Longbow vs Yumi
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
101 comments displayed.
#49
-
elenalkarnur [OP](07/30/2015) [-] stickied by elenalkarnur
New part is up.
Part 3: /funny_pictures/5631042/Knight+vs+horse+archer
Part 3: /funny_pictures/5631042/Knight+vs+horse+archer
#9
-
elsenortamatoe (07/29/2015) [-] Longbow lets you strike from +1 range, Yumi offers no bonuses, but the japs will fight at full strength even if wounded.
#39
-
thechosentroll (07/30/2015) [-] There really isn't much to compare. The two had very different applications and were used in different ways. For example, the yumi could be used on horseback and didn't take 30 years of training to master. The longbow was absurdly powerful and the arrows it fired were basically stakes with some feathers on one side and metal on the other, but you had to be so strong to use one, archeologists can tell which skeletons were archers by how thick the bones in their arms are. The only thing in common is that they're both bows, they were both pretty effective against the targets they were meant for and both were harder to use than a regular bow, since the shape or size required special firing techniques.
On a side note, everyone knows about samurai and katanas, but what a lot of people don't know is that most samurai took greater pride in their yumi skills than their katana skills, since firing a war bow accurately requires a lot more skill and strength than swinging a piece of steel around.
On a side note, everyone knows about samurai and katanas, but what a lot of people don't know is that most samurai took greater pride in their yumi skills than their katana skills, since firing a war bow accurately requires a lot more skill and strength than swinging a piece of steel around.
#2
-
quelaagislove (07/29/2015) [-] Longbow had more power as it was designed to pierce heavy armor. The yumi was designed to be accurate. it had a lighter draw weight making it much easier to use on horseback. Also seeing as the Japanese never used shields (they were thought of as cowardly) there would be no need to have a bow with the same draw strength and the longbow.
#5 to #2
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] What exactly do you mean by "pierce heavy armour"?
#6 to #5
-
quelaagislove (07/29/2015) [-] They would use bodkin arrows and the power of the bow to pierce plate armor and shields. Medieval equivalent of Armor piercing bullets.
#11 to #6
-
agrofenlas (07/29/2015) [-] Heavy crossbows, early chinese rifles
Considering bowmen were formed en masse though, wouldn't it be rare they hit anything?
Considering bowmen were formed en masse though, wouldn't it be rare they hit anything?
#65 to #11
-
Gandalfthewhite (07/30/2015) [-] English/Welsh Longbowmen were extremely skilled and even en mass they were accurate enough to aim for and hit individuals. Provided they were within the right range otherwise they'd somewhat blindly volley en mass
#12 to #11
-
quelaagislove (07/29/2015) [-] True but by that same token getting hit by multiple arrows has a greater chance of killing an armored target rather that just one bowmen.
#13 to #12
-
agrofenlas (07/29/2015) [-] I had an idea once, where the chestplate was designed much like jousting armor so that arrows would be deflected downwards and outwards. Along with strikes to the front, the angle curve bowing downwards instead of upwards where the most outward point was near the stomach. My design would put the most outward point just below the chin, making a triangle toward the stomach where the armor becomes more round like a traditional knights armor. This might held in direct facing combat.
#45 to #13
-
mommamadeira (07/30/2015) [-] I actually would like to hear a counter argument to this, as it seems a good idea.
#66 to #13
-
Gandalfthewhite (07/30/2015) [-] The French learning their lesson against the archers started to buy and wear a type of Milanese plate armour which was curved in a certain way to make the arrows much less effective. Though it was expensive so only the richer lords could afford it
#7 to #6
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] That would depend heavily on the quality of the plate now wouldn't it?
#10 to #7
-
quelaagislove (07/29/2015) [-] Not really unfortunately. Plate armor was designed to deflect blows rather that stop them. A Bodkin has such a small point of impact if it makes solid contact it would pierce the plate. If you were wearing mail and the proper jacket you would most likely survive.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c
#15 to #5
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] To be frank
The french counter tactics during the hundred year war was to make their armour thicker and thicker and even armour heir horses
Its didnt help on bit
The french counter tactics during the hundred year war was to make their armour thicker and thicker and even armour heir horses
Its didnt help on bit
#18 to #16
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] When they find the skeletons of longbow archers they can recognise them easily due to the twist in their spine and one arm being far more muscular than the other, due to the immense draw weight, thus the power from the draw that went into firing the arrow was obscene, a modern bow can punch straight through a mini cooper, a longbow had almost double the draw weight of modern bows, in fact that draw weight is illegal due to the physical damage it would cause form firing it if you weren't hench as ****
The draw weight was unnatural, their arms where absurd and the whole thing was just really unpleasant for the french
The draw weight was unnatural, their arms where absurd and the whole thing was just really unpleasant for the french
#19 to #18
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] Then why didn't the French stop wearing plate armour altogether if it was useless?
#20 to #19
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] As my old histroy teacher said:
The french are not ones to learn from their mistakes.
The longbow was a welsh invention
Before edward III it had Not really been seen in mainland europe, the french had no idea how to fight it so they tried to out armour its power.
But then they got too heavy, as did their horses, so they where slower, so if by some chance the first arrow didnt kill/ mortally wound you, the second most definitely would.
Plus they didnt have any real was of measuring its stregth because the brits guarded it fiercely. The french didn't even know how to string it, so they guessed that if they put enough armour then they would eventually be able to survive a hit
I mean these bows had to be beatable in some way right?
But they where wrong
In my opinion the only reason we lost the 100 years war was out own kings incompetence, especially how some decided to piss off other countries, so then france got a bunch of support from the rest of europe, and that stupid cunt who lost pretty much all out land in france and led us to defeat after defeat, though his name escapes me and i have no real desire to search up such a terrible king
The french are not ones to learn from their mistakes.
The longbow was a welsh invention
Before edward III it had Not really been seen in mainland europe, the french had no idea how to fight it so they tried to out armour its power.
But then they got too heavy, as did their horses, so they where slower, so if by some chance the first arrow didnt kill/ mortally wound you, the second most definitely would.
Plus they didnt have any real was of measuring its stregth because the brits guarded it fiercely. The french didn't even know how to string it, so they guessed that if they put enough armour then they would eventually be able to survive a hit
I mean these bows had to be beatable in some way right?
But they where wrong
In my opinion the only reason we lost the 100 years war was out own kings incompetence, especially how some decided to piss off other countries, so then france got a bunch of support from the rest of europe, and that stupid cunt who lost pretty much all out land in france and led us to defeat after defeat, though his name escapes me and i have no real desire to search up such a terrible king
#21 to #20
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] "Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows"
"Archery was described by contemporaries as ineffective against plate armour in the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346), the siege of Bergerac (1345), and the Battle of Poitiers (1356); such armour became available to European knights of fairly modest means by the late 14th century, though never to all soldiers in any army. Longbowmen were however effective at Poitiers, and this success stimulated changes in armour manufacture partly intended to make armoured men less vulnerable to archery. Nevertheless, at the battle of Agincourt in 1415 and for some decades thereafter, English longbowmen continued to be an effective battlefield force."
"Modern tests and contemporary accounts agree therefore that well-made plate armour could protect against longbows. However this did not necessarily make the longbow ineffective; thousands of longbowmen were deployed in the English victory at Agincourt against plate armoured French knights in 1415. Clifford Rogers has argued that while longbows might not have been able to penetrate steel breastplates at Agincourt they could still penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs. Most of the French knights advanced on foot but, exhausted by walking across wet muddy terrain in heavy armour enduring a "terrifying hail of arrow shot", they were overwhelmed in the melee."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#/search
"Archery was described by contemporaries as ineffective against plate armour in the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346), the siege of Bergerac (1345), and the Battle of Poitiers (1356); such armour became available to European knights of fairly modest means by the late 14th century, though never to all soldiers in any army. Longbowmen were however effective at Poitiers, and this success stimulated changes in armour manufacture partly intended to make armoured men less vulnerable to archery. Nevertheless, at the battle of Agincourt in 1415 and for some decades thereafter, English longbowmen continued to be an effective battlefield force."
"Modern tests and contemporary accounts agree therefore that well-made plate armour could protect against longbows. However this did not necessarily make the longbow ineffective; thousands of longbowmen were deployed in the English victory at Agincourt against plate armoured French knights in 1415. Clifford Rogers has argued that while longbows might not have been able to penetrate steel breastplates at Agincourt they could still penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs. Most of the French knights advanced on foot but, exhausted by walking across wet muddy terrain in heavy armour enduring a "terrifying hail of arrow shot", they were overwhelmed in the melee."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#/search
#77 to #75
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-] I'm well aware, but mainly the discussion was longbow vs platemail so yah.
