Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Brother Oni]

In China, you have crossbows as the most common infantry weapon for certain periods.

I know that during the Three Kingdoms era (~3rd century AD), ability to shoot a bow was so important that there was a rank of horse archer (albeit a low one).

Speaking of China, Chinese crossbow designs had the best names. Who doesn't want to shoot a divine-armed or enemy-vanquishing crossbow?

Yeah, most traditional Chinese names tend to be rather flowery and grandiose. I just wished they kept the tradition up - driving the All Under Heaven Conquering War Vehicle sounds better than Type-99 MBT.

It has to do with the "release" (or so the theory goes): On a bow, the bowstring is in contact with the arrow, and the manner in which the archer releases the string is more smoothly controlled by the archers fingers (not necessarily more consistent).

Oh yes.
Spent an hour yesterday trying to stop myself torquing the string on release, still doing it.

I guess I've heard it both ways. In wind tunnel tests published in Scientific American 252:1 (January 1985), the tested crossbow bolt experienced lower drag than the tested longbow arrow. If bolts really are less aerodynamic, I want to know, because that would make the crossbow Payne-Gallwey used to shoot a bolt approximately 450 yards even more powerful.

The article is archived, but subscription only - do you remember whether they used a traditional crossbow or a modern pulley one, and what the draw weight was?

[Starshade]

OK, I'm not sure that this is appropriate for this thread because it's about something that's only sort of a weapon.
What I've noticed is that in rural areas, especially on farms, workers will often carry knives with them, generally decent-sized and single-edged. I think some people call them "chore knives." In older times I know that they were sometimes made out of whatever metal was available, for example my great-grandfather used one made out of an old saw blade, I've also seen them made out of old kitchen knives.
It seems to me that medieval peasants would use something similar just because they're so useful. That said I've not been able to uncover any information about what they looked like, how they were made or anything. Most information I can find is about daggers and stuff meant for actually fighting.

There is Pictures of actual medival pesant knives out there, as this link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=medie...ml%3B500%3B125

[Mr Beer]

I've also read that modern armies prefer drafting eighteen year olds though, as they're much easier to emotionally and mentally control than older men. Maybe one aspect of older people making better decisions under pressure is them being more able and willing to say 'screw you' to the entire war.

Makes sense. Also, I suppose that those 18 year olds will mostly become 25 year old soldiers so it's not like the army misses out on any age-based sweet spot.

[Knaight]

I've got a question about bows.
In composite bows, are there any issues with temperature extremes? I'm wondering if differing thermal expansion rates could pose a problem, particularly if you took a bow made in somewhere particularly warm to go penguin hunting or something.

[warty goblin]

I've got a question about bows.
In composite bows, are there any issues with temperature extremes? I'm wondering if differing thermal expansion rates could pose a problem, particularly if you took a bow made in somewhere particularly warm to go penguin hunting or something.

The Inuit seem to have used bows of wood, bone or antler backed with sinew cabling. These cordage backed bows probably count as a form of composite. Obviously such a weapon would have to work fairly well in the cold to be worth the considerable bother of making. This suggests that the components of a composite retain their material properties in serious cold. This page gives some details.

I don't know how extreme cold would effect the glue for holding the layers together - which in temperate climates can take on the order of two years to set fully. I could see being repeatedly frozen during that time causing issues, but really have no hard evidence. Since a cordage backed bow can be made entirely with knotwork, unfortunately the Inuit designs just don't offer any insight here.

[Avilan the Grey]

Crossbows being weapons of common man is also somehow problematic - even very simple crossbow would be costly, cumbersome (heavy or/and large, with bow being often quite long and stock being long in perpendicular direction as well), and somehow specialized.

Again it depends. In the late middle ages (15 century + at least) and the renaissance crossbows were the most common ranged weapon in Sweden. it was the main hunting weapon for nobles (as a hunting weapon it was even preferred up through the 17th century, since it could be loaded much quicker than the rifles and muskets, and much more quiet as well) as well as the populace and also a common symbol for rebellion (because during the late middle ages and later it was illegal for the farmer class to carry weapons outside knives and hunting gear). So one of the things farmes armed themselves with during rebellious uprisings against local lords as well as the crown, was crossbows (and pitchforks and spears and clubs of course).

