No Sighted Bows Prior To 20th century

How come archers throughout history never really had some type of sights to aim with on their bows? Was it mostly because they were used for volley fire and just needed to cover an area? At least in Europe anyways. How can peoples like the Mongols or various Indian tribes get so accurate with their bows with out having any type of sight?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    practice

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >posts picture of archers firing in a volley
    >asks how they hit anything without sights
    We may never know

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It becomes second nature when you're practicing with them for nearly a lifetime to the point that aiming a bow becomes as easy as pointing your finger at something without looking down your arm.

    I knew this old salty codger who did archery on his spare time and he'd hit bullseyes at 48-60 yards (half a football fields length) without even aiming down the arrow.

    I personally think he made a deal with a witch or some shit. It was unnatural how accurate he was.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Google traditional archery aiming you fucking underage shitskin.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Don't start discussions on a weapons board, just google it fag!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can still have discussions, it just makes it a shit discussion when you ask to be spoonfed and can't do a modicum of research before starting.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Any info you'd find on a basic archery website or garden gnomeyube video would be moles ahead of anything from this site.
        That being said younare a retarded little fagwad, throwing a hissy fit that you would have to do a little research on your own.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          moron i'm this responder

          It becomes second nature when you're practicing with them for nearly a lifetime to the point that aiming a bow becomes as easy as pointing your finger at something without looking down your arm.

          I knew this old salty codger who did archery on his spare time and he'd hit bullseyes at 48-60 yards (half a football fields length) without even aiming down the arrow.

          I personally think he made a deal with a witch or some shit. It was unnatural how accurate he was.

          Don't assume i'm OP.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, my bad.
            I assumed only OP would be such a gay, you showed me.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ask sophomoric question
        >be directed to less intrusive, more concise websites for answers
        >sperg out and get mad

        This is why we don't want to answer you

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you're not as smart as you think you are

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >has Google
            >comes here
            >wastes his time
            Neither are you

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are literally incapable of making that judgement accurately.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >calls himself a fag
        At least you know your place

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because sights are for dumb morones(likeyou)

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Humans are OP at throwing shit and have a sense of how objects travel through atmosphere, so they used some springy shit and a springy stick to throw shit more betterer and then practiced a whole bunch. I'd imagine getting a satisfying hit with an arrow doesn't feel all that dissimilar to getting a nice mid-air with a rocket launcher in a videogame. Enough time and you'd know roughly where the arrow is going even with your eyes shut.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Same reason you don't have sights on a baseball bat,

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    arrows were the artillery of the battlefield back than

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >arrows were the artillery of the battlefield back than
      artillery was the artillery of the battlefield back then

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They did. Your hand is the front sight

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Practice. Hella practice. Practice like there's nothing better to do for the next thousand years.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because medieval bows were not made on an assembly line to be able to line up a proper sight. The archer gets his bow and then gets used to any particular quirks it has while practicing with it.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    While archery from long ago saw points of reference based on muscle memory for aiming, Fred Bear, founder of Bear Archery, said beginning traditional archery with a sight (Using a takedown recurve whose riser has the female adapter for sights and rests) lets you troubleshoot your form faster. You will know sooner if it was your technique or your point of aim leading to misses.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    volley fire is over exaggerated in historical movies. It doesn't do that much damage and you would run out of arrows too fast.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >over exaggerating
      Is there a normal amount of exaggeration?

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because after years of training you don't need one. You just look at the target and know where the arrow will fly. Bows are not accurate weapons to begin with so it doesn't matter

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How come archers throughout history never really had some type of sights to aim with on their bows
    traditional bows aren't really long-range weapons. they are useful in war because they outrange spears by a bit. 40-50 yds is about the practical max range, when you see tapestries of battles or of hunters the archers are always firing with their bows pointed directly at their target, indicating they are at fairly close range. volley fire is really a hollywood thing because it looks dramatic, but it's about as useful as volley fire with rifles, those 2000m sight leafs on ww1-era rifles were never used.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >those 2000m sight leafs on ww1-era rifles were never used
      Wrong. Soldiers were drilled with them regularly and there was an expectation that battle rifles of the era were able to be used at long range. By WWII and beyond practical sight guides got shorter because it was understood that ground combat was happening at much closer ranges, but they were not on there for show. Even well back into the 19th rifle trials were conducted at over 1000yd on a routine basis

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ackshually they did use them in drills
        lol

        Troops would volley fire their rifles at 1k + in WW1, because enemy units would attack in formation like was still the franco-prussian war

        no they didn't. at those ranges the artillery was doing the killing, and occasionally machine guns though even they rarely bothered at those ranges.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes they did you mong. The Lebel was used for volley fire up to 2000 yards away, that was doctrine, and that's why it has those elevations.
          British rifle testing for new models was done out to 1500 yds to see how accurate it could be.
          >artillery
          Artillery was for targets more than a mile away

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're retarded, mauser models also had windage sights so infantry could down scout planes with volley fire, that doesn't mean it was a good idea, or happened

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that was the exact point he was making you retard. yes they had those ludicrous volley sights, yes they had tested the sights to make sure they put rounds in the vicinity of the target, yes they had that doctrine, but when war actually came that feature was never ever fucking used.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Troops would volley fire their rifles at 1k + in WW1, because enemy units would attack in formation like was still the franco-prussian war

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Archers do have sights on their bows, and always have. There's a long pointy stick right up in your face that you use to line up your aim. Can't miss it, it's always there until you let go of the arrow

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Was it mostly because they were used for volley fire and just needed to cover an area?

    Pretty much

Your email address will not be published.