3 ms·
I've heard of this, but what's the advantage? They still need to recharge the torsion the same way, which must've taken longer than someone manually feeding the
by zadikian 7mo ago
I've heard of this, but what's the advantage? They still need to recharge the torsion the same way, which must've taken longer than someone manually feeding the next bolt.
- bfivyvysj 7mo agoYou can't imagine why a quick succession of bolt fire might be more advantageous than a slow reload?
- zadikian 7mo agoI mean how is it actually faster if the rate limiting step is the same. People are claiming it was 2-3X as fast.
- eucyclos 7mo agoMaybe it's harder to deal with ten projectiles in a minute followed by a nine minute reload than one a minute for ten minutes?
- ithkuil 7mo agoEven a short surprise can be crucial in an ancient battle, where breaking formation can be fatal
- b112 7mo agoBreaking a calvary would be very powerful. And horses are a larger target.
- zadikian 7mo agoI'm not even considering the magazine reload time, just the time between shots assuming a full mag. That's 10 recharges either way, as shown in the videos. It's not like a machine gun where the energy is in the powder.
- goodpoint 7mo agoVery likely.
- Someone 7mo agoReading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybolos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybolos, at least some of these used a windlass to rearm. That may explain part of the speed difference over one using a separate lever or one that’s rearmed purely by hand. These weapons also may have given up on some firing power for firing frequency.
- zadikian 7mo agoYeah, I was thinking maybe the entire speed advantage was the windlass and had nothing to do with the auto bolt feeder.
- normie3000 7mo agoMaybe one less operator required? Less chance of losing a hand?
- zadikian 7mo agoYeah I figured it's more convenient, but they're claiming it's also twice as fast. With the chu ko nu I get it, you only have two hands, so the auto reload was faster.
- IAmBroom 7mo agoChu-Ko-Nu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow
- adzm 7mo agoThe psychological advantage can't be discounted either
- lelanthran 7mo ago> I've heard of this, but what's the advantage? They still need to recharge the torsion the same way, which must've taken longer than someone manually feeding the next bolt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Episode_152_%E2%80%93_%22Arrow_Machine_Gun%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Epis... > They set up 5 targets at 90 yards (82 m) and brought in professional archer Brady Ellison to provide a benchmark for comparison. He hit the targets in 2 minutes, using 11 arrows. After further breakdowns and repair work, Adam and Jamie accomplished the feat with 15 arrows in 1 minute and 50 seconds. Certainly sounds like a win to me, if it was faster and just as accurate as the worlds number one ranked recurve archer :-/ You can train a man to turn the windlass in about an hour. It takes years to get an archer to the same accuracy and speed. So, a definite advantage.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Planktonne 7mo ago> He hit the targets in 2 minutes, using 11 arrows. After further breakdowns and repair work, Adam and Jamie accomplished the feat with 15 arrows in 1 minute and 50 seconds. Faster, sure, but not more accurate--10 seconds less but 4 more arrows. Faster itself is also debatable, depending on whether or not you factor in the breakdowns.
- b112 7mo agoBreakdowns aren't relevant, as Mythbusters slapped it together over a few days, and are uncertain of the design. The Greeks had years to perfect it, and great knowledge and expertise building with these materials. As another poster mentioned, the time comparison is unfair too. In terms of accuracy, how many days or weeks did they spend learning the tool?
- Planktonne 7mo agoIf the time and accuracy comparisons are unfair, then they shouldn't have been made in the first place. Being corrected on a claim that isn't true isn't grounds for outrage. What I wrote was factual; there are all sorts of reasons to use such machines other than being faster and more accurate than the best human archers, but it still is not correct to claim that they are.
- bondarchuk 7mo agoFrom wikipedia it sounds like the advantage is not really speed of recharging but just that it will repeatedly fire for as long as the lever is turned without any other actions or pauses needed in between. Maybe not losing 10% (or whatever?) of the time on bolt feeding was sufficient advantage? Maybe the ease of operation in a hectic battle situation was advantage enough? Or maybe the continuous power requirement made it more feasible to use multiple soldiers at once working at higher speed, without them having to synchronize starting/stopping/waiting every x seconds?
- avadodin 7mo agoFull auto would require charging a huge version of a similar mechanism for a single volley and as a non-actual-engineer, I do not know that it is possible to output the torsion energy in a controlled manner preventing the gun from exploding violently. edit: But, yes. This is more akin to a revolver than to a machine gun(or even chain gun as Wikipedia implies).