08-10-2009, 05:01 AM
Inswingers and (perceived) sliders. Upon re-reading the entire argument again, I fear my previous post must have missed he mark.
With an inswinging design, it is entirely possible that the artist or sculpter assumed, as it is entirely possible that the one viewing the art, is in error that the portruding segment is indeed a slider.
Remember that as the returning troops and the cart mounted artillery would not have made the return trip home nor likely travelled through the streets with the arms and bundles under tension...
More likely the bundle tension was released while still remaining (almost) battle ready.In such a case the forward looking arms would not be looking forward at all but tucked into a travelling position but still inserted between bundles.
With inswingers the rail or portion the dart would travel would be fixed in place and extend forward of the wide spaced frame. In the case of the narrow frame, it would have to be an outswinger, while still the portruding mass might be assumed to be a slider when in reality it mightg not have been.
An an example I present the following link, and that ask upon first impression that the portruding section of these crossbows might be mistaken as a slider, when obviously they are not: http://www.thecrossbowmansden.com/World_Crossbows.html
Accounts of incredible accuracy of these powerful machines have been cited again and again, but one has to wonder how they were actually ranged and aimed properly. Surely they employed some other way than merely guesstimating by peering through the circular portion of the top brace which equates to an "open" sight without the benefit of range pins or end sight such as on a rifle.
I find it higly unlikely that accounts of picking off archers behind or on top of castle or fortress embattlements was possbible with just pointing the machine and hoping for the best. However to be complete, I must say that I have not given much thought to the matter until pondering the questions or dilemma described in the original post while re-reading a few minutes ago...
With an inswinging design, it is entirely possible that the artist or sculpter assumed, as it is entirely possible that the one viewing the art, is in error that the portruding segment is indeed a slider.
Remember that as the returning troops and the cart mounted artillery would not have made the return trip home nor likely travelled through the streets with the arms and bundles under tension...
More likely the bundle tension was released while still remaining (almost) battle ready.In such a case the forward looking arms would not be looking forward at all but tucked into a travelling position but still inserted between bundles.
With inswingers the rail or portion the dart would travel would be fixed in place and extend forward of the wide spaced frame. In the case of the narrow frame, it would have to be an outswinger, while still the portruding mass might be assumed to be a slider when in reality it mightg not have been.
An an example I present the following link, and that ask upon first impression that the portruding section of these crossbows might be mistaken as a slider, when obviously they are not: http://www.thecrossbowmansden.com/World_Crossbows.html
Accounts of incredible accuracy of these powerful machines have been cited again and again, but one has to wonder how they were actually ranged and aimed properly. Surely they employed some other way than merely guesstimating by peering through the circular portion of the top brace which equates to an "open" sight without the benefit of range pins or end sight such as on a rifle.
I find it higly unlikely that accounts of picking off archers behind or on top of castle or fortress embattlements was possbible with just pointing the machine and hoping for the best. However to be complete, I must say that I have not given much thought to the matter until pondering the questions or dilemma described in the original post while re-reading a few minutes ago...
Torsion rules! - Joel from Ham. Ont. Ca.
