Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 177

Thread: Archery

  1. #91

    Here you go a guy makijg a long shot first time

    But sadly he is not using even a 50lb bow. Mere 49. ***** ! Little toy bow man. I can't wait for Bawang to ***** slap you. Real men use 500lb man bow weak hand or you get head chop off. Better guy home now you done forever weak old man.

  2. #92
    Oh what the heck.

    My theory on those really heavy bows. They were to make guys stronger for using the lighter bows. Not meant for actual combat. Exercise bows. That's what I think anyway. I have no proof. That's the problem. We build "proof" based on what was written which often suffers in translation. Through myth and legends and combine it with what we know now. Often creating the most improbable beliefs when we really have no one or very limited ones capable of even a tenth of legend. Then if we look at it logically we often miss the simplest reason "why" may be.

    The English Longbow was great for its intended use, shooting relatively close at an enemy "in force" and having those arrows drop down on them from above but would suffer greatly if not in the proper battle field or if the enemy changed tactics. If they changed tactics lighter bows ruled the day. Shortbowmen flanked and used hit and run tactics. Longbowmen died when that happened . This was done either on horseback or foot. A horse is much easier to hit than a man. So many shortbowmen would end up on foot. Rapid, accurate fire. Everybody talks and worries of power. But the simple fact is most guys were not armoured up like we think. You had to buy your own gear, LOL. People skimp of that ****. Want ***** and ale this week or a chest plate or a new mail shirt? Legs are always a target and shortbowmen close up probably had great control and accuracy. The longbow tactic was not the greatest thing ever. In the end it was defeated. They got outflanked and guys developed better armour. Not always of steel, hint.

    I still stand by my assertion most men of any time period can not use a 100+ bow effectively very long. Most cant use it period. And though there will always be someone that can prove they can do it, that does not mean they all can do it. And again, I believe the very heavy bows were exercise bows not meant for battle. So why would they be carrying exercise bows to battle areas? Well, if they won, they may be there awhile. Their new home. After all they are now occupying this land. But there is always a bruiser that will grab a big bow and fire arrows. His probably arc-ed to far, LOL. Go find a 60-80 pound long bow and see how easy that is to pull. Or push. Whatever your technique.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    998
    When you have an army running en masse towards the adversary, the use of the bow is great, i.e. a phalanx of trained bowmen aiming at the oncoming horde so there is an actual mass of targets. As you get close then you switch to spear (the next phalanx) then face to face as the distance is narrowed, wiht the sword. So proximity will determine the type of weapon at x quarters.
    The better bowmen may have individual "targets" but I am guessing that this is an exception per skill versus the general bowman who uses his tools on the oncoming army as a way to close the gap.
    Modern day warfare uses a similar tactic, where one would substitute the barrage of cannons (modern) to the earlier tactic of raining arrows as a way for the enemy to humker doen, then the wave of horsemen follows then the lancers, etc

  4. #94
    A 50 pound bow is plenty strong enough to kill a deer, (or a man.) While I'm no expert, I would expect Mawali is right. Aside from strength training, I imagine the purpose of 100 pound plus bows was for long distance shooting at an advancing an army. "Raining arrows" on them.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

  5. #95
    Exactly. They are called WarBows for a reason. They were not used any where else ! There would not be a Englishman alive then tamping through the woods with sucha monster. 6feet plus. He may use a shorter long bow of 4 feet but it will not be anywhere near 100 lbs . He certainly would never hunt with it. It has limited use. And once people understood where it was strong they defeated the tactic.

    In that time long range was not that far apart. That distance is potentially closed rapidly. Those bows lose effectiveness when people get to close. They are simply to large in length. In the beginning the English could hold off the entire enemy but that rather quickly started to be less and less effective.

    The Mongol bows are much more multipurpose because of their size. Laminates probably would not hold up well in the weather conditions of Britan. The English could make laminates as well.

    Some people mistake weight with effectiveness. It was greatly effective if used properly. Their were lots of archers to rotate out for breaks. So, yes you can have a good amount of men using 100lb bows but not for long and no way all day. It is simply not replicable today which means, it is a myth ! Most guys wont be pulling that weight more than 12-20 times before they are done! For proof, just watch youtube vids of guys capable of pulling a hundred pound bow. How long do they last? How fast are they pulling? Are they living up to legend?
    Last edited by boxerbilly; 02-21-2016 at 04:17 PM.

