How would a skilled archer do in a collapsed society?
of course im not talking about slinging arrows and flipping around like an autist.
How far would a practical skill archer get when shtf?
-silent
-provides food
-fucking dank warlord
Loadout: 50-80lb recurve, rifle, pistol.
How long would a bow fag survive?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
Depends entirely on who's with you.
Bow hunter strats?
Just fine so long as it's not the type of shtf where people are shooting at each other.
silence, camo, range.
the only downside is people would see you with your bow unless your innawoods.
not too practical in urban enviorments.
your right.
thats why i mentioned the long gun and side arm.
i guess the bow would be more of a tool.
but it will still fuck something up if you can aim around plate carriers
An alright tool to hunt with quietly and to save ammo, I guess. But mostly irrelevant.
It's quiet and the arrows go really fucking fast if you have a good bow. But if you miss the first shot you're fucked.
At the end of the day it's mostly useful for hunting.
Medieval longbowmen were expected to be able to consistently hit a man sized target from (around) 100 yards. If you can get to that level of accuracy I'd say you're probably ok.
They also didn't wear baggy hoods because that would be silly. Since longbows were often overdrawn, a tight fitting hood that kept the ears and hair close to the head and out of the path of the bowstring made the most sense
>not knowing the basics of archery cqc
for some reason everyone's always shitting on this guy.
he makes Legolas look slow.
Because it's a low poundage bow and not effective in war. It's like the three-gun of archery or speedshooting.
He's doing party tricks while passing it off as some kind of lost art of combat archery. Now those are certainly very skill-intensive tricks, but that doesn't make the bullshit he serves them with stink any less.
>Medieval longbowmen were expected to be able to consistently hit a man sized target from (around) 100 yards
There's literally not a single piece of evidence to back this up.
Your absolutely right and it's why I hesitated to even mention it. Only reason that number floats around is pure speculation based on what was the effective range of medieval longbows (which can be quantified, although was obviously not perfectly consistent) and contemporary accounts of longbowmen. It's equivilant to basing your knowledge of firearms use and physics off of their portrayal in Hollywood though
>it's useful for hunting
I laugh every time I hear Jow Forums talk about hunting in SHTF. Get your head out of the normie civilized law box goddamnit. Only a fucking moron is going to be hunting, with anything, post collapse. With no game warden, anyone with half a brain is going to be trapping.
Bow might be useful though. Even with one leg in a steel trap, some things might be dangerous enough that you'd prefer to dispatch them at range. Crossbows still dunk all over bows though.
>silence
Bows can actually be pretty loud
Bow string suppressor.
Or use a bundle of yard weaved into the string like this
implying a low power bow wont kill you if you get shot in the fucking heart
Tbh I doubt a 20lbs bow would be able to penetrate that deep
>There's literally not a single piece of evidence to back this up.
I guess. It doesn't sound like an outlandish claim at all tho. The claim would have to be narrowed down tho.
I think the most intensely trained (foot) archers were in the English armies of the 100 years war. Some crazy king made it mandatory for men to train archery a few hours every sunday after church or some shit.
Then they proceeded to fuck the french knights, flower of europe, to shit.
>for some reason everyone's always shitting on this guy
Because he claims his techniques are historically accurate. That, and he uses an extremely low poundage bow.
>Bows can actually be pretty loud
Not compared to any non-suppressed gunshot.
What's loud is the target after it's hit and before it bleeds out, unless you get a perfect shot.
> people who hunted and hunt use heavy bow
> people who used bows in combat also use a heavy bow
> dude who talks like an autist and does flippy tricks used a 16 pound bow
jog muh nog
Wut
i have this fetish for female archers i literally cant control myself and splooge my pants when i see a proper female archer
I disagree you will be doing both, in SHTF if you have any setup at all that you are protecting you will need to scout often, if you come across game animals the last thing you want to do is shoot a gun.
hes a basically a circus clown
relatively though, its all about limiting the range at which anyone/anything would hear it
Im hot shit with a compound bow. I shoot our local 3d shoots every year and always finish in the top 5. Basically i can put the glowing majority of arrows on a paper plate to 80 yards or so. Especially if i have been shooting.
A bow is tough to hunt and I guess fight with for various reasons. Range estimation is a big factor as not knowing your yardage always makes shooting past 40 yards screwy. Unless you are really good at range estimation you really need to laze your target before you shoot, which takes time and limits the effectiveness of the bow as a weapon.
You also have to factor in your bow is going to either bend and ruin aluminum arrows or break carbon or wood arrows most every time you shoot.
Really you are just alot better off with a 22
Heres my rig for noone to see in this midnight archery bread. I sprayed it myself. Killed a buck in the mtns with it over thr summer
just where are you getting this?
>Medieval longbowmen were expected to be able to consistently hit a man sized target
foot warbowmen shot in volleys and weren't expected to hit shit. literately no one aimed at a specific man at 100 yards, they aimed at enemy formation
> didn't wear baggy hoods
actual medieval hoods were indeed baggy (not like the one on the pic though) , and they are quite good piece of clothing
>that kept the ears ... close to the head
are you serious?
damn thats fucking stupid
>not like the one on the pic though
samefag here
I meant OP's pic, mine is OKish in terms of reproduction
>The belts on her legs
for what purpose?
>for what purpose?
Japanese are obsessed with belts
Have you ever overdrawn a bow or done any research at all in excess of what your larping community required?
>Have you ever overdrawn a bow
no i did not
but I think you misinterpret this term, or mean something that is usually not meant by 'overdraw'
anyway could you please be so kind to provide your sources and point out why would an archer be worried about bowstring hitting his ears?
I don't know why they are not used in real combat anymore, they seemed really fucking effective in the 80's.
Even fictional ones?
>foot warbowmen shot in volleys and weren't expected to hit shit.
Bullshit They wouldn't have trained intensely, if this was the case.
>literately no one aimed at a specific man at 100 yards
Literally no one claimed this, you retard.
>they aimed at enemy formation
If you want to get pedantic about this, they aimed at certain ranges, instead.
The claim about their accuracy was supposed to reflect the standards to which they were trained, not what they aimed at in battle.
I'd say your biggest challenge isn't becoming proficient with the bow itself (although that would take some time). You would need to be able to make your own bows and to make new strings/restring it. Making arrows is fairly simple I would imagine especially with all the metal scrap in a post collapse society. But you couldn't rely on finding old alloy hunting bows forever. Also, I don't know much about it but could you even make your own string for a modern hunting compound bow or does it need to be of such strength that only a synthetic material could provide?
Use beaver balls
Besides what was already said, they just wore helmets like everyone did and always had done
>They also didn't wear baggy hoods
If anything, they wore hoods to block out the sun from their eye..
They always trained with bows to hunt hares, yeah there was a law that said peasantry had to train every week, England at this time was an actual instance of a peasant army, they were payed a good wage and served as an effective semi professional force, when combined with the professional forces of knights, men at arms and mercenaries produced an effective and fairly professional fighting force
Infantry is not inferior to cavalry, a disciplined force who maintain order can destroy a hasty cavalry charge, as the French were wanton to do in that era, which is why the English fared well (at various periods anyway) of the HYW and why the low countries had a habit of slaughtering French knights
Failure of infantry to maintain this discipline and cohesion is what leads to them being ran down
>why would an archer be worried about his bowstring hitting his ears
Because if it were to do so, it would remove your ear and if it caught some hair it would probably rip that out of the scalp as well
English lonbowmen held at their chest and pushed out with their left arm (as opposed to holding the left arm out and drawing to the chin). Pic related is an example of this draw method. This is supported by a treatise on English archery (toxophilus) and depicted in contemporary art works
Yeoman would have worn helmets for sure. Peasants would not likely have had the wealth for specialized equipment though
And then that "semi-professional" army god literally annihilated and the French won the war and dominated the European theatre until the Spanish invented the tercio, the Swiss perfected the spearmen tactic and then finally cavalry made a comeback to finish off routed armies under Napoleon.