Anyway, of course these crossbows were not the really big ones. They needed to be loadable by a single person without help and only take a limited time doing so. The huge purely military crossbows with cranks and stuff to load them is well... purely used by the military and professional soldiers.

[rrgg]

I think it depends on the time period: I know during WW1 and WW2, it took a fair bit of training to overcome the aversion to killing.

In modern times, it's been found that new recruits have noticeably less aversion to kill. There are a number of theories on why this is, but they're all very hot button topics.

You have the same issue with guns though, a soldier needs to be willing stick his head up and make a loud "here I am" noise long before he needs to worry about his willingness to kill. There were a number of studies during WWII which found a significant number of soldiers never actually fired their weapons in combat, but in an era when suppressive fire is a thing I don't think the "resistance to killing" conclusion really fits with occam's razor.

Sometimes battlefield statistics just don't tell you as much as you think they do. There's the famous case from WWI when the British army began to issue helmets for the first time and the number of reported head injuries suddenly shot through the roof.

[Galloglaich]

A lot to say on the crossbows, I'll try to post a useful overall summary, but I'm a bit swamped with work right now, I'll try to do it tonight in the hotel room.

G

[Galloglaich]

I guess I've heard it both ways. In wind tunnel tests published in Scientific American 252:1 (January 1985), the tested crossbow bolt experienced lower drag than the tested longbow arrow. If bolts really are less aerodynamic, I want to know, because that would make the crossbow Payne-Gallwey used to shoot a bolt approximately 450 yards even more powerful.

Are those with medieval / Early Modern type crossbow bolts or today's hunting type bolts (really arrows) because they are totally different.

Antique bolts, though they tended to be short and thick, also varied quite a bit in terms of how the fletchings were made and what kind of bolt head they had.

G

[Knaight]

The Inuit seem to have used bows of wood, bone or antler backed with sinew cabling. These cordage backed bows probably count as a form of composite. Obviously such a weapon would have to work fairly well in the cold to be worth the considerable bother of making. This suggests that the components of a composite retain their material properties in serious cold. This page gives some details.

Sorry, let me clarify. I'm less concerned with how they work in the cold (quite well, as we see) and more of what happens if you take a bow made in a very warm place to the gold, or for that matter try to take one of the Inuit bows mentioned to something like the Sahara. It's the change in temperature that I'm wondering about, not the temperature itself.

[warty goblin]

Sorry, let me clarify. I'm less concerned with how they work in the cold (quite well, as we see) and more of what happens if you take a bow made in a very warm place to the gold, or for that matter try to take one of the Inuit bows mentioned to something like the Sahara. It's the change in temperature that I'm wondering about, not the temperature itself.

Unfortunately I have no actual information on this question. My experience is that wood retains its flexibility in the cold, although I can't say I've ever made a study of the issue. I'd guess sinew and horn are similarly well behaved, simply because they're very dry. Maybe a bit stiffer, but flexing the limbs a bit could well sort that out.

The thing I think most likely to be problematic is the glue. Unfortunately hide glue isn't something I have any actual experience with, so I cannot really begin to speculate.

[Telok]

Sorry, let me clarify. I'm less concerned with how they work in the cold (quite well, as we see) and more of what happens if you take a bow made in a very warm place to the gold, or for that matter try to take one of the Inuit bows mentioned to something like the Sahara. It's the change in temperature that I'm wondering about, not the temperature itself.

You can acually test this at home relatively easily. Gather information on glue and make a couple simple ones in your kitchen. Stick some bits together and put half of them in your refrigerator and half by your boiler or heater (be sure to keep a couple out for your coltrol group). Let the bits cure for a week or two and then switch them around. After another week or something take them out and test them.

You can check this out. And it might not be the temperature so much as the humidity that limits your bow.

[GnomeFighter]

Sorry, let me clarify. I'm less concerned with how they work in the cold (quite well, as we see) and more of what happens if you take a bow made in a very warm place to the gold, or for that matter try to take one of the Inuit bows mentioned to something like the Sahara. It's the change in temperature that I'm wondering about, not the temperature itself.

Not allot. Kind of.

You will notice the bow will perform differently dependent on temperature and humidity. The temperature difference will not be so much that it will really effect the bow to a dangerous extent. The worst effects on bows comes from change in temperature. I.e. if you quickly take a bow from a warm place to a cold place without letting it adjust it can cause problems, mostly to do with different bits expanding/contracting at different rates. This can cause problems with modern bows (mostly screwing up your tune rather than damage). Better to let a bow stay at the working temp or at least give it a gentle warm up before shooting.

