Hi Guys,
If you are interested in bows, unless you have been under a rock for 2 years you will have come across Joerg Sprave's magazine feeding system for bows.
Basically this is a 5 shot magazine system he has been making "proofs of concept" mock ups of for years, developing his ideas and the design until he got to a productionised model that is shown here, https://youtu.be/u-t1zyvxhrw , alongside a version he asked me to make.
Much discussion has been spent on, had it existed, whether it would have changed the medieval world and if so how? As part of this, much noise was made that it would not have been possible using medieval technology and so he asked me to make one; so I did.
A full blown medieval version is shown being tested by Joe Gibbs here, https://youtu.be/TcDP9jN_FFQ with a 5 shots in 10 seconds using a 120lbs longbow and a montage of 5 Joe's loosing 25 shots in 8 seconds....Impressive.
This object is so polarising, with the longbow community loathing it and a massive Joerg contingent loving it, that balanced debate has left the building and I wanted to bring it back. So I was very happy to get involved, and what I love about this place is you almost always find balanced debate
Is it dreadful, a gimmick and a waste of time? No absolutely not
Is it the answer to all bow related archer/knight/soldier encounters? No absolutely not
So I am throwing it out to you guys - what do you think?
I don't want to set a strong start point, but my basic thinking is that if you really need to hold a narrow passage for short time and really need nothing to get past, this could be just the thing.....Street fighting, battlement clearance, ford and hedge gap defence, that sort of thing, but maybe you disagree.......
Tod
The obvious question to me is how fast can you reload that magazine? The first handful of shots are going to come out quicker, but after that initial volley, I’d think that a traditional longbow is going to have a massive advantage. Seems like it would only have a real advantage in very narrow tactical applications to me.
Still a neat piece of engineering, but certainly not a “game-changer” in any way that I can see.
Still a neat piece of engineering, but certainly not a “game-changer” in any way that I can see.
| John Kinsey wrote: |
| The obvious question to me is how fast can you reload that magazine? The first handful of shots are going to come out quicker, but after that initial volley, I’d think that a traditional longbow is going to have a massive advantage. |
Well if your archers retired to the back of the file to reload while another man advanced to take his place, like what musketeers did, then this wouldn't be such a big problem.
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | ||
Well if your archers retired to the back of the file to reload while another man advanced to take his place, like what musketeers did, then this wouldn't be such a big problem. |
True, but wouldn’t that same group of archers firing simultaneous volleys from traditional bows still be able to put more arrows on target? If the instant Legolas holds about an initial advantage of 2 or 3 to 1 in rate of fire over the traditional bow, then it’s going to be outpaced pretty quickly unless it’s really quick and easy to reload. Except in very narrow tactical applications (extremely limited frontage so only one archer can shoot at a time, etc).
As Joe used it, I agree with Tod and John that this device is probably best for holding a narrow front against a slightly larger group of attackers (in theory odds of 5:1, but 3:1 or even 2:1 is probably more realistic). That said, if the forward grip had worked out for him (or could be modified to work), I think that has the potential to bring some benefits besides just shooting fast. It still wouldn't be as good as a crossbow for "sniping", but the forward grip could help with holding a drawn bow ready while waiting for a shot. I would also be curious to see, with an archer using the forward grip and their normal rate of fire, if it made any difference in how tired they became. I realize that the body mechanics are off from normal, so that might undermine any benefit from the forward grip, but I think that feature has more room to offer more potential benefits than just the fast shooting provided by the magazine.
As used in the video and with the possible inclusion of the forward grip, I basically see this as a defensive weapon for sieges or the like.
To my mind, the modern version made by Joerg has 5 benefits:
1. Faster rate of fire due to the magazine
2. Easier aiming due to the red dot sight on the magazine body
3. Draw weight reduction due to the rubber-band assist
4. Less fatigue at full draw due to the forward grip
5. Possibly more consistency due to using a trigger
Since the forward grip, sights, and draw assist (or at lest your initial concept) didn't work out, you are really only getting the first and last benefits (with the last one probably being irrelevant to someone like Joe Gibbs). That doesn't make it useless, as you pointed out, but I think it does remove some of the flexibility that the modern version enjoys.
