re firing squads, yes, you can definitely tell if you’ve just fired a blank or a live round.
The idea is that each man can go back to barracks and claim (untruthfully), “Well, I wasn’t responsible for shooting Danny Deever. My gun had the blank.” It allows each member of the squad “plausible deniability.” This is for when they have to execute someone that the whole unit rather liked. It isn’t particularly necessary if they’re shooting Nasty Cowardly Stinkard the Third.
And is it even true?
My 5th grade teacher taught us that the reason the Panama canal had locks was so the Caribbean and the Pacific wouldn’t flow one into the other and create havoc and mayhem.
Later I found out the French had tried to dig a sea-level canal and given up. The locks allowed the U.S. to dig a lot less than would have been necessary to dig a sea-level canal.
Nasty Cowardly Stinkard the Third? You mean Nasty Cowardly Stinkard Jr. had a kid?
Your insistence for a cite is already for your own satisfaction, and not to firm up my stand. I think it already suffices to show verified records of crossbows reaching 1.8 kilometers, whereas the official record for an offhand-shot bow arrow is only 500 meters (though there were unverified claims of up to 800 meters.)
Regarding the points made surrounding ballistics, they hardly matter if you do an all-things-equal comparison. A crossbow can shoot the selfsame arrow as a long bow’s and have the same draw length.
Aren’t you supposed to hang Danny Deever?
The record you cited was for a “footbow”, which, while it is held crossways, isn’t really a “crossbow” of the medieval-weapon sort. My understanding is that, unlike a “crossbow”, it doesn’t use a mechanical draw and locking mechanism - it is more like a regular bow drawn using the legs rather than the arms.
In fact, in fiction (Conan Doyle’s White Company) there is a distance contest between a crossbowman and archers, in which one of the archers “wins” by using a foot-bow technique (the crossbowman objects on the principle that, to win, he “turned himself into a crossbow”!)
Now I have no doubt that one could make some sort of crossbow that would shoot further than a regular bow, as there is no limit in theory to how large or powerful such things could be (in ancient and medieval times, there were large siege-weapons that worked on the crossbow principle and fired big spears).
But purely for the sake of apples-to-apples comparison, which had the longer range - the typical war-crossbow, or the typical war-longbow, during the era they were used as weapons? I have no real idea. The one battle I know of where they went head-to-head (Poitiers) the bows outranged the crossbows, but conditions were not equal - there had been rain which soaked the crossbow strings.
They can but the question is: did they ?
I’ll readily admit I’m a very amateur scholar in the field, but I can’t say I’ve ever run across anything suggesting that even late ME/early Renaissance crossbow regiments & mercenaries would practice anything close to that kind of manoeuvre. They’d shoot when the Man said “Loose !”, reload when the Man raised the flag that said “reload, you motherless cunts”, and between those two events would hide behind their (or at best their buddy’s) shield/siege board. That’s about it for teamwork and esprit de corps AFAIK in the grand majority of cases.
Very different from musket drills and the fledgling professional regiments, which were trained as a unit instead of a large mass of individuals.
I think they are talking about stirrup crossbows.
Ballista?
The typical range for longbows was 250-350 yards although ranges of up to 500 yards were attainable.
The typical crossbow used on the battle field consitently achieved ranges of 350 yards. So crossbows generally had better range than longbows.
Longbow arrows weighed twice as much as metal crossbow bolts and were several times longer. This made them more stable and MUCH more accurate at longer ranges, crossbowmen could forget about trying to hit anything by arcing their shots, their bolt could end up just about anywhere but it would end up further away than an arrow.
The draw weight on longbows was about 60 pounds and the draw weight on crossbows were at least 140 pounds. This gave crossbow bolts much more force and penetrating power (longbows generally couldn’t penetrate plate armor, while crossbows could, on the other hand, most people don’t wear plate armor).
Longbows had MUCH MUCH better fire rates than crossbows.
Crossbows were at least as expensive as longbows but longbowmen were harder to come by than somebody who could pull a trigger (it took years to train with the longbow, it took about a week to train with a crossbow). So while longbows were more accurate than crossbows at longer ranges, it took MUCH more time to achieve that accuracy with a longbow and accuracy at short ranges to medium ranges weere much more easily achieved with a crossbow because of their higher muzzle speed..
