obsolete?

**VAE VICTUS** · 08-05-2005, 00:56

ok is ANY ever really outdated?i mean a bloody sword can kill as well as any modern weapon.(if youre close enough)archers could still kill.your thoughts?

**Papewaio** · 08-05-2005, 01:41

It is not just how deadly something is it is:

How easy it is to make, train and maintain a weapon that makes it more or less viable then an equally deadly one.

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 08-05-2005, 02:11

Yes, weapons become outdated. Not only are offensive weapons far better now, but today's soldiers have access to ceramic body armor that can stop a 7.62x39mm round travelling extremely fast (900m/s and lower, depends on range). That will most definately stop an arrow, sword stroke or any other type of old-style weapon.

Also armored vehicles compound the modern advantage. Weapons and armor become outdated, there is no avoiding it and even though old weapons can still kill unarmored targets the speed, lethality, ease of manufacture, ease of training and quick reaction time of modern weaponry far surpasses old weapons. Theoretically a bowman could defeat a modern day rifleman, but he would need a certain degree of luck and suprise and armies need to be able to operate consistently.

I rambled a bit, sorry...

**pezhetairoi** · 08-05-2005, 02:21

Outdatedness depends solely on what or who you oppose those weapons to. If you take archers against rifles, archers are outdated. If you're doing archers against spearmen, hardly so. You can't consider the issue in isolation from the opposition.

**TosaInu** · 08-05-2005, 10:30

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

..ceramic body armor that can stop a 7.62x39mm round travelling extremely fast (900m/s and lower, depends on range). That will most definately stop an arrow, sword stroke or any other type of old-style weapon.

I recall that it's a bit more complex than that. A buletproof armor doesn't have to stop a knive stab.

**Aenlic** · 08-05-2005, 11:07

I believe you are right, TosaInu. Body armor is all about kinetic energy. It is made to spread the kinetic energy from an incoming round or shrapnel reducing the ability of that round to penetrate. That doesn't translate into protecting against a knife, though certainly an arrow might be more like a bullet. The reason that a bullet's kinetic energy can be dissipated and spread is because it is a short-lived event. A knife thrust is of a much longer duration, with the energy continuing after the initial thrust energy is spread out through the fabric. Modern body armor also doesn't protect against slashing damage or wide-spread blunt force (such as say a mace), both of which ovecome the kinetic energy spreading properties of the armor.

**CBR** · 08-05-2005, 12:35

The body armour that stops rifle bullets use ceramic plates to do it. Some of them can stop a 7.62mm NATO round at point blank range. An arrow would not be able to cut through such plates in the same way it might do against a soft kevlar vest.

But anyway bodyarmour will not be the main reason for why bows are totally outclassed in a modern battlefield as rifles are superior in every way, rate of fire, accuracy, range and amount of ammo. Bows existed in a time where melee was important but today firepower is everything. For that little melee that can still be done today a bayonent, riflebutt or unarmed martial arts works fine.

CBR

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 08-06-2005, 00:18

Originally Posted by TosaInu

I recall that it's a bit more complex than that. A buletproof armor doesn't have to stop a knive stab.

I was talking only of ceramic body armor, I bet kevlar armor would do the same thing , but I am not certain. Ceramic plate would most definately stop a knife.