[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.31242623 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Was leather armour strong enough to stop crossbow arrows in real life?
Apparently so.
Guess it really does deserve that +2 to AC

>> No.31242664

Fuck, is that Tommy Wisaeu? It can't be. Nobody would give Tommy Wisaeu a crossbow.

>> No.31242707

it sure looks like him...

>> No.31242717


It's definitely not. Too bulky, younger, less craggy. No crazy eye.

>> No.31242720


Is it just me or would Tommy Wiseau make for a really unsettling BBEG?

>> No.31242740

Well according to the book that one of the guys who starred in the room wrote, Tommy might just be a vampire.

>> No.31242753

What would he be?
a wizard?
a vampire?
...hm, no I'm feeling...duke! He'd totally be a duke.

>> No.31242762

He's also got a motivation already.

>It's not over! Everybody betray me, I'm fed up with this world!

>> No.31242768

ah, so this episode was filmed after he recently fed!
That explains >>31242717

>> No.31242779

Why not a vampire duke? He looks the part, for sure.

>> No.31242784

>troll thread
>becomes Tommy Wiseau the vampire duke in 6 posts

God damnit /tg...you magnificent bastard.

Never change.

>> No.31242795

Why not a vampiric wizard-duke?

>> No.31242873

why not?
We can do anything here.
As long as we use our...IMAGINATION!

>> No.31242902

Why DIDN'T the windlass punch straight through that leather shit?
This is a thing made to go through PLATE and a little piece of dead cow skin stops it?
I call bullshit.

>> No.31243004

I imagine really shitty brittle plate out against extremely high quality leather for the purpose of high ratings.
Bottle enough metal with be to frail to not fracture and too stiff to slow the bolt, all the energy woul be delivered at once and if the metal was poor enough it'd break. But really really high quality leather padded properly and with enough layers will be tough enough to not puncture and soft enough to slow the arrow over an inch or more of material delivering the energy bit by bit.

Plate and leather of the same quality would see the platemail winning, assuredly.

>> No.31243038

Could be a low draw windlass.
I mean, real ones were somewhere between 900 and 1250 lb draw weights.

>> No.31243058

if it was that low draw he should have been able to reload it with his bare hands.

Mind you, I do not doubt the possibility that it was a wallhanger

>> No.31243268

The repeating crossbow went through maille.
explain that shit.

>> No.31243340

He'd be Doomguy.


>> No.31243354

Levers are amazing things, anon. Leverage is a big deal in mechanics.

>> No.31243380

I guess that's why some archer cavalry run into you and then fired at your fucking face.

Also, why people think crossbows had more strength than longbows? it's actually the oposite, the good thing about crossbows isn't penetration, but that they were easy as fuck to use, almost no training at all.

>> No.31243412

The Deadliest Warrior is a joke of a show, there's no internal consistency, no attempts at historical accuracy; it's just a bunch of armchair historians throwing together implausible scenarios so they can draw in the lowest common denominator with the half-assed fight scene at the end.

>> No.31243452

>Knight vs Samurai
>Knight goes to fight without armor or shield, just tabard and bastard sword
>Samurai goes dual-wielding katanas
First and only episode I saw in youtube.

Fuck you, Dave for telling me that show was good and accurate, fuuuuuuck youuuuu.

>> No.31243470

Except that they did have more strength than longbows. By far. The highest draw weight found on a longbow is around 200, and that's for Welsh and English bowmen with decades of practice (And you can tell who did because their spines are distorted from the constant effort of pulling 200 pounds straight back)
The weakest combat crossbow has a draw weight of around 250 pounds. Most had somewhere in the 350 range. Windlass operated bows had up to 1300 (Yes, thirteen hundred) pounds.

>> No.31243482

>>Samurai goes dual-wielding katanas
>he doesn't know about nito

>> No.31243512

>Nitoryu was the norm
No, it wasn't.
Or if you go knight vs samurai you give the knigh a bardiche? or a warscythe?

>> No.31243518

>>Or if you go knight vs samurai you give the knigh a bardiche?
If he's a slav, sure

>> No.31243519

The end fights aren't an accurate reflection of their simulations, just a little action movie interlude.

