Come again?
Why archery still exists?
- Thread starter qwerty223
- Start date
Imshi-Yallah
New Member
If you take the whole quote in context it makes a lot more sense, as
Range comparable to SMGs, rate of fire comparable to the rifles of the era.
Remember to say respectively if your going to do it that way...
Imshi-Yallah
New Member
How do you spell that again?
P-E-D-A-N-T-R-Y?
The other problem with the Longbow is it is a quintessentially european greenfields weapon which would be severely limited in many environments due to awkwardness and range restrictions.
Also if you were really into using bows I'm sure modern composite materials and design techniques could produce superior results in more compact weapons.
Crossbows are presumably favoured for infiltration due to the combination of being subsonic with producing minimal byproduct (no cordite smell, no shell casings, bolts can be retrieved and disposed of outside the immediate AO) and functioning well in wet conditions.
P-E-D-A-N-T-R-Y?
The other problem with the Longbow is it is a quintessentially european greenfields weapon which would be severely limited in many environments due to awkwardness and range restrictions.
Also if you were really into using bows I'm sure modern composite materials and design techniques could produce superior results in more compact weapons.
Crossbows are presumably favoured for infiltration due to the combination of being subsonic with producing minimal byproduct (no cordite smell, no shell casings, bolts can be retrieved and disposed of outside the immediate AO) and functioning well in wet conditions.
It's not pedantry, but merely a desire for accuracy.
I think a compound bow would be much more advantagous than a crossbow. Better range and accuracy... the only reason forces use a crossbow is they are not skilled enough to use the compound.
powerslavenegi
New Member
>>I think a compound bow would be much more advantagous than a crossbow
I concur,infact Long bow offers longer range,accuracy and fast rate of fire than a CB (the long arrow with fletches has higher directional stability than a bolt for a given velocity over longer ranges).Having said that drawing a 100 pound long bow is no joke ,a CB on the contrary is easier to draw and operate(trigger mechanism).
I concur,infact Long bow offers longer range,accuracy and fast rate of fire than a CB (the long arrow with fletches has higher directional stability than a bolt for a given velocity over longer ranges).Having said that drawing a 100 pound long bow is no joke ,a CB on the contrary is easier to draw and operate(trigger mechanism).
Why, a composite-bow is much harder to handle , and it s accuracy is based on the user s inner-sence which means if you give a new bow to a master, he will also lose his target.but crossbow can be mass produced , and pulled by two hands, so the initial kinetic energy is much higher. plus, you can add a scope or scale on crossbow which is mass manufactured by machine.
Who said anything about a composite bow?
You just said the crossbows were custom made for dead accuracy, now you say they are being mass produced... which is it?
The high KE of a crossbow bolt is only effective to 60m. The KE is really wasted as the velocity is only 250fps. The crossbow in reality is a rather inefficient weapon especially compared to the compound bow.
The addition of a scope to a crossbow is almost laughable. If you can't hit a target at 60m with a stock site you have a problem. Using a scope to adjust for wind and elevation on a short range crossbow gets a hearty laugh from the deer hunters in my family.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Hello, just felt the urge to inject some historical perspective into the bow/crossbow discussion.
The longbow was not a European weapon. It was a British weapon, brought by Edward I (the Long-Shanks) to England from Wales were it is believed to have originally been developed. It was approximately 6ft in height and made of yew. For a number of centuries, there were a number of particular English laws that effected the use of longbows. The yeomanry were required to practice on the town butts regularly, and also districts were requried to have plantings of yew trees to provide for future bows. All of the practice by the English generally paid off, for in open warfare the English could fire 5-6 volleys for every opposing volley of crossbow bolts, with an effective range of 200m.
The crossbow had come (back?) into prominence in European warfare in the early 12th century, and the wounds it caused were considered so devastating that it's use was banned by the Lateran Council of 1139. The prohibition not withstanding, it was in general use by the end of the 12th century. In the early hand crossbows, the materials used were wood, or a combination of wood, horn, glue & sinew. Around 1370 however, most crossbows were made of steel. By the 15th century, the effective range of most crossbows had reached out to between 335-345m, with some having even greater range.
Case in point: In 1901, Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey fired bolts across the Menai Strait at a point where the distance was 400m. He was using a 15th century crossbow with a steel bow.
Having said that, I do have to question some of the ranges being thrown around here. A longbow or crossbow has a fair range potential, certainly into the standard engagement range of most current assault rifles (200m typical engagement range). What I am not so certain of is the ability to accurately use either type of bow to "snipe" a target. I suspect part of the effective range in earlier periods was due to the volume of incoming arrows or bolts.
