Longbow VS plate.

[Jonathan Waller]

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.

Pope and many other site time when shooting when the arrow passes through the animal, even time when animal shows now awareness that it has even been shot, for a while at least.
The bows effectiveness is very good for th reasons you mention and when used en masse even against well armoured opponents the effetc on morale would be high.
Personally I find that shooting an aimed shot is more the differance in my own focus rather than any real differance in the mechanical process. Though the focus will tkae a little longer, it is only really a matter of fractions of a second.

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

Yeah well it takes time to make your arrows and, when you break/loose one, you spoil the set. <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> The thing was to watch an arrow splinter on an angled piece of plate, which looked smooth, but obviously there is enough purchase on the point, to stop a clean deflection, but not enough mass in the wooden shaft to drive it through before breaking.

JW

[Jonathan Waller]

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.

Watch the scene in Deliverance, where Burt Reynolds shoots the guy. Not quite all the way through. It would generally depend on what the arrows is passing through. The more air/open spaces the deeper the penetration.

JW

[Jonathan Waller]

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.

Not sure about that, I've not been in any of the experiemnts where the kind of penetration that you mention was achieved against anything but the lightest armoured of targets. I am sure Dad would have mentioned it if it has happend at any other time. The archers that could guarantee a hit on a single man at 200 yards would be real sharp shooters. Howard Hill mentioned earlier was incredibly accurate out to long ranges. But even with only reasonable accuracy, one man is not 100! <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Scott Anderson]

Well, like I said, this was a couple of years ago that I saw the thing. I could very easily be wrong. I do remember the heavy penetration shot was from very close range. Closer than I'd like to be as an archer.

SPA

[JeanryChandler]

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.

True, especially for those who do it on foot. I think in most cases that I have heard of when hunting bears with bows this is done from in a protected stand above ground.

They even have some guys now who routinely hunt with thrown spears.

Jeanry

[philippewillaume]

Hello Jonathan

The point I was trying to make is that the hitting the horse to make them mad is not a sufficient condition to repel a heavy cavalry charge.
When caught in the open archers were plastered and being in the open does not influence you shooting ability to arrow storm and hit the horse to wound him. So it has to be something else.

Just for reference it does take for a hose to cover 220 yards 14 to 20 sec.
It takes a brave man to stay we he is after the first hundreds meter.
The trajectory is not that parabolic anymore to the chance of hitting the back of the horse decrease significantly.
We know from primary sources that at least since Poitier, horses that were supposed to take on archer were significantly armored at least from the front.
Usually the text leads us to believe that the charge arrived at least enemy line so it was not broken up early. So I am not sure of the long-range ability to hurt the horses.
The text on poitier, it seems that tell us that you needed to be at close range to wound them in the hinds quaters.

The thing horse reflex is to flee and it is a gregarious animal, so when hurts is flees the pain no the danger. So hitting a horse in the back will incite him to go forward if anything (when bitted by that flee (even biten in the front a horse will go forward especially if its mate are going that direction). So you potentially you will an unhappy donkey in your own mist

I agree with you on the stakes (or the trenches and pot holes at Crecy, the dikes at courtay or the thickets at Poitier). I think that is key. You break the momentum and there is noting the horseman can do because they are at the most potent range of the weapon. Archers can aim at the weakest part of the protection of the horse or the rider
So the best option for the rider is to turn back which the archer can help with a few arrows up the bottom.

That the most rational explanation i can come up with given the "original text" i have read

[philippewillaume]

hello jerry
well
i would say that swiss pike formation are mainly composed of pique men as far as the crossbowmen are concerned the pikes are no more that a mobile stack wall.

Polish 16 cent hussard (ie heavy cavalery) use to break pike formation with musquet in it
the horse was not armoured (i think) but they were using a lance significantly longer than the pikes.

philippe

[Jonathan Waller]

True, especially for those who do it on foot. I think in most cases that I have heard of when hunting bears with bows this is done from in a protected stand above ground.

They even have some guys now who routinely hunt with thrown spears.

Jeanry

Hill and Pope and his friends generally did stuff on foot. Though sometimes they were backed up by someone with a rifle, at least I belive that Hill was. Pope and his guys were doing this in 20's so they generally to to where they were hunting on horse back in pretty remote areas.
JW

[Jonathan Waller]

The point I was trying to make is that the hitting the horse to make them mad is not a sufficient condition to repel a heavy cavalry charge.
When caught in the open archers were plastered and being in the open does not influence you shooting ability to arrow storm and hit the horse to wound him. So it has to be something else.

My point was not that it vcould broken up so much as being slowed down/made less effective. Gpoing back to analogy of stopping a car. The line of horsemen are a line of cars, you start shooting at them single shot rifles, the cahnces of stopping a car by 'killing' the engine are slim. But if you hit tyres the cars swerve and become harder to control, you hit the windshiled and the and the driver may panick and may over stear the car in to others, you might even get lucky and hit and take out a driver and then you have an out of control car running along. Now the cars will still get to where you a shooting from, but they will not be nearly so effective.

Just for reference it does take for a hose to cover 220 yards 14 to 20 sec.

