07-13-2007, 06:19 PM
Hmm, I am still puzzled about the working (the mechanics) of an in-swinger and its benefits to the more well known out-swinger.
Anyway, I would tend to favour lobbing a projectile with abundant mass, such as a round rock, and a flatter trajectory for something aimed at piercing, such as a bolt. It does make me wonder why the onager was not used for lobbing and the bolt-firing ballista used for flatter trajectory fire. These would in my view make the best use of the different charcteristics of either weapon. Of course, loading the ballista with rock would enable it to lob mass as well. These weapons both have a low firing cycle, as opposed to a volley of arrows, which I would consider the best way of dealing with massed infantry. In the middleages, the pierade and such was used for lobbing rock, the bow for volleyfire and the crossbow for piercing. Both systems were used side by side. Oh well, I'm a marksman, not a tankgunner, so artillery is probably out of my realm
.
Anyway, I would tend to favour lobbing a projectile with abundant mass, such as a round rock, and a flatter trajectory for something aimed at piercing, such as a bolt. It does make me wonder why the onager was not used for lobbing and the bolt-firing ballista used for flatter trajectory fire. These would in my view make the best use of the different charcteristics of either weapon. Of course, loading the ballista with rock would enable it to lob mass as well. These weapons both have a low firing cycle, as opposed to a volley of arrows, which I would consider the best way of dealing with massed infantry. In the middleages, the pierade and such was used for lobbing rock, the bow for volleyfire and the crossbow for piercing. Both systems were used side by side. Oh well, I'm a marksman, not a tankgunner, so artillery is probably out of my realm
.
