LR - Ballista webpage

[Adam Harrison]

> Historically speaking, about half of the ballistae
> I've found info on were
> aimed in a similar way. They were more more like
> more cannons, used not as
> anti-personnel weapons but as wall bashers. Repeated
> shots at the same spot on
> the fort wall weakened and eventually breached the
> wall. Such devices were not
> only windage bound, but lashed down once the
> elevation was found. Such devices
> were typically huge, shooting bolts that were more
> akin to landscape timbers.

Yes, and those ballistas were VERY_LARGE.  For the
scale we're using the U-joint is the best option, and
is also historically correct.  And the U-joint is
aimed in the same way, just alot simpler to build.

Also, those ballistas shot bolts as large as telephone
poles... the smaller ones were capable of shooting
landscape timbers...


> 
> The more personal sized weapons were indeed mounted
> on a free-wheeling pivot
> consisting of little more than a pin that protruded
> into a conical hole. They
> were, essentially, very large crossbows and were
> used where a crossbow might
> otherwise have been used.
> 
> For our purposes, we definitely want a free pivoting
> mount!

Exactly.  Except even some of the smaller tortion
powered ones had the U-joint(which is alot sturdier
than what you described).



> 
> > > The is the webpage I mentioned in my last email.
>  The design is simple and
> > > it works from an SCA standpoint.  It uses a
> bungee cord for the
> > "bowstring" and is not tortion powered.  The
> author claims to be able to
> > build this
> > > thing for less than $100.
> 
> Let me be the first to say that I am not
> particularly enamored with the concept
> of making a surgical tubing/bungee cord powered bow,
> but from an SCA combat
> perspective, they are easy to pass inspection,
> effective, lightweight and
> inexpensive.
> 
> Would I rather make a rope-sprung ballista? 
> Certainly!!!  For SCA combat
> purposes, is it an absolute requirement? No.

Exactly what I am saying.


> 
> By the way, a good compromise for a combat legal
> ballista is to make one out of
> a bow mounted in a frame. It lets us stay away from
> modern elastics without the
> complexities of making torsion springs.


Yes but the crew may have trouble cocking the ballista
for extended periods of time with a high poundage bow.
 We may have to rig a winch system...

Also, said design just doesn't look "good" in my
humble opinion.

> 
> > > I want to build a true tortion design, but that
> may be outside our
> > > capability.
> 
> Well, not outside our capability, but it is not a
> light undertaking. One
> advantage we have over the large ballista presented
> on the previously posted
> website is that we don't need anything even
> approaching that kind of power.
> Lower power = less stressed design = more likely to
> happen without blowing up
> in someone's face! :)

Right, my original idea was to copy the large
ballista, but on a somewhat smaller scale, like 3/4 of
its size or so.

Oh yeah, we're saying large here, but in actuality it
was designed off the dimensions for one of the
smallest documented classes of ballista.


> 
> I must admit, I'm getting more and more psyched :)

Same here...

-Bjorn

> 
> Sluggy!
> 
> 
>
============================================================================
> Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to
> perform mailing list tasks.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.