-- Greyson
As used in the video and with the possible inclusion of the forward grip, I basically see this as a defensive weapon for sieges or the like.
To my mind, the modern version made by Joerg has 5 benefits:
1. Faster rate of fire due to the magazine
2. Easier aiming due to the red dot sight on the magazine body
3. Draw weight reduction due to the rubber-band assist
4. Less fatigue at full draw due to the forward grip
5. Possibly more consistency due to using a trigger
Since the forward grip, sights, and draw assist (or at lest your initial concept) didn't work out, you are really only getting the first and last benefits (with the last one probably being irrelevant to someone like Joe Gibbs). That doesn't make it useless, as you pointed out, but I think it does remove some of the flexibility that the modern version enjoys.
-- Greyson
Last edited by Greyson Brown on Fri 03 Jul, 2020 2:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Do we know how deeps lines of longbowmen usually were? According to Dr. Tobias Capwell archers shot directly at the enemy and not in an arched trajectory. This means that men were not shooting over the heads of those in front of them. So you could have two ranks shooting at the same time if they were staggered. It would indeed help if we knew how long it takes to reload the Instant Let. If for example it takes one minute, then files of six men should have enough time to reload by the time that each man takes his turn to shoot.
Last edited by Stephen Curtin on Fri 03 Jul, 2020 11:26 am; edited 1 time in total
| Leo Todeschini wrote: |
| So I am throwing it out to you guys - what do you think?
I don't want to set a strong start point, but my basic thinking is that if you really need to hold a narrow passage for short time and really need nothing to get past, this could be just the thing.....Street fighting, battlement clearance, ford and hedge gap defence, that sort of thing, but maybe you disagree....... Tod |
Tod, warfare in this period is not my specialty, but I think "try to make it with contemporary tools and materials" is a way better place to start than speculating from behind a laptop whether it could or could not be made!
Your design looks much more complicated than a 15th century Frankish crossbow (and the crossbowmakers of Venice in the 13th century seem to have been making the simple bow-tiller-nut-trigger-stirrup kind of crossbow). If they had wanted something more like a Qin dynasty crossbow with the many-part cast bronze lock, or like a 17th century German hunting crossbow with the bolt clip and the adjustable sight, they would have made it, but bowyers and crossbow-makers amongst the Franks seem to have prized simplicity and power, at least for soldiers' bows. So I am not sure it is the kind of thing they were interest in.
Edit: I count two removable horn/antler parts, a horn spring, five removable pins and a screw, a moving slider in the tiller plus the parts that can't be separated but still move like the sight and the trapdoor for the string and the two pivoted tabs to lock the trapdoor. So maybe three times as many parts as a regular old one-foot crossbow?
Have you been reading Philon of Byzantium on the polybolos? Or some of the sources on how the Lián Nŭ / chu-ko-nu was used in China?
Ok so I found a video on the "Medieval History TV" YouTube channel which times how long it takes to reload one of these devices.
https://youtu.be/elCSXilidTY
It took 40 seconds to pick up the weapon, load it, and get off 5 shots. Now if you take away the time it took fiddle around with the stopwatch and pick up the weapon, and drilled a bit, then it would be more like 30 seconds. So with rotating files of 3 or 4 men you could easily keep a constant rate of fire without any breaks to reload.
That said rate of fire isn't the be-all-end-all, there are obviously other factors to consider, I just wanted to point out that there are ways around longer reload times.
https://youtu.be/elCSXilidTY
It took 40 seconds to pick up the weapon, load it, and get off 5 shots. Now if you take away the time it took fiddle around with the stopwatch and pick up the weapon, and drilled a bit, then it would be more like 30 seconds. So with rotating files of 3 or 4 men you could easily keep a constant rate of fire without any breaks to reload.
That said rate of fire isn't the be-all-end-all, there are obviously other factors to consider, I just wanted to point out that there are ways around longer reload times.
| Stephen Curtin wrote: |
| Do we know how deeps lines of longbowmen usually were? According to Dr. Tobias Capwell archers shot directly at the enemy and not in an arched trajectory. This means that men were not shooting over the heads of those in front of them. So you could have two ranks shooting at the same time if they were staggered. |
I believe Dr. Capwell was making a specific reference to Agincourt there, which makes sense given the targets being men at arms on foot largely armored in full plate harness. At anything less than extreme close range the arrow storm would likely be mostly wasted.
