# Which Bow would have the highest draw weight? The Compound, Recurve, Long or Cross? (1 Viewer)



## Rojack79 (Jul 20, 2019)

Now I know that bow's can pierce through metal plate armor and they are extremely powerful. My main question is how heavy of a draw can you get from each bow and which one can have the heaviest draw weight?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 20, 2019)

Because of the trigger mechanism a cross bow can be drawn mechanically with a winch and pulley mechanism, you can make it any weight you want if you set it in a frame and use several men to wind it up. Of the others a long bow is a heavier draw. a composite, classically bone and wood, relies on other factors to give it an extra kick, like recurved ends, rather than simply the pull. That makes it ideal for firing from a horse, which would be damned difficult with a six foot long bow. Maximum on a long bow is probably about 140 lbs, but that is from a guy who practices regularly to the extent that his shoulder bones are deformed (It is possible to identify the skeletons of archers this way) In some ways a long bow can be compared to a composite bow, it is made from yew carved to a D profile, but it is cut from the wood where the new growth meets the old so there is a combination of power and spring.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 20, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Because of the trigger mechanism a cross bow can be drawn mechanically with a winch and pulley mechanism, you can make it any weight you want if you set it in a frame and use several men to wind it up. Of the others a long bow is a heavier draw. a composite, classically bone and wood, relies on other factors to give it an extra kick, like recurved ends, rather than simply the pull. That makes it ideal for firing from a horse, which would be damned difficult with a six foot long bow. Maximum on a long bow is probably about 140 lbs, but that is from a guy who practices regularly to the extent that his shoulder bones are deformed (It is possible to identify the skeletons of archers this way) In some ways a long bow can be compared to a composite bow, it is made from yew carved to a D profile, but it is cut from the wood where the new growth meets the old so there is a combination of power and spring.



That is a fascinating fact. I can at least make Fenrir's bow from Yggdrasil and have it be feasible with a 3-400 pound draw weight or i can go even higher. I was thinking of going up to 1000 but i figured that was to much.


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 20, 2019)

Medieval siege crossbows (also known as arbalests) were pretty damn powerful, approaching (and in the early years exceeding) black-powder firearms in terms of punch and effective range. They were powerful enough to require a windlass to draw, and could punch through most armor of the day.

 Mongol recurve composite bows are a close second, having the added advantage of being short enough to be comfortably used on horseback. Stringing them required some skill as their unstrung arms bent the opposite way in a C-shape.

---

Now, bows cannot in fact pierce quality plate armor, as has been experimentally proven (crossbows being a whole different story with that said). What historically made certain types (i.e., English longbow + bodkin arrows) of bow so effective was the wildly divergent armor quality of the opposition. Full plate armor was still a new, rare and expensive commodity at the time of Agincourt where the longbow won its fame that only a few wealthiest knights could afford. Most French knights and men-at-arms at the time would wear either chainmail, or chainmail augmented with plates, which was very vulnerable to bodkin arrows. Furthermore, the arrows did not need to penetrate the armor to inflict damage - the simultaneous impact of just two 90-gram arrows is equivalent to a blow with a sledgehammer, quite enough to cause a concussion and possibly unhorse the victim. Arrows would also injure horses and lead them to panic, which could also be fatal during a cavalry charge. Lastly, the battles where archers scored their most famous victories were decided more by their skillful deployment at the right time and place rather than the innate qualities of their bows - in the case of Agincourt, it was the ability of the longbows to be quickly and easily unstrung. The English archers prevented their bowstrings from being soaked in a shower of rain by unstringing and hiding them under their hats, while the Genoese crossbowmen in French service couldn't do the same and were rendered ineffective, to be further decimated by the English bowmen afterwards.

Mongols had likewise developed effective countermeasures against arrow fire by incorporating multi-layered silk undershirts in their armor designs. The silk would wrap around the arrowhead without breaking and plug the wound, allowing the arrow to be safely removed and stopping bleeding, letting the wounded warriors survive until their wounds could be treated.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 20, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> Medieval siege crossbows (also known as arbalests) were pretty damn powerful, approaching (and in the early years exceeding) black-powder firearms in terms of punch and effective range. They were powerful enough to require a windlass to draw, and could punch through most armor of the day.
> 
> Mongol recurve composite bows are a close second, having the added advantage of being short enough to be comfortably used on horseback. Stringing them required some skill as their unstrung arms bent the opposite way in a C-shape.
> 
> ...


