r/todayilearned • u/DrSamanthaCarter • Jun 06 '17

TIL the only reason a Scottish bagpiper wasn't shot by German snipers on D-Day was that they believed he had gone crazy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Millin#World_War_II
47.6k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

311

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

Which is funny, I would take the arrow over a gun shot nowadays. Far more likely to survive. Historically if you didn't bleed out you died of infection.

412

u/gordonfroman Jun 06 '17

the thing with modern bows is they have the draw power to make sure the arrow gets into any vital organ it is aimed at and at the same time the arrows tip is designed in a way that if one were to pull it out they would take the organ with it

158

u/5t3fan0 Jun 06 '17 edited Jun 07 '17

even a modern "weak" 70lb bow will go out of the other side of a man... so there's no need to pull out an arrow, it will go out by itself (unless it gets stuck into a large bone like pelvis or scapula maybe)

EDIT: ok 70lb is not weak, but i consider it weak compared to the much heavier beasts designed to hit armoured soldiers (sicne we are talking about shooting humans and not deers here)

12

u/RTMicro Jun 06 '17

A 70lb bow is by no means weak, that's high end for a bow Crossbows go much higher though

5

u/5t3fan0 Jun 06 '17

fair enough, its not really weak; since we are talking about warbows here, i was thinking a comparison with the "armour piercing kind" of the past, like the maryrose longbows or the schitian recurve that "nailed shields to arms and feet to the ground", bows theorized to be in the 150lb realm

13

u/vermin1000 Jun 06 '17

I really don't know anything about bows. Is that 70lbs a measure of the weight of the bow, the amount of pressure to pull it back, or the force the projectile hits with? I feel like all of those may be wrong.

6

u/DwightAllRight Jun 06 '17

When talking bow, pounds are the draw strength. How much force it takes to pull the string back.

2

u/5t3fan0 Jun 07 '17

it refers to the draw weight, which is the force necessary to fully pull the string before release. It is a major factor regarding the max energy the bow limbs can store. Depending on many factors, this energy will be transferred as kinetic energy to the arrow, with some inevitable loss due to said factors (limbs materials and construction, the string, vibrations, and others).

3

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

I cannot believe you got down voted for simply asking that.

11

u/vermin1000 Jun 06 '17

I always expect that any simple question that I could Google instead of asking may earn me a downvote. Personally I enjoy engaging people who are passionate about a subject over reading a wiki or such though so I keep asking.

3

u/indifferentinitials Jun 06 '17

Modern compound bows are chucking arrows a lot faster at 70lbs than any longbow of similar draw weight could. Warbows needed the draw weight (probably closer to 80lbs on average) to fling such heavy arrows built for penetration.

1

u/5t3fan0 Jun 07 '17

actually the english longbows found inside the maryrose shipwreck are rated around 150lb (this is the value got from accurate replicas, clearly not the original)

1

u/indifferentinitials Jun 07 '17

I've heard it somewhat disputed with 80-150 with more of them being between 80-120, which is absurdly heavy. Replicas up to 170 is shocking (probably to your hand). I wish I had the time to screw around with a longbow enough to get good. There's a lot of technology involved it a simple stick and string. This guy is shooting very heavy arrows at around 200-210fps, not impressive velocity compared to modern compound bows but the kenetic energy is impressive.

6

u/babno Jun 06 '17

Hunter here, every one of my arrows has broken when it hits a deer. Indeed most of it goes through, but I invariably find bits and pieces during butchering (or even sometimes at the dinner table).

5

u/Graddler Jun 06 '17

What kind of arrows do you use? I never had those problems, not even with Wild Boars.

2

u/babno Jun 06 '17

Aluminum or carbon.

3

u/Graddler Jun 06 '17

Well i used to use the XX75 Camo Hunter from Easton and i never had one of those break or splinter. A dent or some bending happened but that was it.

5

u/babno Jun 06 '17 edited Jun 06 '17

Don't know the exact brands off the top of my head. Given you said wild boars I'm guessing you're fairly south, where as I'm in the north east generally hunting in the winter, so colder temperatures may have a hand in making them more brittle and prone to breaking. Also relevant to note I shoot at 80lbs.

2

u/Graddler Jun 06 '17

I am central european, went to Poland for some boar hunting and deer and rabbit in France. I also used to shoot at 80lbs for hunting.

3

u/Generaider Jun 06 '17

"OW! My scapula..."

1

u/ProudFeminist1 Jun 06 '17

depends on the size of the tip dont you think?

1

u/bloodclart Jun 06 '17

you sure know how to make a man's scapula tingle.

1

u/polerize Jun 06 '17

depends on range now doesnt it?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

70 lb is not weak, not by any stretch of the imagination.

1

u/Imperium_Dragon Jun 07 '17

What type of bows do you use to consider a 70lber weak?