In other situations, Crecy for example, or Halidon Hill, deeper formations lofting volleys at much longer range would likely have been more effective given much less heavily armored targets (horses / men in mail or transitional harness).
The primary sources are really unclear on English deployments during the HYW era, and there are many different opinions among modern historians. Personally I am pretty skeptical that anything resembling a “standard formation” exists at all.
Also, attaching one of those to a bow makes the whole weapon much heavier and more cumbersome / awkward. I have to think that an archer using one would suffer some in terms of mobility in the field as opposed to a traditional long bow man.
I’m also still struggling to see a rate of fire advantage beyond the initial five shot volley. A file of archers so armed with one shooting as the others reload is still going to be outshot by that same number of archers standing abreast firing simultaneously.
I’m also still struggling to see a rate of fire advantage beyond the initial five shot volley. A file of archers so armed with one shooting as the others reload is still going to be outshot by that same number of archers standing abreast firing simultaneously.
| Stephen Curtin wrote: |
|
That said rate of fire isn't the be-all-end-all, there are obviously other factors to consider, I just wanted to point out that there are ways around longer reload times. |
I believe that arrow supplies were historically a large limiting factor, and a device like this would bring that problem even more to the fore. Perhaps doubly so, since arrows made for the instant legolas are not compatible with any other weapon.
This sort of thing would be good for a single devastating volley, perhaps in an ambush or to counter a charge. In extended use situations, because of the supply issues, I don't see a a viable use scenario.
Now, for individual users outside of warfare, well that's another matter entirely.
Thanks so much for joining in guys.
A few notes.....
Stripper clips were shown to be possible so potentially reload times could be reduced massively
Greyson Brown wrote
Different body mechanics were certainly not helpful, but training or a redesign would solve this I suspect and also I know a medieval MK2 would be smaller.
Sean Manning wrote
I assume you didn't watch my film (not compulsory!) but that is what my film shows....
Sean Manning wrote
Absolutely not my design, that goes to Jorg Sprave at the slingshot channel https://www.youtube.com/user/JoergSprave , he just asked me to make a "medieval" version. I absolutely agree that simplicity is always cherished in a munition weapon and in fact I have discovered that tight but good slides are difficult with medieval technology and in fact interestingly this device took me three times as long to make as a basic crossbow.
Sean Manning wrote
.
No, as I said the invention is not mine, but I think Jorg took initial inspiration from the chu-ko-nu. However from what I understand of the polybolos I am pretty skeptical of the whole idea as it seems to defy basic physics...
Stephen Curtain wrote
Agreed, rate of fire is very important and it is often adopted in the end, but any weapon is a combination of things and effectiveness is part of it, but so are all those boring factors, like cost, supply logistics, complexity, required support services etc.
John Kinsey wrote
Mobility for sure suffers, exacerbated by reloading as the bow is then moved to a horizontal position and somebody will drop their bolts and be scrabbling around for them...
I agree that as soon as we get to reload the advantage is largely gone, but a larger mag would be quite possible.
I will make a further film elaborating on my thoughts, but the outline is here, but please let me know what you think.
You need to start with a trained heavy archer because cycling through with a reasonably heavy bow is very tiring, very rapidly, so lets say you start with a 160lbs shooter, a rapid pace can be kept up using a 90 or 100lbs bow - enough weight to count.
This lets you shoot 40g arrows out to 180m and the archer can put out 20 arrows very rapidly. Stripper clips or similar would be possible as would be loaders or ranked shooting etc so yes this can lay down a massive and sustained barrage. At short and accurate range of say 50m, a harassing fire to the face would have been possible and very distracting.
Complexity means it would be in limited production and only for those already well trained, so I see it as used by heavy and well trained archers in breach or breaching positions where this suppressing fire would have been useful. Think" gun shields" on The Mary Rose, not battlefield weapons and just a very singular use, but nonetheless in existence.
