If you used siege weapons (catapults, ballista, ect) against a modern infantry and armored vehicles, how much damage would they do?
Wasn’t siege weapons only effective due to them having longer ranges than what most of the infantry could muster at the time? I imagine a modern infantry can spray the weapon and it’s operators with bullets and small arms from much greater range, and the vehicles would just move out of the way.
Not much if any… as soon as someone spotted them, if they didn’t light the siege engines up with machine gun fire or a weapon on an AFV, they’d call in artillery or airstrikes.
At ranges of under 500 m I’m not exactly sure they even see the troops killing them.
Let’s assume that the modern army is unarmed, and the vehicles can’t move.
I wouldn’t expect infantry who actually strayed into range and got hit to be any more resistant to siege weapon fire than any common ancient solder. On the other hand, I’d expect such weaponry to bounce right off an armored vehicle; they are designed to resist much stronger weapons.
I think if we assume that the “modern army” is unarmed, we have stopped imagining them as either modern or an army.
If the vehicles can’t move and the siege weapons are, say, trebuchets out of line of sight, they might actually be able to eventually destroy the modern vehicle just by lobbing burning material on top of them. I understand they were fairly accurate and had a good rate of fire.
He’s asking about durability I believe.
That’s quite an “army”.
Siege weapons didn’t even have much of an effect on ancient armies. They were for battering down fortifications, not killing soldiers in the field.
Yes, you’re right. It was a badly-worded OP. :smack: I’m more interested in the durability of modern armor vs ancient weapons. Perhaps I should just scratch this thread and start over. :o
In Civ V, a guy with a stick can take out a Stealth Bomber given enough time. What this has to do with the OP is anyone’s guess.
If they scored a direct hit on an infantryman they’d most likely inflict a casualty, if only due to the massive concentration of force on one part of the body. I’m doubtful that modern body armor would prevent a death because it’s not made to avoid those types of injuries, but at least it would most likely take them out of the battle.
But like others have said, they weren’t even useful in pre-gunpowder field battles, let alone modern battles. Rather than light them up or prioritize them as targets, if my enemy were to field these against me as a commander, I’d ignore them unless they were shooting at me or needed to take that ground anyway, as even if they were to shoot at you they’d most likely miss anyway, and are too big to shoot and scoot and so could be destroyed after revealing their position.
That’s not completely true. Some at least were precise enough that you wouldn’t want to just stand in one spot and assume they’d miss. And they did have such weapons designed for field use, like the scorpio.
W/r/t vehicles, I don’t think any long-range weapons up until WW1-era cannon would have any reasonable chance of doing any damage to a modern armored vehicle. And even then an early breech-loading explosive shell would have to get pretty lucky to even do minor damage. I’m not sure what chance the heavier WW1 artillery pieces would stand against modern armor if they scored a direct hit but thankfully that’s outside the scope of the OP 
If you drop a big enough rock vertically onto the barrel of an M1 Abrams, it will take out the main gun. So you can’t really say it wouldn’t do any damage.
Agreed, if by “armored vehicle” you mean “tank”, but I expect that a direct hit from a very large trebuchet (some of which could throw stones of over a ton) could take out an APC or the like.
I love how much we can agree on things outside of politics and religion. 
True armor, tracked vehicles with modern armor plating, can hold a massive amount of weight without the shell deforming.
Other military vehicles which are closer in nature to civilian vehicles (think Humvees, even some APCs) would probably suffer enough damage from a large, heavy rock falling on them that they would no longer be able to move or operate.
This would require newer (post 1000 AD or so) siege weaponry though. There are some trebuchets used during the Middle Ages that could launch 1,500 kg projectiles. Earlier trebuchets (that did not use a counterweight) usually were only launching stuff in the 100-150 kg range and that probably would not disable any modern military vehicle.
Given the unarmed and unmoving part of the hypothetical, Mr “guy with stick” is going to be able to take out the real world Stealth Bomber too and probably even the tank given enough time. He might be all tuckered out by the time he’s finished though 