Printable View
Just randomly wondering whether a modern graphite compound bow is significantly better than its ancient equivalents? Better enough to provide some sort of bonus to hit or to damage? How would a modern Olympic archer armed with modern gear compare to Robin Hood, or Ulysses, or the ancient Persian hero Rostem -- all legendary archers? Would a modern bow, in the hands of a Magic World, RuneQuest or Legend character, be considered a magic item?
I very much doubt it. The normally available modern bows are designed for comparatively lightQuote:
Originally Posted by seneschal
arrows, not the kind of armour piercing heavy war arrows used by the famous archers of the
past. However, a graphite compound bow designed for the right kind of arrows might well be
better than one of the historical bow types.
Edit.:
Just looked it up, the average modern compound bow has a draw weight of about 65 lbs, whi-
le the average longbow found in the wreck of the Mary Rose had a draw weight of more than
100 lbs (up to ca. 170 lbs), and Chinese sources give draw weights in the 120 - 140 lbs range
for Mongolian composite bows.
If there was some way to get a modern compound bow in a draw weight equivalent to ancient longbows and composite bows, you may consider allowing some kind of aiming bonus. The advantage of the compound bow is that the holding weight is less than the draw weight due to the asymmetric pulleys, and all the stabilisers and release aids are designed to allow the arrow to be released as cleanly as possible for maximum accuracy.
I'm not sure what sort of draw weights are available for modern hunting bows, perhaps some of our American members can shed some light on that?
Two things you need to keep in mind, while a compound bow has a much lighter draw weight of around 65 lbs vs. a historical longbow having ~140 lbs, that is stored energy and how much is transferred to kinetic energy. The intricate pulley systems of modern compound bows allow for a much higher percentage of the draw to be stored as stored energy (or potential energy), as well as allow the bow to transfer more of the stored energy into kinetic energy when the arrow is released. Numbers I have seen state that a typical longbow is about 85% at 30", a recurve bow can have up to 98% at 30", and a compound is actually around 102% at 30" (using 60 lb draw). These numbers drop as the draw length decreases in a linear fashion, about 3.5% per inch of draw, until you hit 26", when the drop increases. As far as transferring PE to KE, typically 85% - 90% of the PE is transferred into KE with compound bows and some modern compound bows actually have a 99% transfer rate. Longbows, on the other hand, show bout 70% - 75%, and recurves 75% - 80% (the heavier the arrow, the more PE converts to KE).Quote:
Originally Posted by rust
Or, in other words, if you add it all up, the historical longbow with much heavier draw and heavier arrows, probably results in greater power transferred to the arrow. However, the compound bows are generally more accurate due to their efficiencies, and they can fire at a much higher rate of speed (lower draw weight as well as more efficient when drawn back less).
Ian
Interesting help article for choosing a compound bow. Based on this there is a lot more to a bows power than simply draw weight. Draw length on adjustable bows can make a difference in delivered power of 10% +/- using the same draw weight.
Compound Bow Selection Guide - HuntersFriend.COM
Traditional Bow Selection Guide - Hunter's Friend
I know it is possible to order a compound bow in 100lb weight, but that is unusual. Most top out at 75-80lbs, but modern traditional bows top out at only 50-60lbs, so neither really matches the claimed weights of historic bows, but there does seem to be quite a bit of debate as to what they really were. I've seen numbers given for English longbows as low as 80lbs and as much as 190lbs. At the low end an 80lb compound bow would compare well with a 90-100lb long bow, but would come up short against the higher weights.
I would think the primary advantages of a compound bow would be accuracy rather than damage. They tend to have higher velocities so a flatter trajectory, and the let off allows for a better aim since there is much less weight to hold. Of course a modern bow also offers all kinds of high tech gadgets, sights, string silencers, etc all of which add to accuracy. Modern arrows are lightweight, but made to a much higher standard and of much tougher stuff so it would be interesting to see how the trade of in weight really turns out against armor. Would be interesting to see a shoot off between modern and historical bows on one of those top shot kind of shows.
I am not an expert with a bow, but I grew up with and around a lot of bow hunters. I believe my brother is the reincarnation of Robin Hood. We had both compound bows and recurve bows around the house. I would say that compound bows are much, much better. The arrows flew with much more strength and authority. The big advantage is that at a point the pulleys flip out on compound bows; the draw "relaxes" and you can hold the arrow steady.
One time I went to a bowyers shop and fired his longbow. He said that it was as powerful as the typical compound bow. The Longbow was much harder to fire because the bow never relaxed and you had to fire the arrow pretty quick or your arm strength would wear out. After a couple of shots my arms wore out and I couldn't pull it back anymore at all. The guy who owned it even said that he could not fire it very long before it wore him out.
I certainly would not want to get hit by either of them in any armor though. Once while playing in the backyard, I shot at a steal bucket without thinking and the arrow went clean through it like it was butter. As I recall,that was with the recurve and not the compound.
My parents were not too happy about that one. :P
This is no problem with "direct fire" at a short distance, but the historical war bows andQuote:
Originally Posted by Puck
arrows were designed for "ballistic fire" at a long distance, where the weight of the ar-
row falling onto the target determines the arrow's armour penetration. The power of the
bow was required to get the arrow as far and high as possible, but its impact was most-
ly a matter of gravity.
For example, according to early Chinese military handbooks the archers began to fire at
a distance of about 200 meters from the enemy force, and as far as I know European
longbowmen used the same tactics.
Most of my experience was with relatively short distances. It is almost impossible to hit a single target (like a deer) at those distances (at least for me). Whole ranks of soldiers would be a different matter. The big problem of getting any experience or practice at that distance is that you loose the arrows. I can say that as the distance increases, the authority of the arrow quickly goes from a quick solid cathunk into wisky, wobbly floaty thing. I imagine the arrows I was using were pretty light compared to historical arrows. They were also practice arrows without the heavy broad head.
Anyway, If you are trying to hit a huge target, say a 30 yard wide block of troops at extreme distances, I believe the difference between the Long bow and the Compound would not be much. If I was trying to hit an individual orc 40 yards away then I would take the compound bow every time.
Right now I am itching to get a bow and fire a few arrows.
An inscription on a stone stele was found near Nerchinsk in Siberia:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck
"While Chinggis Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignita-
ries, after his conquest of Sartaul, Yesüngge shot a target at 335
alds." These 335 alds were approximately 530 meters. According to
other sources of the time this was an exceptional, but not unique
shot, and an experienced Mongolian archer was expected to reliab-
ly hit a person at a distance of about 200 meters.
These guys were professionals who started at an age when they
were strong enough to hold their first bow, practiced daily and of-
ten for hours, and continued that for decades. It would be most un-
fair to compare them with today's hobby archers. For example, the
Korean traditional archery now uses a standard target at a standard
distance of about 145 meters - this would hardly have impressed a
historical Mongolian archer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seneschal
I did an article on bows a few years back. TO sum up:
Accuracy: Not much from the bow if any. There could be a bonus from the arrow, sights, and release system. But skill is king. Ancient and medial archers got lots of practice. The Yeoman in England and Wales in late Middle Ages were required to spend at least 20 hours a week practicing.
Damage: Possibly, but not always in favor of the modern bow.
The damage an arrow does is based upon it's weight, type and size of arrow head, and how fast it is moving when it hits the target. How fast the arrow travels is mostly a matter of the draw weight of the bow, that is how much "pull" it takes to draw the string back. A modern compound bow tends to have a higher draw weight than other types of modern bows, simply because the pulleys allow a person to increase the effectiveness of their draw.
Now, some of the historic bows had a greater draw weight than modern bows and would do more damage, assuming similar arrows. In fact, some "longbows" were so powerful that modern archers can't draw them back!
Range: Is determined by the speed of the arrow (draw weight) how aerodynamic it is (usually pretty good), how how much inertia it has (weight). Generally speaking, the more powerful the bow the further it will shoot.