12-18-2018, 02:57 AM
Greeting from (wet) NorCal'. Not a complaint! Are Christmas markets big in the Netherlands? Hope everyone you care about has a Merry Christmas.
So 'post preview' and return removes my post. What other little tricks are in store for me here? lol. Also, what am I doing wrong in replying here? I don't get any smilies or underline/bolding options. I don't think html commands work here, either. At least not in my first message or two. Any advice greatly appreciated.
Robert said: Rocks (or sticks) do not behave like a plumbata, not even javelins do. The thing with the weight is that the missile tail wants to overtake the point while in flight, and the flights prohibit that, straightening the missile out about halfway in the air. I’m no expert on ballistics, but my guess would that, especially concerning the longer distances, accuracy suffers from just that. Arrows are very much more accurate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't arguing that plumbatae are as accurate as arrows...or slings, for that matter. I don't believe they are the roman equivalent of Dragunov sniper rifles, but they are accurate enough to consistently hit a target at further-than-pilum-range, so that counts as 'accurate' for me. Who knows if the Romans thought of them that way. From the videos I've seen, the darts appear to be reacting to the initial discharge of energy into them when they oscillate (wobble) at initial launch, The fletching imparts both drag and centrifugal force, Watch slo-mos of arrows at launch - they do the same thing (oscillate), but their thinner shafts and longer lengths absorb most of the initial lateral force while the arrow begins to spin, keeping the projectile on target. The wobble is more obvious with darts because launch speeds are slower when compared to arrows and the shorter, thicker shafts do not flex like arrow shafts and thus more 'wiggle' is apparent until the fletching stabilizes the flight path along the center of mass' trajectory. At no time should the dart tumble or 'cartwheel' in flight. The attitude of the dart at launch should be identical whether thrown OH or UH if properly performed. I can think of no other should be the same at both. Not that you are claiming that UH an OH; and the weight/length ratio.
You keep mentioning 'how a plumbata behaves'. I may be missing something, but isn't that point irrelevant when discussing comparative distance throwing? Unless you are maintaining that a plumbata behaves differently when thrown UH vs. how it behaves when thrown OH. And by "behave", I mean to say the manner in which it reacts to the forces applied to it: x amount of forward momentum, y amount of lateral force. Of the videos I have watched, I have seen no evidence of that. I cannot think of any inanimate object that has that ability.
"Because a hand grenade (even a Stielhandgranate) behaves differently from a plumbata?" What property does a plumbata have that allows it to differentiate between the throwing methods?
I'll attempt to clarify my thinking, (not always a successful venture): A dart thrown overhand or underhand, with equal amounts of energy (forward, angular, lateral momentum), with equal environmental factors, and launched with the same trajectory will land in the same place. Basic physics supports my claim, I believe.
My position is that, in general, one achieves significantly more energy by throwing overhand than throwing underhand. I also maintain that dart could be thrown en masse, overhand, from formation to a distance farther than that attainable by spear/javelin.
You seem to disregard my personal experience in throwing and teaching throwing. That's OK, you don't know me.And you haven't addressed my examples of professional sports where individuals who get paid to throw long distances accurately, ALWAYS throw overhand. Without exception. Not even in cricket! Or, does that go back to the argument that a ball is different from a plumbata?
To me, having a solid, supportable, contrary perspective brought to me would make me question the validity of studies claiming otherwise. Seeing people on line throw farther OH would do that too. Those videos exist. I am aware of the claims otherwise, but they don't pass the smell test. Smell tests can obfuscate, so I am open to logical discussions contrary to my positions. Have any papers detailing the testing methodology, results, weather conditions (a very high throw with a strong tailwind could, conceivably fly further than a throw kept below the wind). participants' qualifications, statistical confidence level, etc. been published? I can find no links, but I don't have access to many academic sites. I am very interested in reading some. Here is a link https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/artic.../2409/2262 that discusses overhand throwing and they state clearly that overhand is a faster, more accurate throw.
