piercing power of longbow vs composite bow

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-02-04 12:51am

We all know that the smaller oriental composite bows of the Tartars, Turks, and Mongols outranged the English long bow (240-340 yards vs 600-800 yards), but did the six-foot long long bow which shot arrows 36 inches in length have better piercing power than the 3'9" long oriental bow which shot arrows 25 inches in length?

Would the oriental bow have been as effective as the long bow in defeating knights in full plate armor of the 15th and 16th centuries?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-02-04 01:08am

The long has greater penetrating power. It can easily pierce suitcases made of tin and could kill armoured knights during the english-french war.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-04 01:09am

A composite bow can throw the arrows farther. That may be a property of the arrows used with it, but assuming that all other things are equal the bow that throws the arrow farthest is the one imparting the most force.

baelfire1945 · Post by **baelfire1945** » 2004-02-04 01:11am

Rogue 9 has it right. If there is a significant difference in the mass of the arrows used, or in the brittleness of the materials used to make them, there might be a difference. Otherwise range and power are directly related.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-04 01:37am

evilcat4000 wrote:The long has greater penetrating power. It can easily pierce suitcases made of tin and could kill armoured knights during the english-french war.

That was surprisingly rare. English longbowmen aimed at the rump of charging horses, since it was unarmored and if hit, the horse would rear and throw the knight to the ground with potentially devastating injuries. With the loss of his mount and potentially serious injuries, that almost always knocked a knight out of commission. Directly killing an armored knight with a longbow was difficult, and was rarely done.

The shortbow almost certainly has superior penetrating power, assuming that the arrows are made of comparable material. The superior range of the shortbow demonstates greater force, and even though the English longbow fired a larger arrow, it doesn't seem to me that the fairly small difference in length compares with the much larger difference in range given in the thread. The Oriental arrow's range also shows that it's massive enough, also, since a lighter arrow would be much more vulnerable to the forces of wind, and therefore the very long range of the shortbow, IMO, demonstrates in and of itself that not only is the force greater, but also that the arrows can't mass much less than the English longbow. I would need more information to run some calcs, but I think it seems pretty clear that from this information the composite shortbow delivers both superior range and penetration.

harbringer · Post by **harbringer** » 2004-02-04 09:48am

Ok this is from memory so

caveat emptor. At Agincourt it is said that some of the arrows penetrated the nose guard on french helms this is about 1" (helmet and guard) of hammered steel. Of course even though generally English longbowmen didn't aim as such it was said that a skilled bowman could loose 36 aimed arrows in a minute... havind done archery as a sport I would say that is an exaggeration. During Agincourt by the way the first use of a gun was made by french troops

the gun killed one man I believe. During the battle bettween the Polish knights and the Mongols it was said that a horse archer could aim and fire accurately from horseback at about 300m. Most of those men were killed, not as many Mongols died mainly as they used silk undergarments that wrapped round the arrow stopping it. Lethality for Mongol bows is hard to calculate as they aimed for weak spots.

Hope that helps

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2004-02-04 12:50pm

Archery as a sport doesn't quite match up to training with a bow from the age of 7, now does it?

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-02-04 05:02pm

You can also train archery as a sport from the age of 7

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-04 05:08pm

An important fact to remember is that people using composite bows tended to carry as many as 60 arrows in a quiver, as opposed to perhaps 30 for a longbow. This was because armies in the eastern world (where composite bows were common) tended to face enemies with light or no armor. The projectile fired by a composite bow weighed significantly less than that from a longbow.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-02-04 05:49pm

Slartibartfast wrote:You can also train archery as a sport from the age of 7

In england legally you're still meant to get an hour of longbow training a week under the supervision of the local priest....yeah...we should clear up the law books a bit shouldnt we?

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2004-02-04 07:42pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:You can also train archery as a sport from the age of 7
In england legally you're still meant to get an hour of longbow training a week under the supervision of the local priest....yeah...we should clear up the law books a bit shouldnt we?

Hell no!...their just fine as is...

Shortie · Post by **Shortie** » 2004-02-05 10:36am

Bertie Wooster wrote:We all know that the smaller oriental composite bows of the Tartars, Turks, and Mongols outranged the English long bow (240-340 yards vs 600-800 yards), but did the six-foot long long bow which shot arrows 36 inches in length have better piercing power than the 3'9" long oriental bow which shot arrows 25 inches in length?

