Alternatively Armed Armies

[ChalkLine]

You make me think of a kind of rifle that could be easily made and that use to fire anything (nails, metal peaces, small stones...). The name is "Tromblon" in French (also mean an uggly looking girl). As I don't know it in english, I put an image of one.

We called it a 'Blunderbuss' from the German 'Donderbusch', or 'Thunder Gun'.

[jester]

Yes, that is what we call a "Blunderbuss."

And that is pretty much what I was thinking when I posted the singleshot primative weapon issued to your masses.

Now, make it a large bore like the above, but not funneled. Add hammer that fires on a primer like the caplock rifles/muskets. These with todays knowledge are pretty easy, heck, they are common in childrens cap pistols so no big deal, and then mount a spike for thrusting and an axe for causing even more chaos when it comes to close quarters. Talk about the ultimate primative close quarters weapon

[Kellhound]

In Spain is a "trabuco", and the bell shape make them fairly easy to load.
It's fairly popular with muzzleloading communities and some folk festivities in several zones, so there are quite a few around, and in a post-nuke situation you could find some small towns armed with them.

Besides, it's very traditional here. Where have you seen a Sierra Morena bandolero without one

[headquarters]

bows and training

The English longbow men were in no way lightlky trained .They had years of experience in using and maintaining the longbows.

The crossbow on teh other hand takes a lot less practice -around 3 weeks - to get sufficient proficiency .

making a longbow,a recurve bow or a composite bow takes a lot of forgotten skill when it comes to selectring and prepping the wood .

taking the leaf springs out of a disabled car -or other similar steel band and rigging them to a barrel and trigger is way easier ,provided you can salvage whatever you need.

imHo the way to go would be the crossbow,cheaper and easier to make and maintain ,easier to use and of course the tactical advantages in built up areas.
A longbow is nearly 6 feet tall and has a pull of 60 kg !You cant run around doing cqb with that -a little more so a crossbow.

Also the massed battle tactics of the hundred years wars would not apply in
T2K maybe in T2K2300 ,30 years on and a steady downward slide for humanity..

making a bow is difficult .Making something to kill small birds and rabits isnt that hard -but a war bow A whole set of trade skills on its own.

If you start massing ranks like in the 100 years wars to achieve maximum effect from your bowmen- the guy on the the other end will have a field day with whatever firearms he has left ...

I want to add a few other suggestions:
1) slingshot .Made from a Y shaped object and whatever rubber is available .Bicycle tires,elastic bands etc .It packs a wallop when fired with leadballs and can be cheaply made and trained with .Good for hunting small game and keeping pests at bay too.
Seriously - you could easily kill a man with a headshot from one of these with a leadball at say 50 yards.

2)
blackpowder gun
be it a simple matchlock , flintlock or doglock or percusssion or electrical ignition variety - the firearm is going to have its advantages.Electrical seamless tubing or other high quality steel tubing kan be used -or in a pinch whatever plumbing supplies available.
Lead is available to be salvaged from many sources - think wheel/tire wheights etc .
Gunpowder is a bit more tricky ,but they did it 700 years ago , so I guess someone would be able to in T2K.

Also blackpowder allows for a lot more fun medieval mayhem-machines like the bombard ,mortar,hwacha,firelance and fougasse ( an old claymore mine )

Gunpowder armed ruffians could operate in a pike and shot type organization were melee fighters protect the shooters as they reload ,with someone armed with a modern gun doing overall protection .They could advance and fire and then retreat again to reload again .

For all of trhe above I have to say I believe they would work better in defensive position where you have a room to prepare and keep stores dry etc . rather then on the attack.

Have you ever used a crossbow I did for several years and still have one at home (in bad shape). There is plenty of truth it what you all say but you forget a lot of things. Of course, if you can get your hand on a full load of modern types, I'll take them but from what I read, I assumed that was not the case (actually, you'll find much more modrn bows around).

First, a crossbow is relatively heavy. Don't forget that fiberglass is not available any more. Then, you have to go with wood and steel for the mechanism. You end up with something which is heavier than a regular rifle and that you use more like a light machine gun.

Crossbow are also fairly tricky to make unless you go for very simple type with a barrel, a light bow and a small hold to maintain the string in place (then, you end-up with less kinetic power than with a bow, and much reduced range). Otherwise, you need to have a skilled man to make them. The quarrels are also more tricky to make than arrows. Bows are easier to make, and you can start with simple models. When your bow maker gets better he can make you long bows and finally the small highly maneuverable type used by mongols (almost a light machine gun).

I agree that you need less training but some people use bows from instinct. Just select the good guys and train them (arrows are easy to make). I also remind you that the british archers who decimated the french chivalry were lightly trained peasants.

