960lbs crossbow vs 150lbs crossbow - TESTED! 

He even shows off and lifts both of them together a few times in the video, 1100 pounds, what a guy.

Much as I love archery/crossbow channels, they ALWAYS, ALWAYS confuse pounds with foot pounds (ft/lbs) when talking about amount of energy the projectile delivers at point of impact. And even then they get it wrong, because they dont know with what weight arrow/bolt or at which range in which conditions. Maybe they truly really are Medieval, who knows lol

But I did not confuse anything. I give energy in Joules because that is my more familiar unit, but I generally also give it as an approximate in ftlbs too, but of course the draw weight is the weight to draw the string back and is not a ftlbs measurement, but a lbs measurement.

@@tods_workshop love the show Tod. Not sure why people think they can "correct" an expert without doing any sort of research first. The internet is a strange place.

@@daleyfun2247 If that's what you define as strange you are incredibly sheltered from the true nature of the internet.

Well, and also consider material to penetrate. Typically, a very high-velocity projectile will penetrate something like a thin metallic barrier *significantly* better than a heavier, lower-velocity projectile. Consider, say, a 5.56mm cartridge with 55 grains mass and ~3000ft/sec velocity, even without an armour-piercing core. It will *easily* penetrate 5mm mild steel plate, shot after shot, where even a very powerful arrow will typically be repelled with minimal damage to the plate. *However*, change your target to meat or ballistic gelatin, and you see interesting things start to happen. In a lower-density target, the extreme momentum of an arrow or very large projectile like the ~550 grain solids fired by dangerous-game rifles allows them to penetrate far, far deeper and straighter than a light-weight hypervelocity projectile that will tend to fragment, deflect, or tumble and rapidly bleed off its energy in a fairly short distance relative. Hence, why you see things like the FN FiveseveN firing insanely fast, lightweight projectiles to defeat body armor as a combat weapon, and huge, low-velocity projectiles like the 458s and various Nitro cartridges used when the target is a massive chunk of dangerous meat with no hardened shell. Purpose, purpose, purpose! :)

Yep. The limit on firearms are more about how far you can accurately aim than the gun itself. Especially if you use the military definition of "gun," which includes crew-served artillery.

I love how I automatically read this comment in Joergs voice.

As far as I know there was one more feature that made firearms feasible back in days. While the accuracy was not great (smooth barrel & not very precise chunks of lead aka bullets and so on) and the rate of fire was inferior to bows. BUT it turned out with such hi projectile speed (150 m/s is still a way faster than a 50-60 m/s of typical medieval arrow) - firearms where able to hit moving targets with a much higher chance. And surprisingly there are mostly moving targets on a battlefield.

@@shurmurray You are correct when you say it is easier to hit a moving target with a faster projectile, but I am not sure if that would have been very relevant in late medieval and early Renaissance warfare. Back then most battles were armies marching against each other, with distance weapons used for volley fire against the approaching enemy army. Archers and musketeers alike would not have aimed at individuals for the most part. Also early fuse lock muskets were really big and heavy, not easy to shoot accurately. But a musket ball can penetrate armor, which a warbow arrow typically can not. I guess that would make a difference.

Resembles a 22 going off, but sharp instead of hollow echoing pop.

@alpacawren It's suprisingly well made considering how old it is, the first one that is.

I'd imagine seeing what the bolt does to full plate and mail armor and the sound that makes would be even scarier. The deafening crunch of steel buckling and just how _instant_ it would be as the person inside who seemed indomitable screams bloody murder... that has to have the same level of raw terror of someone's head being blown off by a modern sniper that you can't even see.

Then the swait while they sheltered behind pavises and wound up their bows.

I'm pretty sure they were more preoccupied with the physical impact of being hit with a crossbow bolt not so much the sound. Especially if you were someone who was routinely involved in battles

That would maybe peenetrate a light APC with the right bolt type :D

That's sorta how the modern crossbow evolved.

Make a modern crossbow made to use harpoon

At that level does your ammo even need to be pointy? Load up a rock and go deer hunting. I always thought there ought to be hunting seasons specifically for Rock, and Club.

