Crossbow Question

Because before the invention of iron sites the purpose of a stock was to be pinned between the elbow and the hip. A crossbow like that isn't meant for aimed direct fire but for massed volley fire anyway.

>>33542452
Crossbows don't have recoil as the energy is directed to the front. So, you don't have to shoulder a crossbow like you do with a gun, you put in against your cheek and align the bolt with your eye.

>>33542452
>>33542491
>>33542527
They hadn't recognized the benefits of adding a stock yet. Same with early firearms.

>>33542527
Clearly you've never shot a crossbow before.

Disregard these dudes
>>33542491
>>33542527

This one got it right
>>33542593

>>33542491
>A crossbow like that isn't meant for aimed direct fire but for massed volley fire anyway.

the exact opposite is true. longbows are used mostly for massed volley fire in battle while precise single fire is possible for trained archers. x-bows are for precision short range engagements, especially considering the ballistics of the ammo: light projectile that moves very fast as opposed to the longbow arrow that is ~3 times as heavy and moves slower.

>>33542593
That's not entirely true. They also wanted to keep those fucking things as far from their eyes as possible in case of catastrophic failure.

>>33542675
>That's not entirely true.

Except that it is. Or maybe explain why not.

>>33542491
>the purpose of a stock was to be pinned between the elbow and the hip

im having a hard time picturing what you mean

>>33542663
Played too much Total War? Crossbows were used the same way as bows.

>>33542823
ofc, things with different ballistics are used the same way because herp derp who cares for optimization?

>>33542527
Boy if something shoots something one way the something is shot the opposite way. A crossbow would have a lot of extra recoil since it also moves the heavy spring leaves forward. Sure the will help pull the crossbow foward but only once the string is fully straigth and the bolt has been shot

File: 100544.jpg (291KB, 1300x600px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1300x600px

>>33542853
Problem?

>>33542732
Did you read the rest of my post or just skim the handful of words you understand?

>>33542491
>>33542853
m8 do you realize European crossbows were first used for siege warfare? Volley fire was the norm for any ranged weapon for both sides, it's not like they had Chris Kyle with a crossbow picking off Saracens

File: 27243009306_24840c8ae3_o.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>33542770

Well it was more armpit than hip really, though a crossbow could also be placed on top of the should or against the cheek as needed.
Pic related.

>>33543125
>it's not like they had Chris Kyle with a crossbow picking off Saracens

true. xbwas are +- CQB wepaons used primarily to stop armoured cavalry knights coming at your formations flanks (mostly) with lances.

>>33543159
And shooting the shit out of besiegers from up in your castle. Literally anyone could use a crossbow too, so your serfs can help out if things get desperate, seeing as how they're already hiding inside the castle doing nothing.

>>33542452
What >>33542593 said and the fact that crossbows actually have hardly noticeable forward recoil.

>>33543349
speaking of serfs and crossbows
the best function of crossbows was their ability to be pre-loaded, the pulley ones even by weaker inviduals like women

if you had one guard who knew how to shoot and a couple of serfs loading crossbows for him he could shoot endlessly aslong as the ammo lasted, and a sharpened wooden stick was ammo destructive enough for a crossbow against light armour

They were added in later more powerful and siege crossbows but earlier ones it wasn't required on because of weak to no recoil

>>33542641
Correct post is correct.

File: crossbow-cranequin2.jpg (102KB, 333x457px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 333x457px

>>33543349
anyone stronk enough to cock it

>>33547617
Don't have to be superman, and pretty much everyone except the Clergy were familiar with physical labor of some sort in the Middle Ages.

File: 14590153_10154122574903565_5506387520223541343_o.jpg (279KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1080x1350px

I routinely shoot with pic related

Basically there isn't much need to brace, and you basically just use the tip of the bolt as your point of aim. It's not super precise but it gets the job done, which is all you really need when you're some Italian fag hiding behind a pavise randomly shooting into a wall of Frenchmen.

>>33549205
You make it, or do they sell medieval crossbows somewhere?

File: 14666196_10153958527680095_7420208476778399750_n.jpg (123KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 720x960px

>>33549465

I commissioned it from Swift Hound Bows. She specializes in medieval style crossbows, and offers a ton of different options.

