По поводу слуг и подушечек это не более чем флуд на правах хохмы. Если считаешь что нет прошу адекватные пруфы по этому поводу. А по поводу спецального лука и стрелы это и так понятно, так делаются ЛЮБЫЕ рекорды. Даже рекорды бега делаются спецальными людьми в спецальной одежде и на спецальных дорожках. Это не отменяет того факта что дальность ВЫДАЮЩАЯСЯ. Намного больше любой рекордной арбалета (естественно если можете опровергнуть - дерзайте, буду только рад).
Аналогично, хотелось бы ссылку в первоисточнике на рекорд султана, а сейчас так никто не стреляет, хотя и материалы лучше, и техника развитее. Прежде чем говорить о рекордной дальности - найди подтверждение, не обязательно указанного случая, но хотя бы от первого лица (т.е. не «я знаю, кого-то кто так стрелял», а «я сам так выстрелил»). Конкретно эта история с султаном взята из книги Ю.В. Шокарева «История оружия: луки и арбалеты» 2001г., и в другой литературе данной тематики тоже ссылаются на Шокарева, я уж не говорю, что на всех интернет-ресурсах лежит полностью выдранный абзац, слово в слово. В защиту Шокарева надо сказать, он указывает, что это именно рекордная стрельба, следом же приводит практические данные: по арабским источникам максимум - 150 метров, по русским – 225 метров. При этом никаких рекордов по арбалетам не дает, только ссылается на правила спортивной стрельбы из арбалетов в 15 веке, где задана планка в 165 метров.
Для сравнения, вот несколько цитат из книги Payne-Gallwey Ralph «The Book of the Crossbow»:
The ordinary Military Crossbow of the fifteenth century, with a thick steel bow, was able, if elevated to 45°, to propel its bolt from 370 to 380 yards.
The longest flight I obtained from one of the best and strongest of these weapons, originally carried by a crossbowman in battle, was 390 yards. The shortest flight, from the same bow, was 380 yards. The weight of this crossbow, without its windlass, was 15 1/2 Lbs. Its steel bow was 2 ft. 7 1/2 in. long, and at its centre 1 3/4 in. wide and 3/4 in. thick. The former distance, in my opinion, is considerably further than any longbow archer of mediaeval, or later times, could drive the arrow used in sport or in warfare.
Very few of the most powerful and skilled of modern archers, even with selected bows and light flighting arrows, are able to achieve a range of 300 yards, 280 to 290 yards being an exceptional feat. There is no reason whatever to suppose that our ancestors were so vastly superior in the use of the longbow, as to excel these distances by so much as 90 yards - especially with the heavy shafts and heads of warfare - and thus to equal with the arrow of the longbow, the length of flight (370 to 380 yards) attained by the bolt of a large military crossbow with a thick steel bow.
I am convinced, however, that none of these exceptional performers ever shot the mediaeval arrow used in warfare, sport or at the target, a distance of 420 yards. I doubt if a range of even 390 yards was ever attained by an English longbowman, unless with the aid of a strong wind, or from an elevation.
Many of our castles which were built in the days when archery nourished, and before the introduction of long-range steel crossbows, are within 300 to 350 yards of eminences. The courtyard of the great castle of Carnarvon, for instance, is commanded by a hill only 330 yards distant from it.
If medieval archers shot from 350 to 400 yards, as they are often alleged to have been able to do easily, Carnarvon Castle would never have been built where it is ; as a company of bowmen could have poured their shafts into its garrison from the hill that overlooks the fortress.
Berkeley Castle is another example The parish church at Berkeley is within 50 yards of the castle keep. Its church tower, however, stands by itself, 134 yards from the centre of the keep, and 170 yards from the courtyard of the castle. It was erected at a distance from the body of the church, in order to prevent the archers of an enemy from annoying the garrison of the castle should they happen to seize the tower as a point of vantage. There is, indeed, no other reason for the isolated position of the church tower at Berkeley.
