That would depend on the draw weight of the bow, and the efficiency of design. We have very little data on that with the bows in the game. They may be recreational bows, or they might be bows made for bowhunting (yes that’s a single word, strangely).
As I remember it, generally they hunted stuff like elephants, tigers and lions in groups with bows, spears and nets. Bows would harass, while spears and nets would try to pen the dangerous animals in. All together they would try to have the prey pushed off a cliff so it died from the fall instead of trying to wrestle bears and shit.
I mean, imagine attempting to wrestle a bear every day you went down to the supermarket for your cheerios or something.
As Flare said, it would depend mostly on the draw weight of the bow in question. I strongly doubt even then that a simple wood arrow would do anything other that stick in the hide and itch, so a secondary consideration would be the quarrel or arrow you were using. Steel/flint/obsidian arrowheads with a compound bow should do it-- and I hate to say it but a carbon fibre body would be advantageous.
Also I’m pretty sure you could take an elephant out with a 9mm, as long as you were using some real supercharged handload.
I wouldn’t like to try it though-- Historically the guns used to hunt elephants were 4 bore, iirc. In other words, they could fire shot that weighed about 1/4 lb.
“Simple wooden bows” can have a very hefty draw weight too. It depends on the type of wood available, and techniques you might not use for composite bows. In the East just before Europeans introduced firearms en masse, bow technology was at its zenith, whereas Europeans have largely left it for firearms. Compound bows don’t really make the draw weight any less I think, the pulleys on the end just takes all the strain off of the use when the bow is fully drawn to make it easier for the shooter to aim.
The same might have happened in Africa too. Despite their popular image of not being too civilized, industrialized, or have any sort of working knowledge, they must have had some methods of bow making in the few tens of thousands of years they were there with said elephants that would be effective against the elephants.
You don’t need a very powerful bow (compared to the hundred pound draws of historical warbows) to shoot an arrow through a block of ballistic gel. As tough as animal skin is, it is by far much easier to penetrate than anything made out of metal.
Not exactly, you’d harass the animal over the course of several days. If you hit it in the leg enough times, eventually it will lag behind the herd. Not even this, you might not even need to shoot the elephant at all. Humans are great runners especially those from Africa. Not the fastest but still good enough, but endurance is where we really shine. An elephant might be able to sprint faster than a human in a straight line, but nimbleness is an issue, as well as keeping up that speed over long periods when several humans are harassing one after the other non-stop.
I think we’re missing the point slightly. It’s definitely possible to make a wooden bow with a lot of stopping power, but for that matter it was possible in the early gunpowder days to create “bullet-proof” armor out of three solid feet of iron. That technology wasn’t very applicable given the pressures of the day, notably the reliance of armies on cavalry and infantry for transportation. Now with engines we do such things, but with more advanced alloys of course…
I’d be curious to know more about the pressures that influenced ancient African hunters. Admittedly some problem animals would have to be dealt with, but my gut instinct is that they wouldn’t find themselves hunting elephants on an average Tuesday. Given the choice and considering the risk involved, surely you’d spend more time hunting zebras or gazelles or what have you… significantly less dangerous animals that can be persistence hunted, and for that matter don’t have thick enough hides to drive technological improvements in the bow and arrow. This is why we don’t research better 2 gauge weapons for SWAT teams - 5.56 rounds and the like do the job well enough already.
It could be that the best reference we’ve got is more modern cultures coming out of the veldt - maybe the Zulu or similar. My knowledge of them is laughable, but I think they used bows more as a delivery method for poison or to generate a blood trail than as central hunting weapons. I’d be interested to hear otherwise, of course.
A well made piece of plate in the early days of firearms didn’t need to be 3 feet thick to be bullet proof. It was expensive and very few individuals in a force could afford it, but the thickness wasn’t all that much different than plate that was worn otherwise. Munitions plate that was handed down to the foot troops was sub-par though.
I'd be curious to know more about the pressures that influenced ancient African hunters. Admittedly some problem animals would have to be dealt with, but my gut instinct is that they wouldn't find themselves hunting elephants on an average Tuesday. Given the choice and considering the risk involved, surely you'd spend more time hunting zebras or gazelles or what have you... significantly less dangerous animals that can be persistence hunted, and for that matter don't have thick enough hides to drive technological improvements in the bow and arrow. This is why we don't research better 2 gauge weapons for SWAT teams - 5.56 rounds and the like do the job well enough already.
