Much as I love archery/crossbow channels, they ALWAYS, ALWAYS confuse pounds with foot pounds (ft/lbs) when talking about amount of energy the projectile delivers at point of impact. And even then they get it wrong, because they dont know with what weight arrow/bolt or at which range in which conditions. Maybe they truly really are Medieval, who knows lol
But I did not confuse anything. I give energy in Joules because that is my more familiar unit, but I generally also give it as an approximate in ftlbs too, but of course the draw weight is the weight to draw the string back and is not a ftlbs measurement, but a lbs measurement.
@@tods_workshop love the show Tod. Not sure why people think they can "correct" an expert without doing any sort of research first. The internet is a strange place.
Momentum really defines the amount of damage, and so does the shape and material of the tip. A heavy arrow with a hardened steel tip has so much more penetration than a soft lead bullet, even at a fraction of the speed. It is the effective range that makes a difference. Muscle operated weapons never really exceed 150 m/s, in most cases they are at about half that. So the effective range for aimed shots is about 50 to 100 meters, anything beyond that requires so much hold over that it is more like random. Targets within that range are in mortal danger though. Guns can easily exceed 150 m/s, so they can be effective for looooong distances.
Well, and also consider material to penetrate. Typically, a very high-velocity projectile will penetrate something like a thin metallic barrier *significantly* better than a heavier, lower-velocity projectile. Consider, say, a 5.56mm cartridge with 55 grains mass and ~3000ft/sec velocity, even without an armour-piercing core. It will *easily* penetrate 5mm mild steel plate, shot after shot, where even a very powerful arrow will typically be repelled with minimal damage to the plate. *However*, change your target to meat or ballistic gelatin, and you see interesting things start to happen. In a lower-density target, the extreme momentum of an arrow or very large projectile like the ~550 grain solids fired by dangerous-game rifles allows them to penetrate far, far deeper and straighter than a light-weight hypervelocity projectile that will tend to fragment, deflect, or tumble and rapidly bleed off its energy in a fairly short distance relative. Hence, why you see things like the FN FiveseveN firing insanely fast, lightweight projectiles to defeat body armor as a combat weapon, and huge, low-velocity projectiles like the 458s and various Nitro cartridges used when the target is a massive chunk of dangerous meat with no hardened shell. Purpose, purpose, purpose! :)
Yep. The limit on firearms are more about how far you can accurately aim than the gun itself. Especially if you use the military definition of "gun," which includes crew-served artillery.
As far as I know there was one more feature that made firearms feasible back in days. While the accuracy was not great (smooth barrel & not very precise chunks of lead aka bullets and so on) and the rate of fire was inferior to bows. BUT it turned out with such hi projectile speed (150 m/s is still a way faster than a 50-60 m/s of typical medieval arrow) - firearms where able to hit moving targets with a much higher chance. And surprisingly there are mostly moving targets on a battlefield.
@@shurmurray You are correct when you say it is easier to hit a moving target with a faster projectile, but I am not sure if that would have been very relevant in late medieval and early Renaissance warfare. Back then most battles were armies marching against each other, with distance weapons used for volley fire against the approaching enemy army. Archers and musketeers alike would not have aimed at individuals for the most part. Also early fuse lock muskets were really big and heavy, not easy to shoot accurately. But a musket ball can penetrate armor, which a warbow arrow typically can not. I guess that would make a difference.
This is a great demonstration and comparison! You explained the difference in efficiency between medieval and modern crossbows in a clear and easy to understand way. I definitely appreciate the relative lack of maintenance on modern crossbows compared to how much you have to keep up with a medieval one. Oddly enough I've found that modern crossbows with light carbon fiber bolts just annihilate a gambeson and riveted mail, where a medieval crossbow bolt (depending on the draw weight and shape of the point of course) may not penetrate as far or even bounce off. Can't beat the old designs in style though. :)
It's actually not odd that a modern bolt will penetrate what a medieval one cannot, while still being consistent with Todd's experiment on a boss. I believe I explain it fairly clearly here th-cam.com/video/ghoVmc12vEs/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgxE_efPavhuQ0HKf2J4AaABAg (EDIT: Say if the link doesn't work, I found youtube to be a bit erratic with comment linking for me)
The tests I've seen (with firearms) indicate that energy (not momentum) determines armour penetration. The importance of momentum seems to be largely apocryphal. It may be a correlation not a cause as heavier bullets tend to have higher sectional density (which should also aid penetration) and seem likely to be sturdier and thus less likely to break up on impact.
@@Dennis-vh8tz I think the issue here might be the bolt not breaking off as easily as an arrow. When the Agincourt video came out, you could see how the arrows bounced away and broke, while with Skall's test, plate cutters from this crossbow made a severe dent on the armour before breaking out. Said armour withstood, later, a couple of shots from his brown bess, and IIRC, the ones that blasted through, hit parts already bent in by the crossbow, with a couple of shots being deflected away.
@@Dennis-vh8tz with firearms, what matters is how fast the bullet expands, and therefore dumps it's energy into the target. For the same caliber, heavier bullets are longer, but if you go up in caliber (say, 9mm to .45/11mm), you about double the weight with the same overall length.
I'd imagine seeing what the bolt does to full plate and mail armor and the sound that makes would be even scarier. The deafening crunch of steel buckling and just how _instant_ it would be as the person inside who seemed indomitable screams bloody murder... that has to have the same level of raw terror of someone's head being blown off by a modern sniper that you can't even see.
I'm pretty sure they were more preoccupied with the physical impact of being hit with a crossbow bolt not so much the sound. Especially if you were someone who was routinely involved in battles
9:43 There is an old saying, to train a longbowman, begin with his grandfather. Longbows as a weapon of war were made obsolete by the ease of training men to use crossbows and muskets.
I'd love to have a time machine to see how great those long Bowman were at their jobs. It's hard to imagine the skill and dedication it took to master that particular weapon.
A few thoughts. 1 that would be awesome. 2 I think you would end up with deminishing returns as the bolt becomes unable to absorb the full energy of the crossbow. 3 that would be extremely difficult to build as modern compound bows require special equipment to string. Thanks for the fun thought though!
@@dillonvandergriff4124 perhaps, but with a longer power stroke, the increased energy is input to the bolt over say 15" instesd of the 6" of a medieval crossbow. Therefore, you should be able to put at least 2.5x the power of a medieval bow through the bolt if you have twice the draw length.
Replace the medieval steel bow part with a high density carbon fibre made one, also in the 900 pounds range. That will make the inertia problem many times smaller and the arrow speeds will go up accordingly. Crossbow balance will benefit at the same time. I'd really like to see that experiment done! Thanks for your marvelous videos!
@@abhinandhari7812a Carbon Fiber bow would have lower mass, but the same spring force. The draw weight is a force measurement instead of a mass measurement in this context.
A lot of the gun report is expanding gas And the projectile breaking the sound barrier. The bow is going to be the material expansion and interaction. Different kind of noise. One is an explosion one is someone playing the drums
Agree. Even the string breaks the sound barrier. If the arrow does, so does the string. (Duh...) If anyone is not convinced yet: why does a whip crack? It breaks the sound barrier.
@@jandebreet5703 no, the string does not break the sound barrier on a bow. Depending on the environmental conditions that thing needs to be doing about 1100fps. A whip is a completely different mechanic. It does break the sound barrier but it’s a conservation of momentum equation. At no point does a bow string go that fast. An arrow does not break the sound barrier either most by a factor of 3. Bow noise is material interaction.
@@VSO_Gun_Channel , sorry I wrote that. I have an air gun that breaks the sound barrier. Clearly audible. 1200 f/s. I thought a 960 lbs bow could do the same. I apologize.
@@jandebreet5703 0% chance. Tod explained this. The only thing he can do to improve speed performance theoretically is to increase the draw length and do so without increasing drag. That’s why modern bows have cams. There is a material limitation. Remember that an arrow weighs more than a .50 BMG projectile.
Same. I would also liked to seem them both fired into medieval chain mail and medieval plate armor to demonstrate the differences between the two types of bolts.
It would have been nice to see a comparison of the penetration abilities of these two bows, in terms of going through X inches of wood or metal. It looked like the older bow would have been the more deadly weapon on a medieval battle-field.
Definitely the medieval bow would be more dangerous. I’m no expert, but it’s probably designed to be strong enough to penetrate steel plate armor, which the compound bow probably couldn’t do, at least not practically.
He made the question at the end which bow would he use. Surely it would be the one that would injure the knights and he already said the older bow had much better penetration, so I personally would use that one rather than watch my arrows just bounce of his plate armor
Lars Andersen did that, you know despite all the criticism of his bow is being too light. But in one of his recent video, merely adding pulley mechanism into 60lb bow can make some decent power to penetrate wrought iron helmet.
Didn't think I was remotely interested in bows but I watched the whole video from start to finish. It's great to see a true enthusiast talking about what they love :)
I use a modern crossbow for deer hunting. The bow on mine is reversed from the one you used which makes it much more balanced as the weight of the bow is centered near the trigger. I use a crossbow rather than a compound bow as I am 63 and not able to draw a bow reliably where as I can draw the crossbow at the start of the hunt and not worry about it until i shoot it when hunting or use a decocking bolt if I don’t shoot at anything. Maintenance is essential to making sure it remains safe and reliable. It is very effective for the deer I hunt, i got two this year often shooting the bolt through the deer. Both deer are in our freezer as I only hunt what we eat. Thanks for the video, i love your approach to telling great stories and informing us.
Crossbow hunting is very cruel and painful way to hunt deers, If you were to hunt i suggest you use modern rifle as it cause less suffering for the animals.
@@Chironex_Fleckeri What a backward country... access to Modern rifle is a human right. Soon they will be forcing people to bludgeon their prey with a spoon.
@@lynchingtree2317 Okay I'm supportive of 2A ... just because I think sometimes bowhunting makes sense. Look, if you're going to hunt in a place that is flat and without a lot of tree cover, do you want people firing rifles that can potential injure property or people a mile away? I'd prefer bows or shotguns to be used in that instance.
At that level does your ammo even need to be pointy? Load up a rock and go deer hunting. I always thought there ought to be hunting seasons specifically for Rock, and Club.
"You might walk away wondering why anyone would ever want to shoot a crossbow" Because it takes two weeks to train someone to use a crossbow, instead of the 20 years you need to be a successful longbow archer.
