Oh, there’s a lot of ways to beat Nazis without bullets to the head. Bullets to major organs and vessels will do it. Fire is pretty effective, more so if you use thermite (I fucking love thermite). Carbon monoxide, compressed nitrogen, chlorine gas.
Rapid percussive force. Blood loss in general. A baseball bat. Hell the katana you’ve been saving for situations like this. Bows. Not crossbows, interestingly.
Yeah. Nazis are just squishy monsters with a crunchy interior.
An expert bowman could outmatch a group of 12 crossbowmen.
But if you had a group of 50+ men to arm with bows or crossbows (hundereds and thousands weren’t uncommon historically), a crossbow was more effective because there’s no way in hell you’d get, say, 10.000 expert bowmen. If you were to arm such a legion with bows, you’d most likely suffer more damage from friendly fire than from enemy fire.
Oh, there’s a lot of ways to beat Nazis without bullets to the head. Bullets to major organs and vessels will do it. Fire is pretty effective, more so if you use thermite (I fucking love thermite). Carbon monoxide, compressed nitrogen, chlorine gas.
Rapid percussive force. Blood loss in general. A baseball bat. Hell the katana you’ve been saving for situations like this. Bows. Not crossbows, interestingly.
Yeah. Nazis are just squishy monsters with a crunchy interior.
Hmm, sounds like a solvable problem, why not crossbows?
Crossbows are clunky and slow operate.
Their plus is that untrained people can use them.
An expert bowman could outmatch a group of 12 crossbowmen.
But if you had a group of 50+ men to arm with bows or crossbows (hundereds and thousands weren’t uncommon historically), a crossbow was more effective because there’s no way in hell you’d get, say, 10.000 expert bowmen. If you were to arm such a legion with bows, you’d most likely suffer more damage from friendly fire than from enemy fire.
I have to dig that back up. I think it ended up being that the size of a crossbow capable of bear hunting vs a compound bow was significant.