In this case, it will be noticed that a much shorter range than that at Carnarvon was considered to be a safe one against the assaults of bowmen.
А вот, кстати, и рекорды турков:
In connection with long-distance shooting with the bow, I append a letter written by one of my ancestors to another, who were both skilled and enthusiastic archers in their day. This letter, and the paper that follows it, describe the extraordinary distances said to have been achieved by the Turks with their bows, when shooting to attain a long range with a miniature flighting arrow.
I must explain, however, (and this goes a long way to account for the distances recorded in the letter and paper quoted,) that the flight arrows of the Turks and Persians were lighter and shorter than an English flight arrow. These Turkish and Persian arrows were only 2 ft. to 2 ft. 2 in. in length, and those which I have seen and owned, were made of bamboo. A small cap of steel or ivory acted as a head, and a little piece of hard wood as the nock, the feathering being formed of two strips of thin paper, varnished to keep it hard and upright. The arrow being so short, its head was drawn several inches inside the belly of the bow; for this reason, the forepart of the arrow was laid on a flat piece of horn about 8 in. long, with a straight groove down its centre. This horn piece was buckled in a level position along the wrist of the bow-arm of the archer, so that the arrow could be discharged without striking his wrist or the inside of the bow. In fact, the archer turned himself into a great crossbow, and in this way he discharged a short light arrow from a very powerful bow, and hence of course attained an immense range with it.
I need scarcely add that an arrow of this description was useless for warfare, or even for target-shooting, as it would break to pieces on striking any material that was more resistant than sand or soil.
' London 1795.
Dear Brother, - I have just been to see the secretary of the Turkish Ambassador shooting with Waring1 and other famous English bowmen. There was a great crowd, as you may suppose, to see them. The Turk, regardless of the many persons standing round him and to the amazement and terror of the Toxophilites, suddenly began firing his arrows up in all directions, but the astonishment of the company was increased by finding the arrows were not made to fly, but fell harmlessly within a few yards. These arrows the Turk called his " exercising arrows." This was an idea that was quite new to the bowmen present, and they began to have more respect for the Turk and his bow. The Turk's bow is made of antelopes' horns and is short, and purposely made short for the convenience of being used in all directions on horseback.
The Toxophilites wished to see the powers of the Turkish bow, and the Turk was asked to shoot one of his flight arrows. He shot four or five, and the best flight was very carefully measured at the time. It was 482 yards. The Toxophilites were astonished, I can tell you.
Waring said the furthest distance attained with an English flight arrow, of which he had ever heard, was 335 yards, and that Lord Aylesford had once shot one, with a slight wind in his favour, 330 yards. Waring told me that he himself, in all his life, had never been able to send a flight arrow above 283 yards.
The Turk was not satisfied with his performance, but declared that he and his bow were stiff and out of condition, and that with some practice he could shoot much further than he had just done.
He said, however, that he never was a first-class bowman even when in his best practice, but that the present Grand Seigneur was very fond of the exercise and a very strong man, there being only two men in the whole Turkish army who could shoot an arrow as far as he could.
The Turk said he had seen the Grand Seigneur send a flight arrow 800 yards.
I asked Waring to what he attributed the Turk's great superiority over our English bowmen ; whether to his bow or not. Waring replied he did not consider it was so much the result of the Turk's bow, but rather of his strength and skill, combined with the short light arrows he used, and his method of shooting them along the grooved horn attached to his arm.
Neither Waring nor any of the Toxophilites present, (and many tried,) could bend the bow as the Turk did when he used it.
So much for the triumph of the Infidels and the humiliation of Christendom.
Yours aff.
W. Frankland
To Sir Thos. Frandland Bt., M.P.
Thirkleby Park'.
I found the following in a manuscript notebook of 1798 describing feats and incidents of archery, collected by the recipient of the above letter.