Unfortunately it would be an 1110 lb crossbow

A rocket powered crossbow

It already exist. It is called APFSDS :D .

Todd makes them.

it's called a ballista :P

@@jimwagner6260 no he doesn’t

lmaooo

I had much the same thought.

Because it's a lot older than the crossbow.

🤣🤣🤣

He uses the jacket far more often than a crossbow which requires a windlass to pull back. Age vs wear.

Thanks! I was wondering why the old one is so slow. Inertia in that giant steel arm!

Why would inertia change if the weight is same?

​@@abhinandhari7812a Carbon Fiber bow would have lower mass, but the same spring force. The draw weight is a force measurement instead of a mass measurement in this context.

@@SentientTent wouldn't force be affected by mass( as F=ma) ?

And upgrade that bowstring while you're at it.

Definitely the medieval bow would be more dangerous. I’m no expert, but it’s probably designed to be strong enough to penetrate steel plate armor, which the compound bow probably couldn’t do, at least not practically.

Can't wait for "Ballista vs APFSDS - Ancient vs Modern dart projectile launchers"

He does talk about that during the video around 4:30 when he mentions the arms race between armor and ranged weapons

He made the question at the end which bow would he use. Surely it would be the one that would injure the knights and he already said the older bow had much better penetration, so I personally would use that one rather than watch my arrows just bounce of his plate armor

Lars Andersen did that, you know despite all the criticism of his bow is being too light. But in one of his recent video, merely adding pulley mechanism into 60lb bow can make some decent power to penetrate wrought iron helmet.

I'd love to have a time machine to see how great those long Bowman were at their jobs. It's hard to imagine the skill and dedication it took to master that particular weapon.

*flashes back to Barry, the shit English longbowman who hit his own guys half the time*

@@olliefoxx7165 Take a look at an archer's skeleton. Might give you some idea of the dedication it took to be a long bowman.

would make a great time period movie...

@@judahboyd2107 the deformity of the body from the level of training and strength needed to draw was phenomenal.

Thank you

Same idea as a long draw length medieval bow

A few thoughts. 1 that would be awesome. 2 I think you would end up with deminishing returns as the bolt becomes unable to absorb the full energy of the crossbow. 3 that would be extremely difficult to build as modern compound bows require special equipment to string. Thanks for the fun thought though!

@@dillonvandergriff4124 perhaps, but with a longer power stroke, the increased energy is input to the bolt over say 15" instesd of the 6" of a medieval crossbow. Therefore, you should be able to put at least 2.5x the power of a medieval bow through the bolt if you have twice the draw length.

Why not even 960lb

@@dillonvandergriff4124 You'd need a really heavy bolt. I'm talking about 100 to 120 gr. That gives it a higher efficiency at higher draw weights.

that would be one of the deadliest crossbow's to ever exist... when do we get the funding for that

A medieval crossbow with double curved like the Mongolian bows.

Would it qualify as an oxymoron?

I mean, this is essentially what modern crossbows are, they just take on different shapes because modern materials and manufacturing allow them to.

I would like to see what modern cross bow of 900+ lbs with a 90 gr arrow with 14" length in draw do. I bet it would be devestating.

It's actually not odd that a modern bolt will penetrate what a medieval one cannot, while still being consistent with Todd's experiment on a boss. I believe I explain it fairly clearly here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ghoVmc12vEs.html&lc=UgxE_efPavhuQ0HKf2J4AaABAg (EDIT: Say if the link doesn't work, I found youtube to be a bit erratic with comment linking for me)

Skall, just curious. What kind of maintenance does your crossy need that you have to ship it back to the UK?

The tests I've seen (with firearms) indicate that energy (not momentum) determines armour penetration. The importance of momentum seems to be largely apocryphal. It may be a correlation not a cause as heavier bullets tend to have higher sectional density (which should also aid penetration) and seem likely to be sturdier and thus less likely to break up on impact.

@@Dennis-vh8tz I think the issue here might be the bolt not breaking off as easily as an arrow. When the Agincourt video came out, you could see how the arrows bounced away and broke, while with Skall's test, plate cutters from this crossbow made a severe dent on the armour before breaking out. Said armour withstood, later, a couple of shots from his brown bess, and IIRC, the ones that blasted through, hit parts already bent in by the crossbow, with a couple of shots being deflected away.

@@Dennis-vh8tz with firearms, what matters is how fast the bullet expands, and therefore dumps it's energy into the target. For the same caliber, heavier bullets are longer, but if you go up in caliber (say, 9mm to .45/11mm), you about double the weight with the same overall length.

Agree. Even the string breaks the sound barrier. If the arrow does, so does the string. (Duh...) If anyone is not convinced yet: why does a whip crack? It breaks the sound barrier.

@@jandebreet5703 no, the string does not break the sound barrier on a bow. Depending on the environmental conditions that thing needs to be doing about 1100fps. A whip is a completely different mechanic. It does break the sound barrier but it’s a conservation of momentum equation. At no point does a bow string go that fast. An arrow does not break the sound barrier either most by a factor of 3. Bow noise is material interaction.

@@VSO_Gun_Channel , sorry I wrote that. I have an air gun that breaks the sound barrier. Clearly audible. 1200 f/s. I thought a 960 lbs bow could do the same. I apologize.

Do you think it is possible a 960lbs bow can reach the sound barrier?

@@jandebreet5703 0% chance. Tod explained this. The only thing he can do to improve speed performance theoretically is to increase the draw length and do so without increasing drag. That’s why modern bows have cams. There is a material limitation. Remember that an arrow weighs more than a .50 BMG projectile.

I hope you are happy that you did!

Now we’re both almost experts. One more, and I’m ready for self defense videos of crossbows.

@Ian Pemberton okay? I have no videos of anything penetrating anything. You should do the same.

And watch your language. I mean literally. Grammar as well as punctuation.

aaaaaaaaand that's how LEARNING is done. 😄

Musket

@@braija Yeah I mean, crossbows were basically the pre-blackpowder muskets.

Try 1 year

@@chroma6947 do you mean 1 year instead of two weeks to learn to be effective with a crossbow; or do you mean 1 year instead of 20 to learn to use a long bow?

I have always thought its cause a single crossbow bolt will penetrate the armour while 10 longbow arrows will not...

I might be mistaken but I think its efficient range is lower than bows, but you can sit and aim with it indefinitely. Also definitely harder to make.

@@firmanimad Making a decent crossbow is easy if you got the materials and I think its easier to get materials for a crossbow than a bow. Unless you are out in the woods and all you have is a knife and some string.

Yeah me too

Odds are that heavy of a bolt would break the modern crossbow

Same. I would also liked to seem them both fired into medieval chain mail and medieval plate armor to demonstrate the differences between the two types of bolts.

I'd like to see a modern bolt fired from the medieval bow. It would be interesting to see that comparison as well

I'd like to see a bolt shooting a crossbow

I was thinking the same. As in you'd need Bjorn to lift that.

same, i was so confused lol

Yes indeed

Nice!

Americans using the same unit for force and mass 🤦‍♂️

Not in the UK presumably!

Crossbow hunting is very cruel and painful way to hunt deers, If you were to hunt i suggest you use modern rifle as it cause less suffering for the animals.

@@lynchingtree2317 cant do that in many locales.

@@Chironex_Fleckeri What a backward country... access to Modern rifle is a human right. Soon they will be forcing people to bludgeon their prey with a spoon.

@@lynchingtree2317 Okay I'm supportive of 2A ... just because I think sometimes bowhunting makes sense. Look, if you're going to hunt in a place that is flat and without a lot of tree cover, do you want people firing rifles that can potential injure property or people a mile away? I'd prefer bows or shotguns to be used in that instance.

Do you want him to measure it in Newtons instead? Lol

@@TaberIV yes, I want him to measure them in New-Tons instead of Old-Pounds! Xd

Clearly should've gone with 68 kg.

@@Zraknul or what, you'd prefer 4.66214 Slugs instead? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(unit)

4370N vs. 667N? That's a brutal comparison.

My estimate is that you'd need a 275-300lb recurve to deliver the same energy as Tod's 960lb monster, though that number is the result of only a few minutes of research and relies on manufacturer specs, so it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Regardless of the actual number, however, I think it's safe to say that the answer to your question is: "Much better, but still terribly." While a cam system improves performance by quite a lot, so do fiber-reinforced composites and modern engineering.

Or rather, how it would compare with bolts of identical weight. The efficiency of a crossbow mostly depends on how long the string accelerates the bolt. This is why the heavier bolts fly with the most energy : their higher weight means they accelerate slower and thus for a longer time, leaving with more energy. The modern crossbow simply has three times the draw length, and with bolts of identical weight you could expect it to be 2-3 times as efficient.

I feel like the difference between the older style crossbow and the modern crossbow is the compounding. Without that new technology, the only thing that separates the two is the material it's made from, which doesn't really cause that big of a difference.

Eh it's terrible waste of energy. My Bulldog 440 recurve can shoot that same heavy bolt at 260-275 fps.... much more penetration

I csnt bieve how loud it is lol

Yeah that is kind of terrifying. RU-vid is full of videos about how arrows cannot beat armor but... yeah this would. Remember you don't have to actually punch through the plate, just dent it bad enough that it crushes into the target under it

I wish I had that much penetration power... for my crossbow I mean

@@christophertaylor9100 It actually wouldn't penetrate, and barely even dent the armor. Tod made another video about arrows vs armor where they shoot a longbow with a pretty equivalent momentum (80g, 50m/s) and it does almost nothing to the armor. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DBxdTkddHaE.html

That was indeed a contender

It was the best of bows It was the worst of bows

Well, I'd say that it's so that even if it doesn't penetrate, which is very likely, it will still cause quite a lot of impact force thus disorienting or even injuring the enemy.

A bolt of equal mass shot from the modern crossbow would have a higher velocity, more kinetic energy and more momentum than it would when shot from the medieval crossbow.

An Eminem line applies here "You only get one shot"

then he gets arrested because of the uk self defense laws

@@rope7741 oof

@@rope7741 oof

Rope: make sure to have friends with pickup trucks and backhoes, and a few bags of lime...

🤣😂😍

It's a MINDSET!

430 kilo is nothin

Yeah using the same unit for force and mass is kind of dum Edit: weight>mass

I believe you're thinking of a ballista :)

15:37 Look at that clip, brother's *jacked*

From what I hear the longbow man is still waiting to see his VA doc and was only given a 5% disability rate.

Longbowmen were generally more effective than crossbowmen, just due to the fire rate. But in terms of power, the crossbow can be more powerful. Basically crossbows took away the specialized fitness required, and allowed scab labor in the archery job market. 2 or 3 random conscripts who'd be happy to work for a sandwich could be handed crossbows and do what one expensive career longbowman could, but without skill/fitness. Also, crossbows and crossbow bolts were cheaper than longbows & arrows. An injured longbowman could probably get work with a crossbow, and maybe command a pay premium for his expected accuracy, but it'd be far less than his pay with a longbow.

@@kathrynck Yeah, I also had the impression that crossbows are sort of a 1-shot chance for those who couldn't shoot a longbow at all.

Crossbow / Longbow is all about trade offs. Crossbows oddly enough are a smarter defensive weapon. They can be shot while prone, or propped on objects used for cover. They can also be loaded by someone who is not shooting and handed off. Longbows are faster, but to fire them requires you to expose more of yourself as a target

@@takingbacktoxic7898 longbows over time destroyed the Shooter’s shoulder so eventually the longbow man would be forced into retirement as he wouldn’t be able to draw the extremely heavy pull string. I imagine moving to crossbows kept him working. Crossbows were the M16 of the period while the Longbow was the sniper rifle. Interesting thing about crossbows is that China perfected them designing a semi automatic rapid fire crossbow. It is said that the first emperor of China tomb is protected by traps that fire repeater crossbows.

Yeah; I love the informed discussion here

All I hear is ringing in both ears...

Whaaaaaaat!?

...huh?

Crossbows arent that loud compared to guns,, they wont hurt your ears

Reading the replies: anyone getting any more closed minded or dumber?

Crossbow fired HEAT arrows

The problem is that the materials dictate the design. The steel bow does not have a good elasticity and so has a very short draw length, which must be compensated by having an enormously powerful but very inefficient bow. If they had known of pulleys and fiberglass they would have made the same crossbows we have, except with wooden stocks instead of plastic.

He's talking and shooting a crossbow relax

@@noobstarr4798 Get a load of this guy. The happiness hunter.

@@noobstarr4798 boooooooo

I loved the consideration of mass of bow parts and material limitations, and I do love poems, but I had a problem with this argument. If we are nowhere near the speed of light, momentum = mass * velocity while kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2. Above velocity=2 m/s, more energy is ALWAYS going to be more momentum. I guess my suggestion on the poem would be jerk is the messenger, energy is the message. There "jerk" is the fun physics term for change in acceleration, which could be related to the duration of the impact.

@@unsforlife Some time after making that comment I had similar ideas. While momentum and (kinetic) energy are not the same, they are very similar to each other. Therefore the messenger-statement seems pretty flawed to me. But I suck at physics, so what do I know.

Thanks for sticking with me and I have got better at presenting this stuff which helps too

Do polls, The Spiffing Brit has a video how you can exploit a RU-vid feature to get a million subscribers

He’s going to be well prepared for the 21st century Feudalism we’re all going to be so “Happy” about

@@mmarshall1349 you will own nothing and be happy

@@d.d.h6749 hey, og feudalism wasn't that bad. There was private property and all that jazz. 1/10 ain't that high of a tax either lol

@@Sk0lzky problem is when the fief goes through a famine and tax gets high, but hey, that's life

@@xilpes6254 just work more on your lord's land, nothing ain't gonna grow there anyway so might as well starve and not piss off your lord

Didn't he say that it shot the same arrows at the same speed as a longbow? So that means the energy and momentum would also be the same. Just find a comparison of the crossbow and longbow

I should have done that, but this film is of me doing just that with a slightly weaker bow ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BV8kt-bDxnk.html

BTW, The data from when he did that is in the description, next to the data for this run. (To save anyone else from looking for that data on the other films, like I just did. at least I can say it matches)

That data is really telling too, the total KE the modern crossbow can output on medieval weight projectiles is higher than the medieval crossbow, while requiring drastically lower draw force. This is thanks to both the materials efficiency and the massive mechanical advantage from the pulleys. All that power, so much less human effort. It's hypothetically possible to further boost the power and/or lower the draw weight at the cost of a heavier, more complex pulley system.

See Bunjie on YT for why that might be a problem m8 .

It will kheeell

RU-vid directed me here...it really does know what a potential "mark" looks like doesn't it? :D Absolutely sublime quote at the end!

??? The 960lb would have penetrated armour. The quickfire 150 not so.

​@@JustBadly If I'm interpreting it correctly, if you check the numbers in Tod's description under this video, you'll see that a modern compound crossbow, with its much more efficient materials and mechanism and its consequently longer power stroke, can deliver a heavy "medieval" arrow with slightly more speed, and around the same momentum, as a 960lb medieval crossbow can, but at a significantly lower draw weight. - and therefore the modern compound crossbow can not only penetrate targets better, but it's also even easier to load; I seem to recall that Tod can load the "lockdown longbow" by hand, just by pulling on the string with both hands. So he doesn't even need a draw assist for the "lockdown longbow" crossbow. - I'm afraid there's no debate that a modern compound crossbow is a better weapon against all targets than even an enormously heavy draw-weight medieval crossbow. As Tod notes at the end, the modern bow can shoot light bolts, or it can shoot heavy bolts, and the heavy bolts will give you the momentum- and therefore the penetration- you need.

@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 I've seen them...and try not to be so condescending..it makes you look like a cheap SJW...dumpling. :)

I'm not sure it would be that difficult to test. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Another factor, that influences drag is the size and shape of the projectile. The lighter projectile will probably also be smaller and have lower drag coefficient (assuming both projectiles have a similar shape). I don't think this effect will outweigh the increase due to the velocity at the velocities an arrow will travel at, but it will change the numbers. Maybe the penetration could be tested by shooting a block of ballistic gelatin and measuring how far the arrow penetrates. But targets of a crossbow would likely wear armor, which would probably change a lot, and make the choice of arrowhead more important.

+Jesse Rydberg I'm not sure about crossbow bolts and arrows, but I do know that the penetration of bullets through soft targets increases with bullet weight for a given muzzle energy. If we assume that pressure drag dominates, and that the drag force inside the target really is proportional to velocity squared and proportional to frontal area of the projectile, then arrow/bolt penetration is directly proportional to sectional density of the projectile (mass divided by frontal area) and proportional to the logarithm of the impact velocity. However, one thing we are neglecting is the shear drag, which is a significant contributor to overall drag when the projectile is long and slender, like an arrow or bolt. Shear drag force is proportional to velocity of the projectile, and also proportional to the 'wetted' area of the projectile. The wetted area is simply the surface area of the projectile in contact with the fluid medium. The wetted area increases as the bolt/arrow penetrates deeper and deeper, submerging more of its length into the fluid, and subsequently decreases as the bolt/arrow emerges from the backside of the target. The penetration in a target where shear drag dominates is proportional to the mass per unit wetted area, and directly proportional to impact velocity. So in both cases, higher velocity yields deeper penetration for a given projectile, and to a greater degree when shear drag dominates over pressure drag. The penetration ability of a projectile also improves the longer it is, the fatter it is, and the denser it is. A long length reduces the relative effects of pressure drag (V^2 dependent) and increases the relative effects of shear drag (V dependent). Density is self-explanatory. A fatter projectile has a smaller surface area-to-mass ratio, which means the deceleration caused by shear drag will be reduced without any change in the deceleration caused by pressure drag. Considering all of the above analysis, I suspect the modern arrow would penetrate deeper than medieval bolt because the modern arrow is a longer projectile and it is traveling a lot faster. The only advantage the medieval bolt has is that it is fatter, but I don't think that alone would be enough to offset the other two factors.

@@alexanderdaum8053 The idea would be to have two arrows or bolts with the same outside dimensions but different mass. Take say a carbon arrow with a light aluminum insert and another with a heavy brass insert, every thing else the same.

@@johnbarron4265 I think you are correct. I will be plugging shear drag into my thought experiments from now on. I had been imagining a scenario where the the dimensions of the arrows were the same, say a carbon arrow with an aluminum insert and an otherwise identical one with a heavy brass insert.

That is a very good point - the new one, once damaged would stay damaged

If we aren't assuming a complete collapse of society and mail order getting the raw ingredients to make any component of the modern bow, or just a replacement part is very possible (assuming the design isn't deliberately awful for repairability) - people really can work fibreglass and carbon fibre in a shed, if they can get the materials to work. If assuming the complete collapse of society neither is likely to be easily repairable, sourcing the right type of wood will be tricky and proper metal components being reforged, repaired etc require materials that are not certain to be available locally (of course some old crossbow styles don't require high quality metal, or even metal at all, but this one did). Also worth noting that the old one will of course be less impossible to repair than a petrochemical industry based modern one, as there are less processes and travel between resource sources required. Edit - Further thinking about it, with how regulated and mono cultural many forests are in the EU now, finding suitable types of wood might actually be harder than all the steps and materials for proper metalworking...

@@foldionepapyrus3441 I believe Mok's point was that those materials wouldn't be available in the 14th century.

@@foldionepapyrus3441 I am speaking from the point of living in rural Oklahoma where the workshops dedicated to carbon fiber repair are not really available. That doesn't take the collapse of society to happen, I saw it two years ago when we had major flooding for the entire county and surrounding counties.

@@foldionepapyrus3441 Automotive leaf springs are a good source for post-collapse steel for crossbows and bladed weapons. The metallurgy is already done, you just need to find tools to cut away the parts you don't want.

Both of those analogies are wrong. Kinetic energy is more important than momentum for penetration assuming both projectiles have the same shape and surface area. And for the car analogy, power is indeed how fast you hit the wall, but how far you go through the wall is not torque, but the kinetic energy of the car (which is determined by the engine's power) and the surface area and shape. Because the car is just acting as a projectile.

No Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall. Torque is how fast you reach that speed.