@@chroma6947 do you mean 1 year instead of two weeks to learn to be effective with a crossbow; or do you mean 1 year instead of 20 to learn to use a long bow?
My respect for that medieval crossbow is endless. Holy crap that's some hella penetration power there. Just about buried its bolt through the entirety of that target.
Yeah that is kind of terrifying. TH-cam is full of videos about how arrows cannot beat armor but... yeah this would. Remember you don't have to actually punch through the plate, just dent it bad enough that it crushes into the target under it
@@christophertaylor9100 It actually wouldn't penetrate, and barely even dent the armor. Tod made another video about arrows vs armor where they shoot a longbow with a pretty equivalent momentum (80g, 50m/s) and it does almost nothing to the armor. th-cam.com/video/DBxdTkddHaE/w-d-xo.html
English longbow caused painful joint and tendon injuries over time for the shooter so I can imagine a longbowmen medically retired from the longbow possibly had a career option as a crossbowman.
Longbowmen were generally more effective than crossbowmen, just due to the fire rate. But in terms of power, the crossbow can be more powerful. Basically crossbows took away the specialized fitness required, and allowed scab labor in the archery job market. 2 or 3 random conscripts who'd be happy to work for a sandwich could be handed crossbows and do what one expensive career longbowman could, but without skill/fitness. Also, crossbows and crossbow bolts were cheaper than longbows & arrows. An injured longbowman could probably get work with a crossbow, and maybe command a pay premium for his expected accuracy, but it'd be far less than his pay with a longbow.
Crossbow / Longbow is all about trade offs. Crossbows oddly enough are a smarter defensive weapon. They can be shot while prone, or propped on objects used for cover. They can also be loaded by someone who is not shooting and handed off. Longbows are faster, but to fire them requires you to expose more of yourself as a target
@@takingbacktoxic7898 longbows over time destroyed the Shooter’s shoulder so eventually the longbow man would be forced into retirement as he wouldn’t be able to draw the extremely heavy pull string. I imagine moving to crossbows kept him working. Crossbows were the M16 of the period while the Longbow was the sniper rifle. Interesting thing about crossbows is that China perfected them designing a semi automatic rapid fire crossbow. It is said that the first emperor of China tomb is protected by traps that fire repeater crossbows.
@@firmanimad Making a decent crossbow is easy if you got the materials and I think its easier to get materials for a crossbow than a bow. Unless you are out in the woods and all you have is a knife and some string.
Advantages over guns too! Silent and deadly. The modern oligarchs and filthy rich are scared to death of crossbows. That's why they make sure they're not banned or talked about, just ignored, hoping some MS13 salva mi trucha specimen from the 'hood doesn't figure this out.
@@Trencher1375 A crossbow is a bow with added complexity - all the metalwork, whether or not you also have, as in this case, a metal bow. I don't see how it could be easier than making a bow.
One of the things I really enjoy about these videos is the interesting and informed comments that they generate. I end up spending as much time reading the comments as I do watching the videos.
The ringing you hear is because the wood acts like an amplifier for the vibrations in the weapon. When you cock the crossbow up, a lot of energy gets stored in the wood itself.
It'd be really interesting to see a medieval style bow, but slightly upgraded with modern alloys and other materials. I wonder if the increase in efficiency would enable the "go-through-a-tank" potential of the high draw weight. In addition, higher quality/engineered materials may open the doors to longer draw lengths or higher powers that could really push the design limits.
The problem is that the materials dictate the design. The steel bow does not have a good elasticity and so has a very short draw length, which must be compensated by having an enormously powerful but very inefficient bow. If they had known of pulleys and fiberglass they would have made the same crossbows we have, except with wooden stocks instead of plastic.
The extra momentum of the old bow/bolt combo makes sense when you consider its likely target could be wearing mail - and trying to split a link and force its way through would require additional momentum on impact.
Well, I'd say that it's so that even if it doesn't penetrate, which is very likely, it will still cause quite a lot of impact force thus disorienting or even injuring the enemy.
A bolt of equal mass shot from the modern crossbow would have a higher velocity, more kinetic energy and more momentum than it would when shot from the medieval crossbow.
My estimate is that you'd need a 275-300lb recurve to deliver the same energy as Tod's 960lb monster, though that number is the result of only a few minutes of research and relies on manufacturer specs, so it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Regardless of the actual number, however, I think it's safe to say that the answer to your question is: "Much better, but still terribly." While a cam system improves performance by quite a lot, so do fiber-reinforced composites and modern engineering.
Or rather, how it would compare with bolts of identical weight. The efficiency of a crossbow mostly depends on how long the string accelerates the bolt. This is why the heavier bolts fly with the most energy : their higher weight means they accelerate slower and thus for a longer time, leaving with more energy. The modern crossbow simply has three times the draw length, and with bolts of identical weight you could expect it to be 2-3 times as efficient.
I feel like the difference between the older style crossbow and the modern crossbow is the compounding. Without that new technology, the only thing that separates the two is the material it's made from, which doesn't really cause that big of a difference.
Didn't he say that it shot the same arrows at the same speed as a longbow? So that means the energy and momentum would also be the same. Just find a comparison of the crossbow and longbow
BTW, The data from when he did that is in the description, next to the data for this run. (To save anyone else from looking for that data on the other films, like I just did. at least I can say it matches)
That data is really telling too, the total KE the modern crossbow can output on medieval weight projectiles is higher than the medieval crossbow, while requiring drastically lower draw force. This is thanks to both the materials efficiency and the massive mechanical advantage from the pulleys. All that power, so much less human effort. It's hypothetically possible to further boost the power and/or lower the draw weight at the cost of a heavier, more complex pulley system.
I'm not even interested in bows, but it popped up in my recommendations so I gave it a go. What a fantastic, interesting, and informative video, well presented and well filmed. Really enjoyed it.
Tod!!! I would LOVE to see you build a medieval 960lb crossbow using modern fibreglass for the bow materials. The difference in energy transfer/efficiency would be amazing. If you don’t build one, you should shoot the same arrow out of both bows so that a true energy comparison can be done.
It's a classic example of progress. The medieval bow is a work of art, and it certainly was high tech for it's time, however technology has advanced. It's like looking at some legendary katana that was folded a thousand times and was carefully handcrafted by the best swordsmiths, and then realizing that you could cut a blade out of a modern sheet of steel, grind, and heat treat it, and it would be a far better blade. Construction techniques, and especially material science (which is what really matters for both bows and blades) have improved so much that it's hard to compare the old to the new.
I've been watching this channel for several years now, and it's great to see how quickly it seems to have grown in the past few years. More than 300k subscribers now. Quality content prevails in the end.
Thanks for the interesting insights. It almost appears to me that medieval material limitations make period crossbow design a variant on the Tsiolkovsky (Rocket) equation, where, once past a certain draw weight, the percentage of payload increase (speed/mass) you get from any additional pound of bow strength quickly diminishes. I.e. the string gets heavier, the nut has to be made heavier (steel versus antler on this one?), the safe powerstroke length gets reduced, I suppose also the friction of the string on the top of the stock increases, and the bolts have to be made heavier to withstand the relative short and heavy shock of acceleration...
I'm really surprised the modern compound crossbow doesn't have a built-in drawing lever like the crow's-foot but which folds back into the stock, so you don't mess with the strings or a separate part.
Bow: needs a lot of training, good posture and a lot of room, exhausting over time, cannot be held at full draw for aiming Crossbow: needs less training, can be reloaded behind cover and shot in various positions that would make drawing a bow very awkward, arguably less exhausting to use, can be casually aimed there are some clear upsides to crossbows, as well as downsides.
Fascinating to hear the figures. Being more of a navy buff, I was thinking about current naval guns and finally understood why 5 inch guns will eventually need to be upgraded to 8 inch in the future. Common 2-3 inch guns don't have the momentum to seriously damage heavy ships. 5 inch doesn't have the rate of fire or the momentum.
Back in the day before missiles we're so prominent you could find 12",14",16" and even 18" guns on battleships. I met a guy at a local town festival that was exhibiting WW1 and WW2 military equipment such as jeeps, full auto German machine guns, uniforms, etc... Anyhow he had traveled to Normady and toured the beaches and battlefields. He found some craters the USS Texas had created when bombing the Germans. He got his pic standing in one. The damage a big gun causes is MASSIVE. I don't see how ships took multiple hits from such power but they did. Impressive.
I know the craters you're talking about, die hard fans of the m1911 pistol like to joke those impacts are from 45. Apc rounds that missed their target.
@@rocketsocks3116 While that's probably less relevant than in the past, 45 ACP is good in short barrels because the heavy bullet gives more time for the powder to do its job. It's also somewhat easily suppressed since most of the cartridges are naturally subsonic. But yeah, as far as "energy-into-target" goes, it's not especially potent compared to similar calibers. Sure, MAYBE the wound channel is marginally bigger but you still have to aim for vitals just like any other gun.
The energy of the bolt is where the damage is. The mass of the medieval bolt increases the energy by a factor of 3, but the velocity is reduced by a factor of 4 (roughly), so the energy of the medieval bolt is actually less by about 40%. The reasons for this is that the steel soaks up a lot of the energy, and doesn't transfer it efficiently to the bolt, so most of the energy is left in the mechanism (motion, heat). Good video, thanks for all your effort in this.
Guys, it's not that simple, apart from the ballistic argument, energy does not simply carry the bullet, speed gives you that energy and allows you to discharge it to the target at the moment of impact. Energy is a fundamental part of the impact, and studying what in classical mechanics is called impact would help. Otherwise, we could assert that impacting with a 1000kg car at 10m/s or 60m/s produces the same effects because the speed "is the messenger" but the message is represented by the mass, but we know very well that this is not the case. If you impact at over 200km/h you have a KE that is terribly higher, and this leads to tremendous effects. Yes, momentum is part of the problem, as are energy and force impulse. It's not simple, simplifying and considering only one variable doesn't lead to anything good, I already see a lot of confusion in the comments.
Please make more videos about your wares, like the new messer the maces etc. I got one of your mace heads and hafted it myself after your instructions VID. Awesome stuff.