#22 to #21
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] This is all stuff i remeber from 3 years ago, plus my teacher was very anti France, so im not surprised that it was rather embellished, plus my memory is rather clouded by his stirring speeches about the glory of the british empire
Got me an A in COmmon Entrance anyway.
Thoguh one peiece of advice from my teacher really puts that into perspective
"Mention that the french where slaughtered and you'll get an A"
(This was about the battle of crecy, one of the greatest military victories in the western world)
But back to the question
En masse and on a hill, its very likely the longbowmen would win, becuse if a thousand charging french knights on specialy bred war horses couldnt get to them what hope does a couple hundred (if there is an equal number of brits and japs) bowmen on the smaller eastern horses do?
Got me an A in COmmon Entrance anyway.
Thoguh one peiece of advice from my teacher really puts that into perspective
"Mention that the french where slaughtered and you'll get an A"
(This was about the battle of crecy, one of the greatest military victories in the western world)
But back to the question
En masse and on a hill, its very likely the longbowmen would win, becuse if a thousand charging french knights on specialy bred war horses couldnt get to them what hope does a couple hundred (if there is an equal number of brits and japs) bowmen on the smaller eastern horses do?
#23 to #22
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1WZLVZYBwQ
I enjoy watching this guy and I got no with the English Longbow and whatnot but I just dislike when people go and say "yeah longbows go through knight armour like butter guise" if you get my point.
And en masse on a fortified/easily defensive location the longbow wins.
And don't ask me about the breed of Japanese warhorses I have no idea, technically a daikyu yumi is a longbow (by definition) but it's assymetrical for the purpose of firing from horseback. (don't quote me on this, I should look it up as I did with the longbow but I remember reading it's still somewhat disputed). I'd say the bows are equal, while en masse on a fortified position the English Longbow has the advantage but if you start going into open terrain with horses and **** the yumi provides more flexibility even though it might have a shorter effective range.
I enjoy watching this guy and I got no with the English Longbow and whatnot but I just dislike when people go and say "yeah longbows go through knight armour like butter guise" if you get my point.
And en masse on a fortified/easily defensive location the longbow wins.
And don't ask me about the breed of Japanese warhorses I have no idea, technically a daikyu yumi is a longbow (by definition) but it's assymetrical for the purpose of firing from horseback. (don't quote me on this, I should look it up as I did with the longbow but I remember reading it's still somewhat disputed). I'd say the bows are equal, while en masse on a fortified position the English Longbow has the advantage but if you start going into open terrain with horses and **** the yumi provides more flexibility even though it might have a shorter effective range.
#26 to #23
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] But i get your point
Im a bit of a elitist when it comes to medival farance vs england, so i tend to accidentaly embellish things
I knwk that they dont go through like vutter but even in good plate armour, a single arrow in a single weakspor and you're dead, and its ******* raining these arrows.
Im a bit of a elitist when it comes to medival farance vs england, so i tend to accidentaly embellish things
I knwk that they dont go through like vutter but even in good plate armour, a single arrow in a single weakspor and you're dead, and its ******* raining these arrows.
#27 to #26
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] I won't deny that one. But even with a hail of arrows, getting the right angle and everything for some weakspots and taking into considerations they probably carried shields I'd say the knights would have stood a chance if the terrain and weather weren't in the longbowmens favour.
#30 to #27
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] Terrain can mean everything in a battle
We probably would have lost agincourt if the ground had been hard enough for the horses to gallop, and crecy would have been a bit more troublesome, though our postion did give us a tremendous advantage, there would have proabbly been more english casualties, though we still would have won
We probably would have lost agincourt if the ground had been hard enough for the horses to gallop, and crecy would have been a bit more troublesome, though our postion did give us a tremendous advantage, there would have proabbly been more english casualties, though we still would have won
#32 to #30
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] Didn't study the 100 year wars too much so I can't really comment much on this, but glad to see someone who's not a complete "Longbow beats everything" guy.
#24 to #23
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] on a hill longbow wins
On a plain the japs will typically win, yet if it is soft ground then it could be agincourt all over again
On a plain the japs will typically win, yet if it is soft ground then it could be agincourt all over again
#25 to #24
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] Possibly so, cannot remember if samurai armour was heavier or lighter than european plate. I know it offers worse protection typically but different places different methods etc.
