Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Incorrect: The energy input to the bow by the archer is exactly the work done in pulling the bow. It is the integral of force times distance. A variance in the pull force does affect this energy, therefore compound bows place more energy into an arrow by using mechanical pulleys to use high pull at the start of draw and much less pull at the end thus taking advantage of the fact that an archer is stronger at the beginning of the draw and then can hold a light pull longer for more accurate aim. However, the effect of a compound bow is irrelevant to the material. It is the result of the pulley system which is not medieval and irrelevant to this converstation. There are also medieval bows that to some extent make use of this feature. Recurve bows have a more linear force curve while longbows tend to be easy to start to draw while much harder to hold.

Strength to mass ratio of wood one the highest of all known materials used by man. Here is a chart showing the excellent specific strengths of materials. http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/m.../NS6Chart.htmlNote that top woods such as oak and pine rate better than most metals. And the metals in the higher specific strengths are strictly modern. Keep in mind that in the medieval period only bronze, brass, and mild steels were known. Whereas they had access to wonderful woods and tremendously effective materials such as sinew.

You are misusing the term elastic. Elastic means a material that returns to it's original length after the application of force. Metals are very elastic as long as you don't exceed the yield strength. But then so is wood. All materials have an elastic limit. You can break a rubber band to take an example of an extremely elastic material. Plastic materials deform under force. The best example is probably plascticine. It has near zero elasticity. Metals are also plastic after the yield strength is exceeded. This is why you can form metals with extreme force and/or heat. The elastic limit is reduced by the application of heat.

Haha: Took me a bit. I thought you were serious on first read.

Correct: You trade speed for force. I agree that crossbows can be built with much higher penetration since you are not limited by human arm strength. The ultimate example is a ballista. Crank wound and probably only shoot every minute or so, but they can shoot a gigantic bolt of probably 10 lbs at somewhere in that 300 fps speed. Now that is penetration.

But we started with the basic discussion that simple goat's foot type crossbows that are fairly quick to load (say 2-3 per minute) have more penetration than a longbow.

I think this is the crux of the matter. It's very difficult to learn to shot a longbow. While crossbows are quite easy to learn to shot. There is another very important advantage to a crossbow. You can carry it loaded. Which brings into play the huge advantage of volley fire. It takes a great deal more coordination to get volley fire with bows. It's quite difficult to hold a longbow drawn for any time and aim gets worse as you hold it. You can hold a crossbow ready to fire for a long time.

Well, interesting discussion. I know I'm annoying the heck out of LingChih by keeping it going but I'm having fun.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

The angle of the impact also plays a role in armor penetration. I don't think longbows were really efficient at penetration while using indirect fire, which is mandatory to shoot at long distances.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I don't think anyone has the right to lock this thread. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT SOMEONE WINS.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I didn't realise the objective was to pierce through a completely flat wall standing upright on even ground.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

And if we're being picky then we can talk about efficiency losses depending on material too - coefficient of restitution etc. are probably quite relevant here. I seem to remember that the maximum return on the energy you put into a bow is on the order of 1/3, and that the rate of return is in some way dependent on the length of the bow.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

What is firepower about exactly ? A French Lancer or Gendarme unit is a bit like a moving wall, with pointy stuffs.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Read Devices and Desires, by KJ Parker, if you really want to get anal about all of this.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Medievel longbows and medieval crossbows were tested for penetration, both historically and in period rexaminations.

Penetrating power was found to be almost the same. Which isn't as crazy as it sounds, as they used the same waxed hemp strings.

The primary advantage of crossbows were the ease of rounding up troops, (and hence any old peasant would do). Vs the cost of training long bowman.

A unit of crossbowman were probably 1/2 as effective as a unit of longbowman. And probably 1/5 the cost - and with a much broader pool of people that you could draw to form the units - they were much more available.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

This leads to the question of artillery. Why are there no scorpions (heavy, long range crossbow), or other heavy artillery in the game?

God, I can't believe I just added to this thread again.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

According to the siege engineers description, he makes the equipment for sieging. It is apparently not used in the battles. For those you use mages as heavy artillery.