They actually do run math based on more typical scenarios, although all they really measure is weapon efficiency vs. period armor, and they don't fact check well.

>> No.31243554

Better nitoryu that full Sephirot with nodachi.

>> No.31243568

>Niten Ichi Ryu

>> No.31243593

Do you even train your wrists? Musashi-sama would be disappointed in you

>> No.31243623

jacking it all day erry day

>> No.31243662

Ok, I'll drop the jitte but please, don't tell Mushashi-sama.

>> No.31243695


Competition archer here. A pound of crossbow draw does not equal a pound of longbow draw. Even a modern, precision engineered crossbow loses significant force due to it's inherent shape. A medieval design would probably only manage a two to 1 ratio of draw weight to power ratio compared with a longbow

>Windlass operated bows had up to 1300

True. That wins in the power stakes. However, it would be woefully inaccurate due to inconsistent acceleration warping the bolt.

Also, longbows were preferred because you can loose a mass volley from behind your own troops with reasonable accuracy. Can't do that with a crossbow.

>> No.31243726

>longbows were preferred because you can loose a mass volley from behind your own troops with reasonable accuracy. Can't do that with a crossbow.

>> No.31243738

but you can snipe with a crossbow.
And kill an armoured knight, something a longbow only does if it ganks his horse from under him. Or if he is so close that you only get one shot before he sodomizes you with his mace

>> No.31243760

More arc in archery.

>> No.31243774

someone post that helmet that was found with 5 crossbow bolts in it

>> No.31243800

Well, there's also the issue of endurance. Even those monster 1300 pound windlass bows are a lot easier to reload and fire than a longbow, simply because there's less physical effort involved in the draw. A longbowman will get tired a lot faster than a crossbowman. And the firing difference isn't actually that extreme. With practice, you can easily get three full powered shots per minute with those windlass crossbows. Archers can go faster, but they will tire themselves out faster if they do.

>> No.31243819

>the firing rate difference isn't that extreme

>> No.31243821

>More arc in archery.
That's not a very enlightening answer.

>> No.31243827


You can't just straight up compare the draw weights though.

Crossbows have far shorter arms (I'm sure there's a technical term for them but I can't remember) and draw length, so they require higher draw weights to store an equivalent amount of energy.

That said, crossbows can store energy mechanically by using winches and shit, so they probably do have the potential to be more powerful than a longbow.

>> No.31243832


Crossbow bolts kind of fall out of the air instead of arcing down point first

Also, much higher rate of fire and range for a longbowman


Have to give you that, crossbows are decent from point blank range, assuming it's loaded.

>> No.31243836

Deadliest Warrior often uses SCA grade butted mail instead of the historical riveted mail. Its far less resistant to penetration since the rings can be forced apart much easier.

>> No.31243837

So you also have to factor in how many men you have, how often you will use archery barrages etc.

>> No.31243841

You realize war crossbows were able to pierce steel plate. Pic related. The arrow shot through one bucks flank will stick out of the other side. The toughest part.

The crossbow in OP's pic barely beats a recurve of the same era.

>> No.31243863

I believe one of their 'experts' was caught out for pretending to be an ex green beret.

>> No.31243870


Bolts are shorter than arrows basically so they just tend to drop out of the sky than arc down.

>> No.31243881

>much higher rate of fire and range for a longbowman
They do have a higher rate of fire, but if they shoot as fast as possible, they will tire themselves out very quickly. They had to pace themselves to a rate that's fairly similar to arbalists.
Definitely do have a range advantage though, thanks to their arcing ability.

>> No.31243914

So what's the math on calculating the amount of energy in an arrow vs in a crossbow bolt after firing one? If we had the equations we could learn the truth.

>> No.31243932

Longbows also have the situational advantage that you can more easily unstring them and keep the string under your helmet if its raining so the string is dry when the battle starts.

>> No.31243948




F=ma, asshole.