I think they are also not battlefield weapons, because the extreme simplicity of moving around with a longbow is very different to moving around with an "Instant Legolas", so retiring through a hedge line for example would be a very different exercise.
The last set of thoughts I have is about logistics. If these had a sustained use, how in hell do you keep it effectively resupplied? Jorg has made the point that if it was found to be effective they would have found a way to get over the logistical problems and probably the cost problems, but how in the middle of a campaign in France you get around a limited ammunition supply and limited number of wagons and the people to move between the wagons and the lines?
Back at ya - thoughts?
Tod
A few notes.....
Stripper clips were shown to be possible so potentially reload times could be reduced massively
Greyson Brown wrote
| Quote: |
| I realize that the body mechanics are off from normal, so that might undermine any benefit from the forward grip, but I think that feature has more room to offer more potential benefits than just the fast shooting provided by the magazine. |
Different body mechanics were certainly not helpful, but training or a redesign would solve this I suspect and also I know a medieval MK2 would be smaller.
Sean Manning wrote
| Quote: |
| but I think "try to make it with contemporary tools and materials" is a way better place to start than speculating from behind a laptop whether it could or could not be made! |
I assume you didn't watch my film (not compulsory!) but that is what my film shows....
Sean Manning wrote
| Quote: |
| Your design looks much more complicated than a 15th century Frankish crossbow (and the crossbowmakers of Venice in the 13th century seem to have been making the simple bow-tiller-nut-trigger-stirrup kind of crossbow)........ they would have made it, but bowyers and crossbow-makers amongst the Franks seem to have prized simplicity and power |
Absolutely not my design, that goes to Jorg Sprave at the slingshot channel https://www.youtube.com/user/JoergSprave , he just asked me to make a "medieval" version. I absolutely agree that simplicity is always cherished in a munition weapon and in fact I have discovered that tight but good slides are difficult with medieval technology and in fact interestingly this device took me three times as long to make as a basic crossbow.
Sean Manning wrote
| Quote: |
| Have you been reading Philon of Byzantium on the polybolos? Or some of the sources on how the Lián Nŭ / chu-ko-nu was used in China? |
No, as I said the invention is not mine, but I think Jorg took initial inspiration from the chu-ko-nu. However from what I understand of the polybolos I am pretty skeptical of the whole idea as it seems to defy basic physics...
Stephen Curtain wrote
| Quote: |
| That said rate of fire isn't the be-all-end-all, there are obviously other factors to consider, I just wanted to point out that there are ways around longer reload times. |
Agreed, rate of fire is very important and it is often adopted in the end, but any weapon is a combination of things and effectiveness is part of it, but so are all those boring factors, like cost, supply logistics, complexity, required support services etc.
John Kinsey wrote
| Quote: |
| Also, attaching one of those to a bow makes the whole weapon much heavier and more cumbersome / awkward. I have to think that an archer using one would suffer some in terms of mobility in the field as opposed to a traditional long bow man.
I’m also still struggling to see a rate of fire advantage beyond the initial five shot volley. A file of archers so armed with one shooting as the others reload is still going to be outshot by that same number of archers standing abreast firing simultaneously. |
Mobility for sure suffers, exacerbated by reloading as the bow is then moved to a horizontal position and somebody will drop their bolts and be scrabbling around for them...
I agree that as soon as we get to reload the advantage is largely gone, but a larger mag would be quite possible.
I will make a further film elaborating on my thoughts, but the outline is here, but please let me know what you think.
You need to start with a trained heavy archer because cycling through with a reasonably heavy bow is very tiring, very rapidly, so lets say you start with a 160lbs shooter, a rapid pace can be kept up using a 90 or 100lbs bow - enough weight to count.
This lets you shoot 40g arrows out to 180m and the archer can put out 20 arrows very rapidly. Stripper clips or similar would be possible as would be loaders or ranked shooting etc so yes this can lay down a massive and sustained barrage. At short and accurate range of say 50m, a harassing fire to the face would have been possible and very distracting.