My biggest worry would be humidity. I would worry a trad composite bow would not perform well in high humidity. Water could get in between the laminates and cause all sorts of problems. I have no evidence of this, but it would be something I would avoid.

[Galloglaich]

A few quick thoughts about crossbows.


First for context

100 years from now, when everyone has lasers and particle beams, someone will ask, "Were rifles accurate? Did they cause damage? Did they have long range?"

And the person who knows the answer, if there is one, will first wonder. Do they mean this .22 Marlin bolt-action?



or this Ak-47



or this .358 big-game hunting rifle?





The range of crossbows are similarly diverse. They were in use for at least 2500 years .... long enough for a wide range of varieties. Some similar to the .22, were light and suitable mostly for target practice or very small game, like the skane lockbow.

Others were used for fast shooting, like the Chinese repeating crossbow.

By the high medieval period you have a range of military and hunting types. Many were used for both activities more or less interchangeably (like a musket during Colonial American times). The most specialized hunting weapons were the slurbows, like this one, which shot pellets:



the most specialized for warfare were the windlass crossbows and other similar types, which tended to be large and powerful. Mostly used for siege warfare. These were also called "English Winders"



While longbows were popular in Wales, England, Burgundy, Scotland and Scandinavia (more or less in that order), the crossbow gradually became the preferred military weapon in Central and Southern Europe.

Though the kind of standard crossbow, with a stirrup, often spanned by a belt-hook, a bit stronger than a typical bow but not much, (and slower to shoot, maybe 60% as fast) remained popular for both war and hunting. Like this replica.



The later medieval period saw the rise of very powerful composite prod weapons like this antique



These were made of composite materials (wood, horn, sinew and so on) and they were definitely susceptible to moisture. All bows were, especially their strings, but crossbows couldn't be unstrung easily. So they tended to be kept in covers, like the guy this one is carrying on his saddle:

Spoiler

Show

For some reason I haven't been able to figure out yet they almost always kept bolts in very sturdy, solid wood quivers lined with fur, like this one




Not long after (early 1400's) you began to see steel prod crossbows which were also very strong.

Both the composite prod and the steel prod could be very strong, up to 1,200 lbs draw or more, and at least 10% (probably more like 30% or 40%) more powerful than any self-bow.

Accuracy

Crossbows were generally more accurate at shooting at individual targets than bows - a better 'sniper' weapon if you will. Bows with their high rate of shots could be a bit more 'spray and pray' at close range and something almost like light artillery or mortars at long range. English longbowmen even used to train for this with something called 'clout shooting'.

Though total range could be over 200 or 300 meters, period records from Germany and Poland mention a rough range to hit an individual person at around the equivalent of 50 meters for a bow and 80 meters for a 'standard' crossbow. There were also always stories about some guy who could shoot a birds leg off at 400 meters as well, but the sober military records (such as from the Teutonic Order) usually quote numbers like the above. Bows may have been more accurate for 'area-shots' which is how they were used a lot. To extend range, both crossbows and bows were used with 'fight arrows' (or flight 'bolts') which could shoot farther but did less damage (that might be the explanation for the 'rotten apples' anecdote shot by Dutch militia in that book about Philip the Good; I have a hard copy of that book and they also mention many other incidents in which crossbows used by the Flemish militias especially, were far more dangerous)

The really powerful crossbows were more accurate than the 'standard' type, but we don't really know how much due to the lack of really good quality replicas around today. The very powerful (800lb draw or more) steel prod crossbows are very hard (and extremely expensive) to make and pretty dangerous to use. The composite prod weapons are even more expensive and have only been made with very limited success (they start to fail after a few shots) they basically aren't within the grasp of the replica making industry yet. We also aren't sure which kind of bolts go with which kind of crossbows (some tests have shown that crossbow replicas of this level can shoot bolts up to 125 grams in weight at roughly the same speed as 40 grams)

Almost all period sources claim the late medieval crossbow was more accurate than both the bows (longbows and recurves) and the early firearms of the time (hand-gonnes and early arquebusses, mainly). By the time you get muskets and especially early rifled guns (which were not common until very late but which we know were around as early as the 15th century because they were being banned from shooting contests because they were considered cheating) at least with expert marksmen, the best guns were finally equaling and surpassing crossbows for accuracy by the mid-16th century, though a top-end military crossbow was still more accurate than the run-of-the-mill matchlock arquebus or caliver.