Your explanation of momentum versus velocity is right on point I enjoy it. I've always told people when I talk about horsepower and torque and automobile engines something similar. Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall and torque is how far you go through the wall once you hit it. 🤪
Both of those analogies are wrong. Kinetic energy is more important than momentum for penetration assuming both projectiles have the same shape and surface area. And for the car analogy, power is indeed how fast you hit the wall, but how far you go through the wall is not torque, but the kinetic energy of the car (which is determined by the engine's power) and the surface area and shape. Because the car is just acting as a projectile.
One thing about momentum-penetration, is the drag through a fluid medium goes up with velocity squared. So let's say we make the momentum equal, but the velocity different. The slow arrow moves say 50 Meters per sec. The drag through fluid target is 50x50 or 2500 "drag units" now the other lighter faster arrow moving say 100 meters pers sec will have a drag of four times that 10,000. How to set up an experiment to show this might be tricky, but could be interesting.
Another factor, that influences drag is the size and shape of the projectile. The lighter projectile will probably also be smaller and have lower drag coefficient (assuming both projectiles have a similar shape). I don't think this effect will outweigh the increase due to the velocity at the velocities an arrow will travel at, but it will change the numbers. Maybe the penetration could be tested by shooting a block of ballistic gelatin and measuring how far the arrow penetrates. But targets of a crossbow would likely wear armor, which would probably change a lot, and make the choice of arrowhead more important.
+Jesse Rydberg I'm not sure about crossbow bolts and arrows, but I do know that the penetration of bullets through soft targets increases with bullet weight for a given muzzle energy. If we assume that pressure drag dominates, and that the drag force inside the target really is proportional to velocity squared and proportional to frontal area of the projectile, then arrow/bolt penetration is directly proportional to sectional density of the projectile (mass divided by frontal area) and proportional to the logarithm of the impact velocity. However, one thing we are neglecting is the shear drag, which is a significant contributor to overall drag when the projectile is long and slender, like an arrow or bolt. Shear drag force is proportional to velocity of the projectile, and also proportional to the 'wetted' area of the projectile. The wetted area is simply the surface area of the projectile in contact with the fluid medium. The wetted area increases as the bolt/arrow penetrates deeper and deeper, submerging more of its length into the fluid, and subsequently decreases as the bolt/arrow emerges from the backside of the target. The penetration in a target where shear drag dominates is proportional to the mass per unit wetted area, and directly proportional to impact velocity. So in both cases, higher velocity yields deeper penetration for a given projectile, and to a greater degree when shear drag dominates over pressure drag. The penetration ability of a projectile also improves the longer it is, the fatter it is, and the denser it is. A long length reduces the relative effects of pressure drag (V^2 dependent) and increases the relative effects of shear drag (V dependent). Density is self-explanatory. A fatter projectile has a smaller surface area-to-mass ratio, which means the deceleration caused by shear drag will be reduced without any change in the deceleration caused by pressure drag. Considering all of the above analysis, I suspect the modern arrow would penetrate deeper than medieval bolt because the modern arrow is a longer projectile and it is traveling a lot faster. The only advantage the medieval bolt has is that it is fatter, but I don't think that alone would be enough to offset the other two factors.
@@alexanderdaum8053 The idea would be to have two arrows or bolts with the same outside dimensions but different mass. Take say a carbon arrow with a light aluminum insert and another with a heavy brass insert, every thing else the same.
@@johnbarron4265 I think you are correct. I will be plugging shear drag into my thought experiments from now on. I had been imagining a scenario where the the dimensions of the arrows were the same, say a carbon arrow with an aluminum insert and an otherwise identical one with a heavy brass insert.
Asking why anyone would rather shoot a crossbow than a long bow is like asking why anyone would go buy a gun rather than spend forty years devoting their life to the study a martial art
Love the work. Informs me about the past, and makes me damn glad that I’m alive NOW. Sure we’ve got challenges, but they were even harder for our ancestors.
Thank you Tod for your very interesting analysis of the old v. new crossbows. I wouldn't want to be shot at by either! Your video style reminds me of the those made by Mr. Paul Harrel in his firearm videos. Very informative and analytical, in a practical way.
Putting a heavy bolt into the lighter bow and comparing the imparted energy and momentum would've been very nice. As long as the efficiency doesn't change much, I'd think that the bow would set the energy and the projectile would turn that into whatever momentum it needs so the little bow might actually wind up giving more momentum to the big bolts.
@@JustBadly If I'm interpreting it correctly, if you check the numbers in Tod's description under this video, you'll see that a modern compound crossbow, with its much more efficient materials and mechanism and its consequently longer power stroke, can deliver a heavy "medieval" arrow with slightly more speed, and around the same momentum, as a 960lb medieval crossbow can, but at a significantly lower draw weight. - and therefore the modern compound crossbow can not only penetrate targets better, but it's also even easier to load; I seem to recall that Tod can load the "lockdown longbow" by hand, just by pulling on the string with both hands. So he doesn't even need a draw assist for the "lockdown longbow" crossbow. - I'm afraid there's no debate that a modern compound crossbow is a better weapon against all targets than even an enormously heavy draw-weight medieval crossbow. As Tod notes at the end, the modern bow can shoot light bolts, or it can shoot heavy bolts, and the heavy bolts will give you the momentum- and therefore the penetration- you need.
I'm a longbow fan but the crossbow is an amazing piece of kit for the time. You can train anybody to load and shoot a crossbow in an hour if you needed to. Roughly two weeks for a proficient crossbowman. The longbow takes a lifetime of constant practice to master and only men can develop the strength required for war weight bows.
Absolutely brilliant comparison! I am hunting this year with a crossbow for the first time. I have wondered how the two technologies compare. Thank you for bringing this to light!
Makes me wonder if you could make a "modern" bow like that with leaf springs off of a pickup truck, a small winch to to automate the draw, a quality hard wood if pressure treated isn't enough, and see how much power you can really build into a handheld crossbow.
@@avatar1867 Medieval weapons are not something I give much thought, I didn't know those existed. That would be fun. It would still be interesting to see just how big one could be built! Think train mounted cannon lol
Seeing a modern technology compound crossbow with high draw weight and which is made with medieval materials so it gives the best ever possible effectiveness and penetration - that is the Dream.
The best of both worlds would be modern materials just engineered for greater power. Using medieval materials would have greater inertia and inefficiency and aren't as high performance in general. Materials science never gets enough credit. Even this "medieval" crossbow isn't using medieval quality steel but modern spring steel. Modern steel doesn't have inconsistencies and inclusions that weaken it. Medieval materials would require engineering a greater safety margin that would be considered overengineering even with modern steel, let alone carbon fiber. Often, it's the microscopic technology that's the bottleneck on progress, even for big things.
@@dbattleaxe my idea is to look what could medieval guys do with an access to modern computations and other math stuff with no access to modern materials. And of course I mean not "medieval medieval" steel, but as much medieval as possible.
I myself would choose the old style one because I know I could maintain and repair it. And with some study I could probably make one with the help of a farrier down the road from my property.
If we aren't assuming a complete collapse of society and mail order getting the raw ingredients to make any component of the modern bow, or just a replacement part is very possible (assuming the design isn't deliberately awful for repairability) - people really can work fibreglass and carbon fibre in a shed, if they can get the materials to work. If assuming the complete collapse of society neither is likely to be easily repairable, sourcing the right type of wood will be tricky and proper metal components being reforged, repaired etc require materials that are not certain to be available locally (of course some old crossbow styles don't require high quality metal, or even metal at all, but this one did). Also worth noting that the old one will of course be less impossible to repair than a petrochemical industry based modern one, as there are less processes and travel between resource sources required. Edit - Further thinking about it, with how regulated and mono cultural many forests are in the EU now, finding suitable types of wood might actually be harder than all the steps and materials for proper metalworking...
@@foldionepapyrus3441 I am speaking from the point of living in rural Oklahoma where the workshops dedicated to carbon fiber repair are not really available. That doesn't take the collapse of society to happen, I saw it two years ago when we had major flooding for the entire county and surrounding counties.
@@foldionepapyrus3441 Automotive leaf springs are a good source for post-collapse steel for crossbows and bladed weapons. The metallurgy is already done, you just need to find tools to cut away the parts you don't want.
You are a man after my own heart--I have the exact same compound x bow --used to build x bows from truck springs --circa 1978 --then DURAL blanks were easier to shape for a prod-/trigger was diy -rolling nut using high carbon steel /warthog ivory --etc --still have them X 7 --thankyou for clarifying the momentum issue!
this just really makes me want to see what happens when you make a modernised 1000lbs crossbow either compound or recurve. but i guess one of the most limmiting things about the windlass crossbow is the HUGE string its using, its literally a thick rope with a lot of air resistance and friction, even a modernised bow like this would need a very thick string so it doesnt rip apart at 1000lbs.
Yeah did the kg conversion, figured that was not the weight of the crossbow! Not sure any human could lift 960lbs that easily (shit must be already heavy as it is xD)
You didn't take into account the whole "burned as a witch" factor that you'd have when you showed up on the battlefield with your carbon fiber wonder bow.
nah you wouldn't be a witch, you'd be a hero with a legendary weapon. people from all across the land would hear of the legendary marksman who's accurate at ridiculous distances and has the smallest deadliest crossbow ever seen. call it the yale since it's horns can be moved at will, unlike it's heavier brethren
I would love to see a penetration comparison. Like on ballistic gel, one target without armor, one with standard or even high end armor for the time, and one target with modern armor we with like a level 3 plate. I think that be cool
I can tell you right now with any kind of armor the modern one would stink off. modern ones are for recreation and hunting, not designed to pierce armor. The modern carbon bolts are too light. There are penetrating head pieces available but you'd also need to beef up bolt weight and draw weight significantly.
Love your vids. All in all, i would rather be hit by a modern crossbow than a medieval one. A modern comes across like it would hit like a 5.56 or a .300, but a medieval crossbow seems like it would feel like getting hit by a 50 cal. Just from the thickness of the bolt alone.
Seeing the depth of penetration from the heavy medieval crossbow bolts was just horrifying. Anything that can push something that thick, that far into the target (even with a blunt head!) will ruin your day.
@@MMallon425 I was going to criticize you saying that it would only "ruin your day", but upon thinking about if you were hit by one of those you wouldn't have any days left, so technically speaking it does only ruin that one day, there are no more days to ruin after that.
Imagine, how the medieval bow would perform, if it had carbon instead of steel, kevlar instead of hemp, while preserving the other numbers like weight and so on.
