Those are some huge fucking arrows

This is bullshit.

[citation needed]

Imagine if he took an arrow to the knee lol

holy fucking epic memesauce that would have been so boss

For you

Attached: 2F8A3336-D205-4E27-ADC7-639CD7EBCAA2.jpg (720x888, 334K)

not even crossbow bolts pass thorugh their target, and those are shot with a lot more strength than a human could produce with their upper body

Humans, for scale.

Bait. Wooden arrow as real war weapons are a myth. They woud break in half before penetrating human clothing and skin.

Boromir was wearing a layer of chainmail and reinforced leather, so you’re objectively wrong. They might go deeper but likely wouldn’t pass thru. I’ve shot broadheads at plywood with a compound bow for reference and the arrows sometimes haven’t even busted through.

>Friendly reminder that in 95% of all scenarios the arrow completely passes through the target
not true at all, most arrows (apart from bodkins which were designed to pierce armour first and foremost) had barbs to make removing them from the wound harder

wtf is this
can you faggots stop making retarded posts about bows and arrows now

What you shot had nowhere near the draw strength a war bow like Lurtz was using would have, those things could go right through a horse back in medieval times

Watch videos of people bow hunting boars or deer, the arrow passes clean through if they're using the right poundage.

In real battles, archers would grip onto the arrow and let go of the bow, which would not fly very far, by virtue of not being very aerodynamic
they were ineffective weapons

>t. drunk french knight with a dead horse about to bumrush the longbowmen through the mud at agincourt

Warbow arrows are 70-80cm long. And thick to withstand impact with armor.

If you think that, you know nothing about archery lmao. I’m 6’4, 225 and have a compound bow that still needs drawing with an aid.

Holy autism they literally need to be made from wood so they flex in flight to remove archer's paradox.

Arrows are too big and don't have enough energy to go straight through a person

what happened to his shield? he carried a shield the whole fucking movie and it disappeared when it counted the most

>need to be made from wood
wrong

>to remove archer's paradox
big wrong

How did people even know his name was Lurtz? It wasn't mentioned in the movie at all. What was the point of him having a name when people could only find out by reading wikipedia? Someone explain this to me. I'm lirerally too dumb to understand this.

I know a lot more than you concerning this subject. Your ass could not draw and shoot a 150 pound draw force bow with accuracy because english archers had to be trained from childhood to do so accuratley, to the point where their skeletons on that side are deformed from the stress of firing the weapon over a lifetime. Most modern longbows cap out at 60 pounds which is more than enough for hunting most animals.

No they don't?

Attached: 34556790975321.webm (1920x1080, 2.81M)

Tolkien's whole thing was including way too much backstory than was actually functionally necessary for the purpose of a narrative. That's what "worldbuilding" is, and he basically invented it. Tolkien created whole grammatically functioning languages for his books, he created whole histories. Totally unnecessary.

This is all irrelevant, because Lurtz wasn't in the book. He's just a character created for the film to be a minor antagonist.

Again, can you provide a single source backing up your claim that 95% of arrows pass entirely through their target, and that arrows sticking in their target is largely a myth?

Imagine bragging about using a bow designed for disabled people. The shape and mechanics of the compound bow are the main reasons why you draw with an aid and not fingers.

Literally fuck off retard you are flat Earth tier.

>using bait

ironic post

Stop being a woman then, or stop using blunt target practice arrows meant for hay bales

Modern arrows are made of aluminium or carbon and you can't remove the archers paradox unless you make a completely rigid arrow which wouldn't function well

Warbows are centred around firing long volleys and killing soft targets. That’s why they aimed for horses on purpose. At a long distance, you’re going to get more of a thump with a thicker arrow like that. But longbows only shoot at like 180 fps (pinnacle of a longbow.) My compound hovers right around 380 fps when capped. If I was standing 15 yards from a target, or shooting big game, I MIGHT take the longbow just for the impact of the arrow (like shooting a .45 vs a 9mm.) At any other range, if the compound doesn’t pass through, that longbow would definitely not either and would be less efficient. But don’t ask me, I’ve just been hunting big game with bows for literally my entire teenage to adult life, while you probably sit on your computer reading about wars.

based retard

Modern bows actually have far more power than medieval bows. Yes draw strength is lower but they are made from far better materials and transfer energy better.