File: IMG_20161225_024624.jpg (61KB, 661x437px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 661x437px

>>33549528
How long do those targets last?

My gf bought me a crossbow for xmass(pic related) and I got nothing to shoot it at.

>>33549528
>>33549205
I gotta ask:

Why didn't they make crossbows with longer powerstrokes? 6 inches is like fucking nothing, yet it was the average for most crossbows meant for warfare.

>>33549717
They're pretty durable, I've been shooting mine for months and had no trouble. 10/10 would recommend

>>33549752
Probably because with a crossbow, the bow portion is typically made of steel and doesn't need a super long powerstroke to get a lot of force out of. Easier to cock too.

>>33549813
>Steel
Then why not make it out of wood like a normal bow to get a way bigger power stroke so you don't have to use outrageous poundages like 1000lb just to be equal to a 150lb longbow?

>>33549858
>>33549813
I only ask because I've seen entire threads on forums devolve into this discussion without any clear answer.

File: flemish.jpg (34KB, 600x353px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x353px

>>33549858

the advantage of a steel bow is that you get increased power in a smaller package.

Yeah, you could take a wooden longbow and mount it sideways to a stock, but it'd be unwieldy as fuck.

Basically a steel crossbow sacrifices range in favor of hitting power and compact size compared to a longbow. Also, unlike the longbow the crossbowman doesn't have to spend his entire life training to be worth a damn in combat.

>>33549858
Because you get a much larger bow. Steel prods allow for a more compact bow (which is great when your battlements are packed with guys), with the tradeoff being a higher draw weight. But with mechanical draw aids and a short stroke, you can keep a decent rate of fire.

>>33549899
>Basically a steel crossbow sacrifices range in favor of hitting power and compact size compared to a longbow

But that's (mostly) wrong. A massive 1250lb crossbow is about equal to a 150lb longbow in terms of energy delivered to the target, ~140 joules.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOeZTV9wiA

This is what I'm getting at. (These are all rhetorical) Why not just mount a normal bow sideways? What was the universal impetus to use a much shorter powerstroke and steel bows and spend hundreds of years trying to make them as powerful as equivalent selfbows that have been around for thousands of years? Was achieving maximum compactness THAT much of a limiting factor? If so, why?

>>33549995
>If so, why?
Because you can put more men abreast in the same amount of space when they have small crossbows than when they have horizontal longbows. The more men in the front line, the more volume of fire you get in a given amount of time.

Also, by the time that steel crossbows were all the rage, steel itself was dirt cheap in Europe so it wasn't exactly going to break the bank to go with a more advanced design.

>>33549995
Space reasons. Bows can be long because they're held vertically. A bow held horizontally would just be awkward.

>>33549995
And keep in mind that longbows were abnormally powerful when it came to bows in the middle ages, with the English being the main proponent of them. Typically you'd see lower draw weights and shorter bows, so your average crossbow was built to compete with that. 1250lb crossbows were siege tools, not for field use.

>>33542452
One of the ways to shoulder a crossbow is to place the rear end on top of your shoulder rather than resting the butt end on your chest. The trigger would then be actuated by thumb rather than the fingers.

Not necessarily the best way to do it, but this was still an experimental age.

>>33549995
>why?
Time and money. A competent longbowman had to be trained since childhood. A crossbow could be given to any random peasant. If you compared the effectiveness of a single longbowman vs. a crossbow man, the longbow has an absolute advantage, but the crossbow has a comparative advantage.

>>33543128
thats crazy i didnt know the stocks were so long

File: f7300046cadafe769ab.jpg (21KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x368px

>>33542452
Still no stock, but it has vertical handle and iron sight.

>>33543113
It was people like you who were too stupid to put stocks on crossbows.

Go fuck yourself faggot.

>>33549528
Is that a Maximillian design?

aiming was much less important for the average peasant-soldier's mass produced standard issued crossbow. youre still talking about an age when warfare meant "throw bodies at eachother until someone wins, maybe better tools gave you an advantage"

can they fire wildly into a stairwell and out from a defensive position at a horde of enemy men? great, crossbow is effective.