Would the oriental bow have been as effective as the long bow in defeating knights in full plate armor of the 15th and 16th centuries?

I have a feeling you're comparing max practical range with max exhibition range there. The range difference was not nearly that extreme. And if you're shooting in a high arc (for extreme range) then gravity, and hence mass, becomes more important than initial velocity.

As to killing knights with light arrows, look at the Crusades, it's not that easy. Don't get too hung up on the myth of Agincourt either of course.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-02-05 11:04am

I was referring to the maximum effective range of someone very-well trained with those bows.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2004-02-05 11:19am

What is the draw weight of the bows??

I think the longbow was something like 80-100 lbs.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-02-05 11:34am

A typical turkish bow is 118lbs. I think longbows were in the range you mentioned.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-02-05 10:03pm

According to archers.org, maximum effective range for a longbow is ~400 yards. At 200 yards, only plate is effective at stopping the arrow, and at 100 yards plate is no longer effective. Historical writings speak of one knight who was shot with a single arrow from a longbow that penetrated both thighs, the horse, and the saddle, pinning him to his horse. Pull is 80-120 pounds.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-02-05 10:43pm

I was specificically citing Clubs to Cannon by Brigadier General O.F.G. Hogg, 1968. Pages 32-36. I wasn't trying to be misleading with my info regarding the longbows.

MarkIX · Post by **MarkIX** » 2004-02-06 12:47am

From some of the things I have read the Arab archers where almost totally ineffective against the mailed crusaders. There is the report of Richard the third who after a particular battle gave thanks to god after he was struck buy 11 arrows that failed to penetrate his armour the reason he gave thanks was because this was less than half the usual number, I have heard that the Arab arrows of the period where contructed from reeds.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-06 12:51am

However, not every crusader was clad in chainmail

Peasants with pitchforks! Now, they were butchered by horsearchers. and so were horses... IIRC of course

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-06 12:54am

The effectivness of the longbow was also heavily dependant on the type of arrow. A bodkin could puncture through plate or chain rather easily, while a broadhead would have been useless, and used against the horde of peasant levies that would be thrown at you, mainly because even if they graze they will rend flesh.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-02-06 11:35pm

I've seen (and participated in) timed archery rounds in the SCA. As an archer, well... I'm lucky to hit the target during those 30yd shots, 30sec rounds, but I've sent an average of 5 arrows at the target in that time.

A Master Archer in the SCA can double that easily... in a full minute that could be at least 20 arrows fired. So I can believe a medieval archer could fired 36 arrows. Aimed and hitting the bullseye, well.. that's another matter.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-07 12:18am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:The effectivness of the longbow was also heavily dependant on the type of arrow. A bodkin could puncture through plate or chain rather easily,

Er, no. A bodkin was effective against chain mail but it seldom penetrated proper plate mail. Most of the casualties inflicted on knights were actually injuries caused to the horses. Against a good suit of plate you need something like a lucern hammer, halberd, or (if you want to play it that way

) an arquebus.

As for most crusaders not being armored, contemporary sources suggest that the majority of actual crusaders (as opposed to silly peasants playing pretend) were minor noblemen and their men at arms. Most of them were rather well equipped and experienced, which enabled them to run roughshod over the Muslim armies then in action.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-02-07 01:00am

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:The effectivness of the longbow was also heavily dependant on the type of arrow. A bodkin could puncture through plate or chain rather easily,
Er, no. A bodkin was effective against chain mail but it seldom penetrated proper plate mail. Most of the casualties inflicted on knights were actually injuries caused to the horses. Against a good suit of plate you need something like a lucern hammer, halberd, or (if you want to play it that way ) an arquebus.

As for most crusaders not being armored, contemporary sources suggest that the majority of actual crusaders (as opposed to silly peasants playing pretend) were minor noblemen and their men at arms. Most of them were rather well equipped and experienced, which enabled them to run roughshod over the Muslim armies then in action.

Until that one little battle where the Muslims were riding Mares and the Crusaders riding Stallions.... and one or more of the Mares went into heat.......

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

piercing power of longbow vs composite bow

piercing power of longbow vs composite bow

Re: piercing power of longbow vs composite bow