Longbow VS plate.

[Casper Bradak]

I'd call cannons and pikes a defensive position...

[JeanryChandler]

Aye, but in this case, arguably not a prepared defensive position <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Seeing as they marched around this way cross country, and actually attacked quite aggressively...

DB

[Jonathan Waller]

Based upon tests done the actuall energy in the arrow does not drop as much as one would think, based upon tragectory etc. However the chance of an arrow actually piercing anything but the worst plate would be rare. Piercing mail with the right kind of head is fairly easy, but adding qulited garments in to the equation does reduce penetration a lot.
However, there will always be some unprotected part, which may be hit, certainly when walking through a storm of arrows. And someones fighting effectiveness will be as equally reduced to all intents and purposes by having a splinter of arrow that has broken and deflected off someones armour pining into you thigh as it would if hit by the arrow itself.

Ultimately the penetration of the plate is not what makes the longbow an effective weapon, even against armoured opponents. It is more to do with the demoralising effect of being taken under the barrage of missles. However effective the armour it takes a very brave person to walk 200 + yards through an arrow storm!

Jonathan

[Jonathan Waller]

The amount of steel in armour is variable, so while in general the armour could be superior, the ahrdness of the arrows could be improved by various techniques. The reason that little was amde of the horses being shot, was that despite popular thought, the number of horses at Agincourt was small, two small contingents, (the French had learned the hard way at Crecy and Poitiers of the lack of resistance offered by horse flesh to arrows) both of which did suffer badly at the begining of the battle, but the rest of the attacks were made on foot, with knights and men at arms having to wade across a large area of ploughed ground to get to the English.
JW

On the History channel or somesuch, there was a program about Agincourt, and the experts concluded that the arrowheads, since they were made to be thrown away, were made out of iron, while the French armor, since it was made for upper class knights, was likely to be good steel.
Very little was made of shooting the horses out from under them, by the way.

[Jonathan Waller]

WHile killing the horses with one arrow would be difficult, the number of arrows comming down would agin be a deciding factor, 1 arrow is not 10. Plus one has to consider, the cutting ability of some of the swallow tail broad heads used, up to 5-6"across, that would deliver major wounds. War horses were stalions which could make them aggressive to control and however well trained an animal in pain is not a predicatble thing.

JW

Very little was made of shooting the horses out from under them, by the way."

I would be very interested in looking up literature that talks about casulties amongst heavy calvary mounts from arrow fire. Intuitively, I should think that it would be very difficult to drop a horse at any significant range with a bow if it had barding and was coming head on or at a sharp angle of approach. I have noticed a tendency amongst modern secondary sources and tv programs to underestimate the effect of war mount body size.

A partially armored, 1,500 pound animal will probably not drop easily to arrows. Sadly, testing this is rather unethical, but if anyone has references I would much appreciate it.


Cheers,
--Mike Habib

[Jonathan Waller]

One has to be careful with Keegan. The horse were severly mauled by the archery and thouse that did get through then could not easliyl get through the stakes and men there. The basic end result was that the remaining horsemen fled back and crashed into their own men who were following on behind.


According to Keegan, and the sources do confirm this, the archers in the battle of Agincourt were unable to stop the charging cavalry of the French. It was the stakes that forced them to turn back, not the arrows.

[Jonathan Waller]

Pope and his friends shot Grizzly and Kodiak Bears, bull moose, male Eland, all with longbows. An Archer named Howard Hill did shoot an elephant, again with a longbow, though this time an American longbow.

What is you refereance for the nature of the animals speed deflecting arrows?
Jonathan


I would be interested to check up on the S. Pope reference. That sounds quite fantastic, though that doesn't mean it did not happen. Thanks for the ref., it's certainly interesting.

I am not certain how one could drop and elephant with an arrow, however. An eye shot would repel it, but most head shots would not penetrate sufficient depth to kill. Pope must have done something very unusual or extraordinary.

It is also worth noting that a mount traveling at high speed (such as a horse) will tend to deflect projectiles by virtual of its movement, especially if it is traveling at an acute angle relative to the archer.

[Jonathan Waller]

English archers could be found fighting all over Europe at this time. In France there was a royal guard of Scottish archers as well.
JW


Interestingly, I beleive in some of these battles, Charles actually had hired English archers who were routed a long with the rest of his forces...

Jeanry

[Jonathan Waller]

What they tend to do is splinter, seeing it happen when filmed at high speed is most impressive. These tend to be big enough and moving fast enough that you would not want to get one stuck in you.

JW

One other thing i can see happening in the way of an arrow hitting armour i did not think of, is the fact that the shaft of those arrow's were made of wood so when they hit armour they more than likely would broke the shaft of the arrow, and that would tend to disipate the energy, if anyone has ever seen a modern wood arrow go astray and hit something solid that is the usual effect that the shaft will break and not penetrate, because the shaft will absorb the kinetic energy and the shaft breaking disipate's the energy.

Is just another thought on the dynamic's aof archery.

Jeff

[Jonathan Waller]

I totally agree that it is difficult to kill a horse with an arrow but you just need a little bit piecing the armour (metal or linen) to the effect of a taon (a big fly that bite with it mandible and lick the blood) and we all know the effect it has on a horse. (Basically, you do not need to squeeze his gonads to have a rodeo). I even think it is the best result you can want to achieve.

Here is an important point, a horse reacting to even a non fatal wound would have an intersting affect, bearing in mind that as you say, they would be trained to be aggressive! So you have an unhappy aggressive horse making trouble for its own side.