Complexity means it would be in limited production and only for those already well trained, so I see it as used by heavy and well trained archers in breach or breaching positions where this suppressing fire would have been useful. Think" gun shields" on The Mary Rose, not battlefield weapons and just a very singular use, but nonetheless in existence.
I think they are also not battlefield weapons, because the extreme simplicity of moving around with a longbow is very different to moving around with an "Instant Legolas", so retiring through a hedge line for example would be a very different exercise.
The last set of thoughts I have is about logistics. If these had a sustained use, how in hell do you keep it effectively resupplied? Jorg has made the point that if it was found to be effective they would have found a way to get over the logistical problems and probably the cost problems, but how in the middle of a campaign in France you get around a limited ammunition supply and limited number of wagons and the people to move between the wagons and the lines?
Back at ya - thoughts?
Tod
| Tyler Jordan wrote: |
|
I believe that arrow supplies were historically a large limiting factor, and a device like this would bring that problem even more to the fore. Perhaps doubly so, since arrows made for the instant legolas are not compatible with any other weapon. |
I doubt that, the Praecepta Militaria mentions that the roman archers are to be equipped with 150 arrows each while the Taktika by Nikephoros Ouranos tells the general to bring at least 200 000 arrows for 4000 archers or even up to 400 000. Requirements would not have been that high if arrows were a limiting factor.
| Martin Kallander wrote: | ||
I doubt that, the Praecepta Militaria mentions that the roman archers are to be equipped with 150 arrows each while the Taktika by Nikephoros Ouranos tells the general to bring at least 200 000 arrows for 4000 archers or even up to 400 000. Requirements would not have been that high if arrows were a limiting factor. |
Those are very different bows and arrows. If you use short reed arrows with light heads and small feathers, a man on horseback can carry 100 or more arrows, If you use long, heavy wooden arrows with big feathers a man on foot can't carry so many.
If there is one thing that I wish fans of historical archery would get into their heads, it is that the Mary Rose bows are weird **** in a world historical perspective. They are way out at the end on quite a few different variables, designed to do some very specific and unusual things. Those Scythian bows would not have been effective against 16th century armour, the Mary Rose bows would be no good for shower shooting all day long at a range of 300 yards. The evidence for soldiers using bows with massive draw weights is very concentrated in 16th and 17th century Eurasia, not earlier periods or other continents.
| Leo Todeschini wrote: |
| I assume you didn't watch my film (not compulsory!) but that is what my film shows.... |
No, I watched it, so I said that trying to build something is way better than the people in comments sections.
Is the device which you disassembled your design or not? In the video, you said you took Jorg's design and redesigned it into something you are confident that you could build with medieval tools.
| Sean Manning wrote: |
|
Those are very different bows and arrows. If you use short reed arrows with light heads and small feathers, a man on horseback can carry 100 or more arrows, If you use long, heavy wooden arrows with big feathers a man on foot can't carry so many. |
The arrows mentioned are not of the scythian variety, the archers only carried 100 of them in the Praecepta and that was done in 2 quivers of 40 and 60 arrows while the archers of Ouranos had 50 in one. The romans did use those arrows you speak of and they differentiated between them so we know that these are the normal "long arrows" because of that. These are the arrows for the infantry battalions and while they're not as massive as the Mary rose arrows, they're still quite big as they were intended primarily to counter fully armoured cataphracts.
Tod, your Mary Rose reference made me think of using these in a naval role as a kind of medieval blunderbuss to clear the decks against a boarding party — I think it could be quite effective in such a role where instant ammo on target largely trumps most other factors. Also, maybe clearing the top of a wall to enable placement / climbing of ladders — as well as defending against such. Tactically, use it more like a modern shotgun as opposed to an assault rifle.
| Leo Todeschini wrote: |
|
So I am throwing it out to you guys - what do you think? I don't want to set a strong start point, but my basic thinking is that if you really need to hold a narrow passage for short time and really need nothing to get past, this could be just the thing.....Street fighting, battlement clearance, ford and hedge gap defence, that sort of thing, but maybe you disagree....... Tod |
That's some really good thoughts we have and I suppose we could also extent it somewhat to modern warfare.