  6. #96
    And before anyone suggests the 100year war. IT WAS NOT the longbow that made the war go 100 years. For if it was, I would flat out tell you, the longbow SUCKED ! Which for all intent purpose, I believe it does. Now the shorter longbow is a good bow. Not a short bow. A short- longbow.

  7. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    Exactly. They are called WarBows for a reason. They were not used any where else ! There would not be a Englishman alive then tamping through the woods with sucha monster. 6feet plus. He may use a shorter long bow of 4 feet but it will not be anywhere near 100 lbs . He certainly would never hunt with it. It has limited use. And once people understood where it was strong they defeated the tactic.

    In that time long range was not that far apart. That distance is potentially closed rapidly. Those bows lose effectiveness when people get to close. They are simply to large in length. In the beginning the English could hold off the entire enemy but that rather quickly started to be less and less effective.

    The Mongol bows are much more multipurpose because of their size. Laminates probably would not hold up well in the weather conditions of Britan. The English could make laminates as well.
    Only thing I here I doubt is the laminates not holding up in the weather. I think laminated recurves are far superior to traditional long bows, although I'm not familiar with the quality of laminates "back in the day." Anyway, the crossbow is the king of bows; and I just got me one last night.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

  8. #98
    At that time, crossbows were not the superior bow. The French had cross bows on the battlefield. As for todays laminates, YES I agree. Then? There must have been a problem. They can be built faster. The average longbow took years to make. The wood had to season. They had the ability to make them and did so but they tended to not be massed produced. Why? Lack of enough people with the skill ? I think it would have been mandated that skill is to be learned and fast by the Crown. So, for some reason they were disregarded.

    This is another problem I have. You read, The English Longbowmen had to have special training that took years and years to become skilled with the weapon. That was not the purpose of using the longbow on the field. No one then decide, okay, this war is planned for the next hundred years or so. "We now have time to train our longbowmen 10 years each before we can deploy them. Make sure the French agree with that will you. " No, Those guys needed to be effective and fast. This is war and we are at it. Which is why training gets condensed. Only the biggest and strongest would be guys using 100lb bows. And as time went on that pool got smaller and smaller.

    There is this belief they were the greatest bowmen in England. Again, that is a fallacy. For awhile , because of the tactic, they received great honor and notoriety. Which got twisted and lives on to this day. Their actual effectiveness over that war was not that great in my opinion. Basically there job was to funnel the enemy . Well like in the movie 300. Close the battlefield down to reduce the effectiveness of a larger army. Great way to take out a crowed coming out a door too. Only so many can come through at once.

    But again, once France got some better tacticians and developed improved amour, which they probably had the best even at the beginning. Basically, padding reduced the longbows effectiveness. Aside from the very beginning, in my opinion the longbow was used torment more than killing.

    Shorter lighter bows are better bows except for special circumstances such as England experienced.

    Oh, I have entertained the idea that those really heavy bows were potentially used as foot bows on the battlefield but Ive never found anyone mentioning it in books and I never actively went looking for that as proof. For the most part, I simply don't care anymore.

  9. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    At that time, crossbows were not the superior bow. The French had cross bows on the battlefield. As for todays laminates, YES I agree. Then? There must have been a problem.
    Bows have a higher cadence. English bowmen and Italian crossbowmen had a shootout at Crecy. Guess who won.

    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    This is another problem I have. You read, The English Longbowmen had to have special training that took years and years to become skilled with the weapon.
    All English boys and men were required by law to practice archery on Sundays.

    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    Their actual effectiveness over that war was not that great in my opinion. [...] Aside from the very beginning, in my opinion the longbow was used torment more than killing.
    You can't say they weren't effective. At the battle of Agincourt they practically ended the age of the armored knight on horse. However your assessment is probably still correct.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...French_assault

    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    Oh, I have entertained the idea that those really heavy bows were potentially used as foot bows on the battlefield but Ive never found anyone mentioning it in books and I never actively went looking for that as proof. For the most part, I simply don't care anymore.
    English bowmen were incredibly strong. You can see it in what is left of their bones. Also they had a different method of drawing the bow. They use their whole back as in Kyudo instead of just using the Deltoid muscle.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-17309665

  10. #100
    Cataphract,

    I will try an reply later. Busy day ahead.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    You seem to not be realizing that the draw weight of TODAY'S bows are lower because they do NOT have to be any higher to get the same if not better results.
    The arrows are better and need less to make them penetrate and the materials used on bows is so much better.

