Here are some numbers from a heavy Crimean-Tatar bow. While not as impressive in terms of kinetic energy per draw weight as the Manchu bow, they suggest how powerful infantry archers armed with composite bows must have been. (Few if any horse archers would have shot such hard bows.) This bow delivers considerably more energy per draw weight than the Mary Rose replica tested for The Great Warbow - around 40-50% more with lighter arrows when fresher and 10% more with heavier arrows even after being strung for about six weeks.
A monster bow!
Very flat force-draw curve. This bow has very little reflex. I think that this makes bows like this much easier to string; if this was reflexed into a C-shape, it would be a tad difficult. Less reflex means the force-draw curve starts off flatter, so less stored energy. The benefits are easier to string, doesn't suffer as much from being left strung, and, one assumes, although the stored energy per pound of draw weight is lower, the stored energy is still greater. Might be easier and cheaper to make, too.
Very flat force-draw curve. This bow has very little reflex. I think that this makes bows like this much easier to string; if this was reflexed into a C-shape, it would be a tad difficult. Less reflex means the force-draw curve starts off flatter, so less stored energy. The benefits are easier to string, doesn't suffer as much from being left strung, and, one assumes, although the stored energy per pound of draw weight is lower, the stored energy is still greater. Might be easier and cheaper to make, too.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | ||
Here is something interesting about arrow construction in arabic bows:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050328042804/htt...arion.html |
The darts are stacked one after another in the arrow guide and then being shot at once?
Such a construction would be most useful for volume of shot of crossbows as well (the Chinese are known to have worked on this concept). Current crossbow tests show that known bolt weights are by far too light for energy efficient employment.
Maybe the Turkish arrows became longer and heavier and stacked two instead of four to five, but did not shoot one single very heavy hardwood arrow. Availability of wood in quantity and quality should have had a major effect on the type of archery that was useable due to ammunitions availability.
Battle of Aljubarrota highlights a resounding victory with the English system employed by their Portuguese allies, but hardly any missile troops in their army. How much of the English victories can be attributed to the missiles can be discussed as well.
| Kurt Scholz wrote: | ||||
The darts are stacked one after another in the arrow guide and then being shot at once? Such a construction would be most useful for volume of shot of crossbows as well (the Chinese are known to have worked on this concept). Current crossbow tests show that known bolt weights are by far too light for energy efficient employment. |
I wonder if "allowing them to be stacked in the arrow guide and shot four of five at a time" is modern comment on the size of the darts, rather than from any contemporary source? All that I have seen on arrow guides only has one short arrow at a time. The point is to launch a light arrow at high speed, for extreme range. You lose energy, so it's not very good against armour. It's the ultimate flight arrow.
I don't think either reconstruction of the arrow guide offered in that article is likely to be correct. The description "like a reed split down the middle" works for Korean arrow guides; they're a bamboo tube split in half. So a semi-circle in cross section. You can only put one dart in it; if you tried to stack them, all except the back one would fall out.
http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewar...hugenu.jpg
Naval zuge nu could shoot two bolts at once. The broadness of the magazines suggests this.
http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewar...iannu.html
The preferred method was stacking them next to each other, not one atop the other.
[ Linked Image ]
I'm not convinced one atop the other wouldn't work if there's a hole for inserting the point of the bolt behind and all is within one guided tube. The description of arrow guides does not rule out such tubes (that need a slit for the bowstring). Perhaps Gary can clarify this issue, before I make a new invention that uses archer's paradox for dispersion.
Naval zuge nu could shoot two bolts at once. The broadness of the magazines suggests this.
http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewar...iannu.html
The preferred method was stacking them next to each other, not one atop the other.
[ Linked Image ]
I'm not convinced one atop the other wouldn't work if there's a hole for inserting the point of the bolt behind and all is within one guided tube. The description of arrow guides does not rule out such tubes (that need a slit for the bowstring). Perhaps Gary can clarify this issue, before I make a new invention that uses archer's paradox for dispersion.
| Kurt Scholz wrote: |
|
I'm not convinced one atop the other wouldn't work if there's a hole for inserting the point of the bolt behind and all is within one guided tube. The description of arrow guides does not rule out such tubes (that need a slit for the bowstring). |
From literary sources, we have two functions for short arrows: (a) extra range, because they're light, and can be shot at high speed (sacrificing energy), and (b) the enemy can't return them.
Extra range is good, because then you can shoot at the enemy and they can't shoot back (unless they too have long-range short arrows).
The problem, apart from needing extra equipment and extra skill, is that the lighter arrow gets less energy (because the bow is less efficient with a lighter arrow, and also due to friction with the guide).
If you shoot multiple ones, you get less extra speed (and thus range), or even less speed. So no benefit (a). You'll also get even less energy. For example, if you shoot 5 darts that add up to one conventional arrow in weight, you'll get less than 1/5 of the energy of that single arrow (less, because of extra friction). So no anti-armour performance. So what would it be good for? It might not even give any improvement in rate-of-fire, on average.
Chinese magazine crossbows give a good rate of fire, and with the open top box magazine, can be reloaded quickly. Poor range, and low energy. Is there any literary evidence that they shot multiple bolts at once? I wouldn't claim from that picture that they did. It isn't the breadth of the magazine that matters, but the breadth of the guide, and that doesn't look wide enough. A wide magazine holds more bolts without being too tall, and is easy to reload.
Shooting multiple bolts from artillery crossbows has its uses - you improve rate of fire, and you can start with an immense amount of energy, so sacrificing energy per bolt by shooting multiples can leave you with plenty.
| Kurt Scholz wrote: |
| Perhaps Gary can clarify this issue, before I make a new invention that uses archer's paradox for dispersion. |
Go ahead and try it. Experimental archaeology can be fun, and can be informative. Can also be misleading! "It is possible this way" doesn't mean "it was done this way".
Another thing to try might be shooting multiple bolts with a windlass crossbow. Does it do better than a light hand-spanned crossbow in terms of bolt energy and rate-of-fire?
Page 4 of 4
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