Just like how modern 165lbs crossbows hit many times harder then medieval 1300lbs crossbows.

Modern bows don't even have archers paradox dumbshit because they shoot through the center.

Nigger i've shot small game with a 450 fps crossbow and the bolts don't go clean through and the best longbows on the planet are lucky to make 180 fps.

I’m not some faggot re-enacter. I hunt big game with bows across North America. I want a clean and efficient kill without having to be too close, and don’t want a possibility of the animal running 50-100 yards. Can you even into the advantages of modern technology? Stop living in your fantasy medieval dream.

Boromir died for our sins

You sound like a massive faggot.

> I want a clean and efficient kill without having to be too close
Well that is clearly not happening when you can't even penetrate plywood with your sissy bow from close range.

You know shit about hunting stop posting.

I shoot my bow at the earth and it travels down through the soil and bedrock, through the core of the earth, and out the other side, and still goes through its target

>arrowhead doesn't even come out the other side on a 15 cm light foam target
>totally passes through a human body
Get fucked.

I know more about it than you, mr. larper. If you actually are hunting please stop, you are being cruel to the animals by shooting them with an inadueqate draw strength, you sick fuck.

What was the point of chainmail if it didn't stop arrows?

youtube.com/watch?v=XSNNSh4Fuh8

Watch this idiots.

Modern bows and crossbows hit much harder than medieval ones despite lower draw.

I want you to know I enjoy your conversation, and like both of you equally.

lol at this retard.

Depends on if you hit bone or not. I have killed one moose and the arrow went straight through his lungs and out the other side.
Meanwhile I have shot hares that have stopped the same arrow because I hit bone.

To stop swords

>Lurtz's name is never spoken aloud in the film, and is only known from the credits, merchandise and DVD commentary.

Thanks

>I have no argument

>that cgi blood

Chainmail + Gambeson stops almost anything.

Plate only really took over because it could save you from bullets.

are you faggots really arguing about bows and arrows

Fucking idiot.

>Plate only really took over because it could save you from bullets.

Attached: 146473625251.jpg (645x729, 48K)

Not always the case + hunting arrows are made to slice organs, not simply punch holes like arrows had to during middle ages.

They also go faster, giving them more penetration capabilities, but that comes with a cost : they have to be light and they don't keep momentum well enough.

In the case of a human your arrow has to go through clothes, chainmail, skin, muscles/organs, and sometimes bones as the human center of gravity is more densely packed with them than boars or deers, and the again, go through muscles, skin, chainmail and cloths

then your arrow can go through the target.
Animals just have skin to protect them and are less dense targets overall.

Again stop being fucking retarded and pretending you know anything.

Attached: 9386537_1.jpg (1400x1187, 208K)

Plate armor is also better for protection from couched lances.

We have to argue about something.

Read the books, the arrows are made supposed to be big. They are made out of Orcish Maple and have been enchanted by Sauroman.

Modern bows don't shoot like ancient bows you nut.

Japanese Tosei-gusoku armor was specifically made to defeat bullets and even has anti spalling layer you absolute retard.

Best European plate was even better.

>this one example proves my point that could've been a bullet ricocheting off of something first losing most of its energy before impacting the breast plate
How thick do you think that breast plate is? 2mm? 3mm at most?

is the blood due to hitting artery/heart?

It was very rarely true, the first firearms had well enough energy to punch a hole through plate armor.

Japanese Tosei-gusoku armor was specifically made to defeat bullets

Source ? The japanese didn't really use firearms at war until the second half of the 19th century, long after this kind of armor had been created.

You know why it's called blood PRESSURE right?

he left it behind when he went ot get firewood and bully frodo

they literally put a shot of it leaning against a tree when aragorn asks "where's boromir????"

>The japanese didn't really use firearms at war until the second half of the 19th century

Jesus fuck you know nothing. In Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 25% of Samurai armies were musketeers and Korean sources write about them decimating Korean archers.

Go google Tanegashima.

based. BRAVO HACKSON you failed again

>The japanese didn't really use firearms at war until the second half of the 19th century, long after this kind of armor had been created.
Guns had mostly replaced bows in Japan by the end of the 1500's.
I don't know where the myth that they were slow to adopt firearms comes from.