I'm not sure you could use the same measurements and dimensions and just change the materials. They are proportioned according to the characteristics of that specific material, so if you use different materials you would have to recalculate the measurements/dimensions to avoid nasty accidents.
horn and sinews composite prods were actually performing pretty good, much better than steel. Technology was perfected for several generations and final result was pretty impressive. When dry and properly maintained they should be comparable to carbon. Astroflight/kevlar will not make huge difference in classic crossbow design since you cannot use thin string, it should be the same diameter as the bolt to push exact center (I am using astroflight for historic crossbow string mostly because it is hard to find hemp (or even linen thread) of good quality. Plus it is waterproof). In fact, the greatest advantage of modern materials will be resistance to moisture, allowing to make tight and precise fits. In historic designs tolerances especially around the nut should be relatively huge, or the nut will jam with moisture increase. PS I also have two bows for one of the historic crossbows- one steel and one aluminum. Same size, same geometry. Steel one is 100+ kilos, aluminum is near 30 kilos to comply with local regulations. Aluminum one is much, much faster ;).
I’ve never considered a crossbow having recoil before but I guess that does make sense. It’s storing up a lot of potential energy when you wind it up, it’s got to go somewhere when you pull the trigger.
Very interesting. However, I do believe to have spotted a slight misconception: AFAIK, some targets require momentum (sandbags, water... Keyword: displacement) and others kinetic energy (armor plates, mail... Keyword: breaking through solid material).
Crossbows seem clunkier but in medieval times they made sense in some situations because the soldiers didn't need the same amount of expertise to use a crossbow than a longbow, not a lot of people could learn archery and actually become good at it without extensive practice, most people could just pull a trigger
The inertia issue you set out is also apparent in one of my pet hates - loose anvils, vices and the like. I see so many youtubers beating away on loose anvils, some of them seem to be almost chasing them around the shop. They just don't seem to get the fact that so much of the work in every hammer blow is being wasted in moving or rocking the anvil rather than moving the metal in the workpiece. That is a lot of wear and tear on the body and wasted time. It never fails to amaze me how ingenious and creative our forebears were with the technology and materials that were available to them at the time. In the present day it is all too easy, and a great mistake, to look down on their work as being 'primitive' It is this creative curiosity and inventiveness that had led man to new technological heights. We all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before.
It's completely untrue so you'll be wasting memory space. Momentum is *a property of motion.* Kinetic energy defines the *maximum amount of work that the projectile can put into the target using momentum.* What you heard in the video is a regurgitation of a physics argument that started over 300 years ago between Newton and Leibniz that was put to rest after 90 years. Kinetic energy is calculated by summing up the total possible momentum dumped into a target, bit by bit over infinitesimal time steps. That's literally the description of the kinetic energy equation - not some opinion, an objectively verifiable fact. "Ask anyone familiar with bullets" - yes, do. Ask actual ballisticians instead of TH-camrs and you'll hear a big disconnect between nonsense opinions that make great sound bites vs physical reality. And if you want to see penetration with bullets, especially through body armor, you'll be seeing very lightweight, smaller caliber bullets, traveling fast, with lots of kinetic energy.
Very nice analysis. I am always impressed by the power and accuracy of my 150lb crossbow. Minor correction: 223 Remington is 1,300J at the low end. 22lr is around 160J, so the cross bow is getting close to the energy of a 22lr, not a 223.
@@mmorkinism this is not true, my crossbow shoots with more energy than that monster crossbow. My bulldog 440 is a 300# draw modern recurve. It shoots that same bolt weight as that big one but at over 100 fps faster with a ⅓" diameter bolt.
Great video on archery, the very first video I have watched of yours. As a bow Hunter I preach the importance of momentum and building heavy arrows. So many people do not understand this.
Man, Tod is really strong. Being able to lift 960 pounds is not a small feat.
He even shows off and lifts both of them together a few times in the video, 1100 pounds, what a guy.
Much as I love archery/crossbow channels, they ALWAYS, ALWAYS confuse pounds with foot pounds (ft/lbs) when talking about amount of energy the projectile delivers at point of impact.
And even then they get it wrong, because they dont know with what weight arrow/bolt or at which range in which conditions.
Maybe they truly really are Medieval, who knows lol
But I did not confuse anything. I give energy in Joules because that is my more familiar unit, but I generally also give it as an approximate in ftlbs too, but of course the draw weight is the weight to draw the string back and is not a ftlbs measurement, but a lbs measurement.
@@tods_workshop love the show Tod. Not sure why people think they can "correct" an expert without doing any sort of research first. The internet is a strange place.
@@daleyfun2247 If that's what you define as strange you are incredibly sheltered from the true nature of the internet.
Momentum really defines the amount of damage, and so does the shape and material of the tip. A heavy arrow with a hardened steel tip has so much more penetration than a soft lead bullet, even at a fraction of the speed. It is the effective range that makes a difference. Muscle operated weapons never really exceed 150 m/s, in most cases they are at about half that. So the effective range for aimed shots is about 50 to 100 meters, anything beyond that requires so much hold over that it is more like random. Targets within that range are in mortal danger though. Guns can easily exceed 150 m/s, so they can be effective for looooong distances.
Well, and also consider material to penetrate. Typically, a very high-velocity projectile will penetrate something like a thin metallic barrier *significantly* better than a heavier, lower-velocity projectile. Consider, say, a 5.56mm cartridge with 55 grains mass and ~3000ft/sec velocity, even without an armour-piercing core. It will *easily* penetrate 5mm mild steel plate, shot after shot, where even a very powerful arrow will typically be repelled with minimal damage to the plate. *However*, change your target to meat or ballistic gelatin, and you see interesting things start to happen. In a lower-density target, the extreme momentum of an arrow or very large projectile like the ~550 grain solids fired by dangerous-game rifles allows them to penetrate far, far deeper and straighter than a light-weight hypervelocity projectile that will tend to fragment, deflect, or tumble and rapidly bleed off its energy in a fairly short distance relative.
Hence, why you see things like the FN FiveseveN firing insanely fast, lightweight projectiles to defeat body armor as a combat weapon, and huge, low-velocity projectiles like the 458s and various Nitro cartridges used when the target is a massive chunk of dangerous meat with no hardened shell. Purpose, purpose, purpose! :)
Yep. The limit on firearms are more about how far you can accurately aim than the gun itself. Especially if you use the military definition of "gun," which includes crew-served artillery.
I love how I automatically read this comment in Joergs voice.
As far as I know there was one more feature that made firearms feasible back in days. While the accuracy was not great (smooth barrel & not very precise chunks of lead aka bullets and so on) and the rate of fire was inferior to bows. BUT it turned out with such hi projectile speed (150 m/s is still a way faster than a 50-60 m/s of typical medieval arrow) - firearms where able to hit moving targets with a much higher chance. And surprisingly there are mostly moving targets on a battlefield.
@@shurmurray You are correct when you say it is easier to hit a moving target with a faster projectile, but I am not sure if that would have been very relevant in late medieval and early Renaissance warfare. Back then most battles were armies marching against each other, with distance weapons used for volley fire against the approaching enemy army. Archers and musketeers alike would not have aimed at individuals for the most part. Also early fuse lock muskets were really big and heavy, not easy to shoot accurately. But a musket ball can penetrate armor, which a warbow arrow typically can not. I guess that would make a difference.
This is a great demonstration and comparison! You explained the difference in efficiency between medieval and modern crossbows in a clear and easy to understand way.
I definitely appreciate the relative lack of maintenance on modern crossbows compared to how much you have to keep up with a medieval one. Oddly enough I've found that modern crossbows with light carbon fiber bolts just annihilate a gambeson and riveted mail, where a medieval crossbow bolt (depending on the draw weight and shape of the point of course) may not penetrate as far or even bounce off.
Can't beat the old designs in style though. :)
It's actually not odd that a modern bolt will penetrate what a medieval one cannot, while still being consistent with Todd's experiment on a boss. I believe I explain it fairly clearly here th-cam.com/video/ghoVmc12vEs/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgxE_efPavhuQ0HKf2J4AaABAg (EDIT: Say if the link doesn't work, I found youtube to be a bit erratic with comment linking for me)
Skall, just curious. What kind of maintenance does your crossy need that you have to ship it back to the UK?
The tests I've seen (with firearms) indicate that energy (not momentum) determines armour penetration. The importance of momentum seems to be largely apocryphal. It may be a correlation not a cause as heavier bullets tend to have higher sectional density (which should also aid penetration) and seem likely to be sturdier and thus less likely to break up on impact.
@@Dennis-vh8tz I think the issue here might be the bolt not breaking off as easily as an arrow. When the Agincourt video came out, you could see how the arrows bounced away and broke, while with Skall's test, plate cutters from this crossbow made a severe dent on the armour before breaking out. Said armour withstood, later, a couple of shots from his brown bess, and IIRC, the ones that blasted through, hit parts already bent in by the crossbow, with a couple of shots being deflected away.
@@Dennis-vh8tz with firearms, what matters is how fast the bullet expands, and therefore dumps it's energy into the target. For the same caliber, heavier bullets are longer, but if you go up in caliber (say, 9mm to .45/11mm), you about double the weight with the same overall length.
The sound those heavy crossbows made must have made quite a psychological impact, especially when you had hundreds of those firing a volley!
Resembles a 22 going off, but sharp instead of hollow echoing pop.
@alpacawren It's suprisingly well made considering how old it is, the first one that is.
I'd imagine seeing what the bolt does to full plate and mail armor and the sound that makes would be even scarier. The deafening crunch of steel buckling and just how _instant_ it would be as the person inside who seemed indomitable screams bloody murder... that has to have the same level of raw terror of someone's head being blown off by a modern sniper that you can't even see.
Then the swait while they sheltered behind pavises and wound up their bows.
I'm pretty sure they were more preoccupied with the physical impact of being hit with a crossbow bolt not so much the sound. Especially if you were someone who was routinely involved in battles
9:43 There is an old saying, to train a longbowman, begin with his grandfather. Longbows as a weapon of war were made obsolete by the ease of training men to use crossbows and muskets.
I'd love to have a time machine to see how great those long Bowman were at their jobs. It's hard to imagine the skill and dedication it took to master that particular weapon.