Have you ever tried to bend a crossbow First it takes time. Then, it takes a lot of strength, even for the smallest modern ones. If you have to make ones using woods, you'll end up with something that can't be bent without mechanical device. I'll leave you the crossbows and take the swords, axes, spears and morning stars (Banza-). With bows, you can train women and children to use them while the men wait for the shock.

Last and not the least important. bows can achieve indirect fire at a range of more than 200 yards. Therefore, I'll position my archers behind the walls (in second line) and fire arrows at you before you even can see me (not very accurate but I have plenty of supply and I'll clear your ranks). With crossbows you'll be using direct fire and your crew will be more exposed. In addition, with a bow I'll be able to fire 4-5 times before the ennemy get to my footmen (then they can continue to fire in direct support) while the crossbow will fire twice at most (In support of those same footmen your corssbowmen can do little because their weapon is too heavy and bulky and, then, your crews are killed trying to bend it once more).

Actually, ideally, I would use both weapons. Bows as regular second line, used in fair concentration. Crossbows (exactly as described) as support weapons provided I can fire them from cover (the shield is a fun idea). I leave my footmen in first line waiting for the shock.

Why do you think crossbows never supplanted bows IRL

[Mohoender]

Besides, it's very traditional here. Where have you seen a Sierra Morena bandolero without one

I think we have similar traditions around here (called "Bravadeurs"). My area has about 20 equipped with Blunderbuss and 40-50 musketeers.

My wife's native town (St Tropez) as a full company with about 200 muketeers.

Thinking about that. Several cities will have artilery pieces from the Napoleonic era that shouldn't be that hard to put back in working order.

HQ I said I was mistaken. I also said that the local man would be able to make simple bows only, at first. Whatever, I still go with the blunt weapons, axes..., and forget about frontal approach.

[Slappy]

To get back to the original question, I think arming raw civilians with either bows or crossbows would be of marginal effectiveness at best given the state of the world in most T2K campaigns.

I'm assuming that the players still have automatic weapons as do many of their adversaries. I find it doubtful that an untrained group with homemade crossbows will bring much to the party. The likelihood of doing much damage is low as is the likelihood that they will be able to stand and fight effectively. Remember, low morale and unit cohesion usually come with low training. They might actually be better off standing off with higher quality weapons. They'll probably stay in the fight longer.

Two other thoughts though. I'm not saying that a highly trained professional couldn't make useful tactical use of these weapons. An elite soldier with a crossbow is probably a better bet than a novice with an AK in close quarters. Also, these weapons should become more and more effective as technology recedes. Bowmen couldn't stand up to even primitive firearms and I don't expect they'd do very well against M249s either, but when these weapons wear out they will once again have a lot to offer. It's just that most T2K campaigns still have a higher tech level than the one at which this would be an effective strategy.

[Fusilier]

To get back to the original question, I think arming raw civilians with either bows or crossbows would be of marginal effectiveness at best given the state of the world in most T2K campaigns.

I agree here. Mostly for the reasons given by Slappy.

I would say possible in some defense of the home type cases. But not offensive for sure. I especially can't imagine that people would put themselves into such a (cannon fodder) position.

[jester]

Ah yes a trained seasoned character who knows the primitive weapon would most likely be more effective than refugee armed with a primative weapon, and the refugee armed with a modern weapon would be more effective. But a trained veteran type with a modern weapon would be even further ahead and thus a force multiplier.

As for something else,

Novice types armed with primative weapons well, one needs to level the playing field.

So, slow the enemy up, force them to close so that range isn't a factor. We show alot of blunderbusses which are devestating at close range. So, build a trench or maze network where attackers need to get close, this will also channel them, so the advantage of range and accuracy is dispelled. And limit the numbers in which they can attack as well and you improve the chances of the novice defenders.

Like I said, I would build a maze of trenches leading to the blockhouse where the novices armed with primitive weapons made a stand, so the well trained well equiped attackers could not use their training and weapons to their full advantage.

[Targan]

I agree that a PC party armed with the normal plethora of high powered military weapons would slaughter a rabble armed with primitive weapons but that doesn't mean that such an engagement would be risk-free for the PCs.

When the 78th ID (Light) decided to leave NYC and got ambushed (losing the NYC gold reserves in the process) it had more to do with sheer numbers of opponents and effective use of road blocks and channelling than with the relative effectiveness of each side's weapons.

I can imagine situations where poorly armed opponents who outnumber a PC party would be willing to take their chances with a well prepared ambush and primative weapons. The potential rewards (a bunch of military weapons, ammo and equipment) would be great and if the poorly armed folks are already living in really bad conditions and have a high mortality rate anyway they really haven't got much to lose.

