| Author |
Message |
|
Ryan S.
|
 Posted: Thu 12 Jan, 2023 6:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: |
While the simple answer is yes, the complicated bit is working out how much and whether it is significant. Take how the knight is moving in relation to the path of the arrow. The chance of the arrow hitting at precisely 180 degrees to the direction of travel is quite low, and some sort of vector analysis would be needed. Obviously, the angles of the glancing surfaces and how they are affected by motion would also come into play. I think there may be some more complex physics around rate of energy transfer from arrow to target that would be affected by a moving target too, but it is well beyond my knowledge of such things. |
Thanks for the point about the angles.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Augusto Boer Bront
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jan, 2023 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | Augusto Boer Bront wrote: | | Ryan S. wrote: | | I wonder, does anyone of thoughts on how riding on horseback would affect arrow penetration? For example, would a knight charging on horseback be hit harder because he is moving in the opposite direction as the arrow? |
Of course, it's simple physics.
You just need to add the speed of the horse to the speed of the arrow.
Thing is, good luck hitting anything.
So yes, the arrows would hit marginally with more energy, IF you it anything. |
Do you mean that an archer would have a hard time hitting a horse and rider charging him, or that the archer would have a hard time hitting the rider in a place where it would count?
According to the first google result I found, a horse gallops somewhere around 25-35 mph. I took the low end and converted it into m/s and got 11.176 m/s. In one of Tod´s videos, Joe was shooting around 55 m/s with an 85 g arrow. That should have an effective speed of about 66 m/s. If my calculations are correct, that is an increase from 128 joules to 185. That seems to be a significant increase to me. I think, though, one should also take into account the mass of the rider. Of course, if 128 joules is enough to penetrate mail, and 185 is not enough to penetrate plate, then it would make no practical difference.
Maybe the more interesting question, is what about with horse archers shooting backwards? The loss of 11 m/s is probably more of a game changer than a gain of the same amount. Of course, the role of angles is important because archers probably don’t ever shoot the exact opposite direction that their horse is going. |
You simply can't aim deliberately at weakspots in the armour.
Not like Joe did or like Tod did with his scope. You're just lobbing arrows hoping they will hit anything at all. The rider keeps going up and down as he comes towards the archer, and arrows take a bit to reach the target, they are not laser beams. So an archer has to take into account the speed of the rider and the angle that the whole cavalry formation has approaching the frontline of the archers while shooting.
Armourer-Artist-Blacksmith
www.magisterarmorum.com
Pinterest albums to almost all existing XIVth century armour.
Pinterest albums on almost all existing XVth century Italian armour.
|
|
 |
|
|
Graham Shearlaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Tue 17 Jan, 2023 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Augusto Boer Bront wrote: |
You simply can't aim deliberately at weakspots in the armour.
Not like Joe did or like Tod did with his scope. You're just lobbing arrows hoping they will hit anything at all. The rider keeps going up and down as he comes towards the archer, and arrows take a bit to reach the target, they are not laser beams. So an archer has to take into account the speed of the rider and the angle that the whole cavalry formation has approaching the frontline of the archers while shooting. |
I am not sure if I understand what you are saying. If you are saying that an arrow actually hitting a weak spot is more luck than skill because it is so hard, then I agree with you. Not even Joe had laser like accuracy against a still standing target with his bow.
If you are saying that archers didn’t aim at all, then I am sceptical. I think it depends on the range, but I think the rule is that archers aimed at individual enemies, and not the masses. If it was a 1/100 or 1/1000 shot, I don’t know, but they did shoot a lot of arrows.
Thanks, that is really cool. It is interesting how even a test that is not the highest quality can provide some useful insight. There is the trade-off between shooting fast or shooting accurate, and even though it wasn’t a real knight, the archers felt pressure, and there is also the learning curve. I don’t think that is anything one can learn from shooting at a butt on Sundays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2023 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