I stipulate that the lob (UH) would be used when the front lines were engaged. I thought I was clear on that, so I need to focus on improving my communications.
Accuracy is important in that situation. Roman-era 'accuracy', not 21st C accuracy. Soft lobs are very accurate for nearby targets, but the more force (Higher, farther) required the more accuracy plummets. Try throwing to a 4x4 target box on the ground from about a formation's length away, say 15-20 meters, with your throws going at least 10 meters high and then start increasing height/distance. Too long is a miss, too short is an empty space in your contubernium. You'll see your accuracy dissipate markedly. Your experiment showed a drop of 10meters resulted in 1 cm penetration in an oak table (I hope your wife didn't mind). That, to me, does not sound like 'military level power'. Would it penetrate a shield, or a helmet or lorica whateveritata and cause a serious, debilitating or fatal wound? Highly unlikely, it seems to me. So, soldiers would be tempted to throw them higher for more impact (literally), with both positive and negative results. Mostly negative because the higher the dart is lobbed, the more the falling angle is sharpened, resulting in a strike angle much closer to 90 degrees than 45 degrees and therefore much easier for the back ranks to defend against.. Just put shield overhead until you near the front.
Against a cavalry attack, Centurion Brucicus is going to have his ranging weapons fire as soon as the enemy comes within range.
A modern, average horse gallops at 45-48 kph. Adjusting it down to 40Kph to account for the rider, that means that the charge is covering 11+meters/sec in the attack. Starting the charge 100 meters away puts the enemy in your midst just under 9 seconds. Using 5'7"(170cm) as the height of a legionnaire, one would need to throw at a minimum angle of about 12 degrees to clear a 5'7" obstacle 4 meters in front of him. That angle results in one meter of rise per every 3 meters of forward progress. A dart thrown 30 meters will be 10 meters high minimum. At 60 meters it will be 20 meters high, theoretically. An object weighing 180 grams, with a similar surface area will take 1.4 seconds to fall 10 meters at sea level. It will take 2 seconds to fall from 20 meters, 2,5 seconds from 30 meters. Adding in time to throw from command and flight time, a PIDOMA calculation of 2 seconds, means that the charging enemy will have covered somewhere between 30 and 60 meters from the 'throw' command (which I assume is 'tossum' in Latin). To strike an enemy in that instance requires leading the enemy so that your throw anticipates where the enemy will be when the projectiles land. A very difficult challenge which requires training. But how would the Romans train? How could they simulate this battle condition? And, noting the need for a very loose formation for throwing underhanded, how would they hope to get set in time to receive the charge?
A tight formation, utilizing their pilum-throwing routine, would be able to put the charging attackers under direct fire for as fast as they could throw. Much more effective than what the underhanded throw could achieve. Quite a bit easier to train to, as well.
I doubt that archers and slingers were shooting high angle shots into the enemy from their formation's rear. Perhaps into neighboring formations' attackers where a side angle is available tom hit an exposed flank. From what I have read, archers and slingers were directed to the high ground or to wider angles and farther distances from their formation so as to be able to shoot directly at the enemy. I read recently (Ammianus??) writing about deploying horse archers behind the infantry to shoot directly into the enemy formation.Maybe in battles like Alesia where the enemy combatants were so thickly arrayed would it make sense for archers to shoot virtually straight up to have a chance of hitting the rearward enemy ranks.
When I see test results that don't conform to real-world experience, I choose to question those results.
" But OH throws do not get you the same distance" Eppur si muove. ;-)
European 'football'? You mean that game where little guys run around in their underwear and pretend to be knocked down all the time? Nothing more exciting that a 1-1 tie.....
Thanks for the discussion! I have designed a simple, easy to make plumbata-proxy. Once the holidays are over I will do some testing. I have plenty of access to people who know how to throw. If I have to eat crow at the end of those tests, so be it. I'll be smarter for the effort. Maybe others, too.