>> No.31243951

The problem is that combat crossbows can range from 160 to 1300 pound draws (Based on size and era), while most combat bows are consistently in the 120-160 pound range, with some extremes around 200.
But just the fact that bows fell out of favor because they couldn't keep up with armor advances, while crossbows just kept getting more and more powerful (And larger and larger) to compensate says all that needs to be said about that.

>> No.31243963


True dat. I have a 150lb bow and can loose about 10 a minute for maybe 3 minutes. After that I'm done

>> No.31244037

You integrate the draw weight over the draw length. For a rough estimate take half the draw weight at maximum draw and multiply that with the draw distance.

Ideally though you get a chronograph and measure instead of calculating.

>> No.31244040


Two things in play. The bend in the bow is a lot greater for a crossbow so it loses most of its power at the start of the release. This causes a lot of energy loss and warps the bolt, bringing it off target.

Then the second issue comes into play. To survive the violent acceleration the bolt has to be stronger in the shaft. Generally you want it to be head heavy so it is accurate and arcs properly. This causes the bolt to lose a lot more energy in air due to poor aerodynamics or whatever.

In short, crossbows maul at short range, crap at long range.

Longbows good at all ranges, not as powerful at short range

>> No.31244071

A side effect of bow operation is that longbowmen are STRONK. They have to be to draw their bows. So while they might not be very well equipped for melee (Light armor, a short sword or similar weapon, and *maybe* a small shield), they certainly are strong enough to bash some fuckers heads in.

>> No.31244092

If you go to youtube, you'll find tonnes of videos of people bow hunting deer. General consensus is that the arrow should pass all the way through the animal.

>> No.31244133


shit, 60-70 lbs will get through a deer. You only need more than 70 if you're hunting moose or something

>> No.31244149

>Crossbow bolts kind of fall out of the air instead of arcing down point first
Seriously? I find that very difficult to believe. If they're not aerodynamically stable enough to point in the direction they're travelling, they're not aerodynamically stable enough to be accurate in relatively level shots.

Anyway, that's a bullshit reason. You could easily make crossbow bolts so they'd arc down, if you wanted to use crossbows like this.

>> No.31244184

With modern materials, sure.
But historically, they just had wood. And to make the bolt survive the shot intact AND stay relatively on target, they had to be short and stubby.

>> No.31244204

Answered that already. The bolts need to have strong shafts so they don't shatter on firing. This shifts the weight further back and makes it less stable. Yes you could make the head heavier to compensate but remember that metal wasn't cheap or magically light back then.

>> No.31244229


Part of why crossbows can penetrate steel is because the steel is too rigid to absorb the impact of the bolt.


Vaguely related and interesting to watch, just skip through most of the talking.

>> No.31244272

How long you have to train them.

Which is why the arquebus was superior to crossbows AND longbows basically from the outset. There is actually a great book written DURING THE PERIOD by a mercenary captain basically trashing longbow wank AT THE TIME and pointing out arqeubuses are better in every way.

>> No.31244372


early arquebus had fuck all range or rate of fire. What made it great was that it scared people shitless and any potato could fire one.

>> No.31244402

>early arquebus had fuck all range or rate of fire.

This is not true.

>What made it great was that it scared people shitless and any potato could fire one.

The latter more than the former.

>> No.31244429

fun fact:
Before the arquebus you had the handgonne. It was nothing much to celebrate, really. Poor accuracy, didnt punch through plate better than a crossbow...it did make noise and smoke though, that was at least fun.
But there's the kicker, a craftsman could make 1 crossbow in a week but 16 handgonnes in the same time.
The initial decision to stick with powder handweapons was due to economics!

>> No.31244442


The text I was talking about, by the way.

>> No.31244485


>There is actually a great book written DURING THE PERIOD by a mercenary captain basically trashing longbow wank AT THE TIME and pointing out arqeubuses are better in every way.

Well, yeah, 4chan isn't really new.

>> No.31244494

This. Armies have routed and battalions annihilated because of a rain ruining crossbows' string.
is a good example.

Crossbow is like a modern gun. It made everybody a hero since it requires less training, skill and physical fitness than using a sword or longbow.

If Samuel Colt lived in 14th century and manufactured crossbows, the quote "God made man, But Samuel Colt made them equal" would apply to crossbows.

