How strong can a bow and arrow really be, and are they actually

Let me put it in perspective.

An arrow, going fast enough, could theoretically pierce the side of an M1A2 MBT.

>>33213663
Imagine the arms on that archer.
THAT guy would be BeefMcLargehuge.

>>33213663
Nah, the arrow would be utterly destroyed. It would just be destroyed more or less violently depending on its energy, but just wood will probably not be able to go fast enough to meaningfully penetrate steel of that thickness.

It could put a hell of a dent, though.

>>33213574
Arrows are actually good against kevlar because they're sharp. A sufficiently fast enough arrow could probably at least break weaker/thinner armor plates and impart injuries through sheer force, especially if it's flat-tipped or is something like a field point. against ceramic, though, it'd probably break the arrow before the plate, though. Maybe injure with splinters but that's about it.

>>33213663
Has Crysis 3 gone too far?

Is the Oneida Eagle bow the closest to Horizon's moving limb bow? Anyone have one and comment on how those are?

The game is making me want to get a compound bow.

File: apfsds fdsgsds.jpg (29KB, 547x316px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 547x316px

>>33213663
An arrow, going fast enough, could theoretically pierce the side of an M1A2 MBT.

would this arrow happen to look like this?

File: 88822e21f9f6483b5ddb70e70ec1bf79e1db1884.jpg (48KB, 480x631px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 480x631px

>>33213574
Throughout the Hundred Years War the English and Welsh archers used longbows which were powerful enough to turn the armoured French knights into pincushions inside of 80 yards. Of the three big battles fought in that conflict the reputation of the longbows was such that at the last one, Agincourt, when the archers didn't have enough arrows for once, the French still avoided the English flanks and charged up the middle in a narrow column to die in the mud against the dismounted knights and men-at-arms instead.

It was around the same time that various nobles around Europe were petitioning the Pope to get him to issue and edict against the use of crossbows in battle because they were allowing the poor to make a mess of the posh knightly types.

>>33214558
A longbow would not penetrate plate armor

You hear of rare occasions of how an arrow somehow managed to get the 1 in 1000 odds of getting at just the right angle that it gets into a visor. This is brought up because it was such an impossible thought - the fact that it was mentioned wasn't because it was commonplace but because it was so extraordinary that people remembered it

>>33214610

Lol what. Bows did go through armor. Same for crossbows, but at half the range. And if you feel like disagreeing, do your homework and provide some proof.

>>33214558
>>33215014
>"oh yeah I'm a history buff, love me some History channel! What do you mean knights didn't fight other knights with swords lol? Of course you can stab through playe armor you just need to be strong. Do you even lypht faggo?"

File: 1485504667859.jpg (41KB, 500x308px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x308px

>>33213574
>drawing a big power bow
>with that fucking bent arm, concave chest form

im mad with autism

File: englongbow1.jpg (81KB, 718x960px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 718x960px

>>33214558
>>33214610
>>33215014
>>33215079
depending on the type of armor and the angle of impact an arrow shot from an english longbow will or will not penetrate armor.
arrows can penetrate plate armor at a certain distance when being shot directly at the target.
The downfall of the french at agincourt was, however, their piss-poor tactics and the state of the (muddy) battlefield against the english with a ranged weapon. The english longbow is not an invincible weapon; it's success heavily depends on tactics

>>33215176
>>33215180
>>33215196

>Brits always circlejerk over "Muh longbow"
>don't realise it was only so successful at Angicourt because of a lot of factors, many of which have nothing to do with the bow itself.

Oh the poor stupid tea sucking faggots.

>>33214558
>myths Victorian britbongs invented
>Longbows which were powerful enough to turn the armoured French knights into pincushions inside of 80 yards.
>swords are iron clubs
>knight needs a crane to get into saddle
>knight can't rise from the ground himself

>>33215387
Don't forget:
>knights pissed and shat in their armor because it takes 3 people to put it on or take it off
>you can cut/pierce plate with a sword
>butted mail
>vikings were crazed madmen who fought naked
>holy knights used maces and warhammers because god forbid them to spill blood
>people didn't bathe in the middle ages
>dual wielding is a viable option regardless of setting and context
>lol bucklers are useless tf is that small shield

>>33215226
You have to be 18 to post here mate.