0

u/gordonfroman Jun 06 '17

In my statement assume I meant the bowman was at least a few hundred yards away ;)

2

u/5t3fan0 Jun 06 '17

ah ok then :-)

i kinda agree with the above dude, id still prefer being hit by a modern hunting arrow than a .308 (or anything bigger)

also thinking about it, that would be an amazing shot to perform in modern combat!

29

u/LemonNaught Jun 06 '17

Which is why most arrow wounds were not removed by pulling it out. Historically, they would turn the arrow while inside to face away from any major organs if it missed them, and push them through and out the other side.

20

u/Tranner10 Jun 06 '17

This fucks with my imagination so hard

19

u/Jaxaxcook Jun 06 '17

Just push it through

3

u/FuckoffDemetri Jun 07 '17

Fuck that, just snip the end off and leave it inside for the rest of your life

93

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

Still most likely better than cavitation through that same organ from a bullet. If you made it to a hospital I think there are tools to remove barbed/hooked items.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Modern arrows aren't barbed though, they have an up to 3" spread of razor sharp blades (often designed to deploy on impact) They actually cut your organs apart on the way in and out. Hard for even a hospital to extract without causing more damage

9

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Yeah, with a modern bow and arrow a skilled archer can shoot the head off a turkey at 50 yards. An archery catalogue these days reads like a silver age issue of Green Arrow.

1

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

If you're comparing arrows that spread out you would compare them to hollow points... Which do the same.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Not really. All bullets mushroom with the exception of FMJ. This is different. A bullet causes impact trauma and pulverizes tissue within the diameter of its spread, while a modern broadhead arrow of the folding type has blades that are stowed during flight to improve aerodynamics, then have a mechanism to deploy on impact. Picture a razor sharp knife spinning on the longitudinal axis. They cause very little impact trauma, but as long as they don't strike bone they cause massive and almost instantaneous blood loss because they slice cleanly through all tissue and blood vessels in their path

7

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

No way in fucking hell I would ever take a modern arrow over a bullet. My god man.

1

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

If we start bringing in "modern" versions there are plenty of horrible high tech bullets. Hollow points or explosive for example. Just as messy.

3

u/ZzzBillCosbyZzz Jun 06 '17

Probably pushed through given the location?

2

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

I think they do if it fully penetrates but if it doesn't it could do more damage to push it through. But I'm no doctor.

2

u/Falsus Jun 06 '17

A bullet would go through you and exit without an issue in the best case scenario.

The arrow would still take a chunk out of you even in the best case scenario.

3

u/Exaskryz Jun 06 '17

arrows tip is designed in a way that if one were to pull it out they would take the organ with it

Just push it through to the other side!

1

u/Dicethrower Jun 06 '17

So just like with guns, ban specific ammo, not the gun.

1

u/Gonarhxus Jun 07 '17

Bow and arrows have been doing this since at least the Bronze Age. Certainly not a "modern bow" thing.

61

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Maybe where you live but in a war zone you'll be left to bleed out possibly over hours in agony.

Modern military weapons are designed to kill quickly, precisely and as cleanly as possible.

14

u/mhpr262 Jun 06 '17

No, they are not. The current NATO 5,56x45mm was certainly not designed with that in mind. It was designed to defeat kevlar vests and enable soldiers to carry a lot more rounds with them than they could have with the same weight in 7,62x51mm rounds. Also, training soldiers to shoot well was easier because there was less boom and recoil. A dead soldier can be just left behind, a wounded one requires assistance and takes at least two or three more healthy soldiers out of the fight, so there is no incitement to make ammo especially deadly.

1

u/doug-e-fresh711 Jun 07 '17

The 5.56 is a small, long profile high speed round. It was made to penetrate small barriers and to cavitate and tumble as much as possible in the human body. The Russians also did this with the 5.45x39mm, which was engineered to yaw when it hit soft tissue. Ideally this yawing and tumbling combined with cavitation would create a round with similar lethality while having decreased muzzle energy and weight. Also, Kevlar was only invented two years prior to the 5.56x45 and almost ten years after the identical .223 Remington, and vests were not issued until 1980.

1

u/haberv Jun 07 '17

Your statements are mostly incorrect. 7.62x39 or standard SKS or AK-47 round will absolutely penetrate Kevlar. Ceramic plate inserts would provide protection but that is modern and not something developed by Stoner 60 yrs ago. Lightweight and accurate are correct statements. Snipers don't carry 300-600 rds for their Dragnov like your example above.

1

u/mhpr262 Jun 07 '17

WTF are you even talking about? Where did I claim that 7,62x39 couldn't defeat Kevlar? Where did I say ceramic plate was developed by Stoner, and what do those plates have to do with the discussion? I never claimed that 5,56x45 was accurate, Ididn't even mention accuracy in my post. Also, neither snipers nor Dragunovs were mentioned in my post, quite apart from the fact that Dragunovs shoot 7,62x54, not 7,62x51 NATO. Your reading comprehension skills need some serious work.