>> No.31244508

Except Crecy was less to do with longbows OR crossbows and more to do with the rain making the field muddy as hell.

>> No.31244519


>This is not true.

Arquebus has a 30 meter effective range. Longbow has up to 400 meter effective range (from a hill). Can penetrate chainmail and some plate at 100 meters.

Arquebus also has a laughable rate of fire. Basically one shot and then whoever is charging you is there. No indirect fire either.

Arquebus is worse in almost every metric except for ease of use, penetration at very close range and effect on morale.

>> No.31244548

>pompeii graffiti
That image is way less interesting than the real graffiti

>> No.31244550


The first thing I did when I saw this thread was go look for that link.

>> No.31244569

And ease of manufacture.
A bow is not just a stick with a piece of string tying the ends together. It takes quite a long time and a great deal of skill to make a functional combat bow.
It takes a tube and some wood to make an arquebus.

>> No.31244574

>I believe one of their 'experts' was caught out for pretending to be an ex green beret.
How could anyone have believed that, thereĀ“s no such thing as an "ex-"green beret.

>> No.31244591


>hitting anything at 400 meters with accuracy or power

The effective range of the arquebus and the bow was about the same with aimed fire - about 100 meters. The arquebus was more likely to kill or severly injure you with the armor of the day than the longbow, however.

You should check out the link that >>31244442
posted. It's pretty cool stuff.

>> No.31244645


Now that you you mention it we did deplete the entirety of europe's supplies of yew wood too...

Okay ease of manufacture too. Although I'll counter that with much worse in the rain and much harder to make ammunition. (originally it was fulminated mercury and that isn't just lying around). Arrows are much easier to make.

>> No.31244673


Making arrows is a skilled craft. Making cartridges can be done by a couple of guys with whatever spare lead/pewter you have laying around, some molds, and a supply of powder.

>> No.31244678




>> No.31244702

Aerospace engineer and former archery instructor here.

Impulse is the answer to all of your questions! Center of pressure vs center of mass is the specific answer to the bolt vs arrow question.

To sum it up, the long bows exert force for a longer time over a longer distance at a lower force making the longbow powerful as fuck over every distance but point blank. It takes ten or so yards for a arrow to start slowing down instead of speeding up. Bolts start bleeding speed as soon as they leave the crossbow. (Bad wobble plus high energy in a very short time.)

Aerodynamics immediately screw a bolt once it leaves the crossbow. An arrow in slow mow is very stable compared to the bolt, and it has more mass making it more resistant to air slowing it down.

Compound bows are preferred in the modern era because they combine the best of both. Easy draw and a long duration application of force on a long stable arrow.

>> No.31244704

Oh man, remember the Kilji sword (or whatever it was) from that episode?
SHit was so cash. Cutting like it aint no thang.

>> No.31244720


You forgot the fulminated mercury. Which was his point.

>> No.31244726

Norseman is a good guy, yeah.

>> No.31244735

>penetrating plate at ranges greater than 30m

are you actually retarded


>> No.31244755


Unless you're making caps for a cap-fired firearm, which an arquebus isn't, why would you need fulminated mercury?

>> No.31244764


He said "chainmail, and some plate" at 100m. I take that to mean it penetrates chainmail at 100m, and LOUSY plate, too.
Which doesn't sound unreasonable.

>> No.31244795

In the example I provided Loades tests a non hardened plate equiovalent to what would be "Lousy plate", and even at distances of in excess of 30m the longbow fails to penetrate

>> No.31244811


I Read it. The issue I have with it is that the author in his theoretical situation uses archers as he would arquebusers. He marches them up in a line and everyone fires until one side breaks. No competant general would ever do that, of course they would lose. The archers would just retreat while firing. The arquebusers must stop to reload so they'd be full of arrows before they had done any damage.

Also, he uses examples of really bad archers. Again though, it comes back to the question of skill. Shit archers are shit. Good archers are dangerous.

>hitting anything at 400 meters with accuracy or power

Well, It's not going to go through anything solid at that range but most of the peasant levies didn't have any Armour.

