Requesting help from All... On... ARCHERY!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-07 09:54am

Yep thats right fokes, I have a little side Aurgment going on about how effective Dark Age Archers where VS Armor and Shields(As in Tower Shields)

And I was wondering if anyone has anything along those lines or can help me calucate how effective a English Long-Bowman was VS Armor

Many-thanks
-Bean

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-07 10:00am

English longbowmen slaughtered knights in armor. The arrow heads were designed that way.

Wish I knew more, that's all off the top of my head.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-07 10:03am

I need somthing better than IXJac level reasoning here though

Solid numbers and such

Remeber these are regular bows not more powerful Crossbows we are talking about

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-07 10:04am

I have some very nice official materials (in the form of records set using modern day re-creations of medieval war tools), but off the top of my head, I can say that I recall that the English longbowman's strength was accuracy over long range. The actual penetrating power of an arrow is supposed to be very low (in the sense that wood backed with leather could stop an arrow, and most armor could turn them).

Crossbow bolts, on the other hand, on all but the weakest designs, could in some cases go completely through the neck of a horse and out the other side (wish I could call up the reference for that, but you'll have to take my word for it until I find the source again).

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-07 10:07am

Ah. Here we are. Arrows carried enough force to knock a man over, could dent armor, and would penetrate chain and leather armor.

This also will help:

http://www.medieval.co.nz/archery/arrowexp.htm

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-07 10:13am

Mr Bean wrote:I need somthing better than IXJac level reasoning here though

Solid numbers and such

Remeber these are regular bows not more powerful Crossbows we are talking about

It's historical fact that English longbowmen slaughtered knights.

"Such was the power of the Longbow, that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow fired from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak. The armored knight, considered at one time to be the leviathan of the battlefield, could now be felled at ranges up to 200 yards by a single arrow. One account recalls a knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that passed through both armored thighs, with the horse and saddle between!"

http://www.archers.org/longbow.htm

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-01-07 11:09am

I don't have calcs either, but I do have history books reporting about the battle of Angincourt.....

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-07 01:42pm

HistoricalWeapons.com wrote:Today only six longbows survive, none from the "golden age" and sources do not agree on the dimensions. Most give the length as about 70in. with a drawing pull of 75-100lbs. The arrows were between 27-36in. long. A trained archer could shoot 12 arrows a minute, but some sources say that the most skilled archers could fire twice this number. The arrow could wound at 250 yards, kill at 100 yards and penetrate armor at 60 yards.

Anthony Eade wrote:Modern tests have verified that this was indeed possible. A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards. No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards.

Another thing I've noticed from books and recreations is that the popular back quiver is never used in battle. Hip quivers are preferred. My guess would be that the motion to draw a back quiver would block the sight (and possibly shot) of the rank behind the archer, leading to lowered accuracy and increased "friendly fire" (which isn't).

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-01-07 01:50pm

If you're in America, there was an informative episode of a show called "Conquest" that dealt with this very subject. Apparently bows and arrows were quite effective against knights in full armor, with different arrowheads for different purposes.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2003-01-07 02:24pm

From about 10 yards, I was able to penetrate chain mail with a standard target arrow fired from a light shortbow (~30 lbs draw). The chain mail was made from 16 gauge stainless steel fence wire and was not riveted (the ends of the links were just butted together).

Penetration was accomplished by the arrow pushing apart the links, so no actual metal was cut. Had the links been riveted shut, they would've resisted the arrow quite easily.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-01-07 02:35pm

An English Longbow man was reported to be able to fire in vollys of 10 a minuet. They were arrayed in a standard formation similar to the formations used by Musket men and for similar reasons. As such the Archers would be able to send a constant rain of arrows into the advancing knights, and the arrows, as mentioned, had specialised arrowhead for piercing mail and armor.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-07 02:44pm

Bows fokes, Remeber NOT Crossbows, I'm particulary intrested in how well Tower shields stould up aginst bowmen

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-01-07 02:53pm

Dalton wrote:If you're in America, there was an informative episode of a show called "Conquest" that dealt with this very subject. Apparently bows and arrows were quite effective against knights in full armor, with different arrowheads for different purposes.

I watched that as well. Basicly they said that while a midevil bow could be a threat to armored knights, they were vulnerable to other factors. With the exception of the English longbowman, archers were not high on the totum pole. They were useful in some situations, but detracted from the Knights glory of ridding into battle.