*flashes back to Barry, the shit English longbowman who hit his own guys half the time*
@@olliefoxx7165 Take a look at an archer's skeleton. Might give you some idea of the dedication it took to be a long bowman.
would make a great time period movie...
@@judahboyd2107 the deformity of the body from the level of training and strength needed to draw was phenomenal.
I'd like to see a medieval crossbow made out of modern materials like Polymers and carbon fiber, with lighter arrows.
that would be one of the deadliest crossbow's to ever exist... when do we get the funding for that
A medieval crossbow with double curved like the Mongolian bows.
Would it qualify as an oxymoron?
I mean, this is essentially what modern crossbows are, they just take on different shapes because modern materials and manufacturing allow them to.
I would like to see what modern cross bow of 900+ lbs with a 90 gr arrow with 14" length in draw do. I bet it would be devestating.
I’d be really curious to see 500lb draw on a modern compound bow system
Same idea as a long draw length medieval bow
A few thoughts. 1 that would be awesome. 2 I think you would end up with deminishing returns as the bolt becomes unable to absorb the full energy of the crossbow. 3 that would be extremely difficult to build as modern compound bows require special equipment to string. Thanks for the fun thought though!
@@dillonvandergriff4124 perhaps, but with a longer power stroke, the increased energy is input to the bolt over say 15" instesd of the 6" of a medieval crossbow. Therefore, you should be able to put at least 2.5x the power of a medieval bow through the bolt if you have twice the draw length.
Why not even 960lb
@@dillonvandergriff4124 You'd need a really heavy bolt. I'm talking about 100 to 120 gr. That gives it a higher efficiency at higher draw weights.
Replace the medieval steel bow part with a high density carbon fibre made one, also in the 900 pounds range. That will make the inertia problem many times smaller and the arrow speeds will go up accordingly. Crossbow balance will benefit at the same time. I'd really like to see that experiment done! Thanks for your marvelous videos!
Thanks! I was wondering why the old one is so slow. Inertia in that giant steel arm!
Why would inertia change if the weight is same?
@@abhinandhari7812a Carbon Fiber bow would have lower mass, but the same spring force. The draw weight is a force measurement instead of a mass measurement in this context.
@@SentientTent wouldn't force be affected by mass( as F=ma) ?
And upgrade that bowstring while you're at it.
A lot of the gun report is expanding gas And the projectile breaking the sound barrier.
The bow is going to be the material expansion and interaction. Different kind of noise. One is an explosion one is someone playing the drums
Agree. Even the string breaks the sound barrier. If the arrow does, so does the string. (Duh...)
If anyone is not convinced yet: why does a whip crack?
It breaks the sound barrier.
@@jandebreet5703 no, the string does not break the sound barrier on a bow. Depending on the environmental conditions that thing needs to be doing about 1100fps. A whip is a completely different mechanic. It does break the sound barrier but it’s a conservation of momentum equation. At no point does a bow string go that fast. An arrow does not break the sound barrier either most by a factor of 3. Bow noise is material interaction.
@@VSO_Gun_Channel , sorry I wrote that. I have an air gun that breaks the sound barrier. Clearly audible. 1200 f/s. I thought a 960 lbs bow could do the same. I apologize.
Do you think it is possible a 960lbs bow can reach the sound barrier?
@@jandebreet5703 0% chance. Tod explained this.
The only thing he can do to improve speed performance theoretically is to increase the draw length and do so without increasing drag. That’s why modern bows have cams. There is a material limitation. Remember that an arrow weighs more than a .50 BMG projectile.
Tod always gives me such strong “if you love what you do, you’ll never work a day in your life” vibes
I would love to see that modern crossbow firing the medieval crossbow bolts; and see the numbers you get from it.
Yeah me too
Odds are that heavy of a bolt would break the modern crossbow
Same. I would also liked to seem them both fired into medieval chain mail and medieval plate armor to demonstrate the differences between the two types of bolts.
I'd like to see a modern bolt fired from the medieval bow. It would be interesting to see that comparison as well
I'd like to see a bolt shooting a crossbow
It would have been nice to see a comparison of the penetration abilities of these two bows, in terms of going through X inches of wood or metal. It looked like the older bow would have been the more deadly weapon on a medieval battle-field.
Definitely the medieval bow would be more dangerous. I’m no expert, but it’s probably designed to be strong enough to penetrate steel plate armor, which the compound bow probably couldn’t do, at least not practically.
Can't wait for "Ballista vs APFSDS - Ancient vs Modern dart projectile launchers"
He does talk about that during the video around 4:30 when he mentions the arms race between armor and ranged weapons
He made the question at the end which bow would he use. Surely it would be the one that would injure the knights and he already said the older bow had much better penetration, so I personally would use that one rather than watch my arrows just bounce of his plate armor
Lars Andersen did that, you know despite all the criticism of his bow is being too light. But in one of his recent video, merely adding pulley mechanism into 60lb bow can make some decent power to penetrate wrought iron helmet.
Didn't think I was remotely interested in bows but I watched the whole video from start to finish. It's great to see a true enthusiast talking about what they love :)
I use a modern crossbow for deer hunting. The bow on mine is reversed from the one you used which makes it much more balanced as the weight of the bow is centered near the trigger. I use a crossbow rather than a compound bow as I am 63 and not able to draw a bow reliably where as I can draw the crossbow at the start of the hunt and not worry about it until i shoot it when hunting or use a decocking bolt if I don’t shoot at anything. Maintenance is essential to making sure it remains safe and reliable. It is very effective for the deer I hunt, i got two this year often shooting the bolt through the deer. Both deer are in our freezer as I only hunt what we eat. Thanks for the video, i love your approach to telling great stories and informing us.
Not in the UK presumably!
Crossbow hunting is very cruel and painful way to hunt deers, If you were to hunt i suggest you use modern rifle as it cause less suffering for the animals.
@@lynchingtree2317 cant do that in many locales.
@@Chironex_Fleckeri
What a backward country... access to Modern rifle is a human right.
Soon they will be forcing people to bludgeon their prey with a spoon.
@@lynchingtree2317 Okay I'm supportive of 2A ... just because I think sometimes bowhunting makes sense. Look, if you're going to hunt in a place that is flat and without a lot of tree cover, do you want people firing rifles that can potential injure property or people a mile away? I'd prefer bows or shotguns to be used in that instance.
Why does his jacket look 500 years older than the medieval crossbow
lmaooo
I had much the same thought.
Because it's a lot older than the crossbow.
🤣🤣🤣
He uses the jacket far more often than a crossbow which requires a windlass to pull back. Age vs wear.
Video Idea: What if you combined the two, could you use modern technology to build a 1000lb composite compound crossbow.
That would maybe peenetrate a light APC with the right bolt type :D
That's sorta how the modern crossbow evolved.
Make a modern crossbow made to use harpoon
At that level does your ammo even need to be pointy?
Load up a rock and go deer hunting. I always thought there ought to be hunting seasons specifically for Rock, and Club.
Unfortunately it would be an 1110 lb crossbow
"You might walk away wondering why anyone would ever want to shoot a crossbow"
Because it takes two weeks to train someone to use a crossbow, instead of the 20 years you need to be a successful longbow archer.
Musket
@@braija Yeah I mean, crossbows were basically the pre-blackpowder muskets.
Try 1 year
@@chroma6947 do you mean 1 year instead of two weeks to learn to be effective with a crossbow; or do you mean 1 year instead of 20 to learn to use a long bow?
I have always thought its cause a single crossbow bolt will penetrate the armour while 10 longbow arrows will not...
That's intense.
I do appreciate how you always dig deeper into your tests and aren't satisfied with superficial results.
What I learnt from this: I want a medieval 900lb crossbow with a compound mechanism
A rocket powered crossbow
It already exist. It is called APFSDS :D .
Todd makes them.
it's called a ballista :P
@@jimwagner6260 no he doesn’t
Tod's video are always thoughtful and meticulous. And he's such a calm and nice guy. Great job!
Thank you
My respect for that medieval crossbow is endless. Holy crap that's some hella penetration power there. Just about buried its bolt through the entirety of that target.
Eh it's terrible waste of energy. My Bulldog 440 recurve can shoot that same heavy bolt at 260-275 fps.... much more penetration
I csnt bieve how loud it is lol
Yeah that is kind of terrifying. TH-cam is full of videos about how arrows cannot beat armor but... yeah this would. Remember you don't have to actually punch through the plate, just dent it bad enough that it crushes into the target under it
I wish I had that much penetration power... for my crossbow I mean
@@christophertaylor9100 It actually wouldn't penetrate, and barely even dent the armor. Tod made another video about arrows vs armor where they shoot a longbow with a pretty equivalent momentum (80g, 50m/s) and it does almost nothing to the armor. th-cam.com/video/DBxdTkddHaE/w-d-xo.html
English longbow caused painful joint and tendon injuries over time for the shooter so I can imagine a longbowmen medically retired from the longbow possibly had a career option as a crossbowman.
From what I hear the longbow man is still waiting to see his VA doc and was only given a 5% disability rate.
Longbowmen were generally more effective than crossbowmen, just due to the fire rate. But in terms of power, the crossbow can be more powerful.
Basically crossbows took away the specialized fitness required, and allowed scab labor in the archery job market. 2 or 3 random conscripts who'd be happy to work for a sandwich could be handed crossbows and do what one expensive career longbowman could, but without skill/fitness. Also, crossbows and crossbow bolts were cheaper than longbows & arrows.
An injured longbowman could probably get work with a crossbow, and maybe command a pay premium for his expected accuracy, but it'd be far less than his pay with a longbow.
@@kathrynck Yeah, I also had the impression that crossbows are sort of a 1-shot chance for those who couldn't shoot a longbow at all.
Crossbow / Longbow is all about trade offs.
Crossbows oddly enough are a smarter defensive weapon. They can be shot while prone, or propped on objects used for cover. They can also be loaded by someone who is not shooting and handed off.
Longbows are faster, but to fire them requires you to expose more of yourself as a target
@@takingbacktoxic7898 longbows over time destroyed the Shooter’s shoulder so eventually the longbow man would be forced into retirement as he wouldn’t be able to draw the extremely heavy pull string. I imagine moving to crossbows kept him working.
Crossbows were the M16 of the period while the Longbow was the sniper rifle.