 
Now I wonder why the Mongols were the only ones to adopt that type of arrow defence. Did it not spread to the other parts of the world? And if so why not? Anyone know what kind of damage a 1000 pound draw weight bow could do to a normal human?


----------



## Winston (Jul 20, 2019)

> Anyone know what kind of damage a 1000 pound draw weight bow could do to a normal human?


That would be an Classical Era Ballista.  Definitely not man portable.  It was a siege weapon.  More like a artillery than archery.  

Speaking of suppressive fire (as Cyberwar alluded to), the volume and rapidity of longbowmen barrages made individual lethality irrelevant.  The individual power of each arrow was not important as the quantity more than made up for singular lethality.
As Comrade Stalin said:  "Quantity has a quality of it's own."
Archery during the Medieval period was an aerial denial weapon.   Not a "mano a mano" weapon.  The slow rate of fire for crossbows made them near useless in melee engagement ranges.   

Not sure how you're setting you story up, but at combat distances: Longbowmen = Speed, volume of fire.  Crossbowmen = Penetration at close range, WITH infantry support.  Reloading a windlass is hell.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 20, 2019)

Winston said:


> That would be an Classical Era Ballista.  Definitely not man portable.  It was a siege weapon.  More like a artillery than archery.


 The ballista is a weapon I've been thinking about but it's not exactly portable or easy to get going when under pressure. The thing with Fenrir's bow is that its made from wood from Yggdrasil and I want it to be at least suppierier to most other magical weapons in my story.



Winston said:


> Speaking of suppressive fire (as Cyberwar alluded to), the volume and rapidity of longbowmen barrages made individual lethality irrelevant.  The individual power of each arrow was not important as the quantity more than made up for singular lethality.
> As Comrade Stalin said:  "Quantity has a quality of it's own."
> Archery during the Medieval period was an aerial denial weapon.   Not a "mano a mano" weapon.  The slow rate of fire for crossbows made them near useless in melee engagement ranges.


 True. If i remember correctly most arrow hits weren't lethal. It was an infection that usually ended up killing you more so than the shot itself.



Winston said:


> Not sure how you're setting you story up, but at combat distances: Longbowmen = Speed, volume of fire.  Crossbowmen = Penetration at close range, WITH infantry support.  Reloading a windlass is hell.


 Again true but i will have to take into account the strength of the characters and there abilities in combat.


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 20, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Now I wonder why the Mongols were the only ones to adopt that type of arrow defence. Did it not spread to the other parts of the world? And if so why not? Anyone know what kind of damage a 1000 pound draw weight bow could do to a normal human?



I'd say that's beacause at the time, silk was a rather exclusive commodity. Mongols were trading with the Chinese long before Ghenghis Khan, and with their conquest of China, their control over Chinese goods became pretty much exclusive. Europeans only learned how to grow silk around 1400, two centuries after the heyday of Mongol Empire, at which time bows and crossbows were already being replaced by firearms.

The projectile-resistent properties of silk were known in Europe at the time, but given the cost of this exclusive imported material, arrow (and bullet) resistant armors never became a thing beyond a rare and exclusive curiosity. Silk-based bulletproof vests were sold during the American Civil War and WWI, but because of their price, they were never considered for adoption as part of standard-issue gear.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 20, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> I'd say that's beacause at the time, silk was a rather exclusive commodity. Mongols were trading with the Chinese long before Ghenghis Khan, and with their conquest of China, their control over Chinese goods became pretty much exclusive. Europeans only learned how to grow silk around 1400, two centuries after the heyday of Mongol Empire, at which time bows and crossbows were already being replaced by firearms.
> 
> The projectile-resistent properties of silk were known in Europe at the time, but given the cost of this exclusive imported material, arrow (and bullet) resistant armors never became a thing beyond a rare and exclusive curiosity. Silk-based bulletproof vests were sold during the American Civil War and WWI, but because of their price, they were never considered for adoption as part of standard-issue gear.


 
Wow. I never knew about this. The more you know. I will definitely be using these silk vest's in my story. I wonder if you had a combination of silk, leather, and metal composite armor would that protect you from just about anything?


