Talk:Crossbow/Archive 2

message: "Other sources note its usage in Western Africa, with enslaved Africans bringing it to America."
Is there a source for this? I highly doubt "enslaved" Africans brought crossbows to America. I highly doubt they had crossbows. I'm removing this.
* should be a start. I've replaced it, with a ref. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Africans brought crossbows to US? 

message: The discussion starting with 'Crossbowmen usually had two servants...' seems a bit spurious. The Xbow was used for hundreds of years in many different contexts so a blanket assertion like this seems a bit odd. Can someone add who & when to this section? And even a cite? Ashmoo 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossbowmen usually had two servants...

message: In Nuremberg there was a special treatment for high quality armor. It was shot squarely with a crossbow. The bolt only left a small mark. With this sign of steadfastness it was sold throughout Europe as crossbowproofed armor. It was too expensive for most soldiers or knights to afford.
In formations the ones with such protection were among the first ranks (receiving more payment) or commanding officers.
Wandalstouring 02:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  platearmor crossbowproof 

message: on the left bottom corner is a crossbow on a bench and a man turning a wheel of a mechanism under the table of the bench. the string faces towards this mechanism. Wandalstouring 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stationary devices for drawing crossbows 

message: Karl, that phrase sounds much better now, but the content is wrong. Wandalstouring 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Let me know and I'll fix it. KarlBunker 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Up until the 17th century was about the specific style of beekeeping. I have no deadline for the use of the crossbow, but since the 15th century it faded out. So probably was no longer in use in the 17th. Wandalstouring 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't seem like this "stationary drawing machine" was used very often, so I'm not sure it's worth including in the article. The article is already a bit too much of a random collection of little facts, I think. KarlBunker 09:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beekeepers 

message: This is a really good article. Colonel Marksman 16:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Article

message: In our external link is the following statement.
"Many people assume that compound bows are faster at launching bolts. This isn't necessarily the case. Due to the mechanical complexity of a compound system, the force applied to the bolt is at it's maximum only halfway through release. After the midway point power diminishes rapidly. Therefore a compound crossbow delivers uneven levels of force during the launch process."
I think it is wrong, because a compound has increasing accelaration all the way, while a recurve has decreasing accelaration. The heavier the projectile, the slower is the speed and thus, the longer is the way it is accelerated from a recurve system and efficiency increases.
If somebody objects my opinion he should tell, but otherwise I think we should delet external links with wrong claims. Wandalstouring 23:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link statement 

message: several edits without sources have been made by 81.7.56.229 and I am not sure whether the info provided is true.
"lath" - prods of crossbows are flat and straight, not thick and bend, but calling it a lath?
some with sickle-shaped heads to cut rope or rigging - sure, I know such arrows, but are there any known crossbow bolts with this feature? It sounds like a waste of energy to me.
"can be" several times heavier - The lighter they are, the less efficient is the weapon system in releasing stored energy.
trigger (originally "tricker") - I could find no source for this claim and I do not think this is the right place for such a discussion. Wandalstouring 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anonymous edits 

message: This article needs some restructuring to be readable again. Suggestions? Wandalstouring 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about begining with history, then talking about technology, types etc and finally modern uses and legal issues using a more modern point of view? cyclosarin/raptor 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow that looks really good, nice work. I might try adapting some of the current material to this new structure on my subpage, see Plan. cyclosarin 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've given it a start but some sections, especially the types of crossbows have to be updated before I can update this article. I also uploaded another photograph of the reticle of a crossbow telescopic sight. cyclosarin 06:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This structure works well, could you give me a hand, especially with the types of crossbows section please? cyclosarin 07:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: This is a plan based on the new structure of the of the Crossbow article discussed above.
Please edit it here or above, and comment here or on the talk page. If no one objects I was hoping to finish this and add the new content to the main article. cyclosarin 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone please comment on this or edit it? In my opinion this could be used as the main article if the Technology section is integrated into this article and the middle sections are fleshed out. cyclosarin 02:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've almost filled the sections could someone maybe work on the Oxybeles section, pistol crossbows and crossbows in sport/target shooting? cyclosarin 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure