Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Squirrelloid]

Military arrow heads are made so that you cannot pull it back out of the wound without significant tearing. The best solution is to push it through (after cutting the shaft down), but this isn't always survivable.

[Rookierookie]

I was under the impression that arrowheads are removed by digging it and any flesh attached to it out with a knife.

[Knai]

Often that is the method. Either way though, you need to be able to get a grip on the head, and carefully remove it, and the equipment required is much less specialized, either a knife or pushing. Its not easy by any means, but the ability to grip makes it far easier.

[Sombre]

Well they're all going to die from secondary infection anyway,.. so,.. what's the difference again? :]

[pyg]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Well they're all going to die from secondary infection anyway,.. so,.. what's the difference again? :]

Yes, but diseased units only loose 1 hp a month so they should live to fight a few more times.

[Knai]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Well they're all going to die from secondary infection anyway,.. so,.. what's the difference again? :]

Who knows. You might triple the rate of survival with what amounts to a rounding error on rate of death.

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Military arrow heads are made so that you cannot pull it back out of the wound without significant tearing. The best solution is to push it through (after cutting the shaft down), but this isn't always survivable.

Not necessarily. Scythian design was, but, say, English wasn't. Ancient Greeks used both variants.
"Needle" heads designed for punching through armor never head additional spikes as these would interfere with penetration. The same goes for crossbow heads.
Of course, even straignt arrowhead could warp after striking armor or bone and muscles around wound could contract, so pulling arrow back could become difficult.
As for the best solution, that was the "Dioclos' spoon" - a specially designed tool pushed into the wound channel to catch an arrowhead and pull it back. Of course, it required a trained surgeon to use - but pushing arrow through needed one, too - to avoid major bloodvessels, for example.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Maerlande

Excellent point and one I did not address. Easiest way to model it mathematically is by an efficiency factor. I don't know the details sufficiently to make an analysis of this effect but I would be very interested if you can find some references or can supply some more information. Along with that same point there is a serious problem with the arrow flexing. It is my understanding that this is why modern hollow shaft metal and composite arrows are much more effective. They fly faster and straighter. But frankly, modern materials are not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about medieval bows and crossbows.

Ignoring all "complicated" stuff like friction or speed-dependent forces it would still be damn hard to model, and flexible objects can only be really analysed via computerprograms afaik. However there are two simple points to add:
The energy put into the bow ( - losses) doesn't equal the energy of the arrow but the energy of the arrow and all the moving bowparts at the moment of launch. I can't calculate how a bow would actually behave but for a simple balista with rigid arms and torsion springs in the middle this should come to
E(bow) / E(arrow) = mass(bow) / 16 * mass(arrow)
With E(arrow) = (1/2) * mass(arrow) * speed²(arrow)
So speed²(arrow) = 2 * E(input) / (mass(bow)/8 + mass(arrow))

So if the bow weights 8 times as much as the arrow the catapult has only an efficiency of 50% (and that's not even counting entropy) a catapult which weights 24 times as much only 25%.
(While every real bowshape should be more energy efficient this still applies with different factors)

Now, so making the bow heavier (or changing its shape) makes it less efficient, why would we do so anyway? For one thing because we want additional draw weight.

And that makes two factors that limit the crossbows we can build. It's undoubtedly true that the crossbowman can put a lot more energy into the crossbow, but the question is could the medieval people build crossbows that could handle that extra energy while putting enough of it into the bolt to make a difference.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Maerlande

But Chris,

You aren't being suckered by the rhetoric are you? You understand my point that whatever the material the energy input is a human being. And I totally agree with you on the training of Yeomen. It's pretty famous. Which goes back to the original debate. Longbows were getting the shaft as far as I'm concerned. They are incredible weapons but do need training.

But of course if you want to submit fact you will be required to find those references I promise to read them.

And really, you can't say this

without references. Because how do we know those are facts?

I'd love to see those penetration tests. I did some digging but best I could find were British naval round tests. Not irrelevant but the energies involved are orders of magnitude higher.

Both longbows and crossbows are getting the shaft as far as I'm concerned for reasons of making a game. Happens in a lot of systems - why play a swordsmen when an archer kills you dead ...

The in game deviation way exceeds anything reasonable. As a rule of thumb I'd estimate left right deviaition to be no more than 5% of the distance, with an expert marksmen. In game turns, I might say 5% * (5-Experience).

As I said, I dont' recall the name of the book, but a simple google of medievel arrow penetration yields a few links


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/longbow.htm

Which notes that an arrow could penetrate 4" of solid oak.
At 200 meters, it penetrated 1", at 100 meters it could penetrate plate armor.

the following site
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html

has excellent statistics that the muzzle velocities of the crossbows and the arrows were very similiar. 133 vs 138 fps.
He claims that the 'most powerful' crossbows could penetrate plate at 200 meters.

He notes that the efficiency of the crossbow was nowhere near that of the longbow, as the tips of the lathes did not have sufficient time to move.

By the late medieval period (15th century) crossbows had exceeded longbows in penetration power.

[BigDaddy]

Still, I think I'm understanding more of the situation here. The crossbowmen were unskilled. Skilled crossbowmen worked in teams of three with two loaders and a shooter with 3 crossbows and a couple shields that make a wall, but those were mercenaries. Essentially all the longbowmen were a type of mercenary as well. These were all skilled units. The crossbowmen were handed a weapon and sent out.

At various times its been pointed out the someone has to load the force into the weapon. While for 1 shot this is not a big deal for either, after 10 minutes it's a huge deal for the conscripts, even if the crossbow is easy to shoot, even if they aren't expected to shoot that fast... yes, even with the mechanical advantage, you'll still need to pull the string back, and the crossbow took a lot more 'work' (scientific definition) from a lot less skilled soldier. The team of three avoids all this trouble, but, still, wouldn't you rather have 3 longbowmen? Ah, yes, a good general would find good locations for both.