Would you rather cross open ground knowing there's a light machine gun pointed at it or try crossing knowing some snipers or marksmen equipped with bolt action or semi-automatic rifles are watching. It's a thought experiment though for some veterans on the site it may have some bearing on real life situations. What I am trying to get at is that a light machine gun might not do the job better than a marksmen or sniper just because its rate of fire is several hundred times higher. What presses on the minds of those who are advancing is the likelihood they get wounded. In the First World War modern rifles and machine guns certainly added to the overal bogging down of the war of the Western Front but I cannot help but get the notion the largest suppressing effect and chief reason for building trenches were howitzers which did not fire fast but were so effective because they could lob shrapnel and high explosive shells sufficient to wipe out entire platoons.
To return to Medieval and Early Modern times: We know that when William the Bastard landed in England the first troops to hit the beach were archers, a horde of skirmishers whose missile file could provide cover for the landing. Likewise we know archers in the 100 years war did fire so incessantly at the battlements of a castle that Froissart mentions the defenders dared not show their head.
Slower firing crossbows were also used to this effect and could apparently provide suppressing fire. In the Middle East mounted crossbowmen were grouped with knights in the understanding that their fire alone was enough to force Saracen horse archers to keep their distance. During various amphibious assaults of the Crusades crossbows likewise provided the covering or beach clearing fire needed for the attacking force to successfully disembark. If I am not mistaken crossbows held a bridge against a Mongol assault at the battle of Mohi, the Mongols duly responding by clearing them with fire from stone throwing machines.
In the 16th century Americas a group of shipwrecked people had two crossbowmen who were apparently enough to keep several hundred native warriors at a comfortable distance.
When I first came across these things it seemed rather anachronistic but now I realise that using missile fire from bows, crossbows or even stone throwing artillery was occasionally sufficient to clear areas, hold choke points and provide suppressing fire in a way that might seem much more modern than what we are used to thinking.
But I would hesitate to assume a linear increase in effectiveness on the basis of rate of fire rather than fire power. Slower firing crossbows and even stone throwers could on occasion clear areas and provide suppressing fire, later even slower firing muskets and rifles would do that job well. I don't believe the World War Two MG 42 used by the Germans was twice as good at its job than the American Browning just because its rate of fire was twice that.
Again I think a veteran might be much better able to articulate this but rate of fire is just part of overal effectiveness. Being shot at by a machine gun you might worry about the rate of fire at which bullets are being flung your way but you might also consider things like the distance between you and the machine gun. At longer distances moving about, advancing or retreating could become a slightly more attractive proposition.
If we content that the magazine longbow is better at suppressing fire, holding choke points and that sort of stuff the best way to quantify that would be to try and get a 'firepower' rating for it compared to the normal bow.
Rate of fire is a key factor but one that influences other metrics of its effectiveness. If a 300% increase in rate of fire is bought at a 100% decrease in range, hitting power (i.e. ability to wound) and accuracy the resulting weapon might actually be less effective. The Chinese used crossbows with a high rate of fire but their anaemic range and hitting power had to be compensated for by using poisoned bolt heads among other things.
Of course rate of fire could also make up for decreases in range, hitting power and accuracy as the quantity of arrows can become a quality of its own
[ Linked Image ]
Lastly I would note that while suppressing fire and clearing areas with primitive missile weapons was done I don't think missile fire along was ever enough to stop a fully determined group from closing. Even in WWI people went over the top (though admittedly with suppressing fire on their own side) and made it to the other trench perhaps suffering 75% casualties along the way but being in the enemy trench nonetheless.
Cheers!
| Martin Kallander wrote: | ||
The arrows mentioned are not of the scythian variety, the archers only carried 100 of them in the Praecepta and that was done in 2 quivers of 40 and 60 arrows while the archers of Ouranos had 50 in one. The romans did use those arrows you speak of and they differentiated between them so we know that these are the normal "long arrows" because of that. These are the arrows for the infantry battalions and while they're not as massive as the Mary rose arrows, they're still quite big as they were intended primarily to counter fully armoured cataphracts. |
The properties of 10th century East Roman bows are a little off topic, but I will suggest that if infantry in one culture are carrying four times as many arrows as infantry in another culture (100 vs. 24), their arrows are probably lighter and less bulky (another possibility is that carrying 100 arrows in two quivers was one of the many bright ideas that someone with a bee in his bonnet wrote down and everyone but the author thought was crazy).