    I have used older bows from the japanese line the the western lines, bows made the old ways and they are far harder to use BUT with training one can most certainly use them as well as modern ones.

    Archery, on the battlefield, was used more like "artillery" than sniping.
    Slavos of arrows were rained upon the infantry and cavalry.

    They used bows of different draw weights to accomplish different tasks and in regards to the heavier draw weights which they used with heavier arrows, it was for these slavos.
    When hunting they used bows with less draw weight and that were smaller, not by much mind you.

    Again, the difference was due to materials used and the fabrication process.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  12. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataphract View Post
    Bows have a higher cadence. English bowmen and Italian crossbowmen had a shootout at Crecy. Guess who won.


    All English boys and men were required by law to practice archery on Sundays.

    "TRUE but is that going to create men capable of such heavy pulls?"


    You can't say they weren't effective. At the battle of Agincourt they practically ended the age of the armored knight on horse. However your assessment is probably still correct.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...French_assault

    "I agree they were effective early on."

    English bowmen were incredibly strong. You can see it in what is left of their bones. Also they had a different method of drawing the bow. They use their whole back as in Kyudo instead of just using the Deltoid muscle.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-17309665

    "I disagree. Some were incredibly strong. Most were probably no stronger than the average man today. Most bowmen were not professional soldiers. Perhaps those found on the Rose were such soldiers? Now here is the thing. I said Longbows to along time to make. Well that is only half true. They could be finished very quickly. It was the season process that took years. They final stage of actual bow construction could be 15 minutes. Which leads me to believe bows could be modified to lower pulls very quickly. Again, actual weights are disputed and I do not side with those that believe these weights were standard for every archer. Just not going to happen. Yes, there are a few men alive today that can pull amazing weights. ( I use pull but a 6 foot + bow required different technique) but then as now few ! I think we are deluding ourselves based on one ship found with rather large bowmen and heavy pull bows.

    And again, I have major issues with everyone saying, some of these bows took a lifetime before one could use them. Hello, WAR. We don't have a lifetime to create monster pullers. Few men then as now are capable of such weights. That is my belief and the Bows and Bones found on the Rose will not sway me .I simply disagree


    Edit: some of my replies ended up in the box.

  13. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    You seem to not be realizing that the draw weight of TODAY'S bows are lower because they do NOT have to be any higher to get the same if not better results.
    The arrows are better and need less to make them penetrate and the materials used on bows is so much better.

    I have used older bows from the japanese line the the western lines, bows made the old ways and they are far harder to use BUT with training one can most certainly use them as well as modern ones.

    Archery, on the battlefield, was used more like "artillery" than sniping.
    Slavos of arrows were rained upon the infantry and cavalry.

    They used bows of different draw weights to accomplish different tasks and in regards to the heavier draw weights which they used with heavier arrows, it was for these slavos.
    When hunting they used bows with less draw weight and that were smaller, not by much mind you.

    Again, the difference was due to materials used and the fabrication process.

    Agree. People believe for some reason that the longbow was just this 6 foot plus monster. Not all longbows were 6 feet. Different bows for different reason and smaller bows are more multipurpose.

    I agree with modern is more efficient. But pull weights are essentially the same. Then one needs to potentially hold. May have not been as important for a heavypuller to hold very long.

    People also fail to understand COST of war. Like the archers or the Empire can afford unlimited arrows. Todays standard issue ammo probably costs .50-1.00 a pop. How much would a bodkin arrow cost? So even if we could somehow magically produce 1000s of super bowmen, they could not afford to give them enough arrows to keep up with the so called rates of fire.

    Just utter half thought rubbish.

  14. #104
    Also, if you look at the old prints. Most of the bowmen were not holding 6foot bows. Now I know that is potentially historically inaccurate. They are also very close combat. Again, I can only suggest you grab 2 guys. One capable of these monster pulls. One with a 50-60 pound bow. Lets see who can sink more arrows into armour up close in one minutes. There are certain distances for each bow where penetration is effective. Kill shots. Both tend to be closer than people understand. A 6 foot bow to close is just the wrong weapon and a lighter bow with heavy arrows will penetrate with more than enough top do the job at a higher rate of fire.

  15. #105

    To dispute myself


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •