The ultimate weapon
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
98 comments displayed.
#7
-
anon (11/05/2015) [-]
The thing about the .45 though is the the target absorbs all the energy from the momentum.
Also, people have been known to be able to catch arrows, and even fire them back at you. You can't do that with a bullet.
Also, the range of fire arms is well beyond that of bows.
There is a reason we don't use bows anymore.
Also, people have been known to be able to catch arrows, and even fire them back at you. You can't do that with a bullet.
Also, the range of fire arms is well beyond that of bows.
There is a reason we don't use bows anymore.
#119 to #7
-
anon (11/06/2015) [-]
Well the main reason bows became obsolete wasn't because a firearm is better than the bow. Its because firearms preform comparably well enough and its WAY easier to teach someone to fire a firearm than it is to teach someone to shoot a bow at the same level of marksmanship.
#14 to #7
-
Kanoah (11/05/2015) [-] You can't catch an arrow, it's physically impossible to react that quickly. Firing them back I can agree, but that's really only if the enemy has a bow too, which is unlikely. Lastly, no, that isn't true in the slightest. Bows, and crossbows, can both match the effective ranges of any other carbine or pistol; the only limiting factor is eyesight and how well you can adjust for external effects.
#21 to #14
-
rainbowblast (11/05/2015) [-]
So you're trying to tell me people regularly make 500-600 yard shots with a bow like they do with m16s
#26 to #25
-
iscrewbabies (11/05/2015) [-]
Aaaaight, so can we get some proof about what you just said?
#27 to #26
-
Whytemane (11/05/2015) [-]
Sure.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4
www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/lars-andersen-archery-video-debunked/
geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/
Those are the quickest results I'd found. Lars spouted one hell of alot of ******** in his video, which all three of those links call him out on.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4
www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/lars-andersen-archery-video-debunked/
geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/
Those are the quickest results I'd found. Lars spouted one hell of alot of ******** in his video, which all three of those links call him out on.
#28 to #27
-
iscrewbabies (11/05/2015) [-]
Will check all these out, thank you.
It seems that you are indeed correct, and Lars is at least 87.92% full of **** .
It seems that you are indeed correct, and Lars is at least 87.92% full of **** .
#30 to #29
-
iscrewbabies (11/05/2015) [-]
Aye, now that I'm checking out the links you sent I'm starting to think that wow I really should have figured out that at least some of what he is saying is BS. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.
#59 to #27
-
bucketofhurt ONLINE (11/05/2015) [-] That youtube vid and dailydot article you linked were both utterly retarded. "cringe and deal with your Western privilege"
The geekdad is the best explanation.
The geekdad is the best explanation.
#43 to #26
-
thechosentroll (11/05/2015) [-] It's worth mentioning that if a medieval archer (especially an english longbowman) were to look at this video, they'd laugh their ass off and call him a whimp. Why? Because he's using a 30 pound bow - the thing 12-yearolds used in the middle ages in order to train and become strong enough to use the big boy bows. Hunting bows had around 60 pounds of draw weight, while war bows were usually around 120. The biggest, most absurdly powerful war bows, which could be used by only the most elite and massive archers, could reach as much as 180+ - over 6 times the draw weight of Andersens' little babby bow. That's why he can prance around like a fairy and fire from any position - he's using the bow equivalent of an airsoft gun. That **** would be absolutely useless against actual real-life opponents, because it'd just bounce off their armor. And before you go "Yeah, but he got through the armor in the video", he was using extremely thin arrows that basically went through the rings of the armor and slightly embedded themselves in the gamberson. That **** wouldn't even hurt, let alone be life-threatening. Real life longbow arrows were almost as thick as your pinkie finger and designed to use their sheer mass to punch through stuff. If you were to fire THAT with a PROPER warbow, it'd probably go straight through the target as if it weren't even there.
#47 to #43
-
heartlessrobot (11/05/2015) [-] If a medieval archer were to look at that video, he'd flip out and have you burned at the stake for being a witch.
#49 to #48
-
heartlessrobot (11/05/2015) [-] Also, you can pull an arrow out of the ground and fire it back it it's not too ****** up.
Can't do that with a bullet.
Can't do that with a bullet.
#70 to #49
-
thechosentroll (11/05/2015) [-] Arrows often snapped or shattered on impact, because of the absurd force behind them, so it's actually not that easy to fire back and arrow unless you're fighting on some really soft dirt, so the arrows don't break.
#99 to #43
-
emiyashirou ONLINE (11/05/2015) [-] Anderson's bow isn't even a 30 pound bow, it's a baby 10 pound bow useful for nothing else than speedshooting. A ~35 pound bow is what your average adult male will use for modern recurve target archery (By twisting the string, you can safely adjust the bow's poundage by up to 14 either way, so you can get it up to 49)
#101 to #99
-
thechosentroll (11/05/2015) [-] It's weak, but I doubt it's THAT weak. I mean, if you just picked up the arrows and chucked them at the target, it'd do more damage than a 10 pound bow.
#102 to #101
-
emiyashirou ONLINE (11/05/2015) [-] He switches between two bows to trick the watcher into thinking he's using the heavier one the whole time. Every time he does speed-shooting, he uses a 10 pound bow. I can't manage to find the video I which pointed this out, or I'd link it.
#104 to #102
-
thechosentroll (11/05/2015) [-] Ooooooooooooooooh. I thought it was just the camera angle that made the bow look different.
#83 to #43
-
anon (11/05/2015) [-]
Depending on what you mean by armor, pretty much all weapons just bounce off of it. The majority of soldiers would be outfitted with gambesons, which bows could easily penetrate. A lot of people might read that and think that heavier bows could penetrate plate armor, which is untrue. Hell, if they could do that, nobody would wear it to begin with. Any sharp weapon that relies on penetration is useless against heavy armor.
#92 to #83
-
thechosentroll (11/05/2015) [-] Good point. I guess I should elaborate for people who don't understand what you mean.
Arrows couldn't do jack **** against plate armor unless it were REALLY ****** and cheap or an arrow got in through the visor, which isn't unheard of, but was pretty rare. However, very few people wore plate armor. Because it was pretty damn expensive, had to be custom made for you, so it fits properly and required a lot more maintenance, it was worn pretty much exclusively by noblemen, because they were the only ones that could afford it and hire squires to maintain their weapons and armor. The vast majority of soldiers, just had a gambeson, which is basically a really thick padded coat, and a helmet. This offered nowhere near the protection of plate armor, but it was still pretty good at stopping stabs and small cuts. Because most footmen had shields to block with or were in a polearm formation, which helped keep the enemy at bay, they didn't need all that much armor, so the gambesons was more than adequate. The soldiers who could afford it also sometimes wore mail on top of the gambeson, which was great at stopping cuts and slashes, but didn't do jack **** against arrows or spears. Which is bad, because arrows and spears were the most common thing on the battlefield.
So, in short. Your average soldier had padded armor and maybe mail, which was good at stopping cuts and sometimes protected against arrows, while knights and other nobles wore plate and were pretty much invincible unless their horse fell on top of them or they were knocked down and someone stabbed them in the eye with a dagger, while they were down. Lars Andersens' arrows wouldn't be able to do anything against any of them. I'm pretty sure even if he hit someone in the visor of the helmet, the arrow wouldn't be powerful enough to bend the metal and slip inside.
Arrows couldn't do jack **** against plate armor unless it were REALLY ****** and cheap or an arrow got in through the visor, which isn't unheard of, but was pretty rare. However, very few people wore plate armor. Because it was pretty damn expensive, had to be custom made for you, so it fits properly and required a lot more maintenance, it was worn pretty much exclusively by noblemen, because they were the only ones that could afford it and hire squires to maintain their weapons and armor. The vast majority of soldiers, just had a gambeson, which is basically a really thick padded coat, and a helmet. This offered nowhere near the protection of plate armor, but it was still pretty good at stopping stabs and small cuts. Because most footmen had shields to block with or were in a polearm formation, which helped keep the enemy at bay, they didn't need all that much armor, so the gambesons was more than adequate. The soldiers who could afford it also sometimes wore mail on top of the gambeson, which was great at stopping cuts and slashes, but didn't do jack **** against arrows or spears. Which is bad, because arrows and spears were the most common thing on the battlefield.
So, in short. Your average soldier had padded armor and maybe mail, which was good at stopping cuts and sometimes protected against arrows, while knights and other nobles wore plate and were pretty much invincible unless their horse fell on top of them or they were knocked down and someone stabbed them in the eye with a dagger, while they were down. Lars Andersens' arrows wouldn't be able to do anything against any of them. I'm pretty sure even if he hit someone in the visor of the helmet, the arrow wouldn't be powerful enough to bend the metal and slip inside.
#94 to #89
-
innocentbabies (11/05/2015) [-]
You're nitpicking, you've proven the letter of his statement untrue, but not the intent. He's arguing that no one can catch an arrow from a bow used in combat, which is true. At the very least, the frictional force you would have to exert on an object moving that fast would shred the skin on your hand.
#110 to #94
-
paronix (11/05/2015) [-] I'm gonna try re-write that last comment, then I'm bailing this stupid argument:
Your argument is now that it wouldn't be possible for a man to catch an arrow if it was launched from a bow with a high poundage, fired lethally. You're probably dead-to-rights.
But that was not the claim I was arguing. They said, absolutely, that it was physically impossible for a person to have reaction speeds quick enough to catch an arrow in mid-air. That stupid first video I posted, whether or not they were ****** 30 pound bows, proves that simply isn't the case.
Saying it's not valid because the arrow is less deadly than it would be were it fired from a more powerful bow is irrelevant. The equipment used is still a ******* bow and arrow, and could still do plenty of damage in the right hands - just like a snub .38 is still a gun, even when compared to an anti-tank rifle.
Claiming it's absolutely impossible to do something, when only arguing for the absolute high-end of that something, is biased and stupid. People have caught arrows mid-flight. However uncommon, people have been shown to have reaction times fast enough to do so, even if only at lower to mid range bows.
Your argument is now that it wouldn't be possible for a man to catch an arrow if it was launched from a bow with a high poundage, fired lethally. You're probably dead-to-rights.
But that was not the claim I was arguing. They said, absolutely, that it was physically impossible for a person to have reaction speeds quick enough to catch an arrow in mid-air. That stupid first video I posted, whether or not they were ****** 30 pound bows, proves that simply isn't the case.
Saying it's not valid because the arrow is less deadly than it would be were it fired from a more powerful bow is irrelevant. The equipment used is still a ******* bow and arrow, and could still do plenty of damage in the right hands - just like a snub .38 is still a gun, even when compared to an anti-tank rifle.
Claiming it's absolutely impossible to do something, when only arguing for the absolute high-end of that something, is biased and stupid. People have caught arrows mid-flight. However uncommon, people have been shown to have reaction times fast enough to do so, even if only at lower to mid range bows.
#107 to #94
-
paronix (11/05/2015) [-] Moreover, I don't even remotely disagree with your comment about the skin being unable to take that kind of punishment. But that had NOTHING to do with what was said. OP claimed it was physically impossible to react fast enough to catch an arrow, and it's just not the case.
#105 to #94
-
paronix (11/05/2015) [-] And if he had said "no one would catch an arrow shot from an extremely powerful bow, used with lethal intent" I wouldn't have argued half as much. It's not nitpicking when he said, very matter of fact, "it's physically impossible".
My argument, and ****************** me all you damn want, was that people HAVE caught arrows fired from bows before. Would the shots necessarily have been kill-shots, if they struck a living target? Probably ******* not, but they're still arrows, and they're still being fired from bows, they're still sticking in their targets.
I take **** all back. He said it was impossible. It's not.
My argument, and ****************** me all you damn want, was that people HAVE caught arrows fired from bows before. Would the shots necessarily have been kill-shots, if they struck a living target? Probably ******* not, but they're still arrows, and they're still being fired from bows, they're still sticking in their targets.
I take **** all back. He said it was impossible. It's not.
#93 to #14
-
innocentbabies (11/05/2015) [-]
Well then I guess it's a good thing nobody in their right mind would walk into battle armed with a pistol, huh? Also, the M4 carbine has a maximum effective range distance at which a target can be expected to be hit of 500 meters, which is the maximum range maximum distance a projectile can be fired ever attained with a recurve bow.
www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m4/m4-study-guide.shtml
www.worldrecordacademy.com/sports/longest_bow_and_arrow_shot_world_record_set_by_Zak_Crawford_101831.htm
www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m4/m4-study-guide.shtml
www.worldrecordacademy.com/sports/longest_bow_and_arrow_shot_world_record_set_by_Zak_Crawford_101831.htm
#11 to #7
-
thedugster (11/05/2015) [-] Your only reasonable argument is the range and accuracy. People don't use bows because they take forever to re-load, are large and in-elegant to use, and tend to make a simple+clean wound which is easier to treat.
#23 to #11
-
Exodeus ONLINE (11/05/2015) [-] That and size, I shoot a longbow recreationally and it's a good 6'. Yes it can be carried on the back and same with the arrows, but a quiver is better situated on the hip to allow for an increased rate of fire.
If you can achieve a one shot kill and not be detected it could work fantastically but it does take some serious training to be able to draw something like a longbow and accurately shoot.
If you can achieve a one shot kill and not be detected it could work fantastically but it does take some serious training to be able to draw something like a longbow and accurately shoot.
#87 to #11
-
anon (11/05/2015) [-]
There's nothing clean about a wound from a broadhead. They're still outdated weapons, but you're more likely to survive a shot from most bullets than from arrows, especially without treatment. Bullets tend to be heated to the point of being relatively sanitary, arrows are usually stuck in the ground before being shot to make them more accessible than from a quiver. Arrows are dirtier, and wounds from them are very likely to result in a lethal infection without treatment. A lot of bullets will also tend to over penetrate. Even if an arrow does the same, it's going to do more tissue damage simply because it's larger, and broadheads are very effective at shredding soft tissues and blood vessels.
Guns are easier to use, produce a higher volume of fire, have better range, and are more accurate. Ammunition is lighter and easier to carry for firearms as well. They're not more dangerous, just more functional.
Guns are easier to use, produce a higher volume of fire, have better range, and are more accurate. Ammunition is lighter and easier to carry for firearms as well. They're not more dangerous, just more functional.
#91 to #7
-
corsairjoshua ONLINE (11/05/2015) [-] The biggest thing is that gun training is a helluva lot easier than bow training.
#72 to #7
-
sturmbeard ONLINE (11/05/2015) [-] **sturmbeard used "*roll picture*"**
**sturmbeard rolled image**
You can catch bullets too, but it hurts a bit
**sturmbeard rolled image**
You can catch bullets too, but it hurts a bit
#58 to #57
-
Zeigh (11/05/2015) [-] Oh man, I completely forgot about flechettes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flechette
But imagine an a10 firing those flechettes at the same speed and power as the gau-8.
But imagine an a10 firing those flechettes at the same speed and power as the gau-8.
#5
-
konz (11/05/2015) [-]
"The point is clear"
What point? The fact that a bow at close range is as effective at killing at close range as a firearm?
Firearms weren't designed with killing power in mind. They weren't invented and utilized because the bow was an insufficient killer. They were designed so that young men who could barely lift a hay bale (let alone draw a bow) could kill a target at long range without significant physical strain. Deadliness isn't the selling point of guns, its ease of use. I can give 300 AK-47s to 300 African boys and teach them how to fire it in an afternoon. By the end of a couple weeks they could fully utilize the machine. Bows are neat but in the time it takes you to train 100 men to use a bow, I can train 10000 to use a rifle. At the end of the day a rifle will always exert more bang for your buck.
What point? The fact that a bow at close range is as effective at killing at close range as a firearm?
Firearms weren't designed with killing power in mind. They weren't invented and utilized because the bow was an insufficient killer. They were designed so that young men who could barely lift a hay bale (let alone draw a bow) could kill a target at long range without significant physical strain. Deadliness isn't the selling point of guns, its ease of use. I can give 300 AK-47s to 300 African boys and teach them how to fire it in an afternoon. By the end of a couple weeks they could fully utilize the machine. Bows are neat but in the time it takes you to train 100 men to use a bow, I can train 10000 to use a rifle. At the end of the day a rifle will always exert more bang for your buck.
#36 to #5
-
bewailedbadger (11/05/2015) [-] >"Could kill a target at long range."
Sorry, but have you ever seen a musket? Old timey firearms were inaccurate as **** . They had LINES of riflemen all firing at once in the hopes that they at least hit /SOMETHING/.
Sorry, but have you ever seen a musket? Old timey firearms were inaccurate as **** . They had LINES of riflemen all firing at once in the hopes that they at least hit /SOMETHING/.
#82 to #75
-
anon (11/05/2015) [-]
John Sedgwick was killed by rifle fire, not musket fire. muskets by the laws of aerodynamics, can't be accurate. They provide no spin on the ball, meaning there isn't a vortex formed, this caused the ball to arbitrarily move through the air with no sense of predictability.
#54 to #5
-
amuzen ONLINE (11/05/2015) [-]
the idea isn't to say that bows are superior to fire arms in all regards but rather that they still maintain a place in combat even though they've pretty much been completely phased about by firearms.
although you're right because the point really wasn't all that clear, and seeing as how it's being compared to firearms from a previous era their message carries even less weight.
although you're right because the point really wasn't all that clear, and seeing as how it's being compared to firearms from a previous era their message carries even less weight.
#76 to #67
-
konz (11/05/2015) [-]
Even back then the conditions under which bows would be preferable would have made them useless in 99% of situations but nowadays especially there is no real need for them. Even behind enemy lines, it is preferable for people like the SEALs to use firearms rather than bows. The idea is to strike so hard and fast that it doesn't matter whether the enemy can hear you or not.
#98 to #95
-
konz (11/05/2015) [-]
When would you ever need to shoot through dirt? Most homes in the middle east are made from adobe so arrows are gonna bounce right off. The bottom line is that bows are obsolete, if they weren't you'd see them all the time being used in combat. Maximum effective range of a hunting bow is probably somewhere around 100m for an EXPERT hunter. Max effective range for the M4 carbine is 5x that.
#97 to #5
-
chaoticlaw (11/05/2015) [-] So it's a quantity over quality type thing?
That's pretty depressing.
That's pretty depressing.
#103 to #100
-
chaoticlaw (11/05/2015) [-] Yeah, they're pretty ******* useless as an infantry weapon. They're still perfect for lone man infiltration and whatnot.
#20 to #5
-
Airmanator (11/05/2015) [-] Actually archers were quite strong.
That's about all I could interject, firearms are blatantly superior as you said.
That's about all I could interject, firearms are blatantly superior as you said.
#24 to #20
-
bioexplain (11/05/2015) [-] "They were designed so that young men who could barely lift a hay bale (let alone draw a bow". I think he already mentioned the fact that archers have to be stronger.
#22 to #5
-
pineapplechunkss ONLINE (11/05/2015) [-] but the point of the video was to show deadliness, yes you're right in what you said and I agree completely but its to show how special units utilize the bow in special circumstances
#34 to #5
-
thelastamerican (11/05/2015) [-] The point is that the bows were being experimented with as a special weapon. They're quiet. Guns aren't. They're more useful than guns in very specific scenarios, and the military wanted to see if they would be useful in deployment.
#46
-
datmine (11/05/2015) [-] >no sharp log to stop cavalry
>no bascinets or chain armor
>not even a gambeson
0/10 would not fight with
>no bascinets or chain armor
>not even a gambeson
0/10 would not fight with
#96
-
newall (11/05/2015) [-] ohh i love how fake this it.
Literally the last frame you can see theres no partitions or dirt in the box when the bow penetrates.
The kinetic energy of a .308 or even a .556 steel core is many hundreds of times higher than that of a bow. Especially an old-fashioned single-spine bow like that.
As someone else already said. there's a reason we don't use bows anymore.
Aside from the fact arrows are stopped by bails of hay, which most rifle rounds wouldn't be.
Literally the last frame you can see theres no partitions or dirt in the box when the bow penetrates.
The kinetic energy of a .308 or even a .556 steel core is many hundreds of times higher than that of a bow. Especially an old-fashioned single-spine bow like that.
As someone else already said. there's a reason we don't use bows anymore.
Aside from the fact arrows are stopped by bails of hay, which most rifle rounds wouldn't be.
#12
-
psykobear (11/05/2015) [-] Now we'll be safe if ever attacked by dirt and cardboard soldiers, amazing!
#63
-
blacken (11/05/2015) [-]
Whenever i see this discussion i like to remind people that using a bow required years of training, while you could just give a peasant a rifle and a month of training and he'd be ready
#33 to #9
-
thelastamerican (11/05/2015) [-] The Hmong people used crossbows to hunt the VC during the Vietnam war, and they were pretty good at it. They were so good at it, that when the US pulled out of Vietnam they had to take as many as they could with them because they would all be rounded up and killed if they didn't get asylum in the US. Those that couldn't come back for whatever reason were pretty much wiped out.
#106
-
chaoticlaw (11/05/2015) [-] So what I'm getting from this is that bows are more suited for finesse and power, while firearms are best for utility and easy use.
It's more difficult to train someone in the use of a bow than it is to teach them how to shoot a firearm, because the bow requires more of an affinity with how it works. That makes it a simply awful modern infantry weapon, and would get practically everyone who used it as such dead.
That being said, they're absolutely perfect for specialized infiltration missions. Those that are more pertained to power and subtlety than repeated fire. Just ******* imagine Big Boss rocking a composite bow while on solo ops.
It's more difficult to train someone in the use of a bow than it is to teach them how to shoot a firearm, because the bow requires more of an affinity with how it works. That makes it a simply awful modern infantry weapon, and would get practically everyone who used it as such dead.
That being said, they're absolutely perfect for specialized infiltration missions. Those that are more pertained to power and subtlety than repeated fire. Just ******* imagine Big Boss rocking a composite bow while on solo ops.
#10 to #6
-
failmastergerg (11/05/2015) [-] they were just cardboard to show how far the bullets penetrated, they wouldn't be a huge factor in stopping the arrow
