StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Thanas wrote:^where do you get that specific information from?

And yes, crossbowmen require little training compared to the alternatives of knights or lonbowmen. Compared to the training of the majority of medieval armies received however, they still stand out. Especially specialized crossbowmen like the ones employed by the Italians.

As someone who has dabbled in archery, both bow and crossbow, I'd say it's a hell of a lot easier to aim a crossbow, and both the "goatsfoot" and winch models allow a person to draw a much stronger crossbow than regular bow. Because you don't have the muscular tension of holding the bow when drawn it's also easier to aim, particularly at first. I'd think the non-professional forces would get better results from a quick crossbow course than a quick longbow course.

Of course, the more you train in ANY weapon the better you'll be. The fact there were highly specialized crossbowmen does not mean that it was some uber-difficult weapon on which to train.

Broomstick wrote:As someone who has dabbled in archery, both bow and crossbow, I'd say it's a hell of a lot easier to aim a crossbow, and both the "goatsfoot" and winch models allow a person to draw a much stronger crossbow than regular bow. Because you don't have the muscular tension of holding the bow when drawn it's also easier to aim, particularly at first. I'd think the non-professional forces would get better results from a quick crossbow course than a quick longbow course.

Having done archery (olympic recurve) for over 12 years now, I can confirm that. And yes, the crossbow is easier to train. And this fact was never in dispute, btw.

Of course, the more you train in ANY weapon the better you'll be. The fact there were highly specialized crossbowmen does not mean that it was some uber-difficult weapon on which to train.

And where am I saying that? Especially the uber-difficult part?

I'm not even sure how you'd put a bayonet on a crossbow. The front end of any sort of heavy crossbow has something called a "goatsfoot", which you put your foot through so you can use your entire body to quickly reset the bow due to its tremendously large draw weight. Maybe on a cranked one, but I don't see much point.

You can have it quick-attachable. You know, when the enemy is nearing in, just slap it on, screw it in and done.

You can also put it on the side.

Thanas wrote:

Of course, the more you train in ANY weapon the better you'll be. The fact there were highly specialized crossbowmen does not mean that it was some uber-difficult weapon on which to train.

And where am I saying that? Especially the uber-difficult part?

Here:

Thanas wrote:Furthermore, whoever is saying crossbowmen require little training has obviously never shot a crossbow and tried to hit anything that's not the side of a barn. There is a reason why the genoese and other mercenery forces were feared.

Yes, crossbows will require a little training, but not as much as longbows.

Sorry, but when I see "little training" that does not equal a month or so in my book.

And I fail to see where I claim it to be an "uber-difficult" weapon.

But just to clarify: No, I am not of the opinion that the crossbow is a uber-difficult weapon to train. Nor have I ever tried to claim that it requires as much training as longbows.

As far as crossbows vs longbows, weren't crossbows actually quite expensive compared to longbows? After all, a longbow doesn't even need any metal parts.

Darth Wong wrote:As far as crossbows vs longbows, weren't crossbows actually quite expensive compared to longbows? After all, a longbow doesn't even need any metal parts.

As I recall, you could conceivably make a longbow out of a single piece wood; I suppose while there must be some level of skill in the crafting of the bow, it really doesn't compare to the complexity of putting together a crossbow, even without something like a repeating mechanism (if you're into that).

Ford Prefect wrote:As I recall, you could conceivably make a longbow out of a single piece wood;

No, a longbow is made of many thin strips of yew glued together so that they are in mutual tension when the string is drawn. You're talking about a self bow, which typically can't give more than 20 pounds draw weight.

I suppose while there must be some level of skill in the crafting of the bow, it really doesn't compare to the complexity of putting together a crossbow, even without something like a repeating mechanism (if you're into that).

According to this website a longbow cost about a shilling in 1360. A crossbow could cost 10 times as much.

Darth Wong wrote:As far as crossbows vs longbows, weren't crossbows actually quite expensive compared to longbows? After all, a longbow doesn't even need any metal parts.

There is actually a case on record of a prisoner constructing a crossbow out of paper and the elastic from his underwear and using it to kill a guard. It was only good for one shot, but that was all he needed. Mythbusters covered that one, including a feasibility test.

More typically, yes, a crossbow does contain metal parts. It is also mechanically more complex than a longbow, particularly one that has a winch mechanism for drawing it. I think that, more than the metal, increased the cost.

Broomstick wrote: There is actually a case on record of a prisoner constructing a crossbow out of paper and the elastic from his underwear and using it to kill a guard. It was only good for one shot, but that was all he needed. Mythbusters covered that one, including a feasibility test.

Jesus Christ. Was his name MacGuyver?

Seriously, do you have any sort of link to information on that? It's positively astounding.

Mythbusters episode 44 is the one dealing with the paper crossbow. Apparently Pelican Bay prison has a video of an inmate firing a "crossbow-like" weapon at a guard. San Quentin has a museum of improvised weapons confiscated from prisoners and has an example of a spear made from paper (and a working .32 caliber gun made from plumbing parts).

The best distance the Mythbusters guys got from their build-ups was 85 feet and about 1 inch penetration into ballistics gel which isn't terribly impressive, but since jailhouse weapons are usually used a lot closer than 85 feet (try 10 or 15, about 3-5 meters) there should be more penetration at distances likely to be used. If you aim at the right spot you could cause severe injury, maybe even death IF you got target dead on.

The one thing you have in prison is time, lots and lots of time. Prisoners can afford to spend months making improvised weapons. They really don't need to be McGuyver, all they need is patience and to not get caught.