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 20, 2019)

The question is how costly and practical would such a combination be. Sure, you can stuff your armor to be practically impervious to anything, but if you get exhausted and overheated after a minute or two of fighting, that's no good either, because the fighter who remains standing in the end will invariably win. You have to consider the local climate to remain effective.

A good example is Cortes and his men adopting native Aztec armor of cotton soaked in brine in lieu of their traditional iron armor. This significantly helped them prevail during the conquest of Mexico.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 21, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> The question is how costly and practical would such a combination be. Sure, you can stuff your armor to be practically impervious to anything, but if you get exhausted and overheated after a minute or two of fighting, that's no good either, because the fighter who remains standing in the end will invariably win. You have to consider the local climate to remain effective.
> 
> A good example is Cortes and his men adopting native Aztec armor of cotton soaked in brine in lieu of their traditional iron armor. This significantly helped them prevail during the conquest of Mexico.



True. All armor is a compromise between cost and efficiency. With the way the two MC's fight mobility will be key to both of them. Socrates the knight will probably be wearing something light like a chain shirt or leather armor. If it's not to unreasonable I was thinking of giving him at least a breast plate to wear over the other amor. It wouldn't be all that heavy and it would offer him adequate protection from just about everything while not really slowing him down. 

As someone who's fought in a full suit of half plate I can tell you it wasn't easy but at the end of my training I could fight for hours in it. All of it in total weighed 50-55 pounds and I still have it to this day. It was all in all six pieces of armor. A metal full facial helmet, a soft cloth undershirt, a leather jacket over that and then the metal breast plate over that. Then I had some metal shoulder guards and finally metal leggings. It was so cool to be able to fight in all of that. Now as for costs of equipment, while not all of his equipment is provided by the church most of it is which helps cut down on the cost for him.

 Now as for Fenrir she's a werewolf so I wasn't really planning on giving her any kind of armor to begin with. However now that I think about it she would need some rudimentary pieces of armor hit so she doesn't get killed by a stray arrow. Yes she's fast and has super human reflexes but even she can be taken by surprise. Even with there superior muscle mass and bone density and even including there healing factor and small pool of weaknesses my werewolves will still be vulnerable to death by bullet or decapitation so some armor is a must. 

I was actually thinking of using the myth of glephner the magical binding I guess it's cloth that's unbreakable or something as a form of neck protection seeing as she was going to have a metal collar around her neck made from glepher along with the chain as well that she could use as a whip. Granted these ideas aren't set in stone just yet but back to her armor. I can see her using the hides of various animals as a form of armor but again with her being a werewolf I don't want her to over head because of her fur coat. In the beginning she's not going to be able to run into a human to better hide herself so her armor options are going to be rather limited.


----------



## velo (Jul 22, 2019)

Some estimates on medieval war bows show they might have had draw weights up to a staggering 180lb, MUCH higher than any modern bow.  Most modern compound and recurves top out at 70lb though some will go up to 80#.  I'm not aware of any that go higher than that other than extremely customised rigs.  

War arrows were either highly barbed flesh-piercing or compact and heavy sharp points (image below) called 'bodkin points.'   The bodkin point was designed to pirce armour but, as has been said, they rarely did.  What they would do, however, is open a hole in the armor and peel off four razor sharp leaves that could bite into flesh.  The force of impact would also be able to unbalance a knight in a full suit or armour and topple him...if it was full plate armour the knight would likely not be able to stand it was so heavy.  

Gerald of Wales once recounted an arrow fired from an English war bow that pierced a mounted knight's amour, his pelvis, and drove into the horse so deeply the animal was killed.  



			
				Rojack79 said:
			
		

> I will definitely be using these silk vest's in my story. I wonder if you had a combination of silk, leather, and metal composite armor would that protect you from just about anything?



In the more common soldiery where mail was more prevalent they would have a thick layer of textile and leather underneath the mail.  Arrows would often pierce the mail but be stopped by the textile layer.  This is not to say the textile is better armour, but the mail dissipated enough of the energy that the textile was able to bleed off the rest of it.  Medieval arrows were FAR more massive than modern ones as well and would carry far more energy downrange.  

My bow fires 425grain carbon fibre arrows at around 300fps.  When I was sighting it in I quickly discovered that the 1/2" plywood board I have behind my target as a backstop was not thick enough.  My sights got moved somehow and I completely missed the target.  The arrow punched through the plywood easily and lodged in a tree in the neighbour's yard (appx another 40m) with enough force that I needed pliers to pull the field point out.  Now, I can't even imagine the energy that a ~2000grain English war arrow might have when fired from a 150lb bow...not withstanding the mechanical advantage of the modern compound.  