Interesting thing about crossbows is that China perfected them designing a semi automatic rapid fire crossbow. It is said that the first emperor of China tomb is protected by traps that fire repeater crossbows.
TH-cam: "here, watch this video about crossbows"
Me, who knows literally nothing about bows of any sorts: "yeah, sure"
I hope you are happy that you did!
Now we’re both almost experts. One more, and I’m ready for self defense videos of crossbows.
@Ian Pemberton okay? I have no videos of anything penetrating anything. You should do the same.
And watch your language. I mean literally. Grammar as well as punctuation.
aaaaaaaaand that's how LEARNING is done. 😄
Easy to learn, easy to shoot, penetrate armour and great range. The advantages of crossbows instead of bow are many.
I might be mistaken but I think its efficient range is lower than bows, but you can sit and aim with it indefinitely. Also definitely harder to make.
@@firmanimad Making a decent crossbow is easy if you got the materials and I think its easier to get materials for a crossbow than a bow. Unless you are out in the woods and all you have is a knife and some string.
Advantages over guns too! Silent and deadly. The modern oligarchs and filthy rich are scared to death of crossbows. That's why they make sure they're not banned or talked about, just ignored, hoping some MS13 salva mi trucha specimen from the 'hood doesn't figure this out.
@@Trencher1375 A crossbow is a bow with added complexity - all the metalwork, whether or not you also have, as in this case, a metal bow. I don't see how it could be easier than making a bow.
The last time I was this early the windlass crossbow was still a prototype. And Todd's clothes had no holes.
🤣😂😍
One of the things I really enjoy about these videos is the interesting and informed comments that they generate. I end up spending as much time reading the comments as I do watching the videos.
Yeah; I love the informed discussion here
I'd like to see a 1400s proportioned crossbow made from modern materials and see what the numbers look like if you take a lot of the weight away.
The ringing you hear is because the wood acts like an amplifier for the vibrations in the weapon. When you cock the crossbow up, a lot of energy gets stored in the wood itself.
It'd be really interesting to see a medieval style bow, but slightly upgraded with modern alloys and other materials. I wonder if the increase in efficiency would enable the "go-through-a-tank" potential of the high draw weight. In addition, higher quality/engineered materials may open the doors to longer draw lengths or higher powers that could really push the design limits.
Crossbow fired HEAT arrows
The problem is that the materials dictate the design. The steel bow does not have a good elasticity and so has a very short draw length, which must be compensated by having an enormously powerful but very inefficient bow.
If they had known of pulleys and fiberglass they would have made the same crossbows we have, except with wooden stocks instead of plastic.
The extra momentum of the old bow/bolt combo makes sense when you consider its likely target could be wearing mail - and trying to split a link and force its way through would require additional momentum on impact.
Well, I'd say that it's so that even if it doesn't penetrate, which is very likely, it will still cause quite a lot of impact force thus disorienting or even injuring the enemy.
A bolt of equal mass shot from the modern crossbow would have a higher velocity, more kinetic energy and more momentum than it would when shot from the medieval crossbow.
A Tale of Two Bows!
That would have been a great title too
That was indeed a contender
It was the best of bows
It was the worst of bows
I wonder how the old-style crossbow would have performed against a modern NON-COMPOUND crossbow. -- Very educational. Thanks for the great video!
My estimate is that you'd need a 275-300lb recurve to deliver the same energy as Tod's 960lb monster, though that number is the result of only a few minutes of research and relies on manufacturer specs, so it should be taken with a large grain of salt.
Regardless of the actual number, however, I think it's safe to say that the answer to your question is: "Much better, but still terribly." While a cam system improves performance by quite a lot, so do fiber-reinforced composites and modern engineering.
Or rather, how it would compare with bolts of identical weight.
The efficiency of a crossbow mostly depends on how long the string accelerates the bolt. This is why the heavier bolts fly with the most energy : their higher weight means they accelerate slower and thus for a longer time, leaving with more energy.
The modern crossbow simply has three times the draw length, and with bolts of identical weight you could expect it to be 2-3 times as efficient.
I feel like the difference between the older style crossbow and the modern crossbow is the compounding. Without that new technology, the only thing that separates the two is the material it's made from, which doesn't really cause that big of a difference.
for a second i was like no goddamn way that crossbow weighs 960 pounds.
I was thinking the same. As in you'd need Bjorn to lift that.
same, i was so confused lol
Yes indeed
Nice!
Americans using the same unit for force and mass 🤦♂️
"I'm just going to talk in metric now.
"We're going to start with our modern bow. So here it is, 150 pounds in draw weight..."
Do you want him to measure it in Newtons instead? Lol
@@TaberIV yes, I want him to measure them in New-Tons instead of Old-Pounds! Xd
Clearly should've gone with 68 kg.
@@Zraknul or what, you'd prefer 4.66214 Slugs instead?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(unit)
4370N vs. 667N? That's a brutal comparison.
It would have been nice to see the test with heavier bolts for the modern bow, that would give some interesting results
Didn't he say that it shot the same arrows at the same speed as a longbow? So that means the energy and momentum would also be the same. Just find a comparison of the crossbow and longbow
I should have done that, but this film is of me doing just that with a slightly weaker bow th-cam.com/video/BV8kt-bDxnk/w-d-xo.html
BTW, The data from when he did that is in the description, next to the data for this run. (To save anyone else from looking for that data on the other films, like I just did. at least I can say it matches)
That data is really telling too, the total KE the modern crossbow can output on medieval weight projectiles is higher than the medieval crossbow, while requiring drastically lower draw force.
This is thanks to both the materials efficiency and the massive mechanical advantage from the pulleys.
All that power, so much less human effort. It's hypothetically possible to further boost the power and/or lower the draw weight at the cost of a heavier, more complex pulley system.
See Bunjie on YT for why that might be a problem m8 .
You sir, are nothing short of amazing. I've never seen anyone else so thorough and precise with such tests and gear.
Digging the neo-medieval peasant chic
He’s going to be well prepared for the 21st century Feudalism we’re all going to be so “Happy” about
@@moonshot1999 you will own nothing and be happy
@@d.d.h6749 hey, og feudalism wasn't that bad. There was private property and all that jazz. 1/10 ain't that high of a tax either lol
@@Sk0lzky problem is when the fief goes through a famine and tax gets high, but hey, that's life
@@xilpes6254 just work more on your lord's land, nothing ain't gonna grow there anyway so might as well starve and not piss off your lord
theif: *breaks in*
tod: blimery mate, you pick the wrong flat to nick
An Eminem line applies here "You only get one shot"
then he gets arrested because of the uk self defense laws
@@rope7741 oof
@@rope7741 oof
Rope: make sure to have friends with pickup trucks and backhoes, and a few bags of lime...
This video was such quality for no reason. Like this didn't need to be this good lol. Thank you for being extraordinary
He's talking and shooting a crossbow relax
@@noobstarr4798 Get a load of this guy. The happiness hunter.
@@noobstarr4798 boooooooo
I'm not even interested in bows, but it popped up in my recommendations so I gave it a go.
What a fantastic, interesting, and informative video, well presented and well filmed.
Really enjoyed it.
Tod!!! I would LOVE to see you build a medieval 960lb crossbow using modern fibreglass for the bow materials. The difference in energy transfer/efficiency would be amazing.
If you don’t build one, you should shoot the same arrow out of both bows so that a true energy comparison can be done.
Me reading the title: "How did this man lift a 960lb crossbow!?"
It's a MINDSET!
430 kilo is nothin
Yeah using the same unit for force and mass is kind of dum
Edit: weight>mass
I believe you're thinking of a ballista :)
15:37 Look at that clip, brother's *jacked*
Remember kids, if it hurts your ears, that’s called hearing loss.
Always always wear ear protection
All I hear is ringing in both ears...
Whaaaaaaat!?
...huh?
Crossbows arent that loud compared to guns,, they wont hurt your ears
Reading the replies: anyone getting any more closed minded or dumber?
It's a classic example of progress. The medieval bow is a work of art, and it certainly was high tech for it's time, however technology has advanced. It's like looking at some legendary katana that was folded a thousand times and was carefully handcrafted by the best swordsmiths, and then realizing that you could cut a blade out of a modern sheet of steel, grind, and heat treat it, and it would be a far better blade. Construction techniques, and especially material science (which is what really matters for both bows and blades) have improved so much that it's hard to compare the old to the new.
Katanas weren’t folded a thousand times.
katanas were folded 14 times, creating 16000 layers. the fact has definitely been mistold over time
@@cameronlamb1869 Doesn't really change the point I was getting at.
No katana was folded a thousand times. Ever.
@@fransthefox9682 Read above.
I've been watching this channel for several years now, and it's great to see how quickly it seems to have grown in the past few years. More than 300k subscribers now. Quality content prevails in the end.
Thanks for sticking with me and I have got better at presenting this stuff which helps too
Do polls, The Spiffing Brit has a video how you can exploit a TH-cam feature to get a million subscribers
Thanks for the interesting insights. It almost appears to me that medieval material limitations make period crossbow design a variant on the Tsiolkovsky (Rocket) equation, where, once past a certain draw weight, the percentage of payload increase (speed/mass) you get from any additional pound of bow strength quickly diminishes.
I.e. the string gets heavier, the nut has to be made heavier (steel versus antler on this one?), the safe powerstroke length gets reduced, I suppose also the friction of the string on the top of the stock increases, and the bolts have to be made heavier to withstand the relative short and heavy shock of acceleration...
I'm really surprised the modern compound crossbow doesn't have a built-in drawing lever like the crow's-foot but which folds back into the stock, so you don't mess with the strings or a separate part.
Excellent presentation. I really appreciate the inclusion of standard units in addition to metrics.
Bow: needs a lot of training, good posture and a lot of room, exhausting over time, cannot be held at full draw for aiming
Crossbow: needs less training, can be reloaded behind cover and shot in various positions that would make drawing a bow very awkward, arguably less exhausting to use, can be casually aimed
there are some clear upsides to crossbows, as well as downsides.
Fascinating to hear the figures. Being more of a navy buff, I was thinking about current naval guns and finally understood why 5 inch guns will eventually need to be upgraded to 8 inch in the future. Common 2-3 inch guns don't have the momentum to seriously damage heavy ships. 5 inch doesn't have the rate of fire or the momentum.
Back in the day before missiles we're so prominent you could find 12",14",16" and even 18" guns on battleships.