Is this and armoured/unarmoured horse, with armoured rider? And what surface are you riding across? Tis is for my own interest, there ultimately so many variables that must be included when one consides such things as battle field effectiveness.

agree with you on the stakes (or the trenches and pot holes at Crecy, the dikes at courtay or the thickets at Poitier). I think that is key. You break the momentum and there is noting the horseman can do because they are at the most potent range of the weapon. Archers can aim at the weakest part of the protection of the horse or the rider
So the best option for the rider is to turn back which the archer can help with a few arrows up the bottom.

Machine guns were highly effective in The Great War, but they were place in prepared positions anlong manned trench lines, if they had been placed in the open with no cover, though they would still have been devastating would, not have been so effective. Ultimately all armies that take up a defensive position try to do so making use of terrain to break up the enemies advance, and if none is available they generally make it themsleves, the English archer was not alone in this. Being on the defence was a good force multiplier, for the generally small English armies of the period, they generally tried to force the enemy to attack. Hence the English mving its line toward the French at Agincourt, in the attempt to provoke them in to attacking.
Ultimately every factor must be taken into account, as we are doing when dealing with subjects like these. There generally no one deciding factor.

JW

[Shane Smith]

*"I admittedly know very little about archery, but I've often wondered if some longbow practice should augment our studies with melee weapons? I imagine that drawing the bow is an excellent form of resistance training."

Some of us in VAB practice with the Longbow quite a bit.

*"Are there any primary sources for medieval archery aside from artwork? "

Toxophilus circa 1544

[Stacy Clifford]

I've seen this episode too. They were demonstrating the range and effectiveness of the archers defending the castle vs. the artillery crew, who wanted to stay just beyond that range. I don't remember the long range results, but at closer range they did thoroughly perforate a steel breastplate. I seem to recall the arrow having a rather stout-looking shaft. After reading this discussion I'd like to see that show again, which is already among my favorites. Here's a link to the PBS page for it:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/trebuchet/

[Stacy Clifford]

Actually, here's the segment from the online transcript of the show. The video would definitely help.

NARRATOR: At the end of the 13th century, what was the effective range of an archer? And what was the effective range of a trebuchet? The historical reports differ.

RICHARD HOLMES: Hew, how close are you going to have to bring your trebuchet to the walls to do serious damage, do you think?

HEW KENNEDY: Probably 200 yards, we will need to be within that to smash it up.

NARRATOR: At 200 yards, is Hew's trebuchet out of range of archers defending the castle? To find out, a dummy representing the trebuchet's chief operator is placed at that distance.

HEW KENNEDY: I'm sure an arrow would land amongst us if we're at that range. You could easily shoot 200 yards with that massive bow of yours, couldn't you?

SIMON: Yeah, 300 yards.

HEW KENNEDY: Yes. Well at 200 yards, I think it would be putting you a bit worried, wouldn't it?

RICHARD HOLMES: Yes, it would. I'm the first to accept that from this sort of range the trebuchet would be doing serious damage to the castle walls. But I think this does suggest that it's no easy business. And the garrison that knows its business can probably keep a trebuchet at the very limit of its range. And the fact that we had some going over the top I think is mighty hopeful from the archer's point of view.

HEW KENNEDY: I wonder what happens if you slap one into him from here? Come on then. It's all right, he's swallowed it, hasn't he?

RICHARD HOLMES: Gone right through the dummy, kept only in by the fletchings.

HEW KENNEDY: Bit of a bellyacher I reckon, yeah.

[Mike Habib]

Well, I've definitely learned a few things about bows. Apparently recent bows, at least, generate more force than I gave them credit for, which is very interesting. Given the anecdotal evidence provided, it sounds like a shot to the thorax of a horse would be likely to kill outright if the mount was unarmored. (Then again, most of this discussion has assumed some barding).

One point that should be kept in mind when considering mount mortality from weapons is the anatomy of the mount. Horse and elk have more gracile rib cages than bears or rhinos, for example. In a rhino, just for example, I would hazard a guess that the shot would need to hit an intercostal space between ribs, while a deer or elk would not have significant "armor" built in, so to speak.

but that's a bit tangential for this forum, so I'll stop there.

Very interesting discussion, I've learned several things already.

Cheers,
--Mike Habib

[Mike Habib]

Jeanry,

Hunting bears from the protected stand makes sense.

Do you know where you read or heard information on spear hunting? I have focused over the years to some extent on thrown weapons and would be quite interested.

Thanks,
--Mike Habib

[JeanryChandler]

Well, I've definitely learned a few things about bows. Apparently recent bows, at least, generate more force than I gave them credit for,

I'm not sure if there are now some modern bows, with their reduction gears and compisite construction, which can compare to this or not, but I understand that the old Longbows which were known in the Brtiish Isles and Scandinavia apparently back to the Neolithic, could have a draw strength of as much as 130-150 lbs. That is a very, very powerful bow, much more so than any modern bow I have personally ever seen.

That is one of the reasons why longbowmen were hard to come by, you had to train for a long time to build up the strength alone.

Crossbows are less efficient in terms of draw strength for a variety of reasons, largely due to the width of the prod (bow), but I know that today, a modern crossbow with a 180-200 lb draw is considered very, very powerful. Sufficient to hunt big game. But during the Renaissance, some of the most powerful crossbows had draw strength in excess of 1,000 -1,200 lbs. I don't know if anyone has been able to reproduce weapons this powerful yet for testing, it would be very interesting if they did, especially in some kind of a systematic way...

DB