If for some reason we had to replace infantry firearms with bows, would todays technology be able to make some kind of meaningful improvement to the versions historical armies used? Assume the targets would be either unarmored or use armors from pre-renaissance eras.
>>8174286
we can shoot supersonic bolts with explosive tips
>>8174286
a railgun is basically just a ballista with magnetic strings and electric springs.
Well yeah, we have access to better materials, better manufacturing capabilities, better knowledge of physics.
We already can make bows that are objectively superior to bows from the middle ages.
Just the fact that we can shit out bows, crossbows and their ammo effortlessly with a factory means we'd do better.
>>8174326
if your question is
>if we used 0CE weapons exactly how 0CE soldiers used them, would anything be different?
I'd say that's a stupid ass non-question unless you suspect that the atmosphere or gravity or something changed.
it hasn't in any meaningful way.
>>8174346
we can still use knowledge of mechanics, engineering and physics (disallowing explosives, electriticy, etc) that they didn't have
for example, could we make an effective repeating crossbow? from my understanding the versions that did exist were basically toys.
Are you permitted to modify the bow? I mean titanium or woods would increase the robustness of the body, and surely we could make better bending arms (even PVC makes for an incredibly good bow arm). We can achieve a smoother, more consistent "bore" and less wearing on the firing mechanisms. Fibers have obviously come a long way.
>>8174385
sure
>>8174354
>for example, could we make an effective repeating crossbow? from my understanding the versions that did exist were basically toys.
no, because we don't have electrical tools that facilitate advanced CNC engineering.
>>8174399
where is that required exactly
>>8174286
This is a shitty what-if question, since bow technology never stopped advancing. People use it for sport all the time, look up modern bows and you will see how advance they are compared to the ones used in hisorical wars.
We now have Compound pullies, peep sights, stabilizers to make them easier to hold, shock absorbers to preserve the limbs, fancy arrow rests, and limb savers. Most hunters now use carbon arrows, mechanical broadheads,...
>>8174450
those aren't really weaponized. it's just upgrades for the same role, not the innovation they might have seen if they continued to be used in war.
>>8174354
so here's what we do, with carbon nanotubes we can make springs with an energy density around that of black powder with similar power densities to black powder.
So what we do is build a bunch of tiny bows with these springs inside with the bolts already in them. We use wind power(fuck you and your muscle power, I'm using modern versions of medieval windmills) to pull back the springs and load bolts.
We make our bows tiny and cylindrical, and have them rely on an external guide to guide the bolt. Now we can easily load a bunch of bows into a guide and fire them very fast, using the recoil to load and fire another bow.
IE we have a machine gun that uses spring loaded bullets.
>>8174399
There is no reason you can't build a fully mechanical NC machine. I mean it's not a great idea, but we can do it. We could even do CNC if we're willing to make mechanical computers. If we use fluidics we can even get clock rates in the KHz range.
>>8174502
>spring loaded bullets
Pic related.
>>8174516
upgrades that aren't "increase destructive force by factor of 50 000"
we could make drones that use bows to lob napalm but clearly the question is't about bows at that point
>>8174502
not sure I understood that entirely but it sounds like an upgrade to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
pretty cool. how effective would it be?
>>8174520
hahahah