I met a guy at a local town festival that was exhibiting WW1 and WW2 military equipment such as jeeps, full auto German machine guns, uniforms, etc... Anyhow he had traveled to Normady and toured the beaches and battlefields. He found some craters the USS Texas had created when bombing the Germans. He got his pic standing in one. The damage a big gun causes is MASSIVE. I don't see how ships took multiple hits from such power but they did. Impressive.
I know the craters you're talking about, die hard fans of the m1911 pistol like to joke those impacts are from 45. Apc rounds that missed their target.
@@olliefoxx7165 yep, I can't believe ships took dozens of hit from 500-1000kg shells. Really astounding
@@gicking3898 As big as those shells were, the ships they hit were even bigger.
@@rocketsocks3116 While that's probably less relevant than in the past, 45 ACP is good in short barrels because the heavy bullet gives more time for the powder to do its job. It's also somewhat easily suppressed since most of the cartridges are naturally subsonic.
But yeah, as far as "energy-into-target" goes, it's not especially potent compared to similar calibers. Sure, MAYBE the wound channel is marginally bigger but you still have to aim for vitals just like any other gun.
I've used a 150lb now for years and I was today years old when I learned about bow assists.
The energy of the bolt is where the damage is. The mass of the medieval bolt increases the energy by a factor of 3, but the velocity is reduced by a factor of 4 (roughly), so the energy of the medieval bolt is actually less by about 40%.
The reasons for this is that the steel soaks up a lot of the energy, and doesn't transfer it efficiently to the bolt, so most of the energy is left in the mechanism (motion, heat).
Good video, thanks for all your effort in this.
Guys, it's not that simple, apart from the ballistic argument, energy does not simply carry the bullet, speed gives you that energy and allows you to discharge it to the target at the moment of impact.
Energy is a fundamental part of the impact, and studying what in classical mechanics is called impact would help.
Otherwise, we could assert that impacting with a 1000kg car at 10m/s or 60m/s produces the same effects because the speed "is the messenger" but the message is represented by the mass, but we know very well that this is not the case.
If you impact at over 200km/h you have a KE that is terribly higher, and this leads to tremendous effects.
Yes, momentum is part of the problem, as are energy and force impulse.
It's not simple, simplifying and considering only one variable doesn't lead to anything good, I already see a lot of confusion in the comments.
Please make more videos about your wares, like the new messer the maces etc. I got one of your mace heads and hafted it myself after your instructions VID. Awesome stuff.
Just found this channel today and I'm so glad I did.
Imagine dual-weilding these.
Your explanation of momentum versus velocity is right on point I enjoy it. I've always told people when I talk about horsepower and torque and automobile engines something similar. Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall and torque is how far you go through the wall once you hit it. 🤪
Both of those analogies are wrong. Kinetic energy is more important than momentum for penetration assuming both projectiles have the same shape and surface area.
And for the car analogy, power is indeed how fast you hit the wall, but how far you go through the wall is not torque, but the kinetic energy of the car (which is determined by the engine's power) and the surface area and shape. Because the car is just acting as a projectile.
No
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall.
Torque is how fast you reach that speed.
One thing about momentum-penetration, is the drag through a fluid medium goes up with velocity squared. So let's say we make the momentum equal, but the velocity different. The slow arrow moves say 50 Meters per sec. The drag through fluid target is 50x50 or 2500 "drag units" now the other lighter faster arrow moving say 100 meters pers sec will have a drag of four times that 10,000. How to set up an experiment to show this might be tricky, but could be interesting.
I'm not sure it would be that difficult to test. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Another factor, that influences drag is the size and shape of the projectile. The lighter projectile will probably also be smaller and have lower drag coefficient (assuming both projectiles have a similar shape).
I don't think this effect will outweigh the increase due to the velocity at the velocities an arrow will travel at, but it will change the numbers.
Maybe the penetration could be tested by shooting a block of ballistic gelatin and measuring how far the arrow penetrates. But targets of a crossbow would likely wear armor, which would probably change a lot, and make the choice of arrowhead more important.
+Jesse Rydberg
I'm not sure about crossbow bolts and arrows, but I do know that the penetration of bullets through soft targets increases with bullet weight for a given muzzle energy. If we assume that pressure drag dominates, and that the drag force inside the target really is proportional to velocity squared and proportional to frontal area of the projectile, then arrow/bolt penetration is directly proportional to sectional density of the projectile (mass divided by frontal area) and proportional to the logarithm of the impact velocity. However, one thing we are neglecting is the shear drag, which is a significant contributor to overall drag when the projectile is long and slender, like an arrow or bolt. Shear drag force is proportional to velocity of the projectile, and also proportional to the 'wetted' area of the projectile. The wetted area is simply the surface area of the projectile in contact with the fluid medium. The wetted area increases as the bolt/arrow penetrates deeper and deeper, submerging more of its length into the fluid, and subsequently decreases as the bolt/arrow emerges from the backside of the target. The penetration in a target where shear drag dominates is proportional to the mass per unit wetted area, and directly proportional to impact velocity. So in both cases, higher velocity yields deeper penetration for a given projectile, and to a greater degree when shear drag dominates over pressure drag. The penetration ability of a projectile also improves the longer it is, the fatter it is, and the denser it is. A long length reduces the relative effects of pressure drag (V^2 dependent) and increases the relative effects of shear drag (V dependent). Density is self-explanatory. A fatter projectile has a smaller surface area-to-mass ratio, which means the deceleration caused by shear drag will be reduced without any change in the deceleration caused by pressure drag.
Considering all of the above analysis, I suspect the modern arrow would penetrate deeper than medieval bolt because the modern arrow is a longer projectile and it is traveling a lot faster. The only advantage the medieval bolt has is that it is fatter, but I don't think that alone would be enough to offset the other two factors.
@@alexanderdaum8053 The idea would be to have two arrows or bolts with the same outside dimensions but different mass. Take say a carbon arrow with a light aluminum insert and another with a heavy brass insert, every thing else the same.
@@johnbarron4265 I think you are correct. I will be plugging shear drag into my thought experiments from now on. I had been imagining a scenario where the the dimensions of the arrows were the same, say a carbon arrow with an aluminum insert and an otherwise identical one with a heavy brass insert.
Asking why anyone would rather shoot a crossbow than a long bow is like asking why anyone would go buy a gun rather than spend forty years devoting their life to the study a martial art
Love the work. Informs me about the past, and makes me damn glad that I’m alive NOW. Sure we’ve got challenges, but they were even harder for our ancestors.
Fascinating actually. Well done and quite interesting! Both crossbows are magnificent pieces of kit.
Thank you Tod for your very interesting analysis of the old v. new crossbows. I wouldn't want to be shot at by either! Your video style reminds me of the those made by Mr. Paul Harrel in his firearm videos. Very informative and analytical, in a practical way.
Putting a heavy bolt into the lighter bow and comparing the imparted energy and momentum would've been very nice. As long as the efficiency doesn't change much, I'd think that the bow would set the energy and the projectile would turn that into whatever momentum it needs so the little bow might actually wind up giving more momentum to the big bolts.
"they would have killed for it,... They would have killed with it." Heh heh heh. Brutal.
It will kheeell
TH-cam directed me here...it really does know what a potential "mark" looks like doesn't it? :D
Absolutely sublime quote at the end!
??? The 960lb would have penetrated armour. The quickfire 150 not so.
@@JustBadly If I'm interpreting it correctly, if you check the numbers in Tod's description under this video, you'll see that a modern compound crossbow, with its much more efficient materials and mechanism and its consequently longer power stroke, can deliver a heavy "medieval" arrow with slightly more speed, and around the same momentum, as a 960lb medieval crossbow can, but at a significantly lower draw weight.
-
and therefore the modern compound crossbow can not only penetrate targets better, but it's also even easier to load; I seem to recall that Tod can load the "lockdown longbow" by hand, just by pulling on the string with both hands. So he doesn't even need a draw assist for the "lockdown longbow" crossbow.
-
I'm afraid there's no debate that a modern compound crossbow is a better weapon against all targets than even an enormously heavy draw-weight medieval crossbow. As Tod notes at the end, the modern bow can shoot light bolts, or it can shoot heavy bolts, and the heavy bolts will give you the momentum- and therefore the penetration- you need.
@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 I've seen them...and try not to be so condescending..it makes you look like
a cheap SJW...dumpling. :)
Well done for explaining these issues, there are plenty of videos on bows but yours is the first to go into these matters.
I never knew I was so interested in crossbows. Thank you TH-cam algorithm.
I'm a longbow fan but the crossbow is an amazing piece of kit for the time. You can train anybody to load and shoot a crossbow in an hour if you needed to. Roughly two weeks for a proficient crossbowman. The longbow takes a lifetime of constant practice to master and only men can develop the strength required for war weight bows.
AWESOME VIDEO TOD! This is the sort of thing that I always want to know more about.
Absolutely brilliant comparison! I am hunting this year with a crossbow for the first time. I have wondered how the two technologies compare. Thank you for bringing this to light!
Makes me wonder if you could make a "modern" bow like that with leaf springs off of a pickup truck, a small winch to to automate the draw, a quality hard wood if pressure treated isn't enough, and see how much power you can really build into a handheld crossbow.
Eventually you stop calling it a crossbow an you call it a ballista =p
@@avatar1867 Medieval weapons are not something I give much thought, I didn't know those existed. That would be fun. It would still be interesting to see just how big one could be built! Think train mounted cannon lol
I made one as kid so strong that i had to put steel cable instead of rope one time the trigger broke tho and scalped my fingers
@@ioanniskonovesis3438 Safety first. Innovation isn't without risks! Kudos!
Seeing a modern technology compound crossbow with high draw weight and which is made with medieval materials so it gives the best ever possible effectiveness and penetration - that is the Dream.
The best of both worlds would be modern materials just engineered for greater power. Using medieval materials would have greater inertia and inefficiency and aren't as high performance in general. Materials science never gets enough credit. Even this "medieval" crossbow isn't using medieval quality steel but modern spring steel. Modern steel doesn't have inconsistencies and inclusions that weaken it. Medieval materials would require engineering a greater safety margin that would be considered overengineering even with modern steel, let alone carbon fiber. Often, it's the microscopic technology that's the bottleneck on progress, even for big things.
