If you want to argue that explosives and incendiary arrows are not effective, specify what they are ineffective against. Explosives decimate unarmored people. They do not result in idiotic kerosene explosions that look like a tactical nuke just detonated, but they do spread jagged bits of the container over a massive spread, with greater concentration closer to where they hit. Incendiary arrows do not explode. But heat is heat. If used against metallic armor, they would make the wearer cook alive or desperately try to free themselves from the oven they are wearing. If against anything else, they also make it cease to exist with significantly less effectiveness. A standard aluminum arrow filled with solidox, and tipped with a magnesium strip and an igniter would be dirt cheap to make, and would be an immense risk to personnel and materials. An incendiary arrow would use a iron tip that looks like an ice-pick. They do not need the entire arrow to penetrate the armor, they just need a tiny bit to hold it in place until it has a few seconds to burn. At that point I daresay no sane person would continue to rely on armor. But let us change the topic to reflect your opinion on range and velocity above. What about a crossbow? Would a modern crossbow be potent enough for you? You do not need superman strength, and you use it just like a rifle. (Even down to an identical scope if you want.) I am always amazed that people seem to think that bigger bullets are universally better for combat. Those stupid .50 Caliber guns are unable to penetrate any modern ballistic vest. (Not talking the .50 BMG, that is a rifle round, and if it did not rip right through both sides of the vest, it would send the vest itself through the wearer.) But speaking of the ridiculous .50 handgun rounds, they are too big to be effective. That is largely why the .223 round is so common in armies. It has the potency of a good rifle round, and is just a fraction of a hair thicker than the .22 rimfire rounds. It absolutely will zip through modern ballistic vests with a minimal loss of potency. (However, I will save you the trouble and point out that a .223 will stop dead against a modern ceramic plate insert in modern ballistic vests.) In each weapon of war there is a benefit and there is a loss. I believe that at the time of muzzleloaders, if you had given the same people slings and sharp sticks, they would have fared almost as well if not better in some few cases. Much of the reason everyone seemed to flock to muzzleloaders is that they were new. And new is shiny, expensive, and appeals to a soldier. It makes even the dumbest grunt think they are equipped for war. (No offense intended to soldiers, but everyone knows that there are some really dumb people who sign up as soldiers all the time.)
The arrows are less balanced than normal arrows (lessened accuracy and such, which matters if you are trying to aim for really long distances). The explosive would also likely be something akin to a firework rather than a grenade, which, while still marking the arrow as dangerous, would make comparing it to a genuine grenade into something rather hilarious in scope. That is, assuming your "incendiary arrows" have some sort of quasi-thermite or quasi-napalm in them. Medieval "incendiary" arrows were just normal arrows with flaming cloth and against human targets they weren't any more effective than normal arrows - in fact, because of the whole "flaming cloth at the tip" thing, they were even less effective. Sure, it does sound like a knight in full armour would be in trouble if he was hit with a fiery arrow. But then you have to think of the fact that these guys also had steel gauntlets and would likely be able to just break the arrow even if it was stuck in their armour, which would be unlikely (once again, considering the "flaming cloth at the tip" thing), so unless you had a really "modern" arrow (the "quasi-thermite or quasi-napalm" thing I mentioned) you wouldn't care about incendiary arrows when shooting from a bow. The problem here is, you would have to make arrows from scratch. Which, while not exactly being the most difficult or time-consuming thing ever, is still something you'd have to know how to do if you wanted your arrows to be of acceptable quality. Other than that, if we are talking about modern arrows then it's really no more effective than a makeshift grenade, which you could also make if you really wanted to. I guess it would be more fancy to fire exploding arrows rather than lob grenades, though. Once again, that is assuming you were talking about modern incendiary arrows in a medieval setting. Medieval incendiary arrows "sucked", and pretty badly at that - the only thing they were really useful for was decreasing morale (because "rain of fire"), something which the guns did just as well because of all the noise (or at least they supposedly did, it's not like medieval folk were all that great at statistical research); and there's not real "armour" in modern setting so the whole point, while accurate in that modern incendiary arrows would be effective against plate armour, is somewhat moot. Part of the reason for the difference in efficiency is because you are comparing rifle rounds with handgun rounds, Omni. I do see your point, but rifle rounds are differently shaped and can cause much more harm just because of that. That I agree with, fully. That being said, I have to say that while you have a shred of knowledge in the general area we are talking about now, you seem to be slightly lacking on information regarding the "bow" side of it; I wouldn't call it a "critical lack of research" but there are a few smaller misconceptions there, like the one about the effectiveness of incendiary arrows, likely caused by just not being familiar enough on a personal level with the topic. Personally I have a friend who belongs to a "knights' brotherhood" (the guys who organize pseudo-medieval faux battles every year) who also has a bow, and I know from his stories how hard it is to make usable arrows even if they are normal ones (I also know that my accuracy with a bow is pretty horrendous, as merely hitting a target instead of hitting near the centre is pretty bad).
For fun I once made an (extremely shitty, but still) bow out of (some inappropriate wood). It took ~ a year, allowing 6 months to dry. At full draw (wood creaking ominously) it shot about 30 meters, and acheived approx. 2cm penetration into a styrofoam block. I made 15 arrows. All but 2 did not fly straight. I left it in the shed (waterproof etc.) for ~6 months over winter, but evidently it got slightly wet. Replaced the string, the wood just bent/broke when I tried to pull it. I also did archery at a modern archery club for a year or two. I was ok, and could hit a target decently well at, iirc, 20-30 meters. This is with a composite bow. A friend asked to try one of their wooden bows, on the 10m range to start, and after struggling to draw it, conceded defeat when he went 5 points from 3 arrows.
Well, that... Though I can't really say much about my accuracy with bows, especially in comparison with my accuracy with guns, because I seem to be a natural at the latter and thus any comparisons I could make would likely be biased (I mean, I can score 5~8 points with 3 arrows at 25~30 meters without it being much of a hassle but it's pretty horrendous in comparison to what good shooters can score; but the first time I tried shooting a rifle I got 44 points with 5 bullets and I never got less afterwards, at a slightly higher distance).
The issue for my friend was more the difficulty in drawing and aiming a longbow in comparison to a modern, sighted, calibrated bow.
Oh, right. I never shot from a "modern" bow so I can't make any comparisons there. But thanks for pointing that out.
Well I must presume we are speaking of modern archery, fletching, and rifles. I know little about the really old stuff besides the obvious. I know that an incendiary weapon of hundreds of years ago meant "draped with an oil soaked rag and lit just before being fired/thrown". But modern incendiaries are many times better. And you have your pick of many. I used Solidox as my example because it does not need a strip of magnesium burning to ignite it as Thermite would. You could also use concentrated H2O2 if you had some means of safely making the arrows. That would not even need an ignition source, and would be as much of an explosive as an incendiary. (But I have no idea how you could ever make such things without specialized equipment and training.) And even if you could, I would not get within ten meters of one of those things... I think there is some confusion about what I said earlier. You can walk into any sporting goods store that carries archery supplies and buy those hollow aluminum arrows minus the heads, not to mention buy your choice of heads too. They are dirt cheap. I never meant to imply that you would have to make your own. From there, fill them with acetone peroxide and superglue shards of glass to the exterior. Then you coat it with animal droppings just prior to launch. Anyone hit with a tiny shred will certainly get a bad septic infection. They will live, but they are a sapper for you at that point. Sun Tzu. Eat your heart out. How about pneumatic launchers? They would negate the delay between shots for crossbow type weapons. They would be as loud as a suppressed firearm though, but without the heat and flash of firearms. You could use a long barrel and get as much inertia as you want/need. Perhaps we should take some of this to a conversation. I would wager the Gaslamp crew like reading some of this, but would prefer it was not happening here. Thoughts?
Indisputable. But if you had the money needed for a modern set of guns for every purpose, you could argue that it is much cheaper to hire mercenaries to shoot whatever you want shot at than to buy the guns yourself. Still, your point is correct. A minigun, a rifle, a pistol, a SMG and a shotgun is enough to fill every practical role better than an armory of other weapons.
A good compound bow can cost ~200-400 dollars here. Apparently a rifle can cost <300? This is where I obviously don't have as much info, being from 'Straya where our gun culture is far less inherent.
A cheap Rifle is ~500 USD. A good one is ~2k. A really good recoilless .50 BMG that can shoot the tracks off a tank is no less than 5k. (It will also have a scope that alone is priced around 1.5K or so, and an effective range of several miles with a bit of training.) You can get a very similar rifle for a lot less, but if you are already spending multiple thousands, you may as well get what you are certain to love. Note that when I say rifle, I mean something to snipe with. Technically rifles are a pretty broad category. But I hate the colloquialism "Sniper Rifle" and refuse to use it. It is every bit as misleading as the colloquialism "Assault Rifle". You can assault and snipe with any ranged weapon. Those terms are simply labels people use to categorize things that are often bad in one way or another.
I stopped following the discussion, but I do have an interesting anecdote... I used to have this regular paper and pencil rpg group on weekends, which included this guy from work as DM, and some of his friends and friends of friends. Anyway, one of the guys in the group, his dad was an engineer, and they obviously had money -- they had this huge old mansion with a big back yard. To give you an idea of the size of the house, during renovations, they had discovered a couple of hidden rooms. Any house that is big enough that you can misplace a whole room in, let alone more than one, has to be classified as a mansion. Anyway, he had these bows and archery targets set up in his back yard that he dragged behind a metal shed that was also there. And we took a break from the game and he suggested that we go out and do some target practice. It was late in the day and starting to get dark, but we needed a break so that's what we did. Anyway, as I said, it was getting dark and it was my turn to shoot and by then it was almost pitch-black so that I could barely make out the target. I aimed as best as I could and let fly with the arrow. I heard a metal clunk, so I knew that I had completely missed the target and had hit the shed. Next thing I know I hear a wizzing and I step back and suddenly an arrow pierces the ground right where my foot had been. The arrow had literally ricocheted from the barn, and I just missed actually shooting myself in the foot. Had I not heard the noise and stepped back, that's exactly what would have happened. So for future reference, it's not easy to shoot yourself with a bow, but it's possible if you do something stupid like shoot at a metal shed in the dark.
The thing is, bows are weapons. Archers are units. In the eyes of a commander/country. If they find out; - that a gun is easier to manufacture (because you didn't have to have experienced fletchers) - that archers take way more time to train than musketeers do - that a gun is more accurate - that a machinegun can operate thousands of times faster than bows the choice goes out to guns, just because they are easier to work with and kill more enemies. Another thing to consider: bows need arrows. Arrows are made by fletchers aswell, and if you want a group of 50 archers to fire at least 20 times in a battle, you will need loads and loads and loads of arrows to go on campaign. - I found that video about archery interesting, but yes that dude is professional and has the time. Note that e.g criminals don't have all the time in the world to master archery, and if they have it's quite obvious that the master archer of that town murdered person X, due to the friggen arrow sticking out of the guy.
Well, a good quality Avtomat Kalashnikova with the selective fire removed so it is legal in most parts of the world costs no more than 3k or so. You are not going to snipe with this though. But that is not so important. This is *THE* multipurpose rifle. Every modification you have ever heard of is available for it.
