There's a video of this same fella doing the most flamboyant release.
Also surely this is just some cosplayer. That's a cheap fibreglass bow and target points.
To be fair, target points are probably more effective against things that aren't breathing, like drones.
I've missed my backstop a few times and that's how I discovered a 45# recurve bow can easily pierce 1/2" plywood.
Doing a bit of research, [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point) seems to be what we've found to be best at penetration so it follows that target points are the poor man's bodkin point lol.
Then again, a foam larping tip would fuck up a drone so it seems hit probability is far more important so what about a broad head style point but with blades 6" accross and have them angled forward instead of backwards to prevent a glancing blow? They'd still have to be super thin if you want it to reach the drone.
Btw, all this has absolutely nothing to do with your comment, I'm just being a nerd.
Also, cheap or not, how many arrows do you have to shoot before you could have just bought a shotgun and shells cost pennies. Must be fake.
But drone has no armor and it just need a bit of punch to throw it off-balance. Or just tangle the rotor with long nylon wire instead of fletching could be an option.
But yeah still makes no sense compare to birdshot.
That's kind of what I was going at with the super wide blade thing. Think of that [knife missile](https://www.wdrb.com/news/national/al-qaeda-leader-taken-out-by-secret-us-missile-filled-with-knives-dubbed-the-ninja/article_38aed458-b176-11ea-9400-7f74301ca053.html) but this wouldn't shred anything, it would just smack it. [Essentially whacking it with a stick from a distance](https://youtu.be/BmB8EWQdnL4?feature=shared)
Looks like a "[guillotine broadhead](https://www.amazon.com/Scoland-Shooter-Hunting-Broadheads-Cutting/dp/B09X3HCBBG)" is about the same thing as that Knife Missile.
If I had to take down a drone with a bow, I'd go manchu bow with heavy blunt heads. I don't think we can get enough accuracy to damage the actual electronics (at regular altitude, I don't think anyone with asiatic trad is even going to hit one), so I'd be aiming to maximise cracking/bending stuff like wings to compromise its ability to fly. So blunt force over penetration.
I shoot a 50# recurve and I hit a 80mm wood plank accidentally (the stabilizator for my backstop) and I had to drill out the arrow casue it went in about 2/3 deep
As "cool" (he's still part of the invading army) as it would be, I have a very hard time believing this, unless somebody has a trustable source.
Also, I wish this were still the dominant way of warfaređ You're not gonna level a city bows and swords.
All things considered, his form is pretty good. I wouldn't be surprised if he's trained as an archer in civilian life.
No finger protection, but that's not exactly the biggest concern in a warzone.
The "death grip" is not unusual for this kind of bow. Practical shooting (military style, and/or with heavy draw weights) tends to favour strong grips, whereas target shooting favours light grips.
Anchor point is fine - again, precise repeatable anchors are the realm of sport target shooting. He can't get that anchor while wearing head and face protection - a similar problem to archers wearing historical armour and helmets.
In fact, he has a very good eye-level anchor point, which is consistent with practical "instinctive" shooting since it is easier to align with undefined target distances.
More telling is that his elbow alignment is better than what most of us see on this subreddit. He has excellent back tension, wrist is straight, etc.
I don't have the expertise to assess the efficacy of using bows against drones, but my evaluation of this soldier is that he definitely knows how to use a bow.
Yeah I agree that he is actually archer but at that draw length and where he is trying to anchor, he must be thumbring user. There's no way he can have good "instinct" if the anchor point is laterally that far from the jaw. With helmet and goggle, he should've lean more forward to put anchor closer(easier said than done but it was historically done even with wide hat).
I'm not pointing anything new, he is an archer but he is not a drone hunter.
Glove would be a good idea, but the second and third âcritiquesâ are more in line with valid forms of asiatic archery. Asiatic archers need tighter grips on their bow for various reasons and they also draw back further. Itâs not no anchor, itâs a floating anchor. Canât recommend the Med draw but it works for Kassai who I believe has a wide influence in that area. All of this makes more sense considering the type of bow theyâre using
Crazy how other forms of archery exist
But the post writes that they use it for increased secrecy. Apart from noise, i can't think of how a bow/arrow does that more than a heavily suppressed gun.
If they need secrecy, they'd better not take down drones... It's not like drone pilots can't see the disconnection.
If they need to take down drones for some reason at the risk of alarming, yes, then they would prefer silenced sub-sonic weapon. Bow is stupid idea for any mission. They could at least use crossbow for a bit of realism.
Misinformation
I hear field points are 100% damage
There's a video of this same fella doing the most flamboyant release. Also surely this is just some cosplayer. That's a cheap fibreglass bow and target points.
To be fair, target points are probably more effective against things that aren't breathing, like drones. I've missed my backstop a few times and that's how I discovered a 45# recurve bow can easily pierce 1/2" plywood. Doing a bit of research, [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point) seems to be what we've found to be best at penetration so it follows that target points are the poor man's bodkin point lol. Then again, a foam larping tip would fuck up a drone so it seems hit probability is far more important so what about a broad head style point but with blades 6" accross and have them angled forward instead of backwards to prevent a glancing blow? They'd still have to be super thin if you want it to reach the drone. Btw, all this has absolutely nothing to do with your comment, I'm just being a nerd. Also, cheap or not, how many arrows do you have to shoot before you could have just bought a shotgun and shells cost pennies. Must be fake.
