I mean, I’d say that there’s been big advances from the Dreyse Needle-Gun to the AKM. It’s the AKM that we’ve really peaked at. Everything since has just been tinkering and standardization.
I dunno man. I feel like quadrupling the power, doubling the load rate, reducing soldier fatigue, enabling usage of the crossbow in new situations (ie literally anywhere you don’t have room to take a sit-down to span), and increasing accuracy are all major improvements. If you want to put a ‘peak’ at the crossbow, it’s probably the mid-late 15th century, when it starts to be replaced by proper firearms. Past that there’s not a lot of innovation, probably in part because most focus ends up on, well, firearms. There are some little bits and baubles, most of which end up as curiousities as the crossbow’s military significance declines; that is to say, you find most of these features on hunting crossbows and the like - all-metal construction, specialized ammunition throwers (stonebows), double-bows, flip-up sights, etc, and I think it’d be fair to call those tinkering.
But from the inception of the crossbow to its peak in the 15th century? By pre-modern standards, going from a crude little hunting utensil consisting of a tiller, a bow, and a wooden peg to keep the string back; to something recognizably modern, with separate steel limbs, shoulder stocks, triggers, basic sights, rolling-nuts with latches, loading devices, etc etc, is MAJOR innovation. It’s the Dreyse-to-AKM transformation of its day, and while ~400 years is a long time, technologically, to us, in the pre-modern period, it’s lightning-fast.
From 400 BCE to 1300 AD, infantry armor saw very few improvements; from the first millenium BCE to the 20th century AD, the bow did not have major innovations; from the time of Alexander the Great to the High Medieval period, the steel of a sword was largely of the same quality for a given class of soldier. But the crossbow went from no-one to nightmare in a handful of generations - most of that development happening from widespread adoption in the 12th century, until literal guns came about in the early 15th century and the crossbow starts to have competition.
By contrast, the AKM isn’t significantly less powerful, accurate, faster-firing, or harder to handle than modern guns. Most of the tinkering is a question of trade-offs (more ammunition, or more stopping power? The question of which is better ends up highly contextual to any given conflict or prevailing military doctrine) or minor improvements (now 17% lighter and 21% more expensive with composite materials!). Compared to the Dreyse, on the other hand, the AKM blows it out of the water on every metric. Range, power, firing rate, ergonomics, reliability, versatility, maintenance, etc etc etc etc.
I can’t think of a single situation where you’d prefer a Dreyse except maybe some convoluted time-travel scenario with limited resources and labor pools, while people regularly argue about the relative merits and disadvantages of the AKM and like platforms to more modern service rifles (though I doubt many non-fud types would declare the AKM the winner of any such matchup, I think most people would agree that it’s mostly a question of trade-offs and what you want out of a service rifle, not objective quality of design).
I mean, let me put it this way - if you have ten guys with AKMs and ten guys with XM7s, the gun is largely not going to be the deciding factor between the two. Ceteris paribus, sure, the guys with the AKM are at a disadvantage, but you’d have to be looking at a pretty damn close matchup to begin with for that to be what pushes one side or the other over the finish line. If you have ten guys with AKMs and ten guys with Dreyse Needle Guns, there is going to have to be some serious imbalance in the teams for that to be remotely competitive.
Likewise, if you have ten guys with dinky little 11th century lockbows with no stirrup, and ten guys with fast-firing 15th century composite crossbows with goatslevers or belt-and-pulley systems, and metal quarrels, it’s going to have to be professional soldiers against total amateurs to be anything but a massacre (and if any serious armor is involved, whether 11th century or 15th, low-quality or high, even that level of skill imbalance wouldn’t be any help).
These are all excellent points, I would counter with this: most of the things you’re describing have more to do with the tactics involved rather than the design itself. Let’s say a stirrup was used in both (the technique of reloading it standing up vs sitting down) but one side’s bows were composite, had better bolts, a cranequin, would it really be be that dissimilar to an AKM vs XM7?
It would be similar in usage at that point, but dissimilar in quality. Disregarding the cranequin for a goatsfoot (as the cranequin would be for REALLY high draw-weight crossbows that would be overkill here, though if you want we can discuss having 8x the power), you’re still looking at an increased fire rate, triple the power (lockbows being around 50 lbs draw weight, while early stirrup crossbows being 100-150lbs, and composite crossbows with loading devices generally being 450lbs+), and significantly more penetration joule-for-joule. A goatsfoot can load in more positions (kneeling, bending, standing) compared to a stirrup (bending only), and reduces fatigue compared to spanning by hand. Power in a crossbow also affects its range and its trajectory, don’t forget. Metal quarrels had both increased weight (improving trajectory and energy imparted) and specially designed heads, relying more on force rather than sharpness to ‘punch’ through armor and skin and bone, playing more to the strengths of the crossbow (which are surprisingly different from a longbow ballistically - is ballistics the right word for non-bullets objects? Whatever, you know what I mean).
The stirrup was a major advancement, increasing firing rate, position, and power, but not nearly to the degree that anyone would mistake it for roughly equivalent to a composite crossbow of the type you laid out. It would be LESS of a massacre, but it would still need to be lopsided in some way for the outcome to be in doubt. I guess you might say that at that point it’s more like a Mosin-Nagant vs. an AKM, though that still misses the penetration/damage/range factor. IE that a Mosin-Nagant can penetrate as well as or better than an AKM, while a stirrup crossbow with wooden limbs spanned by hand would struggle to penetrate padded armor, whereas a composite-limbed bow with a loading device and metal quarrels could realistically penetrate mail and even lighter plate armor - and of course, all of that applies to the increased force imparted to skin-and-bones to unarmored targets, though not as important.