>he effective range of the arquebus and the bow was about the same with aimed fire - about 100 meters.

100 meters with an arquebus? fuck off. English civil war muskets didn't have 10 meters of range.

>> No.31244841


making powder can't be done easily. Although it takes a decent fletcher, materials are easy to find and they can travel with your army.

>> No.31244875

>and effect on morale.

Which, if historian Peter Englund is to be believed, appears to be by far the biggest factor as to who wins or looses an engagement.

>> No.31244909


Ignore me there, I was thinking of original percussion caps. Still need to make powder though. Harder to make on the move.

>> No.31244921

Well yeah. Most medieval-rennaisance battles had less than 10% casualties. Mostly because nobody on any side wanted to walk into a wall of pikes and incapacitation is more common than straight deaths in melee fights.

>> No.31244955

jack-a-chains representing

>> No.31244959


>peasant levies

They didn't use peasant levies because peasants were too valuable--they were needed to work the land. Armies were made up primarily of knights and paid professionals. i.e. mercenaries or freemen who came to the army with their own equipment for pay.

The arquebus can make a shot of 100 meters with well-fitted ammunition and a good gunner. Sure, if you just hand out whatever size ball to the guy you just taught to load it this morning, he'll miss. But the man who actually fought with these weapons says that he'd wager everything he owns in a shooting match against any archer while he uses a musket or arquebus.


True! But it's easier to move bulk quantities of powder, since it takes up less space, then mass amount of arrows. Really comes down to how you want to do your logistic train.

>> No.31244963

>It takes ten or so yards for a arrow to start slowing down instead of speeding up.
How exactly is it speeding up when the only force acting upon it is air resistance?

Black powder can be made in industrial batches, and then carted around in barrels. Even with the bullets added in it's quite a bit more compact than arrows.

>> No.31244982

Capped for posterity

>> No.31244984


Some plate meant old rusty crap from the armoury which 90% of the army got, if they were lucky. No, it's not going to go through new, well made plate but apart from the heavy cavalry few had that and for cavalry you'd just aim at the horse.

>> No.31244987

>Arquebus has a 30 meter effective range.

This is flatly not true.

>> No.31245006

>How exactly is it speeding up when the only force acting upon it is air resistance?
Because force imparts acceleration, and it won't hit its top speed immediately. Eventually, air force overcomes acceleration, but not right away.

>> No.31245016

>Good archers are dangerous.

And incredibly rare.

>> No.31245046


What? England didn't have a standing army till 1645. I don't know about other states but I severely doubt they were paying for a standing army.

>> No.31245054

The other main attraction of plate at the time was that it was not only less cumbersome than maille but it was also cheaper, so your assertion is basically bullshit.

>> No.31245066

Henry VIII had enough shit to outfit like 20,000 men if he needed to.

Google his household inventory, it's there.

>> No.31245087

You're thinking of marines

>> No.31245111

Maybe 30 metres of slightly more than complete innaccuracy. The bullet would go several kilometres

>> No.31245116


really? find me one army of the period that had everyone decked out in new shiny pimp plate. Any example will do.

>> No.31245133

You didn't see a real episode then; the samurai and knight never fought. Knight fought a Pirate, Samurai fought a Viking.

>> No.31245147

hey KM, quick question. Do you know anything more about this upstanding gentleman?
as far as I know in the original text there is no mention if he is a Landsknechte or not and modern books either stating he is a Landsknechte or a swiss mercenary. He has both of those groups signature weapon (the katzbalger and the baselard dagger) and his clothing also has characteristics that can be LK and swiss.
33499988 302

>> No.31245198

There are more options than 'peasant levies' and 'full standing army'.

Peasant is not even a medieval term, what people think of when they hear the word are serfs. They are tied to the land and would only be used as a militia in defence the majority of the time. Most medieval armies consisted of knights and their men at arms/yeoman archers or hired mercenaries.

>> No.31245215

If anyone's wondering, yes, I'm about to fall asleep where I'm sitting. Still, gravity probably won't assist here, so whatever.

So when you(?) said aerospace engineer, we're talking Dreamliner, Mars Climate Orbiter, Apollo 13... ?