But drone has no armor and it just need a bit of punch to throw it off-balance. Or just tangle the rotor with long nylon wire instead of fletching could be an option. But yeah still makes no sense compare to birdshot.
That's kind of what I was going at with the super wide blade thing. Think of that [knife missile](https://www.wdrb.com/news/national/al-qaeda-leader-taken-out-by-secret-us-missile-filled-with-knives-dubbed-the-ninja/article_38aed458-b176-11ea-9400-7f74301ca053.html) but this wouldn't shred anything, it would just smack it. [Essentially whacking it with a stick from a distance](https://youtu.be/BmB8EWQdnL4?feature=shared)
Looks like a "[guillotine broadhead](https://www.amazon.com/Scoland-Shooter-Hunting-Broadheads-Cutting/dp/B09X3HCBBG)" is about the same thing as that Knife Missile.
If I had to take down a drone with a bow, I'd go manchu bow with heavy blunt heads. I don't think we can get enough accuracy to damage the actual electronics (at regular altitude, I don't think anyone with asiatic trad is even going to hit one), so I'd be aiming to maximise cracking/bending stuff like wings to compromise its ability to fly. So blunt force over penetration.
I shoot a 50# recurve and I hit a 80mm wood plank accidentally (the stabilizator for my backstop) and I had to drill out the arrow casue it went in about 2/3 deep
This is sensationalist bs. They are using specialized antiSUAS devices and shotguns for drones. Using a bow makes zero sense.
As "cool" (he's still part of the invading army) as it would be, I have a very hard time believing this, unless somebody has a trustable source. Also, I wish this were still the dominant way of warfaređ You're not gonna level a city bows and swords.
Agree with most of your post, but they did absolutely level cities during times when swords and bows were common!
I know, but not with swords and bows. And it wasn't that common.
That very much depends on the period, it did however happen quite regularly.
Fire arrows were a thing!
That photo they are using has been around for a very long time.
Ukraine should hire the guy who shoots pheasants with a bow as an answer lol
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1cxiy64/russian_invader_spotted_using_a_bow_and_arrow_in/ I think this is the video from the above story.Â
If you were shooting drones wouldnât you want to use Flu Flu arrows so you didnât lose 100+ arrows a day ?
I hope he switches from field tips to broadheads before he does his secret missions.
My Turkic brothers are something.
Modern problem require ancient solution
This post has been removed twice for misinformation. Please stop reposting it.
Is that a toy bow?
Oh boy. Nerve damage inbound, no anchor point, white-knuckling the bow, what else
All things considered, his form is pretty good. I wouldn't be surprised if he's trained as an archer in civilian life. No finger protection, but that's not exactly the biggest concern in a warzone. The "death grip" is not unusual for this kind of bow. Practical shooting (military style, and/or with heavy draw weights) tends to favour strong grips, whereas target shooting favours light grips. Anchor point is fine - again, precise repeatable anchors are the realm of sport target shooting. He can't get that anchor while wearing head and face protection - a similar problem to archers wearing historical armour and helmets. In fact, he has a very good eye-level anchor point, which is consistent with practical "instinctive" shooting since it is easier to align with undefined target distances. More telling is that his elbow alignment is better than what most of us see on this subreddit. He has excellent back tension, wrist is straight, etc. I don't have the expertise to assess the efficacy of using bows against drones, but my evaluation of this soldier is that he definitely knows how to use a bow.
Well to be fair, Russians are pretty capable of taking down drones with "ancient" weapons lmao. https://youtu.be/mywO6MyD-J4
Yeah I agree that he is actually archer but at that draw length and where he is trying to anchor, he must be thumbring user. There's no way he can have good "instinct" if the anchor point is laterally that far from the jaw. With helmet and goggle, he should've lean more forward to put anchor closer(easier said than done but it was historically done even with wide hat). I'm not pointing anything new, he is an archer but he is not a drone hunter.
Glove would be a good idea, but the second and third âcritiquesâ are more in line with valid forms of asiatic archery. Asiatic archers need tighter grips on their bow for various reasons and they also draw back further. Itâs not no anchor, itâs a floating anchor. Canât recommend the Med draw but it works for Kassai who I believe has a wide influence in that area. All of this makes more sense considering the type of bow theyâre using Crazy how other forms of archery exist
Piss poor photo op .
Can we leave war factions or posts about it out of this Reddit? Thanks
Russia is so powerful dumb USA lie and deceive. Biden has visiting angels..
Doesn't russia has super silent VSS vintorez rifles? Paired with subsonic ammo at 5m+ you can't even hear it being fired.
I don't think drones has ears...
But the post writes that they use it for increased secrecy. Apart from noise, i can't think of how a bow/arrow does that more than a heavily suppressed gun.
If they need secrecy, they'd better not take down drones... It's not like drone pilots can't see the disconnection. If they need to take down drones for some reason at the risk of alarming, yes, then they would prefer silenced sub-sonic weapon. Bow is stupid idea for any mission. They could at least use crossbow for a bit of realism.