Here is something that just popped to me again: why can't be bronze bolts or boltheads be used? They won't have just the same punch and edge, but are easier and cheaper to produce, especially when you are thinking in mass production (you don't need to forge bronze much, just melt and form, right?). Bronze is cheaper and melts more easily, plus it won't corrode which can be good when in prolonged war and soldiers have better things to do then make sure their boltheads aren't corroding.

So why not use bronze boltheads?

Broomstick wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:As far as crossbows vs longbows, weren't crossbows actually quite expensive compared to longbows? After all, a longbow doesn't even need any metal parts.

There is actually a case on record of a prisoner constructing a crossbow out of paper and the elastic from his underwear and using it to kill a guard. It was only good for one shot, but that was all he needed. Mythbusters covered that one, including a feasibility test.

More typically, yes, a crossbow does contain metal parts. It is also mechanically more complex than a longbow, particularly one that has a winch mechanism for drawing it. I think that, more than the metal, increased the cost.

the advantage of the crossbow over the long bow is that is does not need to be used by someone with constant practice. It aims a lot like a rifle and can stay loaded until fired with out straining the user.

To use the long bow, require taking long hours to practice your aim draw etc. Longbow users would have to practice almost constantly to keep their (edit) effectiveness up.

Bronze tip would likely not be used as they are softer then iron or steel point so wouldn't penetrate plate and mail armor very well limiting their usefulness to unarmored targets.

Bronze tip would likely not be used as they are softer then iron or steel point so wouldn't penetrate plate and mail armor very well limiting their usefulness to unarmored targets.

In the real world, where the opposing army is highly militaristic that would be a good point. However, in my setting when monsters and barbarians are still surprisingly common, it could still be useful.

Darth Wong wrote:As far as crossbows vs longbows, weren't crossbows actually quite expensive compared to longbows? After all, a longbow doesn't even need any metal parts.

Yeah they cost far more, but this specific monetary cost could almost be considered irrelevant if you make a real comparison. You simply could not use a 200lb draw force longbow if you hadn’t trained from age five to do it, and indeed one English king banned all sports except archery in Whales just to ensure enough people would do that training. This means the longbow was only practical if you engaged in constant warfare, like the Hundred Years war, so that you could always have demand for longbow men. In fact that war is really the only time massed armies of high power longbows were used in combat.

If it was actually possible to just go out and recruit and train up some top notch longbow men in a matter of months, then the weapon might well have lasted all the way into era of rifled muskets and still been competitive. Only the introduction of percussion caps and miniballs would have really started to usurp it, though effective repeating firearms arrived soon after that and would have killed it dead.

Zixinus wrote:

Bronze tip would likely not be used as they are softer then iron or steel point so wouldn't penetrate plate and mail armor very well limiting their usefulness to unarmored targets.

In the real world, where the opposing army is highly militaristic that would be a good point. However, in my setting when monsters and barbarians are still surprisingly common, it could still be useful.

Actually, no. Bronze bolts are more likely to deform very badly or even shatter when hitting armour and simply become useless and irrecoverable beyond melting down and beating them into shape again. In the Bronze age, bronze swords were notorious for breaking apart after a hard hit.

Darth Wong wrote:As far as crossbows vs longbows, weren't crossbows actually quite expensive compared to longbows? After all, a longbow doesn't even need any metal parts.

That's true, but the types of longbows used by the English and Welsh were mostly made of yew (preferably Spanish yew) of a certain age, and only a certain part of the tree (one piece including regular and heartwood), so if anything the crossbow (the common sort cocked by hand -arbalests would be a different matter) might be cheaper to make, since materials aren't all that important for crossbows. Composite bows could also be made out of varying materials. The English/Welsh longbow was really a one-of-a-kind weapon.

Okay, a more simple question: can it be said that whatever arrowhead you have, can be converted on a crossbow bolt? From what I see, there is no reason not to. Or am I missing something?

You can put pretty much any kind of arrowhead you want on a crossbow bolt or a longbow arrow, and a wide variety were used. Some for example would be long narrow heads, with a bit of wax on the tip (to prevent deflection) for piercing armor, while others had very wide cutting heads to killing horses.

Sea Skimmer wrote:If it was actually possible to just go out and recruit and train up some top notch longbow men in a matter of months, then the weapon might well have lasted all the way into era of rifled muskets and still been competitive.

Probably used behind lines of musket men. Mostly because a musket can double as a pike and a longbow can't, but also because longbows can shoot over the heads of the first few ranks.

This thread made me interested in crossbows. Apparently there are crossbows that have magasines, repeating crossbows. Anyone heard of this, anyone know what good modern crossbows there are? Well something good but still a bugdet offering that is.

I don't know about magazines, but as far as I know there is no such thing as a repeating crossbow unless you have a motor attached to it. Which would most likely fuck up every third shot or so, so I doubt it would have much use. Of course fantasy artists love the idea.

EDIT: Also, if you are planning to buy some, make sure you check with the law about it. In some countries, like mine, it is considered a firearm (in effect anyway).

I live in a wonderfull, wonderfull place, Finland. No laws on crossbows except be over 18 to buy, beyond that I cannot use it to hunt. But bows are okay for some reason. It's some retard EU rule AFAIK, not finnish law that says this.

EDIT:
http://www.vintageprojects.com/archery/ ... plans.html

EDIT:
http://www.vintageprojects.com/archery/ ... plans.html

I wonder how it is strung after each shot. Cool thought.