In addition to inherent accuracy for whatever reason, crossbows could also be held in readiness indefinitely like a gun (but unlike a bow), and unlike a bow, could be steadied against something like a wall, the nook of a tree, a window frame, the side of a wagon, etc. If you have any experience shooting rifles you know what an advantage that is for accuracy. This is probably why crossbows were so often used with wagons, or in sieges (from behind walls) or with special shields (pavises) which had a flat spot on the top just for resting the crossbow on.

Like these two



Unlike a gun (from that period) crossbows did not require the maintenance of a lit match, did not make a plume of smoke, and made only moderate noise compared to firearms (they were not as quiet as sometimes claimed though).

The Cliche's
Most of the clichés about crossbows comes from mixing up the different types. Something like a Skane lockbow is similar to a .22 that even a child could use pretty effectively. Modern documentaries typically refer to something like this in terms of ease of use. But we know from replicas and surviving antiques that the more powerful weapons, even the middling grade military ones, are not so easy or safe to use, and the top end ones are positively dangerous to the untrained. This is probably why surviving records show crossbowmen were paid quite well. The records may only show guys who were shooting the 'strong' crossbows.

Strong doesn't mean big though, a lot of the late medieval and Early Modern era crossbows of the most powerful types were rather small.

Crossbows in this range of power could reach quite far (a researcher named Payne Gallway famously shot an antique over 400 meters nearly a century ago) probably farther than any bow.

Crossbows could also definitely be used from horseback and were used this way extensively especially in the 15th century.

How to make them into 'superhero' weapons.

This is where my expertise dies off quickly, but probably the simplest thing to make an 'uber' crossbow was already covered in the original DnD; take a regular (upper end in terms of power) military crossbow and just make it instant spanning (cocking). This would be a very scary weapon equivalent to something like a powerful lever action rifle or something.

Crossbows were also used with special ammunition. Slurbows shot lead pellets as I already mentioned, these could at least theoretically be substituted for glass or ceramic globes containing pyrotechnic substances, acid, or drugs, or poison, or something more far out. Fire-bolts were also in common use, they undoubtedly wouldn't shoot as far but they are common enough in the archeological record that it's safe to assume they were effective.

G

[fusilier]

Not to stir things up too much, but I thought I would provide a counter view to the argument that crossbows were more accurate. This is an excerpt from Gunpowder and Galleys, by John P. Guilmartin, which is difficult to find, although the chapter on weaponry is available on the author's website and can be found here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/guilmar...m/Weapons.html

Having first been published in 1974 it is certainly a bit dated by now (although there was an updated version published in 2005 -- I haven't been able to get a copy of it). Most of the information references Payne-Galloway, but nearly everybody does -- a hundred years ago they got away with doing things that couldn't be done today; like going into museums and firing their 400 year old crossbows!

However, this is, so far, the most technical analysis of crossbow accuracy that I've read, so I wanted to present it --

The reasons for the crossbow’s inaccuracy are somewhat involved. They begin with the mechanics of the release mechanism (see Fig. 4). Where an archer, by precisely controlling his release, could ensure that the energy in his bowstring was smoothly transmitted to the arrow, the crossbow release mechanism released the cord abruptly and somewhat erratically. Instead of being smoothly accelerated in a carefully controlled direction, the crossbow bolt began its voyage lying loosely in its trough, and was then ‘slapped’ into flight with enormous force. Crossbow bolts had to be made short and thick with a flat base in order to prevent the tremendous impact of the cord from reducing them to splinters.12 In view of the need for strength and the basic inaccuracy of the crossbow, war bolts were often very crudely made, having a single leather fin set into a slot sawed across the base of the bolt. The aerodynamic inefficiency of the resultant shape sharply increased drag and therefore reduced the maximum range. This was aggravated by the considerable and unpredictable vibration which the impact of the cord imparted to the bolt. By further and inconsistently increasing the aerodynamic drag of the bolt this vibration additionally reduced both range and accuracy.

