range of a bow. We both know that 600 yards by a flight arrow is possible. I would think it would take an angle greater than 45 degrees to make a arrow become unstable at its peak height and then fall vertically to the ground. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 23, 2008 6:52:43 GMT -6
Is this doctrine, theory or personal opinion? I have not seen a definition of indirect fire that required the weapon to be mounted and have a traversing system. The process of lobbing ordnance of any kind on a target is not indirect fire per se. Lobbing can be carried out directly.You can lob directly onto the target.It is of course probably the most common method of indirect fire.However military terminology does differentiate between the two targeting systems describing one as direct fire the other as indirect fire.
As regards your lobbing system being applied y the Indians at the LBH I would draw your attention to the following. Effective lobbing requires a practiced disciplined force under control.Neither control nor discipline were charasterics of the Indians. Horizontal fire is much more effective than lobbing. The Indian force was motivated by the obvious disparity in numbers in their favour and of course the troopers knew very quickly that they were doomed. The dynamics influencing events was a forward momentum by the Indians fueled by individual and tribal rivalry.Who was going to halt this forward rush to lob arrows? Custer's force was dispersed over a mile and nowhere capable of stopping the charging Indians. Benteen saw no evidence of organisation on the field.Organisation means time, lobbing gives that time but it is not evident. I have written before that all systems have a breaking point.For the 7th that point Custer provided by failing to concenrate his force leaving them spread out with no central control facing hundreds of onrushing Indians.
And Sherppa was it you suggested that Rough Riders was worth watching?Because I gt a copy of it o the internet.A powerful mighty film it had Everything--a recycled Confederate gereral,a unit of elite black troops[commanded by a white man of course],a tame Indian,even a nice Spaniard.And this band of brothers this happy band led by Tom hamming it up went off to Cuba to the tune of yes you guested it Garryowen and sung the Minstril Boy around the campfire---a mighty film a must for all lobbers of the LBH.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 23, 2008 9:33:50 GMT -6
Indians had no commander, no group training, no standardized weaponry with known and plottable performance. There was no intentional "indirect fire." It's pretend as much as Calvin with a T-Rex in his F-16.
|
|
|
Post by clansman on Oct 23, 2008 11:42:08 GMT -6
About the only time they organised themselves into a type of disciplined force was in the campaign over the Bozeman Trail under Red Cloud. I don't think they ever organised themselves like that again.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 23, 2008 18:39:49 GMT -6
About the only time they organised themselves into a type of disciplined force was in the campaign over the Bozeman Trail under Red Cloud. I don't think they ever organised themselves like that again. I agree clansman.
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Oct 23, 2008 19:41:33 GMT -6
Is this doctrine, theory or personal opinion? I have not seen a definition of indirect fire that required the weapon to be mounted and have a traversing system.The process of lobbing ordnance of any kind on a target is not indirect fire per se. Lobbing can be carried out directly.You can lob directly onto the target.It is of course probably the most common method of indirect fire.However military terminology does differentiate between the two targeting systems describing one as direct fire the other as indirect fire. As regards your lobbing system being applied y the Indians at the LBH I would draw your attention to the following. Effective lobbing requires a practiced disciplined force under control.Neither control nor discipline were charasterics of the Indians. Horizontal fire is much more effective than lobbing. The Indian force was motivated by the obvious disparity in numbers in their favour and of course the troopers knew very quickly that they were doomed. The dynamics influencing events was a forward momentum by the Indians fueled by individual and tribal rivalry.Who was going to halt this forward rush to lob arrows? Custer's force was dispersed over a mile and nowhere capable of stopping the charging Indians. Benteen saw no evidence of organisation on the field.Organisation means time, lobbing gives that time but it is not evident. I have written before that all systems have a breaking point.For the 7th that point Custer provided by failing to concenrate his force leaving them spread out with no central control facing hundreds of onrushing Indians. And Sherppa was it you suggested that Rough Riders was worth watching?Because I gt a copy of it o the internet.A powerful mighty film it had Everything--a recycled Confederate gereral,a unit of elite black troops[commanded by a white man of course],a tame Indian,even a nice Spaniard.And this band of brothers this happy band led by Tom hamming it up went off to Cuba to the tune of yes you guested it Garryowen and sung the Minstril Boy around the campfire---a mighty film a must for all lobbers of the LBH. And your point is what? This still does not explain your requirement for mounts or traversing systems for a weapon to be capable of indirect fire. lob: to hit, throw or propel in a high arc. Baseballs, hand grenades, arrows, mortar rounds, pellets, all excellent for lobbing. At the end of the day, literally or figuratively, overwhelming numbers of Warriors, swept over the battlefield killing them all (the men of 7th). As for the Rough Riders, if you will recall I stated the ending of the movie was interesting. Did not say whether it worth watching or not. And it appears that you were so captivated by it that you failed to see the point which I was making about the ending and how it related to an earlier discussion we had about this country. A mighty film, probably not but, you may be right in it being a must for "lobbers" . sherppa
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Oct 23, 2008 19:59:20 GMT -6
Cats, I forgot how effective cat lobbing can be when you have a crew served "cat lobber". Down right wicked when affecting direct fire, and indirect fire, provided that it is mounted with a T&E mechanism. But the "cat lobber" is worthless, without its' steely eyed crew of well trained and highly disciplined cat lobbers.
sherppa
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 24, 2008 1:04:46 GMT -6
And your point is what? This still does not explain your requirement for mounts or traversing systems for a weapon to be capable of indirect fire. We are discussing effective systems are we not Sherppa? The mount and traversing system are used in conjunction with fire tables in order to accurately adjust the fall of shot.Without this system indirect firing would just be a waste of ammo. If several hundred Indians decide to fire arrows over a hill at unseen troopers each individual will have his own idea as to what direction and elevation he will use.Without a spotter no one will be able to tell if the fire is effective.If they have a spotter and he signals back "some of you are over shooting, some are undershooting ,some too far to the left ,some too far to the right" So they all adjust their aim with those firing to the right thinking they are the ones firing to the left fire further to the right etc need go on?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 24, 2008 6:09:46 GMT -6
I would think each individual would have to look directly at the target and they could withdraw slightly behind cover and fire based upon direct observation of the target. If they had practiced this then it would be more effective than indirectly firing without having seen the target. If you're firing for plunging effect it doesn't matter whether there is cover or concealment to the technique. The person shooting is firing based upon experience for elevation and direct observation for range and direction.
I think plunging arrow fire is right up there with the effects of not having the sabre and jammed weapons. Not much, and would not change the outcome. It may have happened but not a battle deciding factor.
How could fire from unknown positions cause skirmish lines to be formed and then maintained. Did they take hours trying to figure out where are those arrows coming from? I would think skirmish lines were formed for visible Indians and would move if the Indians disappeared.
If thousands of arrows come from behind a hill that should be a clue that they are close and numerous and it is time to move. So unless there was a greater visible threat why not move out of range.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 24, 2008 7:24:41 GMT -6
Cats, I forgot how effective cat lobbing can be when you have a crew served "cat lobber". Down right wicked when affecting direct fire, and indirect fire, provided that it is mounted with a T&E mechanism. But the "cat lobber" is worthless, without its' steely eyed crew of well trained and highly disciplined cat lobbers. sherppa Be careful what you ask for. Here's another dilemma for y'all... It was a not uncommon practice in early sieges to launch animals over the parapets/walls using catapaults. Was this indirect fire, since the trajectory was steep, and the target (behind the walls) could not be seen? If you fire arrows over walls is that indirect fire? Or does the arrow have to be on a carriage, like a ballista. Is THAT "indirect fire?" You had to ask... Clair
|
|