'Records of Turkish archery procured in 1797 from Constantinople by Sir Robert Ainslie, at the request of Sir Joseph Banks, and translated by Sir Robert Ainslie's interpreter.'
' The Turks still have detachments of archers in their armies, merely not to deviate from ancient custom, for, in Turkey, archery is now merely regarded as an amusing exercise that is to this day practised by all ranks of the people.
The Ottoman emperors, with their court, often enjoy the diversion of archery in public, and there is an extensive piece of ground allotted to that purpose.
This place is upon an eminence in the suburbs of the city of Constantinople, and commands an extensive view of the town and harbour. It is called Ok Meydan, or the Place of the Arrow. The ground mentioned is covered with marble pillars erected in honour of those archers who have succeeded in shooting arrows to any remarkable distance. Each pillar is inscribed with the name of the person whose dexterity it records, together with some complimentary verses to him, and the exact range which he attained with his flight arrow.
The Ottoman emperors, from ancient times, have been always supposed to live by their manual labour, and in consequence of this supposition they have each learnt some art or profession, most of them having preferred the art of making bows and arrows.
The present emperor was bound apprentice to the trade of archery, and at the time he was received as a master in this trade, he gave on different occasions very splendid public entertainments at the Ok Meydan, where the State tents were pitched for him and his court.
The Tartar bows are preferable to those manufactured in Turkey, as the former are the larger and stronger, though there is now an extensive factory for implements of archery in Constantinople, called Ok Zilar, or the place of the Arrow-makers.
The Turkish bow is formed of a very strong elastic wood. One side of the bow is covered with a composition made chiefly of buffalo horn melted down ; this is smoothed with a file to a proper shape, and forms the concave side of the bow when it is bent.
The convex side is plain wood, painted, varnished and richly gilt. The bow is only bent when it is about to be used, and then it is bent with much caution, the heat of fire being always first employed to make it flexible.
The Turkish bow will penetrate, with an ordinary arrow, a half-inch plank at over 100 yards, the head and shaft of the arrow passing for three or four inches through the wood.
Translations of the inscriptions on some of the marble columns at the Ok Meydan (Place of the Arrow), which were erected in honour of those who have excelled in archery.
1. Ak Siraly Mustapha Aga shot two arrows both of which travelled to a distance of 625 yards.
2. Omer Aga shot an arrow to a distance of 628 yards.
3. Seid Muhammed Effendy, son-in-law of Sherbetzy Zade 630 yards.
4. Sultan Murad 685 yards.
5. Hagy Muhammed Aga shot an arrow 729 yards.
6. Muhammed Ashur Effendy shot an arrow which fixed in the ground at 759 yards.
7. Ahmed Aga, a gentleman of the Seraglio under Sultan Suleiman the Legislator, shot an arrow 760 yards.
8. Pashaw Oglee Mehmed shot an arrow 762 yards.
9. The present Grand Admiral Husseir Pashaw shot an arrow which drove into the ground at 764 yards.
10. Pilad Aga, Treasurer to Hallib Pashaw 805 yards.
11. Hallib Aga 810 yards.
12. The reigning Emperor Sultan Selim shot an arrow which drove into the ground at a distance of 838 yards.
The Sultan shot a second arrow to near the same distance.'
In the translation of the above from the Turkish language, the feet and inches are also given for each shot, but these I have omitted as unnecessary.
In the manuscript, the interpreter remarks that the measurements of the distances on the marble columns at Ok Meydan are in pikes, the pike being a Turkish measure of a little over two feet, easily convertible into English yards, feet and inches.
It will be observed that the longest flight recorded on the columns selected for quotation is 838 yards, and the shortest, 625 yards. Though these distances are almost too extraordinary to be true, they corroborate in some measure the statement made in 1795 by the secretary of the Turkish ambassador, If they are correct, they can only be accounted for by the use of a light short arrow, a very powerful bow, great strength and skill, and, above all else, by the horn appendage which the Turkish archer attached to his left arm, and without which he could not shoot so short an arrow from his bow.