Best regards. Have a safe holiday,
Bruce
So 'post preview' and return removes my post. What other little tricks are in store for me here? lol. Also, what am I doing wrong in replying here? I don't get any smilies or underline/bolding options. I don't think html commands work here, either. At least not in my first message or two. Any advice greatly appreciated.
Robert said: Rocks (or sticks) do not behave like a plumbata, not even javelins do. The thing with the weight is that the missile tail wants to overtake the point while in flight, and the flights prohibit that, straightening the missile out about halfway in the air. I’m no expert on ballistics, but my guess would that, especially concerning the longer distances, accuracy suffers from just that. Arrows are very much more accurate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't arguing that plumbatae are as accurate as arrows...or slings, for that matter. I don't believe they are the roman equivalent of Dragunov sniper rifles, but they are accurate enough to consistently hit a target at further-than-pilum-range, so that counts as 'accurate' for me. Who knows if the Romans thought of them that way. From the videos I've seen, the darts appear to be reacting to the initial discharge of energy into them when they oscillate (wobble) at initial launch, The fletching imparts both drag and centrifugal force, Watch slo-mos of arrows at launch - they do the same thing (oscillate), but their thinner shafts and longer lengths absorb most of the initial lateral force while the arrow begins to spin, keeping the projectile on target. The wobble is more obvious with darts because launch speeds are slower when compared to arrows and the shorter, thicker shafts do not flex like arrow shafts and thus more 'wiggle' is apparent until the fletching stabilizes the flight path along the center of mass' trajectory. At no time should the dart tumble or 'cartwheel' in flight. The attitude of the dart at launch should be identical whether thrown OH or UH if properly performed. I can think of no other should be the same at both. Not that you are claiming that UH an OH; and the weight/length ratio.
You keep mentioning 'how a plumbata behaves'. I may be missing something, but isn't that point irrelevant when discussing comparative distance throwing? Unless you are maintaining that a plumbata behaves differently when thrown UH vs. how it behaves when thrown OH. And by "behave", I mean to say the manner in which it reacts to the forces applied to it: x amount of forward momentum, y amount of lateral force. Of the videos I have watched, I have seen no evidence of that. I cannot think of any inanimate object that has that ability.
"Because a hand grenade (even a Stielhandgranate) behaves differently from a plumbata?" What property does a plumbata have that allows it to differentiate between the throwing methods?
I'll attempt to clarify my thinking, (not always a successful venture): A dart thrown overhand or underhand, with equal amounts of energy (forward, angular, lateral momentum), with equal environmental factors, and launched with the same trajectory will land in the same place. Basic physics supports my claim, I believe.
My position is that, in general, one achieves significantly more energy by throwing overhand than throwing underhand. I also maintain that dart could be thrown en masse, overhand, from formation to a distance farther than that attainable by spear/javelin.
You seem to disregard my personal experience in throwing and teaching throwing. That's OK, you don't know me.And you haven't addressed my examples of professional sports where individuals who get paid to throw long distances accurately, ALWAYS throw overhand. Without exception. Not even in cricket! Or, does that go back to the argument that a ball is different from a plumbata?
To me, having a solid, supportable, contrary perspective brought to me would make me question the validity of studies claiming otherwise. Seeing people on line throw farther OH would do that too. Those videos exist. I am aware of the claims otherwise, but they don't pass the smell test. Smell tests can obfuscate, so I am open to logical discussions contrary to my positions. Have any papers detailing the testing methodology, results, weather conditions (a very high throw with a strong tailwind could, conceivably fly further than a throw kept below the wind). participants' qualifications, statistical confidence level, etc. been published? I can find no links, but I don't have access to many academic sites. I am very interested in reading some. Here is a link https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/artic.../2409/2262 that discusses overhand throwing and they state clearly that overhand is a faster, more accurate throw.
I stipulate that the lob (UH) would be used when the front lines were engaged. I thought I was clear on that, so I need to focus on improving my communications.
Accuracy is important in that situation. Roman-era 'accuracy', not 21st C accuracy. Soft lobs are very accurate for nearby targets, but the more force (Higher, farther) required the more accuracy plummets. Try throwing to a 4x4 target box on the ground from about a formation's length away, say 15-20 meters, with your throws going at least 10 meters high and then start increasing height/distance. Too long is a miss, too short is an empty space in your contubernium. You'll see your accuracy dissipate markedly. Your experiment showed a drop of 10meters resulted in 1 cm penetration in an oak table (I hope your wife didn't mind). That, to me, does not sound like 'military level power'. Would it penetrate a shield, or a helmet or lorica whateveritata and cause a serious, debilitating or fatal wound? Highly unlikely, it seems to me. So, soldiers would be tempted to throw them higher for more impact (literally), with both positive and negative results. Mostly negative because the higher the dart is lobbed, the more the falling angle is sharpened, resulting in a strike angle much closer to 90 degrees than 45 degrees and therefore much easier for the back ranks to defend against.. Just put shield overhead until you near the front.
Against a cavalry attack, Centurion Brucicus is going to have his ranging weapons fire as soon as the enemy comes within range.
A modern, average horse gallops at 45-48 kph. Adjusting it down to 40Kph to account for the rider, that means that the charge is covering 11+meters/sec in the attack. Starting the charge 100 meters away puts the enemy in your midst just under 9 seconds. Using 5'7"(170cm) as the height of a legionnaire, one would need to throw at a minimum angle of about 12 degrees to clear a 5'7" obstacle 4 meters in front of him. That angle results in one meter of rise per every 3 meters of forward progress. A dart thrown 30 meters will be 10 meters high minimum. At 60 meters it will be 20 meters high, theoretically. An object weighing 180 grams, with a similar surface area will take 1.4 seconds to fall 10 meters at sea level. It will take 2 seconds to fall from 20 meters, 2,5 seconds from 30 meters. Adding in time to throw from command and flight time, a PIDOMA calculation of 2 seconds, means that the charging enemy will have covered somewhere between 30 and 60 meters from the 'throw' command (which I assume is 'tossum' in Latin). To strike an enemy in that instance requires leading the enemy so that your throw anticipates where the enemy will be when the projectiles land. A very difficult challenge which requires training. But how would the Romans train? How could they simulate this battle condition? And, noting the need for a very loose formation for throwing underhanded, how would they hope to get set in time to receive the charge?
A tight formation, utilizing their pilum-throwing routine, would be able to put the charging attackers under direct fire for as fast as they could throw. Much more effective than what the underhanded throw could achieve. Quite a bit easier to train to, as well.
I doubt that archers and slingers were shooting high angle shots into the enemy from their formation's rear. Perhaps into neighboring formations' attackers where a side angle is available tom hit an exposed flank. From what I have read, archers and slingers were directed to the high ground or to wider angles and farther distances from their formation so as to be able to shoot directly at the enemy. I read recently (Ammianus??) writing about deploying horse archers behind the infantry to shoot directly into the enemy formation.Maybe in battles like Alesia where the enemy combatants were so thickly arrayed would it make sense for archers to shoot virtually straight up to have a chance of hitting the rearward enemy ranks.
When I see test results that don't conform to real-world experience, I choose to question those results.
" But OH throws do not get you the same distance" Eppur si muove. ;-)
European 'football'? You mean that game where little guys run around in their underwear and pretend to be knocked down all the time? Nothing more exciting that a 1-1 tie.....
Thanks for the discussion! I have designed a simple, easy to make plumbata-proxy. Once the holidays are over I will do some testing. I have plenty of access to people who know how to throw. If I have to eat crow at the end of those tests, so be it. I'll be smarter for the effort. Maybe others, too.
Best regards. Have a safe holiday,
Bruce