>> No.31245248


Henry VII was the first king to do thing, he founded the royal armoury. By this point the arquebus was beginning to be phased out in favour of lighter, more accurate muskets. This is the point when bows lost their relevance.

>> No.31245284

I see "von Schweitz" in the text (end of the first line), that's the only clue I have. With fashion being somewhat international it's probably entirely plausible to find people dressed and equipped like that in both groups as well.

>> No.31245292

Not the aerospace engineer guy.

But it's simple. It can only accelerate so fast, but it has to use all the energy imparted to it (outside of energy lost to the environment of course).

>> No.31245316

To add to >>31245198

Neither of those has an upkeep cost. Lords and knights are expected to either contribute men to fight or money to buy mercenaries as part of their feudal dues and mostly get paid in potential spoils and ransom. And mercenaries are not kept on the payroll all the time.

>> No.31245333

The arquebus is the lighter of the two, held by your hands alone, whereas the musket more or less required a musket rest from its introduction and probably well past the mid 17th century.

>> No.31245364

if it helps allegedly the artist is Erhard Schoen and the pic is from somewhere around 1535

>> No.31245368


most medieval armies did not consist of knights. Knights had never been more than groups of shock troops. No one had a mostly knight army.

and most mercenaries were shit tier. Look at the italian condottieri. They pretended to fight wars to satisfy the pride of pompous dukes and doges. Very unlikely to stand their ground in a bad situation

>> No.31245386


>> No.31245403


yes wrong way round with the weight. Wikipedia says introduced in 1550 though

>> No.31245455

I don't think either of you understand this properly.

Crossbows have a reputation for short range and poor arc because crossbow bolts were light, not because they were unstable and wouldn't fall point-down.

A typical early crossbow bolt would have similar or higher drag to a longbow arrow, but half the mass. They were shorter, and not a lot more heavily built.

Even when it was a powerful crossbow, which fired the bolt faster than a longbow (and many, particularly the early ones, were not and did not), the combination of high speed, high drag, and low mass meant that they would lose speed quickly, and that in a high arc shot, the terminal velocity was quite low.

They did make some long range crossbows, which outranged longbows. It wasn't impossible with the materials of the day, but it took them a while to figure out how to do it. It's not like they had a well-developed theory of aerodynamics back then.

>> No.31245491

At no point did I imply knights were the majority. Whether they are 'shit tier' or not armies consisted of knights, their men at arms and archers and/or hired mercenaries across most of Medieval Europe. Not 'peasant levies'.

>> No.31245492

The acceleration happens when, and only when, the force that causes it is working on the object. F=ma is an "instant" thing, it holds for any instant of your choosing. If F=0, then at that moment in time a will also be zero. Likewise, whenever we have an acceleration we can plug it into F=ma and find the force causing it.

>but it has to use all the energy imparted to it
The energy is imparted to it in the form of speed, and nothing else. There's no secret reservoir anywhere where the energy can sit and wait while the acceleration catches up. The only place energy is stored with a crossbow is in the bow, and we can't transfer energy form there to the bolt without the bowstring being in contact with both.

>It can only accelerate so fast
The faster the acceleration, the more energy ends up in the bow instead of the bolt, with the extreme case being a nonexistent bolt, which means all the energy ends up moving the bow arms and string (minus losses to internal friction and air resistance of course).

>> No.31245517

>Crossbows have a reputation for short range and poor arc because crossbow bolts were light
>because crossbow bolts were light
>bolts were light
the fuck?

>> No.31245564

You know, there is one place for extra energy to hide in an arrow after it leaves the bow: in the flex of the arrow itself.

If you watch a slow-motion top-down shot of a longbow, you'll see the arrow flexing as the string pushes it, and then springing back and forth for a bit after it's released.

It's not impossible in principle for an arrow to gain a bit of speed by flapping its feathers like a fish swishing its tail, though I don't think this seriously happens.

>> No.31245594

Why can't we make tiny umbrellas and attach them to crossbows?

>> No.31245604


I think he means for short range guard style crossbows. A light wooden bolt in a windlass crossbow would shatter when firing

>> No.31245630

Compared to crossbow bolts, longbow arrows were about three times as long and not a whole lot slimmer or with a much lighter head.