I am not claiming that this is necessarily the case, just that it seems fairly convincing on the surface. If Guilmartin is correct, then why do historical reports make the opposite claim about crossbows versus bows? I'm willing to speculate a little:

1. Perhaps the authors weren't as trained in the use of bow as they needed to be? It is generally agreed that learning to use a bow effectively was basically a life-style, something begun at childhood. On the other hand, the crossbow was something that could be trained in a comparatively short amount of time. If your "example" bowman was lacking the background of the former, then we could expect a crossbowman to out perform him.

2. An agenda, or embellishment, or both. Most writers from that era don't seem to have been too objective (even if they wrote as if they were).

3. A practical assessment, instead of a measure of the intrinsic capabilities of the weapon. We can tie this point with the other two in a very logical way --> if I give three weeks of bow training (point 1) to one soldier, and three weeks of crossbow training to another: the crossbowman will be more accurate with his weapon, therefore crossbows are more accurate than bows (point 2). ;-) This isn't necessarily a deliberate attempt to misinform, it's a practical statement, and in my opinion it's very important. But it can provide confusion if we are interested in the intrinsic potential of the weapon.

Or perhaps Guilmartin's analysis overloooked some counterbalancing factors? Or maybe he was just wrong? :-) I don't know, but he writes pretty convincingly!

@Incanur -- you mentioned a Scientific American article from 1985, where they conducted drag tests on actual crossbow bolts. Unfortunately, I do not have access to that magazine. As that would be more recent, and probably pretty scientific, testing, I would love hear more about it. All I could find out about it by poking around online, was that they tested ancient Roman crossbow bolts. My understanding is that most Roman "crossbows" were largish siege weapons? And such a bolt might have had considerably different dimensions from a medieval one?

[Avilan the Grey]

I must say that I have never heard that a crossbow would be more accurate than a musket as much as it was just easier to handle, cheaper, had quicker reload time and less sensitive (no fire nor dry powder to maintain).

Edit: The only time the accuracy comes up in the sources I have read is when compared to bows for untrained or not-as-trained people. Basically a bow is a superior weapon, if you spent your childhood training for it. If you haven't, you can learn how to kill both prey and enemies after a 1 week crash course with a crossbow.

[Spiryt]

I guess that in some cases that 'impact' could matter, particularly in some very crude mechanism....

But the problem I see here, that during that first 'impact' string can really transfer rather tiny amount of it's energy to arrow, and even if there was some 'shock' caused, then string still has a majority of it's energy, and time to transfer limbs energy in 'straight' direction.

How big would be the difference from bow be - arrow pushed 'instantly' vs few millimeters of string traveling on it's own.

Hard to say.

1. Perhaps the authors weren't as trained in the use of bow as they needed to be? It is generally agreed that learning to use a bow effectively was basically a life-style, something begun at childhood. On the other hand, the crossbow was something that could be trained in a comparatively short amount of time. If your "example" bowman was lacking the background of the former, then we could expect a crossbowman to out perform him.

I would suspect that simply no matter how trained bowman is, the very nature of bow shooting is somehow more erratic than situation where one doesn't need to hold that string.

[fusilier]

Edit: The only time the accuracy comes up in the sources I have read is when compared to bows for untrained or not-as-trained people. Basically a bow is a superior weapon, if you spent your childhood training for it. If you haven't, you can learn how to kill both prey and enemies after a 1 week crash course with a crossbow.

Thanks for the update. Much of the anecdotal evidence that I've heard would support this (I was recently reading Spanish accounts of Chichimecs use of the bow -- wow!). However, I'm going to briefly play devils advocate to the theory -- If one person has spent their entire life training with a weapon (a bow), wouldn't you expect them to be more proficient at it's use than someone who hadn't (a crossbow)? Regardless of the intrinsic capabilities of the weapon?

Also, even if (historical) crossbows are inherently less accurate than bows, there's a good argument to be made that they were *practically* more accurate than bows -- depending upon the circumstances.

I would suspect that simply no matter how trained bowman is, the very nature of bow shooting is somehow more erratic than situation where one doesn't need to hold that string.

I see what you are saying here, mainly, that the crossbow mechanism helps ensure a consistent amount of force is applied to the bolt each time it is shot (although in reality it would probably be effected by atmospheric conditions), but you should reread the quote from Guilmartin carefully. There are several other factors that would make it more erratic, and those would override the benefit conferred by a consistent amount of force.

