Why do I even need a bow now?

>>2824839

To cross it.

>>2824839
Faster to load, cheaper and easier to make and acquire, more lightweight, and, depending on the skill of your troops, more reliable.

>>2824851

Only "faster to load" is correct in this list, assuming you're comparing it with a longbow. Fielding a force of crossbowmen was much cheaper, because basically anyone can use one.

>>2824851
>easier to make
>more reliable
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>2824839
it's harder to use a crossbow on horseback

>>2824851
>cheaper and easier to make and acquire
No.
You start of by seeing if any of the wood in your territory is even eligible for a good bow.
And then there is getting lucky, lacquering, making strings, etc, etc, etc.

>>2824851
>easier to make
Making a bow might just seem like carving out a piece of wood but it requires a great deal of expertise and the right resources.

>Fielding a force of crossbowmen was much cheaper, because basically anyone can use one.
>Fielding a force of soldiers equiped with FGM-148 Javelin is much cheaper, because basically anyone can shot from that.

>>2825009
you're a retard
crossbows are actually cheaper to make than regular bows

>>2824839
Ask /k/

>>2825009

>compares a missile launcher with a crossbow

You're very special

File: Late Cold War Soviet Naval Infantry Battalion.gif (30KB, 723x572px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 723x572px

>>2825009
>Fielding a force of soldiers equiped with FGM-148 Javelin is much cheaper, because basically anyone can shot from that.
The Soviet Army during the Cold War fielded every platoon with MANPADS.

Fire rate, range and amount of energy transferred at range

>>2824851
also longer range depending on bow

>>2824839
>Why do I even need a bow now?
Range and velocity of fire.

>>2825644
The Javelin is an ATGM tho

>>2826010
Not him, but I'm sure it's similarly expensive.

>>2825644
Everyone and their mother had manpads. Fucking American mobile kitchen units had an organic attachment of stingers.

File: crossbow cavalry must have been a bitch to fight.jpg (203KB, 924x1167px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 924x1167px

>>2824921
Bullshit

>>2824851
>implying the guys you're fighting have no armor
What is this? The 11th century lel

>>2824851
>more reliable
>faster to load

Chinese switched to crossbow as soon as it became cheaper, faster, easier, lightweight and more reliable than a traditional bow.

While bow were still learned by the elites, due to it holding special interest as one of the key ingredients to a highly developed man(confucsius said so), mass production of crossbow completely killed bow warfare somewhere in Qin-Han dynasty. Following that, a large portion of their army was composed primarily of crossbowmen. Tang dynasty was one that successfully implemented heavy crossbow strategy.

File: Herald the Departure-Ming_Dynasty Detail 2.jpg (699KB, 1647x863px) Image search: [Google]

699KB, 1647x863px

>>2826756
>While bow were still learned by the elites, due to it holding special interest as one of the key ingredients to a highly developed man(confucsius said so), mass production of crossbow completely killed bow warfare somewhere in Qin-Han dynasty. Following that, a large portion of their army was composed primarily of crossbowmen. Tang dynasty was one that successfully implemented heavy crossbow strategy.

Uh, archery didn't die in China.

Considering that every single cavalryman in Imperial China was a horse archer.

>>2824849
kek

>>2826801
I never said it died. I only said it was still learned by the elites.

Bows were one of the four arts of a learned person in Chinese and it didn't change. An imperial servant seeking further advances would be tested in bows, go, calligraphy, and painting. Competitions and showmanships were displayed at grand events.

However much of the military simply switched to crossbow simply because it was more effective in actual war due to large population of conscript army and the ease of use. While bow usage was seen during cavalry due to the cavalry adopting or being former barbarians themselves.

>>2824948
>>2824983

It might be fairer to say that a shitty crossbow is probably more difficult to put together than a shitty bow, but unlike a bow, the crossbow is more conducive towards mass production.

>>2826716
And how do you reload it ?

File: 220px-Pope_Innocent_II.jpg (18KB, 220x324px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x324px

>>2824839
Because crossbows are banned!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>2826848
>I never said it died. I only said it was still learned by the elites.
Foot archers were never rendered obsolete,do you have a source that archery was restricted towards the elites?

>large population of conscript army
Warring States-Western Han levee en masse were replaced by mix of professional mercenaries,militias,native auxiliaries and hereditary farming soldiers.

>and the ease of use.
Not necessarily,the Western Han Juyan slips show crossbows of high draw weight as well as accuracy tests.

File: Soviet Mechanized Infantry Company.png (101KB, 659x579px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 659x579px

>>2826010
Oh yeah, I mistook it. In Mechanized Infantry they also had one ATGM per platoon, so my point sort of stands... >>2825009 analogy was retarded, anyway.

>>2824839
You literally don't
only anglos keep using bows after first crusade

File: FrenchMountedCrossbowman.jpg (107KB, 446x561px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 446x561px

>>2824921
they were special crossbows for cavlary

>>2825227
It doesn't matter for the example
>>2825332
But it's good analogy
>>2825644
>>2827611
>one per platoon
And now, my point was about equipping every fucking soldier with javelin. Wiki states one shot costs $78k, so you see how retarded that would be?
>crossbowmen was much cheaper, because basically anyone can use one.
Because anyone can use something doesn't mean that unit is fucking cheap. As for corssbowmen, I would like sources, because every crossbowmen companies were god damn professionals, and English longbowmen were used because they were cheaper, contradicting to what you said.