Your pictured bolts might have been late examples fired from powerful crossbows with long range.

>> No.31245655


you don't want that to happen though. It makes the shot inaccurate. Preventing warp and smooth acceleration is why we use compound bows for competitions.

>> No.31245665

see? that's the problem here. people are talking about crossbows like there is only THE crossbow when there were a fuckton of different type of crossbows and bolts for them.
Same goes for every other weapon and armor in every thread ever

>> No.31245699


also because you can keep the bow drawn really easily.

>> No.31245700

>you don't want that to happen though
You don't have a lot of choice about it, with a traditionally-constructed longbow.

>> No.31245737

length of the arrow and stuff you put on it can change this effect for better or worse.

>> No.31245758


A lot smoother draw force curve to a longbow than to crossbow, by a very large margin.

>> No.31245789

I'm kind of tired and will go to sleep shortly but let's find some exact numbers on how heavy were crossbow bolts and longbow arrows

>> No.31245831

Regarding violent launches, here are some guys using crossbows and handgonnes to fire incendiary bolts, illustrate 1442.

>> No.31245891

And here's an incendiary bolt for an early cannon, ca 1330. Metal fins, and a metal butt plate nailed on.

>> No.31245952

Say what you will about ye olde arte, but it does get the point across.

>> No.31246053

this was the only thing I quickly found about crossbow bolt weight and I'm too tired to do the thinking about it so here it is, and I'm out


>> No.31246076

Sadly I think "Matchlock" over at the Ethno forum is barely alive, if at all, otherwise I could have asked him to break out the scales.

>> No.31246129

>16th-18th century
Not exactly medieval, is it?

>> No.31246162

No, I just wanted some vaguely related pic, and grabbed the first one my eyes fell on.

>> No.31246246

>1300 pound draws

Yo... How does that work? How can you even do that? Does the draw determine the force needed to load it, or???

>> No.31246288

Windlass. It's basically a crank and pulley. You put the front of the bow down on the ground and spin the crank, drawing it back. You don't (And obviously can't) pull all the weight back at once.

>> No.31246328

That's still not true.

>> No.31246413


>> No.31246420


The draw weight is the force required to pull the string back to full draw.

>> No.31246633


Of course there are.

[spoilers] They still die like everyone else.[/spoilers}

>> No.31251447

Name of book, please?

>> No.31254629

That is lamellar for one

Also, a crossbow would go through plate mail in range so this is wrong

>> No.31254660

Took me a while to figure out that you're just saying "knights"

>> No.31254829

From my personal experience of making and using bows and crossbows, it is much easier to pierce metal with a bow than a crossbow. My weakest training bow of 40ish pounds with wooden arrow (thin iron tipped, dull) was able to penetrate over a 1.5mm thick iron frame. This happened by accident, I used a metal frame to hold a round old stool that was the target and the arrow hit the frame. Using a crossbow with more pounds I had trouble penetrating thin wood.

Crossbow can have hundreds of pounds of drawstrength but that cannot be compared to bow draw pounds.
Barnett Predator AVI 375 has draw of 175lb, the bolt is fired at 375fps while
Barnett Buck Commander CRT 365 has draw of 175lb but the bolt is fired at 365fps
Both are crossbows from same manufacturer, they have same draw strength and same length of bolts but different launch speed.

>> No.31254890

>, it is much easier to pierce metal with a bow than a crossbow

>> No.31254941

Yes, by that I mean that a far simpler construction is required for the desired effect. Granted, it's still impossible to use a bow to penetrate the absolute high-end armors and that both arbalest and english longbows had the max range around 300m. Anything that wasn't high-end, was potentially a victim to both longbows and arbalests.

>> No.31254957

>it's still impossible to use a bow to penetrate the absolute high-end armors
By that I mean at any proper range. From 10 meters I doubt any armor would protect from either longbow or arbalest.

>> No.31254964

The point of why longbows were pretty lethal for quite a stretch was because while they may not have been able to penetrate plate, they had a long range and fast rate of fire. Most armies had a minority of people decked out in any kind of plate, let alone full plate. They didn't need to be particularly accurate, as you're firing a mass of arrows into a mass of people. Even if they might have been deadlier at short range, in the instances where they met crossbowmen were routed by longbowmen before they could get in range. You were better off having longbowmen than crossbowmen in just about any situation. The problem was that longbowmen needed a lot of training, and the only country that had the set up to do that, for one reason or another, was England.

>> No.31254974

That test a shit. A Crossbow that needs a fucking windlass can punch through leather armor. Chinese crossbows (of the Era where leather armor was common, i.e. warring states) were merely extra powerful composite bows attached on a stock. While powerful in itself, you just need a block that's not a limp faggot to pull it.

The Chinese actually abandoned that designe once steel armor showed up.

Spike a shit.
Pic related, people made Leather Lamellar armor. Your point?

>> No.31255008



>You can snipe with a crossbow, since you can hold it at full draw for quite a while
>crossbow bolts are smaller than arrows and do not have fletchings - so they're not that good at long range
>Bows on the other hand weren't nearly as handy in close range because they needed more room
>So a crossbow could nail armor at close range - and long range you might be able to do some damage with a bow using bodkin arrows, but even bows VS armor was mostly a sort-of close range deal

>> No.31255019


>Anything that wasn't high-end, was potentially a victim to both longbows and arbalests

That would be the point (badum-tish). The armour that longbows really can't get through is the limited to not much more than the breastplate and helmet of high-quality plate. Get hit at a joint or on the limbs and you might be in trouble. After all, the young Henry V took an arrow in the face at the battle of Shrewsbury, and you could imagine that as the then Prince of Wales, he would have been armoured pretty fucking well.

>> No.31255057

Most likely.

They also have their conclusions pre-decided, no matter what their (often horribly skewed) tests may show.

I still recall one where two weapons were declared a draw: One bit fairly well into the skin, chipping a little at the bone beneath, while the other (a morning star that much I remember) utterly mangled the entire area, shattering the bone and sending chunks of ballistic gel right off. This was a draw.

I also recall them having great difficulty "deciding" whether a grenade was really that much better than a shuriken.

>> No.31255083

>I also recall them having great difficulty "deciding" whether a grenade was really that much better than a shuriken.

Ninja never fought anyone on that show who used a grenade. Maybe you mean them comparing his own metsubishi to his shuriken?

>> No.31255164

While it IS as retarded as you say you're recalling the matchup incorrectly.
Grenades were in 'knight vs pirate', where the matchups were: Cutlass+Boarding axe vs Broadsword+Plate, Blunderbuss vs Halberd (because these are both mid-range weapons somehow), Flintlock Pistol vs Crossbow for long range (again, wat) and Grenades vs Morningstars.

Other fucktarded matchups:
Javelin vs Shuriken and Blowguns, where despite being able to kill things, the shuriken and blowgun win because "they could be poisoned". Apparently you can't poison a javelin, and being able to stab something close in addition to throwing it doesn't help because they decided it was slow and inaccurate while shuriken according to this one 'doctor' could possibly have punctured a lung and therefore were better (despite showing themselves quite useless in the test).

>> No.31255217

At least Season 1 didn't have as many instances of guys bringing siege weaponry to 1v1 duels or small unit skirmishes as the later seasons.

>> No.31255459


"The Disaster Artist" Gregg Sestero. It is pure gold, especially if you read it with the voices.

>> No.31255474

>Tommy Wisaeu as BBEG

"Ha,ha, What a conspiracy, Mark"
"Oh hay, heroes!"

>> No.31255545

I still don't know how the pirate won when they showed all of the pirates weapons would be unable to effectively hurt the knight. Even the blunderbuss only put one ball through the plate they used in test without mail or a gambeson underneath.

>> No.31255733

It's quite obvious they write the entire episode, right down to the conclusion, before any "tests" get done.

There's also quite a bit of editing, so I expect they cut out a large number of shots that make things look "too one-sided".

>> No.31257159

Why did you link that fag and not someone respectable if you're going to go down that route?

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.