The yeoman was a meme that lasted less than 100 years, since you didnt have to train all your life to shoot a crossbow and later a gun.
Same thing as in my post above. A crossbow is infinitely more effective simply because you dont need to spend all your life training to become a master archer.
That being said, my 50lbs Fred bear Montana Longbow is ready for innawoods and making a new bow isnt that hard. The only problems Ive personally thought about are what to make a good bow string with, when you dont have supplies and are on the move/innawoods.
Kukri/hatchet+bow = modern ranger.
Accept that there were and are competitions held to this day.
Roman Olympics held archery as a contest.
Even the word contest implies this.
The 100 yard is low 200 and grater would be the skill shot of the day.
Compared to guns they aren't
Arrow breaking would not happen if you used a longbow.
Its a speed thing. Compound accelerates that arrow faster then a longbow of the same weight.
Compounds cheat so they have more in common with crossbows.
Change out your arrows with spring steel bolts and you wouldn't have arrow breakage.
>Thigh belts for loosening when she gets fat
you have to calm your tits bro
>Bullshit They wouldn't have trained intensely, if this was the case
so you don't know something but still have a very strong opinion?
they trained very specific muscles which are pretty much only intensely used during archery
and they needed them to be in good condition to use those english warbows
>Literally no one claimed this
"they were trained to do somth" implies "they needed to do smth in real life" -> "were doing it"
so yes, there was a claim.
>If you want to get pedantic
If you want to get pedantic go suck a cock, they were targeting enemy formations
>The claim about their accuracy blah blah blah
the claim about their accuracy was not based on anything and is as empty as your life is
You made no argument on why an archer should worry about a bowstring hitting his ear
how is english draw technic going to threaten ones ears?
the bowstring is still in front of it
PS I believe you should get checked, you might be actually mentally retarded
hopes and prayers
I've had 4 different history courses/books mention this the past month. I didn't exactly go digging for sources though.
Are you fucking stupid? English draw was to PREVENT the string from tearing there ears and scalps you inebriated fucking fucker fuck.
Good that movie was such a fucking let down. They sold it as this epic fantasy story and instead it was some power of friendship/family problems bullshit.
Hot
>Medieval longbowmen were expected to be able to consistently hit a man sized target from (around) 100 yards.
That seems farfetched.
Modern olympic archers shoot at a paper plate sized target at 70 meters (76 yards). Using modern recurve bows with counterweights, modern bowstrings, modern carbon fiber arrows, and sights.
Longbowmen, would be used hand-crafted longbows, optimized for distance, not accuracy. Wooden arrows with handmade fletching and heads, plant fiber bowstrings, and no sights.
>muh training
Wouldn't even be a factor since both olympic level archers and longbowmen practice since childhood.
youtube.com
>A black person in Medieval Europe...
>the claim
The claim was of an expectation for accuracy, not an expectation to put it in practice on the battlefield. You don't train to hit a general area, you train to hit specific targets, regardless of what you'll be aiming for in a fight. This is marksmanship training 101 my dude
Don't discount the primitive technology for poor craftsmanship. They were still well made, and weren't optimized for distance as much as penetration. The still surviving practice field in London had a farthest target mark of 345 yards, and king henry viii set a minimum practice range for adults at 220 yards. That's of course with flight arrows. Arrows used in battle were much heavier and the range of archers was expected to decline during campaigns as their muscles and bones took such abuse. I mean, it was admitted earlier in this this thread that specific ranges and poundages aren't well established, but with surviving treatise and practice fields, the training process and to a lesser extent standards are at least somewhat understood
>-provides food
no. if ever a SHTF thing happens where any meaningful %age of ppl go innawoods and hunt for food, game will go extinct within months. there is a reason why industrial animal farming exists. total biomass of game animals in the US probably is less than the total biomass of chickens in the US alone.