This has always been a trade-off, because for a given amount of transportation, you can carry more of the less powerful, accurate, long-ranged projectiles. Thucydides and Chinese historians have horror stories about armies that ran out of ammunition in the middle of combat, but there are also stories about one side having longer range or more penetrating power.
Jörg has invented a repeating crossbow with some cool features, I wonder if it would be simpler to just admit that and lash the bow to the tiller. Would that let the maker simplify the design?
Edit: they did have roles for windlass crossbows, springalds, and various kinds of artillery mounted on carts or wagons, but those could each do something that an archer with a horn bow and practice taking 3 to 6 arrows in their draw hand and shooting them all one after another can not do.
For Tod's power assist solution query someone came up with a great idea similar to something I was thinking of with one major difference from my idea, and that would be that instead of solid fixed arms transferring/getting force from some sort of separate spring system, I would simply use leaf springs that the slide would push against directly.
The main idea was to ditch the idea of using a reverse bow and a string, the force at the maximum draw of the slide before the releasing the bow string and loosing the arrow is at the maximum power assist of the system. As opposed to the actual bow shooting the arrow the strength of the power assist is important as it stacks upward in the right direction, but there is no need for any limb speed in the assist mechanism as long as it returns power in a way to lessen the perceived draw weight on the bow shooting the arrow.
Full credit to the person who sent this solution to Tod by the way, I only had a vague idea that one should get away from the reverse bow and string as a solution and the proposed solution is really thinking out of the box.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTHqt8mvY-4
Using leaf springs directly to press against the slide can be very mechanically simple, and the spring steel well within the technical capabilities of the Mediaeval period when steel crossbow prods where being made.
The main idea was to ditch the idea of using a reverse bow and a string, the force at the maximum draw of the slide before the releasing the bow string and loosing the arrow is at the maximum power assist of the system. As opposed to the actual bow shooting the arrow the strength of the power assist is important as it stacks upward in the right direction, but there is no need for any limb speed in the assist mechanism as long as it returns power in a way to lessen the perceived draw weight on the bow shooting the arrow.
Full credit to the person who sent this solution to Tod by the way, I only had a vague idea that one should get away from the reverse bow and string as a solution and the proposed solution is really thinking out of the box.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTHqt8mvY-4
Using leaf springs directly to press against the slide can be very mechanically simple, and the spring steel well within the technical capabilities of the Mediaeval period when steel crossbow prods where being made.
Sean Manning wrote
I think the exact name is not really relevant, it is more "would it have had a role and if so what?"
Jean, there were some very interesting ideas that were plausible and I have made a follow up vid covering them, so that should be out in 2-3 weeks I think, maybe less. I did really enjoy seeing what people came up with though as 100,000 minds can cook up some amazing things.
I think a very plausible suggestion as to how it could have been deployed was a small. highly trained, rapid shock group or maybe 10 guys who rush in and rush out of a given situation to achieve something specific and something fast; perhaps a snatch squad or for softening up the end of a line, rushing a gate etc . However I suspect this type of thinking is more modern and less medieval so that would effectively rule it out. - thoughts?
Tod
| Quote: |
| Jörg has invented a repeating crossbow with some cool features, I wonder if it would be simpler to just admit that and lash the bow to the tiller. Would that let the maker simplify the design? |
I think the exact name is not really relevant, it is more "would it have had a role and if so what?"
Jean, there were some very interesting ideas that were plausible and I have made a follow up vid covering them, so that should be out in 2-3 weeks I think, maybe less. I did really enjoy seeing what people came up with though as 100,000 minds can cook up some amazing things.
I think a very plausible suggestion as to how it could have been deployed was a small. highly trained, rapid shock group or maybe 10 guys who rush in and rush out of a given situation to achieve something specific and something fast; perhaps a snatch squad or for softening up the end of a line, rushing a gate etc . However I suspect this type of thinking is more modern and less medieval so that would effectively rule it out. - thoughts?
Tod
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum