I came across a website that stated that the Guptas used steel longbows is this true? and if so
how effective were these bows?

Steel bows have been used historically. They aren't as efficient as composite bows or even self bows but they can be stored for decades in arsenals since they require little maintancnce.

We recently discussed this on another forum. The energy stored in steel at maximum deformation is 130 J/kg. Compare this to yew 900, horn 1500, and tendon 2500. However, steel is more compact because of its density. An equal volume of steel would store 2080 J to yew's 900. But the steel would weigh 16kg compared to yew, which would only weigh 1kg. Looking at this, steel seems to be a poor material for bows. This might change as the weapon increases in size. Steel would be better for heavy crossbows and seige weapons because the volume of wood would be too great to make anything practical from it.

I must say again, pretty interesting. Especially the treatise on bow physics.

I've done some calculations based on similar things, but the speed of the limb movement is something I've had ideas about, but nothing concrete. Seems like this goes more into that limb movement thing, though I only perused it briefly and I'm not sure if it addresses the terminal velocity issue.

The Wallace Collection has a couple of Indian or Persian steel bows, I forget which and what is interesting is that they are flat on the back and triangular on the belly. No idea as to stats though.

In the 1950's in the UK and maybe elsewhere you could buy some tubular steel and beatifully if cheaply made bows that break down in the middle and plug together. A friend of mine has one and it shoots very nicely and quickly and is about 30lb. They were apparently prone to internal corrosion with no visible external corrosion and should be shot with extreme care now.

I also think from Robert Hardy's book, the last English enemy shot with a bow was in the Second world war and was shot with a steel bow as the wooden one had been broken.

Tod

Hey Dan, I was looking at that website you linked to, how realistic an RPG is it? I mean compared to Dungeons and dragons?

I've probably played close to 50 different RPG systems over the last 25 years and IMO GURPS is the most realistic and versatile. It has been my favourite for a long time.

Ever looked at TROS or Harnmaster?

TROS as a game is a great combat simulator, endorsed by ARMA. LIttle too much fluff in their "toughness issues" and things like that but otherwise a great simulator.

IMO, Harmaster is the most realistc system out there, but takes some tweaking to get to be as realisic as I like it.

You ought to like something about Harnmaster though. Depending on which version of the rules you use and which optional ones, Mail and Plate are almost never penetrated by melee weapons or bows - but the wearer can get pretty bruised up inside :D

No Conan types cutting through metal helmet and coif all the time!

Dan, when I finish my setting, I might have to send it to you for a look through. It's based around DnD, but using the E6 rules, with a lot of melee combat stuff rewritten by me to try and more accurately portray interesting combat.

M.

Indian steel bows? Just check the article on the new Sagittarius site (it's also on the old site but the navigation there is a bit less intuitive) :

http://www.sagittarius.utwente.nl/index.php?o...;Itemid=38