Incidentally, my understanding was that, at least for western nations, the only time the armed forces might use a bow was during survival exercises. And the bow used would've been constructed out of materials gathered in the field and used to hunt game.
The longbow was not a European weapon. It was a British weapon, brought by Edward I (the Long-Shanks) to England from Wales were it is believed to have originally been developed. It was approximately 6ft in height and made of yew. For a number of centuries, there were a number of particular English laws that effected the use of longbows. The yeomanry were required to practice on the town butts regularly, and also districts were requried to have plantings of yew trees to provide for future bows. All of the practice by the English generally paid off, for in open warfare the English could fire 5-6 volleys for every opposing volley of crossbow bolts, with an effective range of 200m.
The crossbow had come (back?) into prominence in European warfare in the early 12th century, and the wounds it caused were considered so devastating that it's use was banned by the Lateran Council of 1139. The prohibition not withstanding, it was in general use by the end of the 12th century. In the early hand crossbows, the materials used were wood, or a combination of wood, horn, glue & sinew. Around 1370 however, most crossbows were made of steel. By the 15th century, the effective range of most crossbows had reached out to between 335-345m, with some having even greater range.
Case in point: In 1901, Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey fired bolts across the Menai Strait at a point where the distance was 400m. He was using a 15th century crossbow with a steel bow.
Having said that, I do have to question some of the ranges being thrown around here. A longbow or crossbow has a fair range potential, certainly into the standard engagement range of most current assault rifles (200m typical engagement range). What I am not so certain of is the ability to accurately use either type of bow to "snipe" a target. I suspect part of the effective range in earlier periods was due to the volume of incoming arrows or bolts.
Incidentally, my understanding was that, at least for western nations, the only time the armed forces might use a bow was during survival exercises. And the bow used would've been constructed out of materials gathered in the field and used to hunt game.
The composite bow i m saying refers to long bow , in history we use composite bow as an improvement of long bow. sorry to confuse you , i was not replying to you .
and i have explained why we need a crossbow in some special operation in last post. plus, mass product by machine can make it accurater than hand made of course, those cb are CAD designed. Of couse the production amount is low, but compare to hand craft longbow which are vary every single one it can be called mass.
Ive hunted with, and shot, all kinds of Bows in my life. The Last 20 years Ive used a lot of crossbows, of which I currently own three. As a few posters here have alluded to there is a lot of disinformation out there regarding crossbows. The first of which is when you put a scope on one you have a super-weapon, sorry, but not even close. That scope is no different then a post sight on a regular bow. Like any other weapon you have to aim, squeeze off, and release. Like any other bow you have to accuratly judge distance, "even more so with a crossbow".
CBs are extremely short range weapons as well. When hunting I dont set up ambush points beyond 30 yrds, and prefer 20 yrds or shorter. I dont know what that translates to but 90' is the max I will risk shooting at an animal. Then again I'm very conservative with shots I take because I abhor wounding. Once you get past that range with a CB you have to be absolutely sure about the distance to the target, elevating the CB accordingly. Another myth about CBs is that you dont need to be "skilled" to use one. This is pure B-manure, and for that matter you dont have to be "skilled" to use a long bow either, and especially a compound. If your going to get "good" at anything you have to develop your skills. Ive known extremely skilled archers and hunters who shoot CBs, and have known plenty of fools who run out, buy a compound, and then head to the woods without practicing.
The next myth about CBs is that the compound ones are faster. Again, this isnt true and the fastest CB I know of is a recurve.
But overall my favorite one has to be the CB being a long distance weapon that can be mastered by the skill less. The reality is most people dont know a thing about cross bows and only repeat crap they have heard.
CBs are extremely short range weapons as well. When hunting I dont set up ambush points beyond 30 yrds, and prefer 20 yrds or shorter. I dont know what that translates to but 90' is the max I will risk shooting at an animal. Then again I'm very conservative with shots I take because I abhor wounding. Once you get past that range with a CB you have to be absolutely sure about the distance to the target, elevating the CB accordingly. Another myth about CBs is that you dont need to be "skilled" to use one. This is pure B-manure, and for that matter you dont have to be "skilled" to use a long bow either, and especially a compound. If your going to get "good" at anything you have to develop your skills. Ive known extremely skilled archers and hunters who shoot CBs, and have known plenty of fools who run out, buy a compound, and then head to the woods without practicing.
The next myth about CBs is that the compound ones are faster. Again, this isnt true and the fastest CB I know of is a recurve.
But overall my favorite one has to be the CB being a long distance weapon that can be mastered by the skill less. The reality is most people dont know a thing about cross bows and only repeat crap they have heard.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #32
LoL, not going to argue who invented 1st, just for information. Chinese were to believed that they had beed using crossbow since The Period of War States (Zhan Guo), BC475──221. There is some pictures below.