I'm also not entirely certain, that a very experienced bowman, wouldn't be able to provide sufficiently consistent force either -- possibly even better than a crossbow, as he may be able to sense changes due to atmosphere (or at least be able to adjust elevation to compensate for a perceived change in force).

Something I forgot to mention earlier, is that I think crossbows are generally believed to "flatter" shooting, which most people would associate with greater accuracy -- it makes it easier to hit a vertical plane (like someone who is standing up).

[AgentPaper]

There's also a difference between "easy to aim" and "accurate". A crossbow could easily be easier to aim, meaning it takes less skill to hit a target, while a bow could be more accurate, meaning it can hit a target more accurately and reliably assuming you're very well trained in it's use.

So essentially if you had two random schmoes one with a crossbow and one with a bow, the crossbowman would be more accurate than the bowman, but if you then took a master bowman and a master crossbowman and gave them their respective weapons, the bowman might be more accurate than the crossbowman.

In game terms, the bow would have a steeper learning curve but a higher skill ceiling, meaning you start out bad at it but can get really good, whereas a crossbow has a shallow learning curve and a low skill ceiling, meaning you start out OK and can only get a bit better.

This is only a theory, but it would explain the varying reports on accuracy.

[Storm Bringer]

I think their has also been a fair amount of cherry picking that has gone on, with different sides to the debate digging through the surviving texts and dragging up quotes that support their view.


ps:
just to be clear, I am NOT accusing anyone on this forum of this, merely saying that their sources might have done so.

[Spiryt]

Something I forgot to mention earlier, is that I think crossbows are generally believed to "flatter" shooting, which most people would associate with greater accuracy -- it makes it easier to hit a vertical plane (like someone who is standing up).

I mentioned theories about it few times - way less visible archer paradox and bolt flexing in general, causes less energy waste, both on bending and due to air resistance.

Thus, bolt preserves it's velocity better, especially at 'flat' trajectories.

Dunno how true it actually is for 'most' applications, would need checking.

Theoretically, velocities possible with crossbow, might be, all other things being roughly equal, greater than with 'long' bow, because both arms have way less road to cover.

[Mathis]

Quick question regarding the bow and crossbow accuracy thing going on. Weren't bows fired in mass volleys anyway, making their accuracy, or their ability to hit the exact point you want to on the battlefield a very minor part of the weapon. I mean, the arrows travelled in an arc and only needed to fall in great numbers in a general area. The ability to pinpoint a specific soldier on the battlefield doesn't seem like a major advantage unless you are fighting someone who leads from the front such as we see in the American war of independance where American rebels singled out British officers to cripple the chain of command?

Also, was small ranged arms accuracy really an important aspect up until world war one, or when we see an end to the old style of warfare than I have no idea what to call except large units marching up to one another and unleashing volley after volley of either arrows or musketfire?

[AgentPaper]

Quick question regarding the bow and crossbow accuracy thing going on. Weren't bows fired in mass volleys anyway, making their accuracy, or their ability to hit the exact point you want to on the battlefield a very minor part of the weapon. I mean, the arrows travelled in an arc and only needed to fall in great numbers in a general area. The ability to pinpoint a specific soldier on the battlefield doesn't seem like a major advantage unless you are fighting someone who leads from the front such as we see in the American war of independance where American rebels singled out British officers to cripple the chain of command?

You still need to be accurate enough to hit that general area from a long ways away. Unless you're in a really huge battle, that area isn't likely going to be as large as you think, maybe 50 feet square for a hundred men. When shooting an arc shot especially, it takes skill to be that accurate, since things like wind speed and direction can have a huge impact on where your arrow goes.

[Spiryt]

You still need to be accurate enough to hit that general area from a long ways away. Unless you're in a really huge battle, that area isn't likely going to be as large as you think, maybe 50 feet square for a hundred men. When shooting an arc shot especially, it takes skill to be that accurate, since things like wind speed and direction can have a huge impact on where your arrow goes.

Pretty much.

We have plenty of accounts of both arrow and gun 'fire' being horribly inaccurate. Doesn't take much to miss, especially if you're aiming at something say, 200 yards away.

[fusilier]

I mentioned theories about it few times - way less visible archer paradox and bolt flexing in general, causes less energy waste, both on bending and due to air resistance.

Thus, bolt preserves it's velocity better, especially at 'flat' trajectories.

