Recruitable Unit Rebalance Version 7.51 Released.

[wombatsSAR]

BigDaddy said:
I couldn't find anything about historic ranges for heavy crossbows. They where never widely employed, and because of targeting issues (they had no scopes after all) the range of the other weapons was really already adequate.

I don't understand why a crossbow suddenly needs a scope to fire at distant targets. The quarrel arcs out into the air, just an arrow, just as bullet. As for ranges, Payne-Gallway has fired one to 400 m. This matches up with the known draw weight and aerodynamic efficiency of the quarrel. If you would like, I can repost the literature references so you can peer at them yourself.

I assume they fire somewhat farther, but likely not alot. The short draw lenght would still really limit any medieval x-bow.

The short draw length is only relavent in considering quarrel design and the rate of fire. Once the bolt is accellerated to its 60+ m/s, it doesn't matter. The fact that the old designs did this in such a short span meant that the quarrel had to be particularly stout. The rate of fire issue is related because an efficient bow means that it can have a lower draw weight for a given effective power and can therefore be recocked faster. A man can only put out so much work in a given period of time.

[BigDaddy]

The sling sites where sited earlier, after saber cherry asked for them.

Here's one of many comparisons showing a typical xbow vs a longbow.

I found it by typing:
longbow crossbow

into my search engine. I read the same thing repeatedly in my search to prove crossbows superior. If you look, you will too.

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html

The draw length IS VERY IMPORTANT. I won't go into this in length, its covered on this site and many others. With much less draw stregth current crossbows fire quarrels 2-3 times faster (138fps to 320fps). Hee hee, I said V-shape (meant U shape). A medeival xbow is like ")" a modern crossbow is like a "U".

Scopes and sights are only important for accuracy, so you're right the heavy crossbows must not have been widely used for some other reason. Though the one on the quoted sight is 740lb draw (suspect).

A crossbow, it seems, can penetrate armor at somewhat longer range.

Did I miss anything?