I've described on this forum before an occassion in my campaign where Major Po's XO, a USN SEAL officer, came within a hair's bredth of having his face shot off by a half starved teenager with a zip gun firing reloaded 12 gauge rounds stuffed full of nail heads and broken glass. The SEAL had been stalking the kid through long grass and the kid, panicked and scared into immobility, stayed perfectly still until the SEAL was less than 10 feet from him. The SEAL's body armour stopped a couple of fragments and he took a piece of glass in the cheek. A sobering moment for him I think.

[jester]

Targ;

That is my point on how to mount a defence. Force the attackers to come in at close quarters and break up their cohesion as well as limit their numbers which will reduce their effectiveness. And in the end if you have to rat through a maze while under the eye of even the greenest of folks they will be able to take a pot shot at you. And if they are using ALOT of buckshot well, they will take casualties.

Then if the stronghold is on a raised section nothing like a vault over an open area which sucks for you and gives you the same danger and chances if you are a seal or a member of the local boys chior. The risk is the same.

And the same goes if you want to STOP! Crawl to the EDGE to get a view and a shot. You will stand out, you will be a target and most likely have some lead thrown your way which is usualy an unhealthy proposition.

[WallShadow]

new twist for an old weapon

In the case of the Ruins of Warsaw", the good guys are short of weapons and ammo, to the extent that several companies are only partially armed or without weapons. Here is where the crossbow can come in to solve several problems at once. First, it and its ammunition can be manufactured out of materials at hand--salvaged wood, metal rods and hardware by the local metalworkers and/or the Krolowa's machine shop.. Next, it can be the weapon of choice for those lurking in the rubble to ambush the Baron's men--quietly. Further, the now-dead or surrendered Black Guardsmen or other allied troops no longer need their weapons and contribute them and their ammo to the Milicye's armory. And rumors of the whispering death get back to the Baron's troops to give them pause about what can happen outside of their safe encampment.

Another case for using bow-type weapons can be seen on old re-runs of "the Dukes of Hazzard", where one of the "Good ol' boys" can be seen wreaking destruction by loosing off a few dynamite-bearing arrows as the General Lee roars away. Without the need for exceptional accuracy, a volley of explosive arrows whishing silently in before their big Ka-Boom might be very disorienting and demoralizing, rather like a WW2 Soviet Katyusha rocket attack only without the whoosh of the rockets.

[manunancy]

Targ;

That is my point on how to mount a defence. Force the attackers to come in at close quarters and break up their cohesion as well as limit their numbers which will reduce their effectiveness. And in the end if you have to rat through a maze while under the eye of even the greenest of folks they will be able to take a pot shot at you. And if they are using ALOT of buckshot well, they will take casualties.

Then if the stronghold is on a raised section nothing like a vault over an open area which sucks for you and gives you the same danger and chances if you are a seal or a member of the local boys chior. The risk is the same.

And the same goes if you want to STOP! Crawl to the EDGE to get a view and a shot. You will stand out, you will be a target and most likely have some lead thrown your way which is usualy an unhealthy proposition.

Even worse here would be grenades - in that sort of trench warfare situation they get really nasty and care even less about aiming. They also have th neat feature that you can lob them over your cover without exposing yourself. Even better, inculde some inclined pipe drains sections into your earthworks to get your grenades in place without the need for even minimal throwing experience.

Here a well equiped attacker relying on grenade launchers would be be worse off as they can'tbe used at that sort of range. thoough they would probably have hand greandes of their own.

No matter what, it(s going to ne messy.

[rcaf_777]

First, a crossbow is relatively heavy. Don't forget that fiberglass is not available any more

Yes fiberglass is not available any more, but want do want to bet that there are plenty of bows and arrows still in archery stores, sport good, ect.

When shit hit the fan and people start looting I can see a lot people passing them up for shiny guns and ammo, that is unless your a bunch of high school students led by Patrick Swayze who decided to take a combine, Soviet, Cuba, Mexcian, Invasion.

[mikeo80]

I think that as WWIII drags on into 2000-2001-2002 etc, you would start to see more and more "primitive" weapons with maybe one or two "modern" weapons held in reserve.

The black powder gun would probably be one of the first "primitive" weapons developed. Along with the wooden bow, and maybe the cross bow for the first line of fighters, backed up with the "Brown Bess" musket, or if you have a gunsmith with real talent, you have either the "Kentucky" long rifle, or possibly the American Civil War "Springfield".

The way I look at it, if my "primitive" Brown Bess Musket keeps you from stealing my pigs, so what.

My $0.02

Mike

[Legbreaker]

Here a well equipped attacker relying on grenade launchers would be be worse off as they can't be used at that sort of range.

That's where indirect fire comes into play - launch almost straight up into the air and line of sight distance doesn't matter so much with regard to arming distances.