Momentum = mass x velocity


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 22, 2019)

I actually made my own textile shirt to wear underneath my armor at one point. Had no idea it could be used against arrows in any way shape or form but hey the more you know. I think the MC will go with a nice chain shirt, with a leather and silk jerkin underneath in order to prevent chafing and catch any arrows. Then he'll have a set of metal gauntlets that extend up his forearm to offer him maximum protection while offering the best amount of mobility and lastly he can have a set of leather leggings and steel capped boots.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 22, 2019)

I never bothered to make any armor.
My crossbow is a 150 lb draw, and it'll shoot through some klazy stuff.
I have to use special targets made out of ethafoam because my bolts bury themselves in bales of hay (and rip up the fletchings.)

But my little Barnett ain't nuthin' compared to this one. This is the crew served crossbow. I read somewhere that it woulda taken 3 guys to operate in combat. 1 to cock it. 1 to load it, and 1 to aim and fire it. Some of these even included a box magazine. The quill it fired weighed about a pound.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/pe...ult-rifle-discovered-Terracotta-Warriors.html


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 23, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I never bothered to make any armor.
> My crossbow is a 150 lb draw, and it'll shoot through some klazy stuff.
> I have to use special targets made out of ethafoam because my bolts bury themselves in bales of hay (and rip up the fletchings.)
> 
> ...



The title is frankly sensationalist bull. There's a huge difference between _maximum_ and _effective _range, which the authoring journalist doesn't seem to understand. Assault rifles beat even the most powerful crossbows soundly on both.

That said, don't even need to look as far as China for very sophisticated and powerful crossbow-style weapons. The Roman scorpion was essentially the Antiquity's equivalent to a machine gun, a rapid-firing crew-served direct fire support weapon. Scorpion bolts could reportedly pierce shields and kill armored soldiers behind them, and the weapon had a pretty impressive fire rate too. It might have not been very accurate compared to later Medieval crossbows, at least if the modern replicas are any measure, but then again, it didn't have to be in an age when warriors usually fought in large and close formations.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 23, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> The title is frankly sensationalist bull. There's a huge difference between _maximum_ and _effective _range, which the authoring journalist doesn't seem to understand. Assault rifles beat even the most powerful crossbows soundly on both.
> 
> That said, don't even need to look as far as China for very sophisticated and powerful crossbow-style weapons. The Roman scorpion was essentially the Antiquity's equivalent to a machine gun, a rapid-firing crew-served direct fire support weapon. Scorpion bolts could reportedly pierce shields and kill armored soldiers behind them, and the weapon had a pretty impressive fire rate too. It might have not been very accurate compared to later Medieval crossbows, at least if the modern replicas are any measure, but then again, it didn't have to be in an age when warriors usually fought in large and close formations.



I will now have to look into the Scorpion as a weapon for this series. Awesome!


----------



## velo (Jul 23, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> It might have not been very accurate compared to later Medieval crossbows



None of them were super accurate.  In medieval warfare it was all about putting as many arrows downrange as you could.  You wanted to blanket the field with projectiles and let the laws of probability work their magic.  The more arrows you fired, the more hits you got.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcYmlfhShIg


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 23, 2019)

velo said:


> None of them were super accurate.  In medieval warfare it was all about putting as many arrows downrange as you could.  You wanted to blanket the field with projectiles and let the laws of probability work their magic.  The more arrows you fired, the more hits you got.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcYmlfhShIg



Well hello there...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybolos


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 23, 2019)

Well they also had ancient rocket launcher's as well. What's next landmines?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 23, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> The title is frankly sensationalist bull. There's a huge difference between _maximum_ and _effective _range, which the authoring journalist doesn't seem to understand. Assault rifles beat even the most powerful crossbows soundly on both.
> 
> That said, don't even need to look as far as China for very sophisticated and powerful crossbow-style weapons. The Roman scorpion was essentially the Antiquity's equivalent to a machine gun, a rapid-firing crew-served direct fire support weapon. Scorpion bolts could reportedly pierce shields and kill armored soldiers behind them, and the weapon had a pretty impressive fire rate too. It might have not been very accurate compared to later Medieval crossbows, at least if the modern replicas are any measure, but then again, it didn't have to be in an age when warriors usually fought in large and close formations.