#29 to #25
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] I dont think it truly matters, due to the typical style of japanese armour not being designed to protect against such a monumental impact as an arrows from a longbow, though im sure it would offer some protection.
Remember that the knights at agincourts where in full plate, and the actual british troops where mostly farmhands and peasnts with sharpened farming eqipment or weapons salvaged from the dead, it was the longbows power and range that won the day at agincourt, and with samurai armour being typically weaker you cant really expect them to soldier on through the hail of arrows like the french knights did, id imagine it may look like the scene from 300 with less muscular greek men
Remember that the knights at agincourts where in full plate, and the actual british troops where mostly farmhands and peasnts with sharpened farming eqipment or weapons salvaged from the dead, it was the longbows power and range that won the day at agincourt, and with samurai armour being typically weaker you cant really expect them to soldier on through the hail of arrows like the french knights did, id imagine it may look like the scene from 300 with less muscular greek men
#31 to #29
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] You're probably right about that one, but I was thinking more if there was equal footing, like an open field with fair weather.
#34 to #31
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] Basically they are equally matched
The more agile horsemen would win in many locations/ terrains
The lowngbowmen would win in other locations and terrains
All in all they were designed to fight in different places so theya re more effective in those places
The more agile horsemen would win in many locations/ terrains
The lowngbowmen would win in other locations and terrains
All in all they were designed to fight in different places so theya re more effective in those places
#33 to #31
-
scarredwolf (07/29/2015) [-] On horses...
If there is enough distance between them at first then the longbow may still decimate them.
If the japs get close enough then their draw speed may have beaten that of the longbow men (though i beleive that they where suprisingly fast) thus the longbowmens lack of any proper armour other than that salvaged from the dead could spell their doom, unless they have some kind of melee manauvers. As some longbowmen also kept spears and pikes, so that they would pull them out and charge the horsemen when they where near enough, knock them off their horses and leaving them prone to one of the younger bowmen putting a dirk through their eyeslit
If there is enough distance between them at first then the longbow may still decimate them.
If the japs get close enough then their draw speed may have beaten that of the longbow men (though i beleive that they where suprisingly fast) thus the longbowmens lack of any proper armour other than that salvaged from the dead could spell their doom, unless they have some kind of melee manauvers. As some longbowmen also kept spears and pikes, so that they would pull them out and charge the horsemen when they where near enough, knock them off their horses and leaving them prone to one of the younger bowmen putting a dirk through their eyeslit
#35 to #33
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] Can't argue with that one.
No idea the firing rate of the yumi, I know the trained longbow man could loose up to 6 arrows a minute if he didn't want to tire himself too quickly.
No idea the firing rate of the yumi, I know the trained longbow man could loose up to 6 arrows a minute if he didn't want to tire himself too quickly.
#48 to #35
-
scarredwolf (07/30/2015) [-] I mentioned i had a half hour long discussion about longbows to my mother and i got a lecture becuse i didnt know who i was talking to and "you must never talk to people you dont know on the internet"
Youre not gonna track me down and eat my face are you?
Youre not gonna track me down and eat my face are you?
#98 to #97
-
scarredwolf (07/30/2015) [-] Yeah
Theyre perfect all rounders
Durable and powerful
Is that not the what is needed of a tank?
Theyre perfect all rounders
Durable and powerful
Is that not the what is needed of a tank?
#90 to #89
-
scarredwolf (07/30/2015) [-] I guess you could get a bed in a tank
Actually dont do thats becuse then thats unfair on me woth my bow and arrows
Actually dont do thats becuse then thats unfair on me woth my bow and arrows
#88 to #87
-
scarredwolf (07/30/2015) [-] Well...
I guess you could hide in a bed but i think that only protexts against monsters, not arrows
I guess you could hide in a bed but i think that only protexts against monsters, not arrows
#101 to #58
-
scarredwolf (07/31/2015) [-] Im fairly certain that weve levelled each other up a few times with this discussion
#96 to #95
-
scarredwolf (07/30/2015) [-] **** yeah challenger 2
Brits may have their empires and their naval strength
Bu they still own tank warfare
Brits may have their empires and their naval strength
Bu they still own tank warfare
#94 to #93
-
scarredwolf (07/30/2015) [-] Just use a good tank (brits have very durable tanks so theres a pointer) and rebuild the inside so that you can have a bed that you control everything from (with triple monitors and a sit up option) so that you can become a master at tank to tank warfare and rule the earth. They could try to nuke you, but calculations show that it would take a 5 megaton to take out the camera on it, so essentially you are in a nuclear shelter that goes 40mph and has a 140mm cannon (that kills pretty much everything)
Plus all british tanks have cone equipped with tea making facilities since willie Mk.2 so you can have a cuppa while you decimate mankind
Plus all british tanks have cone equipped with tea making facilities since willie Mk.2 so you can have a cuppa while you decimate mankind
#40 to #15
-
thechosentroll (07/30/2015) [-] Well, it technically helped the guys wearing the bigass armor. It just didn't help the regular troops, who were 90% of the army and didn't HAVE that thick-ass armor. French knights were more or less bulletproof (or arrowproof). French footmen were not.