И главный вывод:
If a very light flight arrow of reed or bamboo could in some way be arranged to receive the impulse of the thick string of a crossbow with a powerful steel bow, I have little doubt it could be propelled half a mile.
I have fitted (as a separate piece) a large hollow horn nock over the butt of the ordinary flight arrow of the longbow, so that the loose nock rested against the string of the crossbow. In this way I have obtained several flights of from 500 yards to 515 yards. In the case of a short and very light flighting arrow, however, the recoil of the steel bow shivers it to pieces as it leaves the stock of the crossbow.
Попробуйте прочитать медленно и повторяйте до понимания. Там все прозрачно.
Непонятно зачем рассуждать о полном моделировании, если высчитывают именно пробивную силу, непонятно насколько ослабляется выстрел при соприкосновении с твердым телом стрелы по сравнению с наконечником с грузом, непонятно почему стрела не может попасть под прямым углом в цель и не понятно, как сильна будет различаца результат от изменения угла.
Есть такое понятие - аэродинамика, сиречь то как ведет себя тот или иной обьект в воздушной среде.
Прям глаза мне открыл.
И чтобы понять что не так ознакомьтесь с формой стрелы и арбалетного болта и тем какой эффект на них имеет воздух обтекающий их в полете, с учетом центра тяжести и эволюций их в полете естественно.
Я в отличие от тебя даже научные статьи читал, посвященные конкретно аэродинамике стрелы. И до сих пор не услышал внятных объяснений с твоей стороны в пользу меньшей «аэродинамичности» арбалетной стрелы. Все что у тебя есть это гипотетический центр тяжести (как оказалось на бронебойных болтах не такая уж это и большая тяжесть... интересно стоит ли мне говорить о взаимодействии центра тяжести и центра аэродинамического давления, как основном факторе определяющим устойчивость полета или это будет излишней информацией...), без объяснения его влияния на аэродинамику, и оперение, предназначение которого и степень влияния на полет стрелы, мне кажеца, ускользает от твоего понимания.
В дальнейшем заявления -а чо нетак? -а я не понял! -а я так думаю просто патаму что мне так кажется! и прочую хрень
Один, значит, обвиняет меня в сферизме, но вроде бы разобрались, что мы оба были немного не правы, теперь вот ты обвиняешь в уверенности в собственной правоте - на мою соринку позарился, когда у самого бревно торчит?! И не стыдно?!
Ведь ты ни один источник не привел, ни одну формулу не указал, просто высказал свое мнение… и чем, спрашиваеца, недоволен, если тебе мнением и ответили?! Написал про навесную стрельбу, сказали, что и арбалетные стрелы можно пускать навесом. Что-то говорил про аэродинамичность, что арбалетная стрела сильнее тормозица воздухом, наверняка не ведая, что львиную долю лобового сопротивления (имеющего наибольшее значение из всех четырех типов сопротивления, складывающихся в аэродинамическую силу) составляет площадь древка и оперения стрелы, а не вес наконечника и центр тяжести. А замечание о простоте арбалетов выше всяких похвал, ибо настолько не разбираца в технике арбалетов надо уметь, кстати, ремарка об отсутствии прицельных приспособлений как раз следствие незнания конструкции средневековых арбалетов – таки были прицелы.
Ты недоволен?! Я тоже.
Но зачем выставлять себя несправедливо обиженным?
так же как и тыканье в ответ на вежливое вы буду просто игнорить. Ибо я не настолько не уважаю себя чтобы лбщаться с товарищами не берущими труд прочесть пост на который отвечают или писать вежливо.
Счиго ты решил, что твое «вы» вежливее моего «ты»?
И не надо упреков, я же тебе не делаю замечания по правилам грамматики и синтаксиса…
Добавлено: 22 Апреля, 2013, 06:07Уж от этого она точно не стала хуже.
Кто же спорит - хорошая цитата.