The problem is that a charging horse is like a small car. It does not go from 50 kmh to full stop in 3 meters. So personally I would not take the shoot unless I was sure that the hose is nor going to hit me. (ie it does not charge any more

But as you said it would not take a full hit to make the horse stop moving under proper control, if it has been hit even a little it will not be running straight.

The point is that the archers would be shooting at speed, with little chance or need to actually aim. I can't remember the exact figures but Dad was involved in experiments where, based upon rates of shooting, time taken to cross the beaten zone of the archers and the formations of advancing troops, at Agincourt, you could expect to be hit by 15-20 arrows! now whether these would kill you or not is something else but to be lucky enough for one of them NOT to actually do something would be slim. If the target now becomes a mounted man and you figure in then hits on to a target as large as a horse! Again bearing in mind that it is harder to protect the horse than it is the man.
JW

[Mike Habib]

"Pope and his friends shot Grizzly and Kodiak Bears, bull moose, male Eland, all with longbows. An Archer named Howard Hill did shoot an elephant, again with a longbow, though this time an American longbow."

That's awesome; I'm impressed. I need to get a hold of that reference. Taking shots at large bears takes guts; if you end up needing additional shots (likely) it could get ugly. Impressive nerve and aim obviously involved.

"What is you refereance for the nature of the animals speed deflecting arrows?"


This is actually a prediction based on physics and vector-based analysis, not a specific reference. I would love to see anyone bring actual references to bear to help support and/or refute it.

The argument goes something like this:
When an arrow strikes a target a force equal to the impact force travels down the shaft of the arrow, naturally. Yay for Newton.

Now, if the target is stationary or traveling along a line that is parallel to the arrow's path (straight on from front or behind), the force vector is still along the shaft of the arrow, though the total sum vector is obviously larger if the target is approaching (the difference in velocity between arrow and target is greater).

If, however, the target is moving at an oblique angle relative to the arrow (likely, unless you like standing in the path of charging calvary), then there are vectors in two directions. One from the impact reaction force (as before), but also one in line with the motion of the target (also same as before, but now it's not in the same direction as the impact reaction force). It makes more sense on a diagram, so drawing it out helps.

The sum of these two vectors will now NOT point directly down the shaft of the arrow, but will be oblique to it. This means that the reaction force sum will tend to push the arrow to the side on impact, as well as push back on its axis.

Because the front of the arrow is slowed more quickly (it's contacting the target), this will tend to make the arrow spin (the back will kick out to the side). We see this as a richochet.

The size of the vector resulting from the momentum of the target (not the impact reaction vector), depends on the speed of the target.

Now, keep in mind that this only matters, in reality, if the target has armor. If it does not, the tip will bury in the soft tissue too fast to deflect, though the rear half will still feel a deflection. In this case, it will be felt as a cantelever bending moment (because the head is fixed), and the arrow may break (as in the above posts).

Cheers,
--Mike Habib

[JeffGentry]

Hey guy's

Pope and his friends shot Grizzly and Kodiak Bears, bull moose, male Eland, all with longbows. An Archer named Howard Hill did shoot an elephant, again with a longbow, though this time an American longbow."

Pope and Hill are old bow hunter's from the 50's-60's I saw a video of Ted Nuggent trying to take a Rino with a bow, hunting is a little diffrent because you are shooting at a stationary or slow moving target usualy from the side at the heart lung area, in reality shooting a horse in that manner would drop them fairly quickly with a bow, i have seen alot of video of bow hunter's taking elk(1000 lbs or better with one arrow) and the arrow usualy pass's all the way through, the bow is a deceptively powerful weapon, it is a slow weapon though to load and shoot accurately, it can be quick to volley fire with out aiming too much, accurate aiming is what take's a little time.


Jonathan

i used to bow hunt deer quit a bit haven't realy done much the last few year's, and i have watched my own arrow's splinter on rock's and such when i missed on more occasion's than i like to admit, and i hate when that happen's. lol

Jeff

[Casper Bradak]

I'd like to second that. In the movies, arrows bury their head in the victim, but I've seen powerful bows/cross bows shooting tough targets, harder than flesh and bone, and they often pass entirely through without sticking, or end up mostly on the other side. That's probably why, when they did stick, they'd so often clip them and remove them in the direction of travel, rather than pulling them out the way they had come, even if it wasn't a broadhead.

[Scott Anderson]

I remember seeing one episode of Nova (i believe) dealing particularly with trebuchets but it did have one side segment on longbows vs plate armor. At a range of 200 yards it was difficult for the single archer to hit the single armored dummy at all. When they did it had minor penetration. At a range of 10 yards the arrow passed through the armor and straw of the dummy only remaining stuck by the fletching caught in the straw. The people doing this experiment were from Leeds Armory I believe. It has however been a couple of years so my memory could very easily be off.

SPA

[Jonathan Waller]

Now, keep in mind that this only matters, in reality, if the target has armor. If it does not, the tip will bury in the soft tissue too fast to deflect, though the rear half will still feel a deflection. In this case, it will be felt as a cantelever bending moment (because the head is fixed), and the arrow may break (as in the above posts).

Ok that makes it more clear. Yes I would agree then, but as has been noted, plate armour is by and large effective against arrows anyway. The affect you are talkingabout then is silmilar to that caused by the angulation of the surfaces of the armour, even when static.
JW