>>33213703
It could still destroy the m1a2, it just needs to go faster
>what are relativistic speeds

>>33215079
There are fighting manuals that describe armored sword fighting. But you dont stab through the armor, you try and stab between the plates.

But a sword is very different from an arrow

>>33215598
Half-swording and murder strikes are literally the only efficient way to fight with a sword versus someone in plate, however those techniques have to be explicitly though in manuals, as opposed to "whack em as hard as you can with a mace". Point is there are people that think you can stab someone through a sheet of hardened steel, riveted mail and a gambeson without having to adapt to that fact.

>How strong can a bow and arrow really be
As strong as a human can draw it. I think war bows had a pull force of 50kg, correct me if I'm wrong.

>are they actually usable on armored targets?
No. Even riveted mail padded with a gambeson offered good protection against them.

>>33215702
>"Detailed analysis of the War bows recovered from the Tudor warship Mary Rose, which sank in battle in 1545 with an almost complete inventory including hundreds of bows and thousands of arrows, show the draw weights ranging from 80lbs to 180lbs with the most prolific being in the 140lb range."

>>33215226
It wasn't the longbow which won the day at Agincourt, Frogfu - Crecy and Poitiers was where that happened.

The French nobility were just even bigger fucking morons than usual at Agincourt: first letting the English set up their lines; then lounging around so long the English marched forward a hundred yards to set up again; when they finally do attack they didn't notice the incoming volleys from the archers on the flanks were inconsistent (indicating they were low on arrow stocks); and then they all advanced in such a narrow column they churned the field up into mud and exhausted themselves before they reached the English lines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2lbB3OMNns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDvTXprbAO4

>>33213574
Old ass longbows? Nope

Modern compound bow with tungsten tip arrow? Yes

>>33217305
Now add a gambeson and cloth beneath that armor and reiterate the test.

>>33217305
>mild 18ga steel
What's your point?

>>33215550
A great majority of people in the Middle Ages didn't bathe with any regularity, due to a scarcity of clean water with which to do so and the relatively steep cost of soaps of the era. That doesn't mean they NEVER bathed, just that it wasn't a daily occurrence.

The French nobles actually made a habit of it despite the knowledge and resources to bathe daily, there are historic, time-period-correct accounts of French nobles that caked so much makeup and perfume on themselves to hide their nastiness it would crack and fall off randomly and scare the shit out of people
>holy fuck half that dude's face just fell off!

>>33217395
By most accounts people bathed at least weekly. Of course Europe consists of many nations and cultures so you can't put a blanket statement on it. As for the French nobility and their love of make up, that occurred in early modern times (in historic terms) so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

>>33213574
Not that powerful, massed vollies are the best way to use bows for a reason, if you're not in armor then they'd fucking pin cushion you, but even simple shit like a linthorax was good enough to keep you alive, which is why every cunt would get a helmet, then a cuirass if they could before anything else
Maille did a good job at stopping arrows, there's a reason knights dying was fairly uncommon, once plate came around bows in general didn't stand a chance, though still served a purpose, and not like every fuck had good armor, some fucks were bound to be unlucky too

>>33217424
I think this is a difference in perspective between the modern era where pretty much everybody showers at least daily with a large subset of the population showering 2-3x a day. Many people would consider "at least weekly" the same as "didn't bathe with any regularity".

And I think with you pointing out the lack of homogenity in Europe ties in with another point: There are ways of achieving some form of cleanliness without purposefully bathing. For example, the Irish and most of the coastal villages regardless of nationality or ethnicity were known to swim a lot either recreationally or as part of some job (fishing), and almost everybody made at least a half-assed attempt at washing their hands prior to or during food prep. Plus people got rained on a lot, and with a total lack of waterproof clothing they got sorta-clean on accident.