Attached: 1417093875027-1.jpg (935x682, 601K)

You have been watching too much anime son

>again I have no argument

By the end of Sengoku nips had more firearms than any European country. They only fucked themselves later by closing borders and refusing contact.

About 2mm yes, which wasn't enough to stop bullets. Bulletproof plate armors did exist, but they were hard to manufacture, had to be tested individually and required high quality metal, only a handful of people could afford them, and they were too heavy to wear anyway.

handguns in the 15th century could deliver 1000 joules, they just lacked accuracy.

Doesn't prove their armor could stop bullets like you claim.

>one example

There are literally thousands of them.

that's what all traitors deserve

>Plate only really took over because it could save you from bullets.

Attached: mcgregor.jpg (318x246, 41K)

I believe you user

>another baby pretends he knows anything

How cute.

Attached: Actually+it+took+the+guns+200+years+before+it+learned+_283b3d38785ba6f2222ea1121c100415.jpg (640x480, 106K)

I learned his name from action figures and the TT and RotK video games.

That wasn't me, Most examples of tosei gusoku aren't bullet proof, but some are.

>and they were too heavy to wear anyway.
No one would have bothered to make them if that was the case.

Attached: (1a).jpg (747x1080, 112K)

>In 1988 the curators of the Zeughause Museum in Graz, Austria performed some experiments with the arms and armour in their collection. Among the various experiments was to fire original weapons at an original breastplate. The results were quite interesting. At "normal" combat ranges (15 feet/5 meters for pistol, and as I recall 100 feet/30 meters for musket) the breastplate was well pierced by all. However, certainly with the pistol (an original wheellock pistol with a muzzle velocity of over 1500 fps), while the bullet pierced the breastplate, it did NOT pierce the two layers of heavy linen behind it. Thus one could argue that both the pistol and the breastplate did their jobs. The pistol ball certainly would have incapacitated the wearer, but the breastplate may well have protected the wearer from death.

Shut the fuck up nigger

it's just surprising i guess, i assumed it was exaggerated in films and stuff.

dishonest, those bullets were a joke

Again you post pictures with no explanation of if those dings were made by a pistol, arquebus or musket nor at what ranges or angles they were fired from.
Impacts like that can kill you even if they don't penetrate.

Bull-fucking-shit. I hit hogs from 75 yards away with a 95# draw strength. The arrows do NOT go through the body, and I almost ALWAYS recollect them for later use.

t. actually goes hunting

No YOU know nothing, and besides, you brought no proof except a picture.
Plate armor was replaced by brigandines when firearms arrived, and they couldn't stop bullets either

The only way you could protect yourself against bullets was to use the inaccuracy of the guns and the slow reloading time at your advantage.
And even if the bullets didn't penetrate (which happened quite rarely) the impact would still shatter bones or even the skull if hit on the helmet and cause death in a matter of days.

Claiming an armor is bulletproof doesn't mean it really is, besides, japanese iron was of shit quality, I highly doubt it could stop bullets, european plate armors barely could do the job with early firearms.
unless their guns were absolute shit too.

Plate armors almost disappeared when muskets arrived as they were simply too powerful for plate armors to even try stopping the bullets.
Cavalry still wore them but not to stop bullets so don't use that retarded argument.

Are you actually retarded

youtube.com/watch?v=wJSEBXH2Qt4

Eh it's usually just the distance that is exaggerated, also blood in movies is almost like water when IRL it's much more thicker.

>As a low-velocity firearm, the arquebus was used against enemies who were often partially or fully protected by steel-plate armor. Plate armor worn upon the torso was standard in European combat from about 1400 until the middle of the 17th century. Good suits of plate would usually stop an arquebus ball at long range. It was a common practice to "proof" (test) armor by firing a pistol or arquebus at a new breastplate. The small dent would be circled by engraving to call attention to it. However, at close range, it was possible to pierce even heavy cavalry armor.

>However, at close range, it was possible to pierce even heavy cavalry armor

Take a look at the battle of Cerignola, where spanish arquebusiers managed to stop the french heavy cavalry from behind a ditch, their guns simply shredded holes through their armor.

>Plate armors almost disappeared when muskets arrived

Both coexisted for centuries. Only advanced long barrel guns of late XVIII century got too good for armor to compete.

>And even if the bullets didn't penetrate (which happened quite rarely) the impact would still shatter bones

Complete myth. The force behind the bullet is the same force that hits the shooter in the shoulder. It's literally equal to recoil. It can only shatter bones if energy is transferred directly into the body in a small area and this is not what happens at all with plate armor.

It looks like you are writing your opinions and hearsay as though they are facts.

>Claiming an armor is bulletproof doesn't mean it really is
That's why it was so important to test the armor by shooting it.

>besides, japanese iron was of shit quality,
Vastly overstated.
If their ore was so bad that it made it impossible to make decent armor, they would have just imported ore from the mainland or bought Western cuirasses instead of making their own.

>Plate armors almost disappeared when muskets arrived
That's wrong.
Muskets showed up in the early 1500's, plate armor was still in common use for over a century after that.

Attached: 1507056878250.jpg (539x400, 36K)

You are a stupid cunt.

>The force behind the bullet is the same force that hits the shooter in the shoulder
Ok, so what ? The speed of the gun recoiling depends also on the mass of the gun, the arequebuses were so heavy they had to be mounted on a fourquin to have a stable shot.

>It's literally equal to recoil.
No it's not, the recoil itself depends on the mass of the weapon, not simply the force of the recoil. F = ma, remember, the heavier the gun, the less the recoil will be
But it's nice to share your lack of knowledge on both guns and the third law of Newton.

>It can only shatter bones if energy is transferred directly into the body in a small area and this is not what happens at all with plate armor.
Except that it's litterally how bullets work and can penetrate the skin, but whatev
We're talking about 2 mm of steel protecting you from a 1000 joules bullet, not a modern 1 cm steel plate placed behind aramid fiber, yes it would cause damage, the energy of the shock is not transfered to the whole plate armor, otherwise there wouldn't be any dent at all in the first place.

Plate armor as infantry protection disappeared when muskets arrived, only cavalry kept using it but only to protect themselves against sword blows.
prove me wrong now faggot.

"However, at close range, it was possible to pierce even heavy cavalry armor, although penetration is heavily dependent on the power of the arquebus and the quality of the armor. This led to changes in armor usage, such as the three-quarter plate, and finally the retirement of plate armor from most types of infantry."

Why did only Lurtz have the bow?

>remember, the heavier the gun, the less the recoil will be
Not him, but a 155mm canon is fucking heavy yet it has a huge recoil.

they shoot the arrow the same
that has nothing to do with the archer's paradox

you're both fucking retarded. just stop.

You are butthurt.

You are leaving out the fact that neither a breastplate nor a helmet rests directly on the wearer's body.
A cuirasse would usually be worn over an aketon and helmets had suspension liners to absorb impacts.

So why did they bother bullet proofing armor if they only needed it to be strong enough to stop a sword?

Attached: 1416347106556.jpg (480x640, 49K)

You're comparing 10 gram bullets against fucking 30 kg artillery shells, of course the force is going to be greater
you should try to do the maths maybe, it's high school level physics.

It's not dependent on the archer's upper body strength aside from pulling back the bow string

There can be no archer's paradox if the arrow is shot through the center of the bow, unless you simply don't know what you're talking about.

>So why did they bother bullet proofing armor if they only needed it to be strong enough to stop a sword?
Because you think that all armors were bulletproofed when there's no evidence to back your claim except a handful of pictures from europe and asia, when they realized plate armor was no match for muskets they stopped bothering and stopped trying to make bulletproof armors.

Im thinking about starting up archery as a hobby, wanna go for a recurve bow.

But shit is fucking expensive.

The amount of fucking retards falling for this is extraordinary, proving once again that Yea Forums is filled with autistic retards.

Attached: b888.jpg (625x626, 33K)

You can still do decently with mid range equipment and the equipment doesn't limit you unless you're almost at top form

No they're not, a couple hundred of bucks, you don't need anything fancy to train, you're going to spend quite a lot of time just learning how to use a bow.

It's harder to learn archery than sword fighting, archers had to train for at least a year to really be effective with longbows.

>of course the force is going to be greater
Thus the recoil depends also on the weight of the shell/bullet and the energy necessary to shoot it, NOT ONLY on the weight of the gun as you stated.
I let you do the maths.

>No one would have bothered to make them if that was the case.
That's not necessarily true. Ceremonial armors and weapons existed, especially in Japan.

>It's not dependent on the archer's upper body strength aside from pulling back the bow string

>that has nothing to do with the archer's paradox

It has everything to do with archer's paradox you absolute retard.

Holy shit this thread is full of idiots.

Yea but the archer doesn't need the upper body strength to punch through armor and bone, he just needs to activate a system that does. He still needs to be strong but the post makes it sound like he's the one doing the damage and not the fucking massive warbow he's using

>see archery thread
>"cool, Im something of an archer myself"
>*tip 50lbs longbow*
>Whats goin- HOLY FUCKING HELL

This thread is autismus maximus

Attached: leftovers-matt-smiling.png (738x462, 590K)

lol checkmate

Shit like creating original languages helps you include little details with deep roots and really authenticates the setting.
Unfortunately it also tempts the author to demonstrate more of it than subtle details with a lot of background behind them, and he'll want to go into too much detail and plain-stating, damaging the mystique of the reader piecing together a detailed history with those leading details that all tie together. Tolkien is guilty of this (or maybe too much explaining and not enough hinting is just his flavor of writing autism).

>I was just pretending

all the power ALL OF IT comes from the archer
it does damage because the power is focused on a tiny point

>never used a bow
what

Holy autism the force of a bullet hitting plate is distributed over the whole goddamn plate. There is also padding under it.

Musket hits shattering bones under armor is complete fucking bullshit. Hits to Kevlar hurt like hell because Kevlar vests are soft and a lot of the energy is transferred directly into the body.

It's 300% obvious you take your "knowledge" from fucking video games.

youtube.com/watch?v=nlwlKEeJ0vU

>Because you think that all armors were bulletproofed
I never wrote that, most armor was not bullet proofed.
My point was that it existed contemporaneously with muskets.

Even ceremonial armor needs to be wearable, there's no point in wearing excessively heavy equipment if you don't need it to be.

Attached: 1219379529237.jpg (1280x1707, 209K)

t. fell for bait
Nice try retard

for me it was the battle for middle earth video games
they were fucking great

The force of the recoil is equal to the force of the projectile (not the energy)
This force in the case of an artillery gun is so high that the weight of the gun itself is not enough to have a low recoil, that's why we have hydraulic dampers for modern tank/artillery guns.

>compound bow
>draws with an aid

you must be either using a bow to large for yourself, or thinking that more weight on the string means more power, that or be firing heavy weight or firing way further than what's accurate with a bow.

either way you're shit

No, the power comes from the force exerted on the target by the arrow, which itself receives force from the tight as fuck bow string accelerating after release. The archer has to store enough energy in the string to make this happen, which requires a lot of strength, but it's misleading to say he needs to be strong enough to punch a hole through bone and armor himself. He's engaging a system by storing energy in it, not throwing a projectile

You're comparing modern AR500 steel to 2mm steel plates from the middle ages which used questionnable quality steel, I guess you're the only retard on this thread.

holy shit. My granddad fletched, fgt. you literally know fuck all shit stain, find a bridge and window and go teach yourself to fly, you're like the john travolta of knowing things.

What are you smoking bro, release aids are super common for compound archers

>using a compound bow
lmao don't brag when you need literal training wheels

This. Might aswell use a crossbow.

I'm comparing metal armor stopping bullets. That ballistic gel barely moves when modern bullets with 3x the energy of a musket hit it. Dude wearing it would barely feel anything.

It's literally the same for old plate. If it stops the bullet energy going into the wearer is minimal.

>modern AR500 video proving my point
Despite having pictures of "bulletproof plates" being dented quite extensively like they were fabric.

>Musket hits shattering bones under armor is complete fucking bullshit.
And what's your proof except AR500 ? There are books about medieval armor talking about such injuries.

Try and tell me graphite and aluminum aren't used for arrows

fucking.

the arrow still flexes regardless. the phenomenon is still present.

stop listening to joe rogan and thinking you're joe rogan. fgt.

They are used for arrows because modern bows don't have to deal with archer's paradox.

you are correct but all the power comes from the archer. It's just mostly focused through the mechanism into a tiny point

i think you think firing arrows near or barely hitting animals is hunting.

Modern longbow archers don't have to use wooden arrows

pretty sure release aids are so you don't add any weird torsion to the string as it's released, both for more accuracy, and I guess for a tight cam setup it might fuck it up or dislodge the arrow. recurves are way more forgiving in that area.

>crossbow made by myself
>bolt I made myself

im out

Seriously what the fuck is the point of using a compound bow to hunt

its so easy that you might as well just use a gun

>Plate only really took over because it could save you from bullets.

Attached: canihangoutguys.jpg (262x352, 13K)

Torsion on draw can also de-string a compound bow

>Bulletproof plate armors did exist

how thick it'd have to be to stop a bullet, even round, is near unwearable.

AR500 has a thick coating to absorb both bullet fragments and a bit of the kinetic energy.
Comparing 2 mm steel plates to 6mm modern steel with dense coating on both sides is just retarded, that's all.

Even if 6mm sounds as thin as 2mm, then I will simply give you this quote :

"Armour that was 2 mm thick required 2.9 times as much energy to penetrate as armour that was 1 mm thick."
source : A history of the metallurgy of armour in the middle ages and the early modern period by Alan Williams

Metal stopping a projectile doesn't mean you won't feel the impact, I should remind you that tank crews could get knocked out by impacts on the front armor during WW2.

And no, modern bullets don't have 3x the energy of a musket, some muskets could deliver up to 3000 joules, which is about 2x more than a .223
Your typical brown bess musket delivered 1800-2000 joules, that's still more than .223

looks like it could of been a mace as much as a bullet. Could of been at great range.

you clearly know little and are arguing with fallacies.

they only needed the dutch desu, They got themselves an empire afterwards. If they didn't attack pearl harbor, asia would have been japans.

both graphite and aluminium flex just fine dipshit. the only reason to use wooden arrows is if you're using a really old style bow so you can use feather fletches on it which won't make the arrow fly off sideways when they pass by the bow itself.

nobody would of bothered to make them bullet proof, as it would make them cumbersome and unwearable. One of the reasons they went out of style so quickly after the Rifle came to be.

>it's very quiet.
>you don't have to dig a bullet or several bits of one out of your target
>small entry wound, no exit wound
>cheap

Bulletproof plate armors during late 16th century were about 25 kg
4mm would probably be enough to stop anything from back then, but simply adding 1 mm of armor increases the weight quite a lot.

yeah that's what I meant

>That's why it was so important to test the armor by shooting it.
weakening the armour? you're a fucking clueless git.

>craps on about nothing factual

no.

Attached: 414ABE1100000578-0-image-m-109_1497042288815.jpg (634x395, 28K)

Remind me did historical archers have access to aluminum and graphite to fletch? That’s right aluminum was more expensive per ounce than gold back then. Holy shit kill yourself you pedantic dunce

tell me wood isnt again fgt.

The first guy said arrows need to be made out of wood to allow flexing

he doesn't know that tho.

stop talking, for real, the lies are so obvious.

youre even acting / speaking like someone who's telling everybody facts they dont know, because you're the only one who knows them.

because they're not real.

neither of those materials even existed retard.

also you completely missed my point.

"In response to firearms, thicker armor was produced, from 15 kg in the 15th century to 25 kg in the late 16th century."
Again same source : A history of the metallurgy of armour in the middle ages and the early modern period

If those are lies, then prove it now that I gave you a source.

>weakening the armour? you're a fucking clueless git.
I really wasn't expecting to see anyone post anything that stupid.
Look up where the term "bullet-proof" comes from.

underage bait.

Also most plate armors used iron, not steel.

>bulletproof armour
It really depends on what kind of armour we're talking about and from which period. Medieval plate armour couldn't deflect or stop bullets from entering. However cuirassier breast plates from the 18th century were designed in such a way that they were bulletproof even against musket balls provided the firearm wasn't shot from near the target

Not true

>However cuirassier breast plates from the 18th century were designed in such a way that they were bulletproof even against musket balls provided the firearm wasn't shot from near the target

No, even that is not true, cuirassier plates were used to protect from sword blows and infantry bayonet, but completely uneffective against musket shots

Seems like you didn't really read my post
>It really depends on what kind of armour we're talking about and from which period
French cuirassiers wore breastplates that were more or less bulletproof. In fact one disadvantage for this specific breastplate design was that the cuirassiers couldn't move their arms as freely

and a good friend