This thread has inspired me to get off my ass and start practicing again
Depends on the environment. In euro-land, you might actually be not-useless in a combat scenario while anywhere you go you're a hunting asset.
The niche he would fill would be similar to a modern ninja or reconisance for a group. If he's alone, he has to be as low key as possible, and not be seen by anyone, period. But for reconisance, he'll have a bit more flexibility.
And personally, I think the best gear would be the bow, aluminum arrows (forged from scrap metal and fletched by hand), and a pistol with removable suppressor. Kind of like a guy with a Kentucky rifle, but with lesser range. So his advantage will be in heavily forested or jungle environments.
Time
>Alone = Several days to a few months, depending on the remoteness and terrain of the area, as well as how much land he has to move around in. But a Japanese holdout in Indonesia was able to go 29 years alone (not Hiroo Onoda, the one who surrendered 2 months after him), so there are exceptions to this.
>Reconisance method = As long as your group remains intact. A few years +, depending on how much progress your group makes overall.
> all this frustration
> repeating the same thing that makes no sense
> not capable of controlling language and emotions
at this point I see you are indeed mentally challenged
PS
ears are never in bowstring's way. NEVER. different cultures used different draw techniques, different draw holds, but not a single one used a draw when bowstring is behind the ear
this guys gets it
there is a reason why hunter-gatherers travel in small groups. and they have to wonder, since it's just remarkable how fast they kill everything in an area of their temporary dwellings
reading comprehension. do you have it?
read the fucking thread.
there was a claim that an archer's hood would need to be tight to keep ears out from the bowstring's way
which is absurd and you are trying to argue with the person who finds it absurd
Hello there my fellow Jow Forumsommandos!
That army got beat many times before 1. Henry V reached agreement that he war heir of the throne, before dying young and 2. France winning after Henry VI and II becomes king as a retarded child
It was a back and forth thing, what is impressive however was the ability of this style of army to act against what was the dominant force of the day
And what you're saying is gross oversimplification and nonsensical chronologically, also ignoring other instances of history where, also missing out where these major powers got their shit wrecked by other smaller powers with armies made up of decently funded and equipped, but ultimately low class and semi professional infantry, such as the Flemish and Czech, who performed admirably against such powerful dominant forces like France and HRE
Also the major rise of gunpowder weaponry happened in the HYW being deployed by both sides
I didn't even big up the longbow which is a meme, just the professionalism of the army at the time and the capability of infantry against cavalry (on a note, the battle of Minden is a funny read), England also has far cooler meme armies like the new model army
Peasants were not used to any extent people think, and in the case of urban levies, just like everyone in history the idea would have been to hopefully get your hands on a weapon, a shield, and a helmet before anything else
do you have enough handicaps for your hunting there bud?
Almost nobody stalks with a bow, it's like 95% stand hunters camping in feeders, salt licks or known trails. Anybody worth a shit has the distances marked.
Also stand hunting is Gay
I loved it, but I understand where you're coming from. It DID give us a cute ginger.
>TFW no S/k/ottish archer GF.
I liked it too, never saw the advertising, just bought it cause my kid wanted it.
>did give us a cute ginger
Yeah, shes a vaguely human looking computer animation. I know where I am, it's still fucked.
>they shot in volleys
Sure, but not at very long range, a warbow is unlikely to even penetrate plate at close range let alone 100 yards away.
It isn't, but they didn't fight against people with full plate
You should ask your kid if they like gingers.
>How would a skilled archer do in a collapsed society?
Not too far. Wont be able to trade bow for food. When food supply chains collapse , hunger strikes. People move out to other areas. So the archer will have to move as well. Anything of no immediate use gets thrown away. Bow and arrow will havr to go.
P.S. woods will be cleared of any edible animals within days. Same with pets, dogs, cats. If food supply chains are not restored within weeks, people (who has not moved out yet) will start go cannibal.
Why not a crossbow?
>Easier to learn and fire
>Lighter ammunition = more bolts
>Can come with picatinny rails
>Easier to transport
The rise in popularity of molly webbing really went over your head didnt it you idiot.