2600 feet is only 800 yards

But the Chinese crossbow predates the Roman Scorpion by over a hundred years, and some versions had a box magazine.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 25, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> 2600 feet is only 800 yards
> 
> But the Chinese crossbow predates the Roman Scorpion by over a hundred years, and some versions had a box magazine.



Are you referring to the "automatic crossbow" with a hand crank in the back?


----------



## JustRob (Jul 25, 2019)

This isn't specifically my area of interest, but in a book on the properties of engineering materials I did read that the longbow and recurve were very much regional weapons as the yew longbow was strongest in high humidity, i.e. the British climate, whereas the recurve bow with its sinew component was suitable for dry climates such as around the Mediterranean. Hence the answer probably all depends on the prevailing weather.

We are experiencing a heatwave here in Britain today, just to confuse such generalisations. In the shade in our garden it's currently 95 degrees Fahrenheit and 47% humidity, so hardly typical. The most that I could draw at present would be a long cool drink.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 25, 2019)

The draw weight is not the only factor affecting the amount of energy imparted to the arrow either.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 25, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> The draw weight is not the only factor affecting the amount of energy imparted to the arrow either.



What are some of the other factures? I know of gravity and mass of the projectile?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 26, 2019)

Compound bows made from wood, bone laminates and recurved 'Cupid' bows give an extra kick because of the different qualities of material or design. That is why I keep going on about yew being cut so there is a combination of old and new wood. Distortion of the arrow would have an effect too, a longbow fires an arrow a bit over an inch in diameter, a smaller compound bow might have a similar 'kick', but couldn't handle that thickness, on the other hand it would be shorter. Crossbow bolts are often metal, which presumably barely distorts at all. If you have a character of superhuman strength firing a bow with some fantastic draw weight remember that all that power is put into one end of the arrow. You might find the bow string splitting it, or it might even snap in the middle. There are no runners up in warfare, so people have been thinking and working on the means of waging it for a long time in a concentrated manner, well worth studying the solutions they came up with, you are unlikely to really improve on them and it will help your fictional improvements to be more convincing.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 26, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> The draw weight is not the only factor affecting the amount of energy imparted to the arrow either.




Arrow velocity comes from how far the string travels.
The farther it goes from pull to rest determines how much acceleration it will give the arrow or bolt.
Tis why some of the Japanese artillery bows were so tall that they were made asymmetrical.
It is also why modern bow hunters use an 'Overdraw'; To get an extra few inches of draw.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 26, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Compound bows made from wood, bone laminates and recurved 'Cupid' bows give an extra kick because of the different qualities of material or design. That is why I keep going on about yew being cut so there is a combination of old and new wood. Distortion of the arrow would have an effect too, a longbow fires an arrow a bit over an inch in diameter, a smaller compound bow might have a similar 'kick', but couldn't handle that thickness, on the other hand it would be shorter. Crossbow bolts are often metal, which presumably barely distorts at all. If you have a character of superhuman strength firing a bow with some fantastic draw weight remember that all that power is put into one end of the arrow. You might find the bow string splitting it, or it might even snap in the middle. There are no runners up in warfare, so people have been thinking and working on the means of waging it for a long time in a concentrated manner, well worth studying the solutions they came up with, you are unlikely to really improve on them and it will help your fictional improvements to be more convincing.



Could I make ether the bow impart some of its magic into the arrow it fires so the arrow doesn't shatter under the draw weight or could I just make the arrows out of some semi/indestructible material like Adamantine or some such? Which one would be more believable? Or just go with both?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 26, 2019)

I would be tempted to have a jolly fletcher who loves a challenge and is trying out ideas and giving your hero different sorts of arrow to try. I suppose he doesn't have to be jolly, but it is a story and I am sure you could twist a bit of fun out of it.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 26, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> I would be tempted to have a jolly fletcher who loves a challenge and is trying out ideas and giving your hero different sorts of arrow to try. I suppose he doesn't have to be jolly, but it is a story and I am sure you could twist a bit of fun out of it.



That could work out really well with what i want to do with the interaction between Loki and Fenrir. Loki is a god of mischief after all.


----------