I mean, I’d say that there’s been big advances from the Dreyse Needle-Gun to the AKM. It’s the AKM that we’ve really peaked at. Everything since has just been tinkering and standardization.
So would you not say the same for the crossbow, tinkering and standardization after the peak?
I dunno man. I feel like quadrupling the power, doubling the load rate, reducing soldier fatigue, enabling usage of the crossbow in new situations (ie literally anywhere you don’t have room to take a sit-down to span), and increasing accuracy are all major improvements. If you want to put a ‘peak’ at the crossbow, it’s probably the mid-late 15th century, when it starts to be replaced by proper firearms. Past that there’s not a lot of innovation, probably in part because most focus ends up on, well, firearms. There are some little bits and baubles, most of which end up as curiousities as the crossbow’s military significance declines; that is to say, you find most of these features on hunting crossbows and the like - all-metal construction, specialized ammunition throwers (stonebows), double-bows, flip-up sights, etc, and I think it’d be fair to call those tinkering.
But from the inception of the crossbow to its peak in the 15th century? By pre-modern standards, going from a crude little hunting utensil consisting of a tiller, a bow, and a wooden peg to keep the string back; to something recognizably modern, with separate steel limbs, shoulder stocks, triggers, basic sights, rolling-nuts with latches, loading devices, etc etc, is MAJOR innovation. It’s the Dreyse-to-AKM transformation of its day, and while ~400 years is a long time, technologically, to us, in the pre-modern period, it’s lightning-fast.
From 400 BCE to 1300 AD, infantry armor saw very few improvements; from the first millenium BCE to the 20th century AD, the bow did not have major innovations; from the time of Alexander the Great to the High Medieval period, the steel of a sword was largely of the same quality for a given class of soldier. But the crossbow went from no-one to nightmare in a handful of generations - most of that development happening from widespread adoption in the 12th century, until literal guns came about in the early 15th century and the crossbow starts to have competition.
By contrast, the AKM isn’t significantly less powerful, accurate, faster-firing, or harder to handle than modern guns. Most of the tinkering is a question of trade-offs (more ammunition, or more stopping power? The question of which is better ends up highly contextual to any given conflict or prevailing military doctrine) or minor improvements (now 17% lighter and 21% more expensive with composite materials!). Compared to the Dreyse, on the other hand, the AKM blows it out of the water on every metric. Range, power, firing rate, ergonomics, reliability, versatility, maintenance, etc etc etc etc.
I can’t think of a single situation where you’d prefer a Dreyse except maybe some convoluted time-travel scenario with limited resources and labor pools, while people regularly argue about the relative merits and disadvantages of the AKM and like platforms to more modern service rifles (though I doubt many non-fud types would declare the AKM the winner of any such matchup, I think most people would agree that it’s mostly a question of trade-offs and what you want out of a service rifle, not objective quality of design).
I mean, let me put it this way - if you have ten guys with AKMs and ten guys with XM7s, the gun is largely not going to be the deciding factor between the two. Ceteris paribus, sure, the guys with the AKM are at a disadvantage, but you’d have to be looking at a pretty damn close matchup to begin with for that to be what pushes one side or the other over the finish line. If you have ten guys with AKMs and ten guys with Dreyse Needle Guns, there is going to have to be some serious imbalance in the teams for that to be remotely competitive.
Likewise, if you have ten guys with dinky little 11th century lockbows with no stirrup, and ten guys with fast-firing 15th century composite crossbows with goatslevers or belt-and-pulley systems, and metal quarrels, it’s going to have to be professional soldiers against total amateurs to be anything but a massacre (and if any serious armor is involved, whether 11th century or 15th, low-quality or high, even that level of skill imbalance wouldn’t be any help).
… hmm.
These are all excellent points, I would counter with this: most of the things you’re describing have more to do with the tactics involved rather than the design itself. Let’s say a stirrup was used in both (the technique of reloading it standing up vs sitting down) but one side’s bows were composite, had better bolts, a cranequin, would it really be be that dissimilar to an AKM vs XM7?
Well, I would say that design enables tactics.
It would be similar in usage at that point, but dissimilar in quality. Disregarding the cranequin for a goatsfoot (as the cranequin would be for REALLY high draw-weight crossbows that would be overkill here, though if you want we can discuss having 8x the power), you’re still looking at an increased fire rate, triple the power (lockbows being around 50 lbs draw weight, while early stirrup crossbows being 100-150lbs, and composite crossbows with loading devices generally being 450lbs+), and significantly more penetration joule-for-joule. A goatsfoot can load in more positions (kneeling, bending, standing) compared to a stirrup (bending only), and reduces fatigue compared to spanning by hand. Power in a crossbow also affects its range and its trajectory, don’t forget. Metal quarrels had both increased weight (improving trajectory and energy imparted) and specially designed heads, relying more on force rather than sharpness to ‘punch’ through armor and skin and bone, playing more to the strengths of the crossbow (which are surprisingly different from a longbow ballistically - is ballistics the right word for non-bullets objects? Whatever, you know what I mean).
The stirrup was a major advancement, increasing firing rate, position, and power, but not nearly to the degree that anyone would mistake it for roughly equivalent to a composite crossbow of the type you laid out. It would be LESS of a massacre, but it would still need to be lopsided in some way for the outcome to be in doubt. I guess you might say that at that point it’s more like a Mosin-Nagant vs. an AKM, though that still misses the penetration/damage/range factor. IE that a Mosin-Nagant can penetrate as well as or better than an AKM, while a stirrup crossbow with wooden limbs spanned by hand would struggle to penetrate padded armor, whereas a composite-limbed bow with a loading device and metal quarrels could realistically penetrate mail and even lighter plate armor - and of course, all of that applies to the increased force imparted to skin-and-bones to unarmored targets, though not as important.