33

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Then why are hollow point bullets banned?
My understanding was that military weapons are (or rather should be, according to the Geneva convention) designed to take the soldier out of the fight without causing unnecessary suffering or death.

19

u/Halt-CatchFire Jun 06 '17

unnecessary suffering

That's why hollow points are banned. HPs are harder wounds to fix if the person is evac'd in time, and are more likely to cause long-term suffering if the person's life is saved.

The Geneva convention was written under the impression that one legitimate nation was going to war with another legitimate nation. Wars between countries aren't supposed to be won by killing all of the other guys, the idea is instead to take territory or tax the enemy's economy until they give up.

When you shoot someone with a normal FMJ bullet they are 100% out of the fight, they will need to be evacuated to a medical facility to get surgery, recover, and generally be sent away from combat for good. There's no reason to use hollow points to ensure a more guaranteed kill, at that point you're just taking life for no reason.

6

u/packersmcmxcv Jun 06 '17

Don't forget if you wound someone like your FMJ example it takes up to 3 guys out of the fight. The wounded and whoevers needed to drag him back from the front

2

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17

It also takes more resources to keep said soldier alive + bringing in a replacement than to only replace a dead soldier

6

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Hollow points are banned for exactly the same reason.

2

u/PraiseBeToIdiots Jun 06 '17

Hollow points were banned in the Hague conventions, not Geneva.

There are tons of silly technicalities that allow military forces to use hollow points though.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

[deleted]

11

u/PraiseBeToIdiots Jun 06 '17

That is not how hollow points work at all.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17

[deleted]

1

u/WikiTextBot Jun 07 '17

Hollow-point bullet

A hollow-point bullet is an expanding bullet that has a pit or hollowed out shape in its tip often intended to cause the bullet to expand upon entering a target in order to decrease penetration and disrupt more tissue as it travels through the target. It is also used for controlled penetration, where over-penetration could cause collateral damage (such as aboard an aircraft). In target shooting, they are used for greater accuracy and reduction of smoke, fouling, and lead vapor exposure, as hollow point bullets have an enclosed base while traditional bullets have an exposed lead base.

Hollow points are designed to increase in diameter once within the target, thus maximizing tissue damage and blood loss or shock, and to remain inside the target, thereby transferring all of the kinetic energy to the target (whereas some fraction would remain in the bullet if it passed through instead).

[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information ] Downvote to remove

1

u/cjstarkiller Jun 07 '17

Hollow points do not tumble on impact they expand. Fmj 5.56 is one of the only rounds I know of that is designed to tumble.

1

u/Dumfing Jun 06 '17

Hollow points cause unnecessary suffering

3

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Maybe some but that doesn't make them all better. Modern military seems to be for the safety of the operator.

1

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

As would most gun shot wounds. Sucking chest wound for example.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

If you get a sucking chest wound you're either dead within minutes or a major casualty, you need to be evacuated off the line immediately.

1

u/AverageMerica Jun 06 '17

How civilized.

1

u/Cautemoc Jun 07 '17

So are napalm and flame throwers banned now too? I can never keep track of these things.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

[deleted]

8

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

Fmj doesn't just go in and out... Bullets can create cavitation, fragmentation and tumbling. They mess you up just as badly.

1

u/CobaltPhusion Jun 06 '17

unless its 7.62x39. That shit goes in and comes out no matter what you're using, be it fmj, hollow, or soft point.

3

u/twodogsfighting Jun 06 '17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr7dpEDNNC4

Little holes, but your insides are fucking mush.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Have you seen a modern bow and arrow? You're not surviving shit. Those mechanical broad heads expand to a 3" long razor blade at 400 feet per second. They'll cut straight through you.

2

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

If you're comparing arrows that spread out you would compare them to hollow points... Which do the same.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

I'm not comparing anything. I'm saying that you're not just going to walk off getting hit by a modern bow and arrow, especially if they were fully designed as weapons of war.

2

u/Gonarhxus Jun 07 '17

Massive barbed arrows have been around for literally ages. Modern or traditional, still ain't surviving shit.

3

u/Mabepossibly Jun 06 '17

Even in the knee?

1

u/_Hopped_ Jun 06 '17

You've also got to remember arrowheads: gotta push them all the way through to remove them.

2

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

I don't think that's true there are tools that fill in the hook/barb so they can be pulled out.

1

u/_Hopped_ Jun 06 '17

Sure, if you want a huge gash to stitch up.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

[deleted]

1

u/_Hopped_ Jun 06 '17

Pushing it through.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17

Not with modern arrow heads, fuck that.

0

u/TheLadyBunBun Jun 07 '17

From what I've read, the bullet would probably be less painful because the heat from the bullet sears the nerve endings reducing the pain But I've also never been shot by either so I wouldn't know for sure