h a l f b a k e r yA few slices short of a loaf.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The chivalry of crossbows is
questionable, but they are more
portable than longbows. In
order to retain their chivalrous
qualities but enhance their
portability, longbows could be
constructed with telescopic
limbs opening out from the grip,
around which the string wraps.
The arrows
are also telescopic.
(Why is there no category for
"weapon:bow"?)
I will meet you on the field of battle with my bows
http://www.istockph...1_bunch_of_bows.jpg
[normzone, Oct 02 2008]
Compound Bow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_bow
Modern, Compact and Compound [csea, Oct 03 2008]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
//Why is there no category for "weapon:bow"?//
For the same reason there is no category "weapon:scrape"? |
|
| |
I was wondering how you were going to
hold that telescope steady. |
|
| |
(It might be easier to hinge the longbow
into thirds) |
|
| |
There are sprung pegs which slot into holes in the sections. |
|
| |
Would be good for survival applications. [+] |
|
| |
Erm, a longbow with the string off is basically a straight stick . . . six feet long, maybe, but a stick. A crossbow is a cross, with a hard-to-remove string, a trigger, a sight, a cocking mechanism, a groove, a stock and a lot of volume. |
|
| |
I issue a challenge to you, your huge army against mine, with weapons limited to one cartload of bows. I take the cart of longbows, you get the cart of crossbows. |
|
| |
Back on topic: How, half-of-exactly, do you propose to make the telescoping limbs? |
|
| |
arbalest... and why telescoping (except for obvious coolness factor); just swivel or detach the bow section. |
|
| |
why can't you have one lens mounted on the bow, the other on the pulling hand (i'm sure someone will tell me the technical terms of this). two Lenses could provide magnification and have cross hairs for alignment. fitting pieces to hand/bows could allow for adjustment to suit the archer's pulling stroke. muscle memory returns hand to same poiisition each shot. viola! improved accuracy. |
|
| |
[baconbrain] are you saying that the long bow is a stronger weapon than the cross bow? |
|
| |
No, I was just saying that you could fit a lot more long bows into any space that was long enough to hold them. I've owned a crossbow, and it was a pain to pack--shorter, yes, but annoying as hell. |
|
| |
For a discussion of the advantages of each in a fictional setting, I recommend the _Archer's_Tale_ books by Bernard Cornwell. (Heck, I recommend all books by Bernard Cornwell.) |
|
| |
If you hadn't noticed, the art and science of Archery made a significant improvement in the late 1960s - see [link]. |
|
| |
I wonder if you could make a crossbow that folds like an umbrella? That might even be the cocking method. Similar idea for a bow. I don't think telescopic is possible but with some space age crazy strong materials for a center hinge and mechanism.... |
|
| |
//retain their chivalrous qualities// |
|
| |
Bows, long, cross or otherwise were never considered chivalrous - just ask a Frenchman. |
|
| |
Yes, chivalry and the use of bows is a reach. But this idea did remind me of the captain's staff from "Andromeda", which was telescopic and very cool. At the time I thought the staff could be made using sealed telescopic sections and a high pressure gas source in an end to "inflate" it. A similar system could be used to get the desired result if you allow me to apply insane amounts of technology to an archaic problem, you cound inflate a bow shaped balloon made of graphine or kevlar over latex with 2200 psi nitrogen. Then when you are done, just deflate it, roll it up and put it in your pocket. |
|
| |
If its portability would present other issues like uneven stress distribution, additional weight of reinforcements, toughness of mating surfaces, and reliability of locking mechanisms, why not make it more functional as it is now more complicated? |
|
| |
So, to catapult an arrow forward with the least brawn but with massive force, it probably just take an archer to simply aim and pull a trigger to release a rush of compressed or combustion gas in a following set-up: the retracted telescoping bow held in the middle by the archer with an aimed arrow resting at one side suddenly extended outward by the expanding gas inside the telescoping cylinders with the consequent tightening of the string suddenly push the arrow by its rear end towards the target. |
|
| |
Simply amazing! (Although this is least chivalrous to an enemy target.) |
|
| |
There are two-piece long bows called
"take down" bows. |
|
| |
Out of that mother of new weapons sprung a bunch of diverse shock-and-awe weapon class and its compound forms. For example: |
|
| |
1. a quick thrusting concealed spear/bow |
|
| |
2. a thrusting-upon-impact spear |
|
| |
3. a variable-lengthening pole/spear |
|
| |
4. a backup concealed blade/sword |
|
| |
5. a double-hit spear/blade |
|
| |
6. a quick nunchaku-transforming stick |
|
| |
UB spotted it, the strength and flexibility issue. There's still no doubt it's cool, and on that strength, bun. |
|
| |
How 'bout an extendible I beam design for rigidity? |
|
| |
Could we replace the wood of the longbow with
spring steel? Any advantage?
The problem with a bow is that the tension has to be
produced by ONE pull on the bow-string. Can we
design a bow where you give say 3 or 4 pulls to built
up much more tension, before release? Something
simple, not the crossbow. |
|
| |
Hm, how about we take the limbs of the bow and make them unscrew. And while we're at it, we can make the recurve, so you get the same draw weight from a shorter bow, and an easier hold weight. |
|
| |
Wait, all that was done about 80 years ago. |
|
| |
How about we make it open up on button-press, a 'flick-bow'? |
|
| |
In the modern era, between the longbow and the crossbow
we have the recurve bow and the compound bow, many of
which mount a variety of both fixed and optical sights. |
|
| |
Oh, wait, I mistook 'telescopic' as meaning 'telescopic', not
'telescoping'. Syntax error; never mind. |
|
| |
The main advantage of a crossbow was that you could put it in the hands of Joe peasant and he'd be effective immediately (flat trajectory, simple aim, strong muscles not required to fire). To be truly effective with a long bow, significantly more training was required, as well as proper arm muscle development. |
|
| |
This is also why the crossbow was hated by lords, since "effective immediately" includes being able to punch through armor. |
|
| |
The main advantage of the longbow, on the other hand,
being the ability to block out the sun with a massive salvo
of plunging arrows fired from hundreds of yards away.
Search your history of armaments and you'll find that the
longbow was rarely, if ever, employed by just a single
archer, even for hunting. That's what a short bow is for. |
|
| |
[Loris], a flickbow is exactly what i was thinking at
the time. |
|
| |
//This is also why the crossbow was hated by lords,//
Though the MCC never actually banned them, they just said that they really weren't cricket. |
|
| |
Wasn't saying the long bow couldn't pierce armor, just that it required more training (in return for a much higher rate of fire) than the crossbow to do the same thing. |
|
| |
Most targets of longbow volleys weren't wearing very much
armor, because they were rank-and-file infantry. Also, the
longbow wasn't just feared because of its accuracy or
penetration; as any combat veteran who has ever been
mortared will tell you, plunging fire has a devastating
psychological effect. |
|
| |