@@dbattleaxe my idea is to look what could medieval guys do with an access to modern computations and other math stuff with no access to modern materials.
And of course I mean not "medieval medieval" steel, but as much medieval as possible.
I myself would choose the old style one because I know I could maintain and repair it. And with some study I could probably make one with the help of a farrier down the road from my property.
That is a very good point - the new one, once damaged would stay damaged
If we aren't assuming a complete collapse of society and mail order getting the raw ingredients to make any component of the modern bow, or just a replacement part is very possible (assuming the design isn't deliberately awful for repairability) - people really can work fibreglass and carbon fibre in a shed, if they can get the materials to work.
If assuming the complete collapse of society neither is likely to be easily repairable, sourcing the right type of wood will be tricky and proper metal components being reforged, repaired etc require materials that are not certain to be available locally (of course some old crossbow styles don't require high quality metal, or even metal at all, but this one did). Also worth noting that the old one will of course be less impossible to repair than a petrochemical industry based modern one, as there are less processes and travel between resource sources required.
Edit - Further thinking about it, with how regulated and mono cultural many forests are in the EU now, finding suitable types of wood might actually be harder than all the steps and materials for proper metalworking...
@@foldionepapyrus3441 I believe Mok's point was that those materials wouldn't be available in the 14th century.
@@foldionepapyrus3441 I am speaking from the point of living in rural Oklahoma where the workshops dedicated to carbon fiber repair are not really available. That doesn't take the collapse of society to happen, I saw it two years ago when we had major flooding for the entire county and surrounding counties.
@@foldionepapyrus3441 Automotive leaf springs are a good source for post-collapse steel for crossbows and bladed weapons. The metallurgy is already done, you just need to find tools to cut away the parts you don't want.
You are a man after my own heart--I have the exact same compound x bow --used to build x bows from truck springs --circa 1978 --then DURAL blanks were easier to shape for a prod-/trigger was diy -rolling nut using high carbon steel /warthog ivory --etc
--still have them X 7 --thankyou for clarifying the momentum issue!
this just really makes me want to see what happens when you make a modernised 1000lbs crossbow either compound or recurve. but i guess one of the most limmiting things about the windlass crossbow is the HUGE string its using, its literally a thick rope with a lot of air resistance and friction, even a modernised bow like this would need a very thick string so it doesnt rip apart at 1000lbs.
so how is my rust character able to run while pulling his crossy back 🤨
@Messer incorrect 200 wood 75 metal frags and 2 rope
@@mayonaisedragon Sounds like,with all those materials, he built a trebuchet?
@@hdezn26 lol
Its a game?
@@daveglines941 A game? I thought it was a bunch of pixels? Lol.
"Shooting a bit to the right...never mind, I'll move the bale next time" LOLZ!!
Wow. You answered all of my questions. You didn't miss anything. Very good lesson. Thank you very much.
Loved your analysis. Would even more have liked to see how the numbers for modern crossbows change with increasing arrow mass.
So those peasants back then should have ask their local wizard to invent an instant-Legolas compound crossbow...
Yes
But no
@Ben S if you hand peasants crossbows they may invent communism or demand democracy, can't have that.
@@speedy01247 Russian Empire in WW be like
When this is someone's first video of watching archery:
*How is he holding 960 pounds so easily?*
He’s built different
u got me
Ah no. Kinda obvious.
Yeah did the kg conversion, figured that was not the weight of the crossbow! Not sure any human could lift 960lbs that easily (shit must be already heavy as it is xD)
Lmao Fr
Excellent. First class demonstrations, calculations and explanations.
BBC be like "Why is everyone cancelling their TV licences?"
Great video! Thanks for the (free) education.
Tim I was just thinking something similar from the other side of the Pond
Love these videos, it makes my day to see Tod again :)
Messenger/Message was my biggest take away. Thank you kindly.
😎
For years, I have been watching your channel. This episode, the "1400 Monster v. the modern day crossbow" is, in my opinion, is your best feed.
You didn't take into account the whole "burned as a witch" factor that you'd have when you showed up on the battlefield with your carbon fiber wonder bow.
Just paint the carbon fibre a wood colour and you're good so long as no one looks too closely :p
nah you wouldn't be a witch, you'd be a hero with a legendary weapon. people from all across the land would hear of the legendary marksman who's accurate at ridiculous distances and has the smallest deadliest crossbow ever seen. call it the yale since it's horns can be moved at will, unlike it's heavier brethren
Just shoot the inquisitors
LOOL
I would love to see a penetration comparison. Like on ballistic gel, one target without armor, one with standard or even high end armor for the time, and one target with modern armor we with like a level 3 plate. I think that be cool
I can tell you right now with any kind of armor the modern one would stink off. modern ones are for recreation and hunting, not designed to pierce armor. The modern carbon bolts are too light. There are penetrating head pieces available but you'd also need to beef up bolt weight and draw weight significantly.
Love your vids. All in all, i would rather be hit by a modern crossbow than a medieval one. A modern comes across like it would hit like a 5.56 or a .300, but a medieval crossbow seems like it would feel like getting hit by a 50 cal. Just from the thickness of the bolt alone.
Seeing the depth of penetration from the heavy medieval crossbow bolts was just horrifying. Anything that can push something that thick, that far into the target (even with a blunt head!) will ruin your day.
So true
@@MMallon425
I would like to see a penetration test/ comparison of the two on Todd's gambeson and light plate armor.
@@MMallon425 I was going to criticize you saying that it would only "ruin your day", but upon thinking about if you were hit by one of those you wouldn't have any days left, so technically speaking it does only ruin that one day, there are no more days to ruin after that.
I'd rather get hit by a .50 GI than any 5.56 or 7.62 round that fragments. The latter produce *really* nasty wounds.
my crossbow got delivered yesterday cant wait to test it out looking forward to it
Imagine, how the medieval bow would perform, if it had carbon instead of steel, kevlar instead of hemp, while preserving the other numbers like weight and so on.
But steel contain carbon! /s
I'm not sure you could use the same measurements and dimensions and just change the materials. They are proportioned according to the characteristics of that specific material, so if you use different materials you would have to recalculate the measurements/dimensions to avoid nasty accidents.
horn and sinews composite prods were actually performing pretty good, much better than steel. Technology was perfected for several generations and final result was pretty impressive. When dry and properly maintained they should be comparable to carbon.
Astroflight/kevlar will not make huge difference in classic crossbow design since you cannot use thin string, it should be the same diameter as the bolt to push exact center (I am using astroflight for historic crossbow string mostly because it is hard to find hemp (or even linen thread) of good quality. Plus it is waterproof).
In fact, the greatest advantage of modern materials will be resistance to moisture, allowing to make tight and precise fits. In historic designs tolerances especially around the nut should be relatively huge, or the nut will jam with moisture increase.
PS I also have two bows for one of the historic crossbows- one steel and one aluminum. Same size, same geometry. Steel one is 100+ kilos, aluminum is near 30 kilos to comply with local regulations.
Aluminum one is much, much faster ;).
Imagine how it would perform if it was an MG42 or a minigun.
About as relevant.
I’ve never considered a crossbow having recoil before but I guess that does make sense. It’s storing up a lot of potential energy when you wind it up, it’s got to go somewhere when you pull the trigger.
Yep... Half of it goes into the bolt, half of it goes into you. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Well, a little of it goes into heat and sound...
Hang on a minute, this isn't Jörg Sprave
What I really was hoping for before the end of the video was to see was the 900lbs bow shooting the modern bolt and vice versa! Great Video!
Very interesting. However, I do believe to have spotted a slight misconception: AFAIK, some targets require momentum (sandbags, water... Keyword: displacement) and others kinetic energy (armor plates, mail... Keyword: breaking through solid material).
Crossbows seem clunkier but in medieval times they made sense in some situations because the soldiers didn't need the same amount of expertise to use a crossbow than a longbow, not a lot of people could learn archery and actually become good at it without extensive practice, most people could just pull a trigger
that windlass is basically the Boy's Anti-Tank rifle of it's day.
Has anyone combined steel limbs with compounded stringing tech ???
The inertia issue you set out is also apparent in one of my pet hates - loose anvils, vices and the like. I see so many youtubers beating away on loose anvils, some of them seem to be almost chasing them around the shop. They just don't seem to get the fact that so much of the work in every hammer blow is being wasted in moving or rocking the anvil rather than moving the metal in the workpiece. That is a lot of wear and tear on the body and wasted time.
It never fails to amaze me how ingenious and creative our forebears were with the technology and materials that were available to them at the time. In the present day it is all too easy, and a great mistake, to look down on their work as being 'primitive' It is this creative curiosity and inventiveness that had led man to new technological heights. We all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before.
"Energy is the messenger, momentum is the message". I won't forget this little gem anytime soon!
It's completely untrue so you'll be wasting memory space. Momentum is *a property of motion.* Kinetic energy defines the *maximum amount of work that the projectile can put into the target using momentum.*
What you heard in the video is a regurgitation of a physics argument that started over 300 years ago between Newton and Leibniz that was put to rest after 90 years.
Kinetic energy is calculated by summing up the total possible momentum dumped into a target, bit by bit over infinitesimal time steps. That's literally the description of the kinetic energy equation - not some opinion, an objectively verifiable fact.
"Ask anyone familiar with bullets" - yes, do. Ask actual ballisticians instead of TH-camrs and you'll hear a big disconnect between nonsense opinions that make great sound bites vs physical reality.
And if you want to see penetration with bullets, especially through body armor, you'll be seeing very lightweight, smaller caliber bullets, traveling fast, with lots of kinetic energy.
Very nice analysis. I am always impressed by the power and accuracy of my 150lb crossbow. Minor correction: 223 Remington is 1,300J at the low end. 22lr is around 160J, so the cross bow is getting close to the energy of a 22lr, not a 223.
this makes me wonder now how those modern bolts would react to medieval armors
@Green Mamba Games but modern crossbow have less power and bolts weight less so less penetration in that regard.
@@mmorkinism this is not true, my crossbow shoots with more energy than that monster crossbow. My bulldog 440 is a 300# draw modern recurve. It shoots that same bolt weight as that big one but at over 100 fps faster with a ⅓" diameter bolt.
Great video on archery, the very first video I have watched of yours. As a bow Hunter I preach the importance of momentum and building heavy arrows. So many people do not understand this.