heavy repeating crossbow

[Berus]

is it possible to create a repeating crossbow, that still has atleast the strenght of a regular bow? It doesnt have to be as strong as crossbow and pierce through heavy armor, but it atleast should be able to pierce through chainmail easily. I know the chinese invented a repeating crossbow, but it was apparenlty rather weak and only able to do little wounds, that is why they were poisoned.
however would it be possible to construct a stronger repeating crossbow?

 

[Pio2013]

Do you mean the Chinese Chukonu (15 darts per 10 seconds) or the Greek Polybolos?

 

[Reader347]

however would it be possible to construct a stronger repeating crossbow?

>
>
>
The Romans are supposed to have had them. A historian in europe built one that was on a history program, and the 'Mythbusters' television show built one, there may be more.

 

[carlton_bach]

Can be built, sure. What's your power source, though?

Generally, a crossbow needs to be stronger than a bow to achieve the same punch because it doesn't transfer power as efficiently. Given its mechanics, it can be. But a repeating crossbow will have a problem in that department. A level mechanism like the Chinese onme, unless you brace it against something, is going to be weaker than a bow because the application of force is so damned inefficient (squeezing together your hands at an awkward angle? A bow, at least, you draw with your back muscles). A braced repeating crossbow can be pretty strong if you figure out a way to apply enough force. A crank powered by humans would come to mind. The rate of fire is not as spectacular as you'd think, but it works. And of course someone in the ancient world built those things, too.

 

[YLi]

Chinese had them. You're going to have to mount it on something though, as drawing it would be a bitch. However, larger repeating crossbows can do some really terrifying things to enemy personnel. I'd recommend putting them on horse or ox drawn carts in a swivel mount to break heavy cavalry charges and cut down swaths of infantrymen. You can probably mount the bows below on a heavy-ish tripod assembly that 3-4 men can carry. You could also go for something smaller as those unusually thick bows in the picture below are probably drawing at 1500-2000 lbs. of pull at minimum.

 

[carlton_bach]

Chinese had them. You're going to have to mount it on something though, as drawing it would be a bitch. However, larger repeating crossbows can do some really terrifying things to enemy personnel. I'd recommend putting them on horse or ox drawn carts in a swivel mount to break heavy cavalry charges and cut down swaths of infantrymen. You can probably mount the bows below on a heavy-ish tripod assembly that 3-4 men can carry. You could also go for something smaller as those unusually thick bows in the picture below are probably drawing at 1500-2000 lbs. of pull at minimum.

He's operating the weapon one-handed. Even if the leverage is considerable and he can brace himself, I don't see a tonne of draw weight here. A few hundred pounds at most IMO.

 

[YLi]

He's operating the weapon one-handed. Even if the leverage is considerable and he can brace himself, I don't see a tonne of draw weight here. A few hundred pounds at most IMO.

The thing is, that is a very large and thick prod (it's about as thick as the dude's forearm) with quite a bit of recurve. Either the draw force is high or the power stroke is quite long, it definitely is going to take a great deal of effort to span the weapon.

 

[carlton_bach]

The thing is, that is a very large and thick prod (it's about as thick as the dude's forearm) with quite a bit of recurve. It definitely take a lot of force to draw.

It is. It looks quite disproportional to the method used handling it, too. Nobody has that much upper-body strength.

 

[YLi]

The bow string isn't depicted in this picture. It could be that the power stroke of the bow is quite long. The guy's seen bringing the lever almost to his chest. If you shoot a modern day reproduction of the repeating crossbow, you don't bring your arm back anywhere near as far.

 

[Berus]

thanks for the replies. such a heavy crossbow cannon could be useful for defending walls i think.

braced repeating crossbow can be pretty strong if you figure out a way to apply enough force. A crank powered by humans would come to mind. The rate of fire is not as spectacular as you'd think, but it works. And of course someone in the ancient world built those things, too.

Would such a crossbow able to be carried by one man?
I would like to have a crossbow that is easy to use and has the Option too shoot more than 1 arrow in one round, before reloading.
so what i thought, maybe there could be a mechanism where you could insert 4 Darts or more, after each shoot, the clip would rotate or move (alternativly after firing one bolt, the crossbowman would have to pull a Lever or crank) and they next bolt will slide to the groove and be ready too shoot.

 

[JennyB]

Can be built, sure. What's your power source, though?

Generally, a crossbow needs to be stronger than a bow to achieve the same punch because it doesn't transfer power as efficiently. Given its mechanics, it can be. But a repeating crossbow will have a problem in that department. A level mechanism like the Chinese onme, unless you brace it against something, is going to be weaker than a bow because the application of force is so damned inefficient (squeezing together your hands at an awkward angle? A bow, at least, you draw with your back muscles). A braced repeating crossbow can be pretty strong if you figure out a way to apply enough force. A crank powered by humans would come to mind. The rate of fire is not as spectacular as you'd think, but it works. And of course someone in the ancient world built those things, too.

What about a footbow? Archer lies on his back, pushing the bow forward with his feet, and the release mechanism is hooked to a shoulder harness, leaving both hands free to load the next bolt during the recovery and draw.

 

[Sian]

not exactly mobile ...

 

[Herzen's love-child]

I wouldn't trust the contemporary woodblock print or drawing for accuracy in the crossbow's proportions and details to draw any conclusions other than it was a large, relatively clumsy device operated by one soldier and cocked with one hand. The image shows it being operated on some kind of water vessel, incidentally.

The context from which that image was pulled is in the following webpage:
http://ancientchinesecasting.weebly.com/zhuge-nu.html

Bet the bolts were still poison-dipped.

 

[Shapur2]

>
>
>
The Romans are supposed to have had them. A historian in europe built one that was on a history program, and the 'Mythbusters' television show built one, there may be more.

I know of the one that historian built. However, the Polybolos wasn't so much a repeating crossbow, as it was essentially an ancient Heavy Machine Gun. The one built on Mythbusters combined the action of the Chu Ko Nu with the body of the Polybolos; it wasn't a historically accurate Polybolos, but a 'love child' of the two.

I think the problem is draw strength. The greater the range and armour penetration you want, the more powerful the bow and the action need to be, thus a semi-automatic action like that on the Chu Ko Nu won't work as effectively. Its the same reason the NATO 7.62x51mm couldn't work in the Enfield EM-2: To Powerful.

I should also add that Rome never actually used the Polybolos; Hero of Alexandria and Vitruvius both lived DURING the Roman empire, and had designs for a Polybolos, but it was never actually adopted AFAIK.

 

[Russian]

is it possible to create a repeating crossbow, that still has atleast the strenght of a regular bow? It doesnt have to be as strong as crossbow and pierce through heavy armor, but it atleast should be able to pierce through chainmail easily. I know the chinese invented a repeating crossbow, but it was apparenlty rather weak and only able to do little wounds, that is why they were poisoned.
however would it be possible to construct a stronger repeating crossbow?

What is the point of creating a repeating crossbow?
I remember that Napoleon joked that every young graduate from a military school for officers dreamed to arm his soldiers with double-barreled rifles. But after first taking part in real action these childish dreams are forgotten for good.
If you use a crossbow it has to be powerful and accurate. That is the point.

 

[Reader347]

What about a footbow? Archer lies on his back, pushing the bow forward with his feet, and the release mechanism is hooked to a shoulder harness, leaving both hands free to load the next bolt during the recovery and draw.

>
>
>
Medieval period, some crossbowman had a belt with a cocking hook and the stock had a stirrup ahead of the bow. The bowman put a foot in the stirrup, bent the knees, put the hook under the string and straightened his legs. With some crossbows the stock was simply braced on the stomach and the string drawn back by both arms to the release mechanism. The Greeks had a bow with a slide that held the arrow and stuck out beyond the front of the bow, this slide was braced against something hard, the bowman braced the stock against his stomach and pushed the bow, the slide slid back, cocking the bow. Armor piercing Medieval crossbows had various kinds of crank/windlass cocking. The Roman heavy crew served version was cocked by a windlass at the rear of the stock. The Roman repeating type supposedly had a windless driven endless chain for continuous cocking.

 

[Reader347]

I should also add that Rome never actually used the Polybolos; Hero of Alexandria and Vitruvius both lived DURING the Roman empire, and had designs for a Polybolos, but it was never actually adopted AFAIK.

>
>
>
The Romans army had some sort of hand held crossbow, pieces have been found in a Roman fort in Germany. And there's a type of fairly small, crew served crossbow shown on Trajan's column.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

>
>
>
The Romans army had some sort of hand held crossbow, pieces have been found in a Roman fort in Germany. And there's a type of fairly small, crew served crossbow shown on Trajan's column.

The latter is a caroballista. But there is no evidence of an actual repeating crossbow in Roman field service, merely the experiments of Hero, etc.

 

[Reader347]

The latter is a caroballista. But there is no evidence of an actual repeating crossbow in Roman field service, merely the experiments of Hero, etc.

>
>
>
Very likely, and that's a pity. Scale up the Chinese repeating crossbow and combine it with some kind of Greek/Roman windless endless chain cocking device and you'd have a fearsome dart thrower.

 

[Berus]

What is the point of creating a repeating crossbow?
I remember that Napoleon joked that every young graduate from a military school for officers dreamed to arm his soldiers with double-barreled rifles. But after first taking part in real action these childish dreams are forgotten for good.
If you use a crossbow it has to be powerful and accurate. That is the point.

well a crossbow who is able too shoot fast, is strong and accrucate is at an Advantage, especially if your army lacks the resources for good bowman, or is unable to take the effort of Training lot of bowmen. a crossbow is a weapon everyone could have used without excessive Training, the disadvantage was that the crossbow was terribly slow, in a open battle a army of crossbowman would have no Chance against archers, thats why i would Need a crossbow design that shoots relativly fast and still manages to be strong enough pierce through the Opponent.
but i can imagine that it would not be ideal, but i cant think of anything else besides a crossbow, handguns would not work and be not very efficent.