Have to give a credit to this post. Finally we had someone whom really know crossbow!
Imshi-Yallah
New Member
I believe all mentions of skill requirements were made in relation to longbows in a medieval context.
why use a famose or wat ever its callwed they arnt exactly quite are they
heavyaslead
New Member
One CB advantage is first fire (when charged) over bows and waiting minutes or hours for a target's sweet shot is easier on the arms.
powerslavenegi
New Member
Cross Bow v/s Long Bow
1.I would prefer a Long bow when fighting in open fields and engaging distant targets (so would get an oppertunity to take multiple shots in a short span of time and hence chances of taking down a moving target are more)
2.While on a covert mission (when sniping and wait and watch tactics would be needed) might take a CB to ensure one shot one kill(assuming I have the needed skill).
1.I would prefer a Long bow when fighting in open fields and engaging distant targets (so would get an oppertunity to take multiple shots in a short span of time and hence chances of taking down a moving target are more)
2.While on a covert mission (when sniping and wait and watch tactics would be needed) might take a CB to ensure one shot one kill(assuming I have the needed skill).
There is really only one advantage to a cross bow and that is, of course, you dont have to draw the bow string. The doing of which can give away your position to an enemy, or the game you are pursuing. Additionally you dont have to draw and hold the bow string either waiting for an enemy to get into a better killing position.
This is a real plus because, and while Ive never used any kind of bow in combat, I have lost game from the drawing of the bow string of a regular bow. Either from noise or from the strain of maintaining a full draw. When hunting game this can be reduced by hunting from stands but in combat this, of course, cant be counted upon. The actual sound made by either bow when the arrow/bolt is released???? I would rate the cross bow as being noisier by far. Not only do you have a trigger release mechanism making noise I have found cross bow string noise dampeners to be less effective on crossbows, "another reason for keeping your distance short".
On the other hand you cant fire as many projectiles with a cross bow as you can a regular bow. I must say when comparing the two, and all the kills I made with each, I found the short,heavy cross bow arrows and bolts to be absolutely devastating on game. I always had better luck with expandable broadheads on my cross bow projectiles, while with my regular bows Thunderhead 125s worked fine. With the cross bow, and if I knew I made a good shot, instead of waiting 30 mins to collect my game I would track it down sooner. The point I'm making is that the cross bow seemed to inflict wounds which caused shock and catastrophic blood loss much sooner then regular archery gear, and, shot the projectile thru the beast that is a requirement for a faster kill. Both however are slow killers compared to HP rifles. Bows kill by bleed out and shock.
For a young warrior taking up the sport would, I believe, be a fine thing. Not only can they connect with warriors of the past but they would be developing a useful skill, most of all, if they take to the hunting fields with it. Hunting game with a bow will teach many useful skills to a youngster who plans to become a soldier. Among them discipline, maturity, wood craft, tracking, weaponry, ambush skills, and the self dependence that is a requirement for good leadership.
Thank you.
This is a real plus because, and while Ive never used any kind of bow in combat, I have lost game from the drawing of the bow string of a regular bow. Either from noise or from the strain of maintaining a full draw. When hunting game this can be reduced by hunting from stands but in combat this, of course, cant be counted upon. The actual sound made by either bow when the arrow/bolt is released???? I would rate the cross bow as being noisier by far. Not only do you have a trigger release mechanism making noise I have found cross bow string noise dampeners to be less effective on crossbows, "another reason for keeping your distance short".
On the other hand you cant fire as many projectiles with a cross bow as you can a regular bow. I must say when comparing the two, and all the kills I made with each, I found the short,heavy cross bow arrows and bolts to be absolutely devastating on game. I always had better luck with expandable broadheads on my cross bow projectiles, while with my regular bows Thunderhead 125s worked fine. With the cross bow, and if I knew I made a good shot, instead of waiting 30 mins to collect my game I would track it down sooner. The point I'm making is that the cross bow seemed to inflict wounds which caused shock and catastrophic blood loss much sooner then regular archery gear, and, shot the projectile thru the beast that is a requirement for a faster kill. Both however are slow killers compared to HP rifles. Bows kill by bleed out and shock.
For a young warrior taking up the sport would, I believe, be a fine thing. Not only can they connect with warriors of the past but they would be developing a useful skill, most of all, if they take to the hunting fields with it. Hunting game with a bow will teach many useful skills to a youngster who plans to become a soldier. Among them discipline, maturity, wood craft, tracking, weaponry, ambush skills, and the self dependence that is a requirement for good leadership.
Thank you.