The archers were vulnerable to calvery, and infantry which came to close and the counterparts on the other side as well. Secondary weapons for an archer were unheard of, so if a enemy formation came close to the archer's position, they tended to break and run. They were not highly reguarded by everyone some what like snipers are today. Some historical references said that while Knights who were captured durring battle were later ransomed back to the Knights King or leader, Archers were executed.

As far as hard number? I don't have any for you. But the tactics and even the ability of the arrows to penetrate armor would depend on all the factors of the battle to include: type of armor used on both sides, type of bow and type of arrow head used, and the range of the target. I would also speculate that it would also depend on if it was a direct or indirect shot.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-07 03:22pm

Thats what I'm looking for thought, Hard numbers, Acutal amount of Metal or Wood a Arrow can on avarage pentrat with an X amount of force

Similar to the Astriod destruction forumlua, but for bows

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-07 03:39pm

Google it. I doubt anyone here knows the force and penetrating power of an arrow off the top of their head, especially since it varies depending on individual strength.

However, IIRC, broadhead arrows were not the ideal armor-piercing arrowheads. There was another type, of which I use to remember the name, but don't anymore.

Oh, and, longbows were, in general, far more effective than crossbows.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-01-07 05:59pm

Bodkin arrow, I think. I believe it has a much smaller head, that allowed it to pentrate better.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-07 07:07pm

Beowulf wrote:Bodkin arrow, I think. I believe it has a much smaller head, that allowed it to pentrate better.

Yes, thats right. I've watched footage of modern tests where its torn through modern bullet proof armour and also traditional style plate.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-07 07:19pm

Dalton wrote:If you're in America, there was an informative episode of a show called "Conquest" that dealt with this very subject. Apparently bows and arrows were quite effective against knights in full armor, with different arrowheads for different purposes.

I think I saw it on PBS. Might've been another show. Anyways, they had an archer that could hit targets hundreds of yards away...

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-01-07 07:34pm

There was an arrowhead designed solely for penetrating armour, and it did a damn good job of it...

I'll see if I can find the info.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-07 08:54pm

By the time of Agincourt (1415), plate armour of considerable thickness was in extensive use, presumably to counter the use of arrows. It is a commonly held view that the French knights at Agincourt, facing bodkin arrows, found their armour ineffective. However, I have carried out trials with short and medium bodkin arrows against 1mm thick rolled steel plate. 1mm was rather thin by medieval standards. A helm might be 3mm, a breastplate 2mm and even leg armour 1mm thick. However by 1415, medieval armour was not really a steel at all, it was more like wrought iron. This is because the armourers had not mastered the cracking and distortion problems associated with working high carbon steels, a problem progressively rectified over the following centuries.

1mm steel plate, tested against 60 ft lb arrows, shows the following resistance to a 'square on' impact

broadhead, defeated although the tip does actually break through to a depth of perhaps 0.25"
short bodkin, armour removes most of the energy but arrow penetrates to about 6" (springy hole edges 'grip' the shaft)
medium bodkin, complete defeat of the plate, would transfix the wearer.

It proved important to coat the arrowheads with wax or oil, as this improved their penetration substantially

The arrow used weighed 30 gms (very light by medieval standards, not unusual for a modern hunting arrow) and was shot at
255 ft/sec at a range of 14 yards. It will have left the bow with a kinetic energy of 65 ft Lbs and struck with an energy of 59 ft lbs. At 100 yds this would have been down to 45 ft lbs and at 200 yards, perhaps 40 ft lbs. At these longer ranges, energy loss is determined largely by the weight of arrow and type of fletching in use. The arrow head was low carbon steel, but heated and then quenched. While hard for a mild steel, it was inferior to a medieval head. One special head was tested, with an extremely hard steel insert at the point. This markedly improved performance, perhaps reducing the energy required to defeat the plate by 25%.

These findings are similar to those published by Peter N Jones in "The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armour During the Middle Ages". This study attempted to replicate the metallurgy of the medieval armour and used carefully constructed simulated arrows and a 70# yew longbow to deliver them. It found that bodkin arrows (just about) defeated 2mm of wrought iron struck at normal incidence, 2mm defeated a bodkin at 20 degree slant but 1mm did not. These arrows had 34 ft lbs of energy at point of impact, but weighed twice as much as the modern arrow in the 60 ft lb bow. These simulated medieval tests also used superior arrowheads to those I was able to construct, being representative of the remarkably hard heads then available. I think that medieval war bows will have tended to be heavier than 70#. Accuracy will not have been crucial as the target will have been a distributed mass of men and horses.

I think this is some of the sort of info you were looking for?