Dunno how true it actually is for 'most' applications, would need checking.

Theoretically, velocities possible with crossbow, might be, all other things being roughly equal, greater than with 'long' bow, because both arms have way less road to cover.

A couple of things:

1. Doesn't the arrow stabilize fairly quickly (i.e. stop bending), although I understand that the bending would take off some of the initial energy.

2. If I recall correctly, somewhere in a previous incarnation of this thread, crossbow bolts became unstable in flight as they lost energy. So the result was a fairly flat trajectory, then the projectile fell somewhat abruptly due to it becoming unstable. So it's flight didn't have a typical parabolic arc?

[Spiryt]

A couple of things:

1. Doesn't the arrow stabilize fairly quickly (i.e. stop bending), although I understand that the bending would take off some of the initial energy.

How and how quickly arrow stabilizes depends on how well is it's spine matched with the bow, as far as I understand... And simply, on how stiff arrow in general is.

Longer lenght for the weight = more bending even with lighter head.

And on the bow itself in general too.

There are plenty of instances of slower bow sending x arrow further than faster one - slower arrow had less velocity initially, but were loosing it slower.

In any case, arrows bending back and forth well after they left the bow are very common.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96KGWC0PB6s

2. If I recall correctly, somewhere in a previous incarnation of this thread, crossbow bolts became unstable in flight as they lost energy. So the result was a fairly flat trajectory, then the projectile fell somewhat abruptly due to it becoming unstable. So it's flight didn't have a typical parabolic arc?

Well, I would have to read, sounds interesting.

Anyway, bolts can easily have pretty nice parabolic arc, Payne Gallaway was sending bolts at well over 400m.

Theoretically, they will tend to 'dive' faster and more abruptly, because they center of gravity will tend naturally tend to be closer to the head, I believe (?).

Kinda like with olympic javelin redesign.

[Yora]

In the new Army rules in Pathfinder, all the costs for maintaining troops are reduced into a single Consumption score that includes wages, training, equipment, supplies, and so on. Also, for the sake of simple rules, any new troops you create become ready for deployment at the beginning of the next month and they simply cost their monthly consumption rate for the first month of service without any recruitment and training costs being accounted for as special "creation" costs.

Now in such a system, mercenaries would be really good. You don't have to wait until the beginning of the next month (since they are already trained, equiped, and ready for battle), they already come with battle experience (which comes in the form of a few special tricks the units know), and you only have to pay and supply them for the duration of the campaign.

Now based on historic accounts, how much more would the monthly "rent" for a unit of mercenaries be, compared to the monthly "maintainance costs" of having a standing army unit of comparable "combat power" (how much use they are in battle). Now, standing armies have not been that common during history, from what I know, but what would you say would be a good monthly cost for hiring a mercenary unit? Three times the cost for standing troops? Four times?

[AgentPaper]

@Yora:

I don't know the answer, but I can tell you for sure that this is something that will have varied widely over time, so you should probably try and narrow down your question to a specific time period, if possible.

[Yora]

I'd rather have answers regarding any period and region that anyone knows something about.
It doesn't have to be a universal answer. Some info of how it roughly was in some specific cases would already be helpful.

[fusilier]

Well, I would have to read, sounds interesting.

Anyway, bolts can easily have pretty nice parabolic arc, Payne Gallaway was sending bolts at well over 400m.

Theoretically, they will tend to 'dive' faster and more abruptly, because they center of gravity will tend naturally tend to be closer to the head, I believe (?).

Kinda like with olympic javelin redesign.

It was only something that I vaguely remember reading -- I was hoping that someone else would remember it better than me. :-)

Anyway, Payne-Gallaway was using a heavy siege style crossbow for those tests.

For comparison, the maximum range of longbows has been estimated at 400 yards (a reproduction of one from the Mary Rose reached about 360 yards), and for a turkish bow, I've heard estimates of a range of about 500 yards. That's absolute maximum -- NOT effective range. [W.F. Paterson believes that a turkish bow, with an experience archer on a good day, could hit a target the size of a man on horseback about 1 in 4 times at 280 yards]

Given the differences in force applied (although, there are probably some other factors involved too), the ranges of arrows launched from bows seem pretty impressive compared to crossbows. Which implies, to me, that arrows were more aerodynamic than bolts (and probably more stable in flight).