4 ms·
When I was in middle school and daydreamed about sci fi futures and robot wars, I wondered about a giant steel bow as a robotic sniper's weapon. A 4' tungsten
by hwillis 3y ago
When I was in middle school and daydreamed about sci fi futures and robot wars, I wondered about a giant steel bow as a robotic sniper's weapon.
A 4' tungsten needle at high subsonic speed would be a scary thing. Maximum range of 5+ km, almost silent, and able to punch through meters of concrete. It's not quite an anti-tank weapon, but if it hit a car or a person it would just leave a hole and a thump. It'd go right through an engine block and bury itself into the ground so deeply that the hole would fill itself back.
I've also seen what a modern broadhead can do to a moose. Warning: this video is horrible.
https://youtu.be/3VhEYvHdVa0?si=vsK_aWdSxJ3ylYpU&t=70 https://youtu.be/3VhEYvHdVa0?si=vsK_aWdSxJ3ylYpU&t=70
That arrow goes right through the ribcage and shreds a lung. The animal coughs up a pint of blood immediately. In less than a minute it passes out from blood loss.
All to say... maybe we wouldn't kill people on the scale of a nuclear bomb. But if humans really tried to go to war with arrows, it would be awful. Guns are better at killing than they ever have been, but bows have also gotten better.
- MagicMoonlight 3y agoOr just make a gun that shoots a 4’ tungsten needle (this is what a tank cannon is)
- hwillis 3y agothat doesn't sound very subsonic
- pixl97 3y agoThere are some benefits to not using a gun, in the sense of not having explosive power that will blow up if hit. Watching the tank turret toss competitions in the Ukraine war is a good example here.
- MagicMoonlight 3y agoI don’t think it would even be possible to build a bow capable of matching a cannon. If it was, it would be so large and fragile that any decision based on fragility is meaningless.