When all is said and done, I would take one crossbow and one bolt over one bow and one arrow. But in the time it would take me to reload and shoot that second crossbowbolt, I could fire half a dozen well aimed arrows (a full dozen if I was an elf).
The range cited was for a “footbow”.
Terminology varies … that’s the term the Romans used for a siege weapon that could throw spears or rocks, but yes.
Sounds reasonable, but where are you getting the figures?
According to Wikipedia (I know, not the best source), the modern longbow has a draw weight of 60 pounds, but actual Warbows from the time (the best preserved were from the sunken warship the Mary Rose) had a much higher drawweight:
The fact is that English professional archers were trained from a young age to be freakishly strong in their specialized way - so as to pull a bow with drawweights much higher than any normal person could pull these days. If it is true that crossbows had draw weights of 140 pounds, the English Warbows appear to have been about the same if not stronger.
Can’t find a cite, but I read something that claimed the entry requirement to get into the longbow units was “12 arrows out of 12 into a man-sized target at 300 yards.” No misses at 300 yards sounds pretty impressive as a minimum standard.
I guess I don’t see what you’re getting at. The ballistics comparisons were because I thought you were talking theoretical capability, in which ballistics seem important.
In actual practice, of course, crossbowmen were routinely slaughtered by longbowmen in almost every encounter. I assumed you weren’t trying to revise history, so I thought you were talking hypothetically.
Here’s a maybe more “professional” cite, which also gives an average 40-65 pounds for modern compound bows intended for men of average physical size & shape. Note that these are numbers given for actual hunting weapons meant to kill stuff with, not sleek paper target shredders.
nod.
Dudes must have looked like regular Frankensteins.
Hydrogenation can produce trans fats, but does not have to. For instance, canola oil margarine contains no trans fats. It does produce saturated fats, but even then the fat does not have to be fully saturated to produce margarine.
But it’s also important to note that in glaciers you’re talking about immense pressures, and under immense enough pressures, the hardest of solids can flow. Ice under regular conditions does not flow, and I suspect that glass does not either. It’s absolutely true that the phase of matter can become kind of a semantic point for some substances, but the “proof” that glass flows is entirely theoretical at this point.
Errr… no they weren’t ?
Or rather, if and when they were, it was overwhelmingly due to strategic acumen on the part of the English, debilitating overconfidence and quite remarkable stupidity on the part of the French, and simply different approaches to warfare (with the English pioneering the concept of winning through sheer firepower alone while to the French, missile troops were support at best, harassment and siege fodder at worst) rather than “longbows are just bettah”.
Besides, I’ll have you know that we French did not need any particular help from our opponents to get ourselves butchered around that time - we managed just fine at the Battle of Golden Spurs, against fat Flemish burghers who had nary a hint of missiles or cavalry 
As for French/English engagements where longbows got the massive upper hand, you’ve got :
But that’s two battles in a war that I’m told lasted somewhat on the longish side. There’s also the Battle of Caen, a surprise longbow attack through some woods that caught the French at camp. Whatareyagonnado ? In that kind of setting, I’m told a thousand men led by a frickin’ leper can rout armies 10 to 20 times larger 
… and that’s about it for large scale, one sided massacres, really. You know their names because they’re actually quite outstanding.
But in other battles that turned into straight up, “fair” missile duels and the French didn’t step on their own dicks with quite so much gusto… not so routine. Period chronicler Jean Froissart writes of the Battle of Blanche-Taque (which involved archers on either sides of a river, occasionally taking a break from lobbing death at each other to shoot at the poor bastards duking it out in the water if it looked like they were making too much headway one way or the other):
And on the flip-side, at Pontvallain; again at Chizé; and once more at Cocherel the longbowmen contingent failed to have any noticeable effect on the battle (even though at Cocherel they had the most perfect defensive setup a shooting man could hope for). But naturally, these results in turn have more to do with the fact that Du Guesclin was a tactical whiz kid rather than longbows suddenly turning terrible overnight.
On the whole, the two weapon systems seem like they were on par, without either “routinely” trouncing the other or presenting a clear and overwhelming mechanical advantage. What set them apart was how the respective commanders put them to use.