You have to take into consideration that an elephant is worth many many zebras. No hunt is without risk, and all the meat from an elephant might be able to feed many mouths for a few months if you preserve the meat. You also have to consider that the present day notions that some hunters have that killing an elephant is a massive achievement is not a sophisticated, highly historically dependent phenomenon. Hunter-gathering communities were not without bragging and basic social pressures.
In any case, the prevalence of war and the arms race between armor and weaponry would also put pressure on making better and more powerful bows.
The analogy being… rare superbows? I guess that’s possible; this was long before mass production. I’m not sure where that leaves us however.
You have to take into consideration that an elephant is worth many many zebras.Granted, of course, but it doesn't smell right to me as a sustained food source. I'm not even talking about the challenges inherent in preserving meat under the savanna sun, or protecting that resource from scavengers or raiders. In this case I'm purely making a judgement call based on the difference in risks that elephant hunting was probably a "sometimes" activity rather than an essential, day-to-day source of nutrition. I'd need something more substantive than two dudes' worth of rhetoric to make a more confident conclusion. :p
killing an elephant is a massive achievementThe very fact that it's an achievement tells me that it would have to have been difficult. If you'd had superbows that pwn elephants all day long, there would've been no status to earn by killing one.
In any case, the prevalence of war and the arms race between armor and weaponry would also put pressure on making better and more powerful bows.In theory it should add pressure to develop all manner of weapons, but I don't think African tribes have ever been well-known for their bows specifically. Spears, shields, throwing weapons, but not bows. I don't claim to understand why.
“Simple wooden bows” can have a very hefty draw weight too. It depends on the type of wood available, and techniques you might not use for composite bows. In the East just before Europeans introduced firearms en masse, bow technology was at its zenith, whereas Europeans have largely left it for firearms. Compound bows don’t really make the draw weight any less I think, the pulleys on the end just takes all the strain off of the use when the bow is fully drawn to make it easier for the shooter to aim.
The same might have happened in Africa too. Despite their popular image of not being too civilized, industrialized, or have any sort of working knowledge, they must have had some methods of bow making in the few tens of thousands of years they were there with said elephants that would be effective against the elephants.
You don’t need a very powerful bow (compared to the hundred pound draws of historical warbows) to shoot an arrow through a block of ballistic gel. As tough as animal skin is, it is by far much easier to penetrate than anything made out of metal.[/quote]
My apologies, good sir. o7
I can’t believe I actually forgot about the mongolian double recurve bow. 
Alongside horses, it’s the weapon that conquered china and deposed some snooty emporer or two. It could even penetrate russian plate armour from about two hundred yards IIRC, but don’t quote me on that. As for early plate armour against firearms, it was pretty effective. I’m sure most shots by an arquebus or musket would be deflected, but by the musket era plate armour was mostly worked out in favour of a higher force mobility.
Not to mention a suit of armour would cost more than giving a few peasants a musket, uniform and ammunition.
As for the sustained food source… Sure it wouldn’t be feasable to do every day, but it would give the entire tribe a decent meal for a few days.
Maybe they salted or smoked the meat afterwards? my first-world prejudice aside I’m sure africans knew how to preserve meat somehow.
Also why the HELL are we even talking about elephants? there aren’t any elephants ingame. Argh.
Hunter-gatherers do have a selection of things they kill regularly, but this doesn’t stop them from killing things that wander too close to their villages or hunting grounds. As a community that depends on the ebb and flow of successful and failed hunts, if an option presents itself, there’s a very good chance they will take it rather than take their chances of future options that may or may not appear.
It is not the main diet of any culture I know, nor any tribe I’ve ever heard of, but hunter-gatherers do not pick and choose what they hunt, they would like to pick and choose, but it’s not always up to them. A small elephant herd passing through your grounds is an opportunity that shouldn’t be passed up if you have no idea when the next successful hunt is.
As for the reward, an elephant is a huge amount of meat. You could probably suspend hunting for a few weeks if you nab one. Those things weigh several tons and is as big as a small north american bedroom.
Also why the HELL are we even talking about elephants? there aren't any elephants ingame. Argh.
Zombie zoos?
Or maybe you can find a deserted Disneyland and suddenly, as you are raiding a snack bar, a herd of zombified elephant appears which proceeds to chase you all over wonderland.
[quote=“Flare, post:48, topic:1024”]Zombie zoos?
Or maybe you can find a deserted Disneyland and suddenly, as you are raiding a snack bar, a herd of zombified elephant appears which proceeds to chase you all over wonderland.[/quote]
Nah. It’s good, I got that contingency covered. (~ 3 ~) y–’
What the hell…
Iosyn, you never cease to amaze me.
We were talking about elephant as a real-world equivalent to Zombies Hulks.