#47 to #40
-
scarredwolf (07/30/2015) [-] Well yeah, but thats becuse no-one really cared about how the footsoldiers where equipped at that time, they just sent them en-masse, it was the knights that they saw as the main importance
#14
-
frenzyhero (07/29/2015) [-] longbow easier to use therefore better
stop with the stupid ******** . why train with a difficult weapon that's more difficult to produce, more difficult to use, and more difficult to maintain, when there's an alternative that's arguably as good, if not better in every aspect? Then, multiply that effect 1000, no 100000 times - that's why an army is going to use the longbow, and not a ******* ceremonial bow.
stop with the stupid ******** . why train with a difficult weapon that's more difficult to produce, more difficult to use, and more difficult to maintain, when there's an alternative that's arguably as good, if not better in every aspect? Then, multiply that effect 1000, no 100000 times - that's why an army is going to use the longbow, and not a ******* ceremonial bow.
#17 to #14
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/29/2015) [-] I'm fairly sure the daikyu yumi was a war bow. Easier or harder to use? I won't be the judge of that, probably the latter as it's also designed to be more easily used on horseback.
En masse I'd go with the longbow though.
En masse I'd go with the longbow though.
#41 to #14
-
thechosentroll (07/30/2015) [-] Longbows were NOT easy to use. You literally had to train since you were 10 in order to be able to use one.
#52 to #41
-
woodoo ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-]
This ******* myth again, it's ******** , the hard part of using a longbow is the heavy draw, and the need to be able to aim while the draw is in progress. Brits trained since they were 10 because it was the ******* law in Britain that every man below the age of 40(later changed to 60), had to own a longbow and arrows as well as frequently train with them. There is no magical bow/fairy that slaps you if you try to learn too fast, and there is literally no backing for this stupid ******* myth.
#56 to #52
-
thechosentroll (07/30/2015) [-] The draw weight is pretty much what I had in mind when I said "not easy to use". That's a pretty major drawback, given what absurd upper body strength some war bows required. That's still something which impedes you. Also, while the firing technique for longbows wasn't all that complicated, it was still different from regular bows, so you wouldn't be able to do it unless you knew what it was.
#62 to #56
-
woodoo ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-]
No, regular bowmen of any skill or technique favors aiming while drawing. The only bowmen i can recall who try to avoid doing so are Asian mounter archers, who draw their bow, and release once the horse has all 4 legs in the air, and for show.
Literally the only difference between, say, a mongol composite bow and a longbow is that the longbow had a heavier draw and was more fragile when exposed to water.
Literally the only difference between, say, a mongol composite bow and a longbow is that the longbow had a heavier draw and was more fragile when exposed to water.
#63 to #62
-
thechosentroll (07/30/2015) [-] Longbows weren't something you really aimed. They were just fired en-masse, so the enemy is showered with arrows. And the draw weight was so high that instead of pulling the bow normally, they'd basically drive one end into the ground, lean back and use their entire body weight to bull back the arrow. I mean, the damn things were 6 feet tall. That was usually as tall or almost as tall as the person using them.
#64 to #63
-
woodoo ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-]
1: Yes they were. British law stated that everyone had to use a bow, this was done by measuring someones ability to hit a target at a certain distance. Not by your ability to shoot vaguely forward and upwards. Longbows, while generally used to rain arrows on your enemies, were not exclusively used for such.
2:no. Just no. The British longbow was not a sturdy weapon. driving one end into the ground would cause no end(pun not intended) of damage to both the bow and the string, and a snapped bowstring on a bow with 130 pounds of draw can seriously **** you up(as in, permanently cripple). The biggest problem with a 130 pound draw isn't that it's heavy (i could do it when i was 13), but that it was tiring(i could do it twice when i was 13, then i was exhausted).
