File: 1827234823472.png (2.9 MB, 1920x1080)

2.9 MB PNG

>Key Inefficiencies & Design Limitations of European crossbows:
>Prod Material & Inertia: Early European crossbows used dynamic composite bows (wood, horn, sinew), but the late medieval period shifted heavily to steel prods. While steel was weather-resistant, durable, and suited for mass production, steel limbs are exceptionally heavy. Their high mass means significant energy is wasted accelerating the limbs themselves rather than propelling the bolt. Making the bow longer to increase draw length was impractical due to extreme rotational inertia at the tips, locking European designs into very short power strokes (typically 5–6 inches / 130–160 mm).
>The Revolving Nut Trigger: The European mechanism relied on a simple rotating nut restrained directly by a long sear lever. Holding hundreds of pounds directly against the sear created heavy friction, trigger resistance, and wear. Organic materials like antler and bone were often preferred over metal because their lighter weight reduced the rotational inertia required to flick clear of the released string.
>Contrast with Chinese crossbows
>Ancient and medieval Chinese crossbows employed standardized, three-piece cast-bronze mechanisms. These internal linkages acted as force-multipliers, slashing the hold-weight at the sear down to roughly one-sixth of the total draw weight. This eliminated wear and allowed delicate triggers to control long-drawing, highly efficient composite war bows mounted on stocks, allowed powerful bows being used without the need of complex spanning mechanisms
Is Todd correct?:
https://youtu.be/T65cNwY2wTc