>>33215014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY

But sure go ahead and disagree with one of the world's greatest authorities of medieval and renaissance arms and armor, a man who has published multiple books and articles on such subjects, is the curator of arms and armor for the Wallace Collection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg
Oh look a 130 pound English longbow shot at a properly hardened and tempered breastplate results in the arrow bouncing off and breaking, it's almost like armor is intended to stop this kind of stuff

>>33217661
Heh, I forget people bathe that often. I try showering no more often than every 3 days, in fact I'd do it even less, if I didn't enjoy showers as much as I do. It's really unhealthy for your hair and skin to bathe on the daily, in addition to that the more you wash, the faster you start smelling and the faster your hair gets oily. 1-2 times weekly really is a perfect amount according to research. Funny how the "filthy peasants" of yesteryear had a better hygiene routine than most modern people.

As for the bathing in the middle ages, there are many reasons people went to large bodies of water in the middle ages, wash clothes, utensils, fetch water, take the herd to a watering hole, catch fish etc. it's undoubted that they took a dunk to wash off the gunk while at it. It is also documented that going to the river for a bath was a social activity in many cultures.

Zero Dawn was a dumb game.
>Lol let's make mecha tyranids
>2060 Army got rekt.
>you can kill them with a bow.
>railguns and 5.56 BTFO'd

>>33214558
this is england's equivalent of "steel folded over a thousand time"

>>33217325


even better diamond tip arrow.

>>33214383
Not him, but yes.

>>33217805
>muh realism

>>33217805
Is it fun though? That's the most important part

>>33217903
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUpPYvELLB8

>>33215598

>he thinks relativistic speed means fast

if you had an arrow flying at the speed of light, it would still pulverize itself against the tank, but would have bit of a light show, create some heat, make a loud bang, and still not penetrate.

velocity does not = ultimate super weapon.

you must have mass, and you must have a proper material.

>>33215629
even a single handed thrust from a standard medieval arming sword and go straight through plate. you'd need a hell of a sword arm, and a good, clean, straight on angle to do it though. hence why the armor was shaped the way it was. you need to attack from an odd angle to get a straight on hit. difficult but not impossible. most knights died to sword thrusts, spears, and arrows. only your big ass long swords and other two handers needed half swording, etc.

>source
>5 years in HEMA

>>33217762
Thank you, I was waiting for someone to bust out those videos and show arrows Don't pierce properly made armor

Some guy posted three links, two with shit steel wallhanger plates being pierce and one with fucking boiled leather

>>33214558
>>33214610
>>33215079
Man, we just stumble into the hard questions. See, nobody has really gotten the question of plate vs arrow down because of how many assumptions you'd need to make. The tempering of the armor, the strength of the bow, the range, the placement, and really the entire thing is a tangled mess.

So let me add my $0.02 and make it even more tangled.

So as a rule, you weren't going to kill a man in plate armor. The head and torso had the heaviest plates and even when you did penetrate the arrow rarely went deep enough to kill.

That being said, you could still hurt a man in armor. The limbs had thinner plates and the visor needed holes so the wearer could see and breath.

Second, remember that archers often outnumbered armored knights and were renown for their rate of fire. Even if you only had a one in a hundred chance you had a couple hundred chances.

Finally, remember that arrows were used more often as a harassing force than to hold a line. You'd see them raining down arrows as their enemy tried to organize a charge. You'd see longbowmen holding castles where knights would have to run on foot to the walls. You'd see archers assaulting walls, laying down such a withering hail that the defenders would have to duck less be knocked out by the shear number of hits.

So no, I don't think archers held up cavalry charges. But I also don't think they often needed to.

>>33217924
that's depressing so women are strong amdn black men are weak ass pussies in the game that's shame full

if i was trying to kill my self and a woman told me to get hold of my emotions i would kill my self

>>33218013
Clearly it just needs to go so fast that it turns into a plasma and burns through the tank.

File: IMG_0210.jpg (78KB, 720x703px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 720x703px

>>33218013
Cletus, an average arrow traveling at the speed of light would impart 1.35 billion megajoules of energy. That's essentially the energy of a 1 kiloton atomic bomb.

>>33218101
Stakes did a good job of helping out, I know English longbowmen in the 14th century were payed a good wage, so it wasn't like the cavalry and infantry would get past the arrows and be charging rabble, they'd be going towards big wooden stakes and armed and armored soldiers
Though as you say they were never really expected to hold up to cavalry, but it's not like they were helpless

>>33218101
In his example though, Agincourt did have muddy terrain where spikes deployed at the line did have an effect. the horses in the rear of the charge panicked and broke and spent a huge amount of time just prancing in from of the English line

Though you can make an argument that it was more french lack of structure and discipline then it was archers that made the difference.

>>33218013
I want to see someone go "straight through" a 2mm thick hardened medium carbon steel sheet, regardless of the angle.
I practice HEMA as well, you jackass and that accounts for nothing, because you don't practice in armor, nor do you practice with sharp swords, nor would a HEMA instructor with two brain cells to rub together would ever tell you to stab at the armor.
Methinks sir doth pulleth manure out thy bottocks.

>>33218180
>>33218208
And when the english archers didn't had time to set up their stakes or any defensive positions, they were massacred by the French cavalry charge like in Patay and Châtillon...

>Agincourt
I know I should be used to it now but this "g" always gets me...

>>33218208
>>33217223
>>33215226
>Though you can make an argument that it was more french lack of structure and discipline then it was archers that made the difference.

Just a reminder, Frogfu is actually right here. In both Crecy and Agincourt, the archers gained their notoriety not for slaying armored gendarmes with powerful bow-shot, but for slaying armored gendarmes at close range with dagger, sword, and mallet. And also for burning a bunch of captive gendarmes alive inside a barn.

>>33213574
>Fictional archer characters are 90% female
This meme needs to die, a longbow requires some serious arm, shoulder, and back muscles to draw.

>>33220262
>FICTIONAL

File: 3a936a69806f55ad42cf6cde038ebe30.jpg (45KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 800x600px

>>33220262
You'll always have me, bby

File: Gawain a shit.jpg (199KB, 480x804px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 480x804px

>>33220336
Archer is the best

>>33213663
I think we call that a sabot

>>33220336
>>33220349
That VN was the best fictional read I've had, the "adult" moments were the only shit parts in it.

>>33217325
Go fuck yourself, you complete dumbass.

File: 1341413546331.jpg (605KB, 1920x2160px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1920x2160px

>>33220893
Have you read Fate/Zero?
The MC has a Thompson Contender as his weapon of choice.

>>33218147
Nyet totally right. An arrow traveling at light speed is A. impossible from what we know today and B. would create a second big bang. Travelling at lower relativistic speed though you'd create a second Hiroshima/Castle Bravo/Tsar though.

>>33218237
so much this

>>33220262
They should rather go for the sword, that's far lighter and easier to handle. It's not only the women though, all the male fictional archers are the wimpy, skinny dudes as well.

>>33213574
a 120 pound draw weight long bow has been known to penetrate about 4 inches of solid oak
>someone found it stuck in a door

>>33221975
Nope, but I suppose I should.

>>33213681
>BeefMcLargehuge
kek.

>put your dick away fuckboi your not getting any

File: 543534.jpg (53KB, 564x405px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 564x405px

>>33213574
>How strong can a bow and arrow really be

>>33220572
Sabot is that shit that falls off the arrow when it leaves the barrel.

>>33213574
>How strong can a bow and arrow really be, and are they actually usable on armored targets?

I'd say no;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs

>>33223263
Ballistas are completely different from bows and crossbows my friend

They use torsion springs (the ropes) rather than the bows bending

>>33220572
Do you even know what a sabot is?