Why is archery the prefered combat style?

[Darklone]

My physicist part of brain hurts.

I'd love to say "Stick to the facts please" but in these discussions history dudes and scientists usually don't agree about the facts. I've seen french school books where Xbows had longer ranges than English longbows ... The same battle looked pretty different in English school books...

Same for gunpowder weapons vs bows or Xbows. There are some incidents where a small snuffbox not even made from steel stopped a bullet... so I have a hard time to imagine how this bullet should have made it through a cuirassiers harness. Then there are scientists who claim that longbows couldn't penetrate steel plates for distances greater than 20m. Yet I've seen "better" archers "shooting harder"... e.g. piercing the same plates at more than 50m.

I suggest a thread in general if we're going to discuss this further concerning physics and historic battles.

 

[mirivor]

Just as a point of knowledge:

I do not know the validity of the statement regarding the musketball and the arrow with respect to hitting force, but I do know that physics suggest that it is possible.

Battleships need to fire in an arc in order to be effective. The english ships attempting to sink the Bismark failed to do so because they were firing from a range of about 5 miles...they were too aggressive and should have backed off. Their shells were on a flat trajectory, hence at the end of their path they simply bounced off of the Bismark's hull because they did not have the aid of gravity. A projectile that must travel a distance will nearly always hit harder when fired in an arc as opposed to on a flat line. The reason is gravity's aid near the end. I do not know the numbers, but I have an engineering buddy that could work it out for us, if anyone really wants to know.

Later!

 

[llamatron2000]

force = mass x (velocity^2)

The weight of the medieval arrow and quarrel are up in the air.

Wikipedia says that quarrels were heavier, and arrows lighter.

However, other websites online say otherwise. However, they're both blown out of the water by the weight of the lead ball, and the argument loses scope when you realize how heavy the ammunition that these things fired was, compared to arrows. The average lead ball was around like, .50-60 caliber. Which..should weigh anywhere from 15-20 grams. This -definitely punks arrows.

Modern arrows that are considered heavy are about 10 grains. That's like 0.06 grams. That means that if we multiply its weight by 100, it still only about 6.48 grams. We can be pretty sure that even medieval bodkin arrows, and quarrels were not 100 times weightier than what they are today(I hope).

 

[Slaved]

F = force = M*a = mass times acceleration
KE = Kinetic energy = 0.5*M*v^2

The physics from several of the posts in this thread hurt me.

 

[Goolpsy]

Well.. why is Crossbow vs Bow even an Issue ? Crossbows are like guns... "Even usable by children"... True Range Combatants uses Bows... They require way more skill to use (irl)

 

[Jacen]

F = force = M*a = mass times acceleration
KE = Kinetic energy = 0.5*M*v^2

The physics from several of the posts in this thread hurt me.

Oh. That was the reason. I was wondering why my head was hurting.

The reason is gravity's aid near the end.

Hmmm.. and why it is better at the end? After all at the high point gravity has degreased the start spead to zero (kinetic energy has changed to potential energy) and at the end of arc (same height than start point) the potential energy has changed back to kinetic energy. At equal level equal energy.

I do not know the numbers, but I have an engineering buddy that could work it out for us, if anyone really wants to know.

If that really is like that I would like to know and the reasons behind it. Because I just do not understand that. Well there is plenty of things that I do not understand but I thought that I knew something about physics.

 

[Elethiomel]

I'm not talking about friction. I'm saying that thanks to inertia, more energy is expended up front getting the object to move. There's less left ever to keep it going..

Just to clarify the physics here:
This is wrong.
Inertia works both ways - an object with high mass will take more energy to get moving... but it will also carry all that energy. There isn't "less energy left over", because all that energy you expended to get the object moving goes somewhere - it goes into the object, to keep it moving. Well, half of it, the other half goes into you, to accelerate you in the opposite direction, but that's true for all objects, large or small, light or heavy.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Hmmm.. and why it is better at the end? After all at the high point gravity has degreased the start spead to zero (kinetic energy has changed to potential energy) and at the end of arc (same height than start point) the potential energy has changed back to kinetic energy. At equal level equal energy.

It wasn't force, it was an issue of armor placement. Even after battleships and other heavy naval combatants got deck armor it wasn't nearly as heavy as the main belt. So you tried to lob it up and drop it through the weaker deck armor where it would explode after penetrating the hull.

If that really is like that I would like to know and the reasons behind it. Because I just do not understand that. Well there is plenty of things that I do not understand but I thought that I knew something about physics.

They're assuming physics when it was other factors that made it favorable. Same reason modern anti-tank missiles are frequently top-attack somewhere the armor is weakest, that's usually the top.

Also I'd like to point out that by the middle rennaissance there were arbalests using steel prods spanned by winches that could have draw weights of up to 900-1000lbf. These were reported to have ranges of around 350-450 yards.

The limiting factor of bows and x-bows is not nearly so dependent on the draw weight as the ammunition. Modern arrows are somewhat lighter than their late medieval-rennaisance counterparts but ultimately had the same aerodynamic characteristics. Modern x-bow bolts have very little in common with their earlier counterparts. This is why x-bows in tests frequently fall short. The bolts in use at the time of the Rennaissance were shorter, stubbier and much heavier. The cross-section for wind to work on in flight was smaller and the greatly increased mass allowed them to carry farther before drifting too far off course or becoming unstable.

 

[Felon]

Just to clarify the physics here:
This is wrong.
Inertia works both ways - an object with high mass will take more energy to get moving... but it will also carry all that energy. There isn't "less energy left over", because all that energy you expended to get the object moving goes somewhere - it goes into the object, to keep it moving. Well, half of it, the other half goes into you, to accelerate you in the opposite direction, but that's true for all objects, large or small, light or heavy.

No no no, I was right, this is wrong. Everybody who thinks they can throw a 100 lb. object farther than a 10 lb. object with an equal amount of thrust is wrong. The heavier object will hit the ground harder, but it will hit the ground sooner because its momentum will get used up sooner. Please, don't head down to the patent office and try to patent a depleted uranium football. And, just let me add, ARRRGH.

My physicist part of brain hurts.

The explaining-the-self-evident part of my head needs a break. Guess it won't get one unless I take a break from the thread.

 

[Darklone]

To get this thread away from physics:

I do like the Crossbow Sniper feat. Finally something that makes Xbows really useful and worthwhile.