3: A longbow staff was described as being as tall as a man, this was taken to mean about 6 feet, but chances are it was closer to 5 foot 6(average height of that time). An average grown man, if he wedged the end of his bow in the ground, would need to keep his bow-hand just below his waist, and his string hand somewhere around the vicinity of his knees.
2:no. Just no. The British longbow was not a sturdy weapon. driving one end into the ground would cause no end(pun not intended) of damage to both the bow and the string, and a snapped bowstring on a bow with 130 pounds of draw can seriously **** you up(as in, permanently cripple). The biggest problem with a 130 pound draw isn't that it's heavy (i could do it when i was 13), but that it was tiring(i could do it twice when i was 13, then i was exhausted).
3: A longbow staff was described as being as tall as a man, this was taken to mean about 6 feet, but chances are it was closer to 5 foot 6(average height of that time). An average grown man, if he wedged the end of his bow in the ground, would need to keep his bow-hand just below his waist, and his string hand somewhere around the vicinity of his knees.
#69
-
bigbadplaid (07/30/2015) [-] I'm curious about the design of the Yumi.
The longbow, and most bows, you pull from pretty much dead center, but it looks like the Yumi is drawn from a third of the bow. My question is why? Is there an advantage, like an easier draw? Or is it pure aesthetics?
Anyone know the answer?
The longbow, and most bows, you pull from pretty much dead center, but it looks like the Yumi is drawn from a third of the bow. My question is why? Is there an advantage, like an easier draw? Or is it pure aesthetics?
Anyone know the answer?
#80 to #69
-
satrenkotheone ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-] It's speculated that it's due to it being used on horseback as well as on foot.
#44
-
demandsgayversion (07/30/2015) [-] From what I've learned from videogames and Deadliest Warrior on Spike TV, longbows were used for just covering a battlefield, while Yumi were precision weapons actually aimed at the enemy. Yumi wins for this reason.
#38
-
bluwizard (07/30/2015) [-] **bluwizard used "*roll picture*"**
**bluwizard rolled image** When the **** did /k/ get on funnyjunk legitly? But whatever,
Longbow was a very inaccurate weapon, had to be used in mass, and took very strong tall bastards to fire. The famous english longbow was 6 ft making the arrows like 3 or 4 ft long.
The Yumi, is a very accurate bow and was more used to snipe **** , they still used it in mass, but japan aintn ever had the army size the english did so they needed to be accurate, instead of dropping a flood of arrows on poor bastards.
**bluwizard rolled image** When the **** did /k/ get on funnyjunk legitly? But whatever,
Longbow was a very inaccurate weapon, had to be used in mass, and took very strong tall bastards to fire. The famous english longbow was 6 ft making the arrows like 3 or 4 ft long.
The Yumi, is a very accurate bow and was more used to snipe **** , they still used it in mass, but japan aintn ever had the army size the english did so they needed to be accurate, instead of dropping a flood of arrows on poor bastards.
#51 to #38
-
woodoo ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-]
nope, wrong. There was no magical fairy of bow-fairness that made longbows inaccurate, they were just as accurate as any other bow, as accuracy lies more on the arrow than the bow itself. HOWEVER, a British longbow averaged at around 130 pound draw, that is, you need to put the same amount of force into drawing it as you need to lift a 130 pound weight, while the hardest yumi draw i can find just barely reaches 70 pounds.
Using a longbow efficiently required the ability to aim while drawing, so that as soon as you reached your mark, you let loose. I know for a fact that the Japanese didn't do this, but rather aimed their shots, and Japanese archery still involves an awful lot of holding the bow drawn, something that would be torture if you had an English longbow.
The reason longbows were used en mass is because every British citizen had to be able to use one, as such training a military group from people who already had training in a very useful weapon was easier, and the British could field what is without a doubt one of the most effective methods of war in human history(pre-colonial era).
Using a longbow efficiently required the ability to aim while drawing, so that as soon as you reached your mark, you let loose. I know for a fact that the Japanese didn't do this, but rather aimed their shots, and Japanese archery still involves an awful lot of holding the bow drawn, something that would be torture if you had an English longbow.
The reason longbows were used en mass is because every British citizen had to be able to use one, as such training a military group from people who already had training in a very useful weapon was easier, and the British could field what is without a doubt one of the most effective methods of war in human history(pre-colonial era).
#76 to #74
-
woodoo ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-]
indeed, although the longbow would have been less useful in Asian climates, as the moist air would make it less effective, and silk armor was a goddamn beast to actually penetrate, while the yumi would work just as well in merry ol' England as it does in Asian climates. So if the yumi has home turf, it might actually be the more effective weapon.
#78 to #76
-
angelious (07/30/2015) [-] true...but i dont think yumi is powerful enough to actually penetrate a knights armor..
in completely neutral situation, with longbow vs yumi only...i think yumi would win?
but in a war..knights versus samurais. yumi would not be able to penetrate the armor proper...
in completely neutral situation, with longbow vs yumi only...i think yumi would win?
but in a war..knights versus samurais. yumi would not be able to penetrate the armor proper...
#81 to #78
-
woodoo ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-]
Depends, the longbow outclasses the yumi in range and power, but the yumi strains the user less, and can be fired faster without injuring yourself. The yumi can also be used from horseback with little effort. In war though? the samurai would have more to worry about then mere longbows. A cavalry charge favors the heaviest, and European horses and knights were both bigger and heavier than their Japanese counterparts. Likewise, there's just no comparing the two armors, European armors were always far superior to their Japanese counterparts up until he very end of the samurai era(when the samurai armor was modified to offer some protection against the maxim gun).
But yeah, if it came to a war on neutral ground, and the samurai had never had to deal with an arrow rain before, the shock alone would win the battle in favor of the longbow.
But yeah, if it came to a war on neutral ground, and the samurai had never had to deal with an arrow rain before, the shock alone would win the battle in favor of the longbow.
#82 to #81
-
angelious (07/30/2015) [-] aye..but in the duel i was more thinking about draw speed,accurary and damage it would make. considering they both wear equally powerful armor(let say leather) and are like.. 50 feet feet away from each other and not allowed to move(i dont actually know the range for yumi) i think yumi would have the advantage...then again range is also a huge factor....
and as for a full scale war. knights vs samurais...heck i think knights win. they both have similiar training. but knights just outclass them in terms of equipment..
and as for a full scale war. knights vs samurais...heck i think knights win. they both have similiar training. but knights just outclass them in terms of equipment..
#84 to #82
-
woodoo ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-]
Another thing to take into account is size difference. Most people don't really think about it, but the average size for knight armor was around 6 feet, while most samurai armor stood at slightly less than 5 foot 6, so the knights would have intimidation factor. Not to mention, clay-quenched swords simply can't compete with oil clenched ones, their edges would shatter while the European ones would receive a slight nick. And there is also the fact that most samurai only ever fought unarmored peasants, so the knights would have more experience fighting heavily armored opponents. So yeah, when it comes to war, it's almost a guaranteed win for Europeans.
But in a one on one duel at 50 yards? assuming both were wearing similar armor? Draw speed definitely helps, but the yumi user would have to get a lethal hit quickly in order to win, while the longbow user just has to aim for center mass.
But in a one on one duel at 50 yards? assuming both were wearing similar armor? Draw speed definitely helps, but the yumi user would have to get a lethal hit quickly in order to win, while the longbow user just has to aim for center mass.
#85 to #84
-
angelious (07/30/2015) [-] if we start taking in morale and psychological factor..then we would have to factor in the commanders as well... and as for commanders..i think japanese have better ones,compared to the knights....cant really say any tactical geniusses from dark age europe..but i could name a couple from sengoku to jidai era japan...
and you raise a good point on the yumi one...
and you raise a good point on the yumi one...
#43
-
backupclover (07/30/2015) [-] From what I've read, the Longbow had a bigger draw weight so for power and most probably distance the arrow could travel, the longbow would have a bigger advantage. I'm guessing the Yumi was made for hunting while the sole purpose of the longbow was to be used to be high powered and penetrate mail and padded cloth, it was made for war and not hunting.
#60
-
trollmobile (07/30/2015) [-] different purposes.
one was made to fire at great distance with great accuracy, the other was made to fire at great distance with great power.
one was made to fire at great distance with great accuracy, the other was made to fire at great distance with great power.
#54
-
woodoo ONLINE (07/30/2015) [-]
If we assume that the longbow is used in the conditions of the upper image, the Yumi. One of the longbows major weaknesses was that it should not be fired when wet, as both the string and the glue on the actual bow weakened when wet. That's why British longbow-men had a waterproof linen bag for their bows.
