| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Wed 11 Feb, 2009 8:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I trust we're all going to play nice and not start getting snarky again, right?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Feb, 2009 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is hard on a text medium. I honestly did not intend any "snarkiness" My problem is that there are plenty of archery enthusiasts who dismiss WIlliams' work without even reading it. Or making claims about one part or other that simply are not true. The book took the best part of 30 years to write and is by far the most comprehensive work on the subject of armour and metallurgy.
FWIW the only Chapter that is really relevant in this thread is Ch 9 so reading the entire 900-odd pages isn't really required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Feb, 2009 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I took Dan's comment as Snarky and that was an error in judgement. My apologies.
I guess my point was I know I had some incorrect info earlier and I realized that (or probably more precisely a misinterpretation). I was looking to clarify whether or not hardened arrowheads were used, and it was legitimately a question, I am neither a bow backer (I guess that would make me not a tendon  ) nor one who believes armour was completely proof against arrows.
BTW - Found an online book, but the pages unavailable were the ones Dan mentioned 
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Nov, 2013 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
The numbers from this test, if accurate, indicate that Manchu composite bows performed much better than English yew bows with heavy arrows. The tested 82lb Manchu bow shot a 15-grain-per-lb arrow at 191 feet per second, thoroughly outclassing a 128lb yew bow with an arrow of the same weight. Delivering 135 J, this 82lb Manchu bow hits harder than the 150lb Mary Rose reconstruction tested in The Great Warbow. The comparison isn't completely accurate, as Manchu bows are apparently somewhat harder to draw than yew bows because of the high initial draw weight, but sources indicate that Manchu cavalry archers commonly draw 80-100lbs. It makes me wonder what the English could have done with this technology. Even assuming a reduction in the average draw weight from 150-160lbs to 130-140lbs, such bows would probably deliver around 200 J or more with heavy arrows.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Nov, 2013 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those claims are rather otherworldly, though, so one got to wonder about their authenticity.
Leaving aside longbows they completely best Adam Karpowicz bows, and pretty much any (retro)relfexive bows out there, be it from natural materials, or glass, carbon etc. fibres.
And beat them by like 40% at some cases....
So it's interesting, but I'm not sure I believe completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Nov, 2013 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While certainly impressive, note the cited numbers for the Manchu bow involve 15 grains per pound - a quite heavy arrow, though historical for Manchu archery. According to the linked article, Manchu bows perform much worse with lighter arrows. The Turkish bows tested by Karpowicz presumably shoot lighter arrows significantly faster. While I don't know of any other tests of Manchu bows, various assessments identify them as the ideal design for shooting heavy arrows.
While composite bows saw varying levels of use in parts of Europe, the English used yew bows, not anything like Manchu horn-and-sinew designs.
While I'm skeptical too, the notion of Manchu bows as extremely potent aligns with their persistence alongside gunpower weapons even into the nineteenth century. The Manchus initially defeated the Ming Dynasty primarily via archery and edged weapons - in the early seventeenth century. Contextually, the supports the notion of their bows as particularly effective. (Of course, Turkish-style archery also persisted for some time beside guns. Higher arrow speed has many advantages.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Nov, 2013 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Calculating from the numbers given, I get stored energy of 138.18J, and kinetic energy of 138.96J, for an efficiency of over 100%. Which I don't believe. This efficiency says that one of the two energies is wrong, which means either the force-draw curve is wrong (perhaps the scale used for the force measurement is wrong?), or the arrow weight is wrong, or the chronograph is wrong (which would affect the longbow result as well). Or the arrow was drawn further than 32" for the speed tests.
An efficiency of over 80% is quite plausible, and perhaps even approaching 90% (based on Karpowicz's Turkish bow tests). The 94.84% given in the article is close to the best efficiency measured by Karpowicz, but here the arrow is lighter and the bow heavier, so I'd expect a lower efficiency.
Given that the force-draw curve starts at 9", but the brace height is supposed to be 7", there is some discrepancy. Assuming the force-draw curve is correct, 110J to 125J of arrow energy would be plausible.
As for the comparison with the yew longbow, the longbow in this test was delivering more energy at a lower draw weight than the bow in Stretton's experimental tests is chapter 5 of Soar, "Secrets of the English War Bow". So the longbow result seems plausible.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Nov, 2013 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | The Manchus initially defeated the Ming Dynasty primarily via archery and edged weapons - in the early seventeenth century. |
I wouldn't say it was the weapons that mattered. What had more effect was the capture of Beijing by rebels and the overthrow of the Ming emperor, followed by the defection of the armies facing the Manchus on the frontier, who then spearheaded the (re)capture of Beijing, followed by defection of perhaps half of what was left of the Ming army, who then spearheaded the conquest of the rest of China from the Ming (2 new Ming emperors having been crowned). Followed by the Qing carrying out the military reforms planned by the late Ming (more, and better, muskets).
Agree with what you said about Manchu bows & archery. The persistence of East Asian military archery was also helped by the military examinations being archery-oriented and the high status of archery as a skill, which meant that there were plenty of archers available. Also the difficulty of using matchlock muskets on horseback.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Nov, 2013 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | While certainly impressive, note the cited numbers for the Manchu bow involve 15 grains per pound - a quite heavy arrow, though historical for Manchu archery. According to the linked article, Manchu bows perform much worse with lighter arrows. The Turkish bows tested by Karpowicz presumably shoot lighter arrows significantly faster. While I don't know of any other tests of Manchu bows, various assessments identify them as the ideal design for shooting heavy arrows.
s.) |
What I meant is that they beat Karpowicz bows by ridiculous amounts even with 100g arrows, so even something more radical than 15gpp....
Didn't mean just light arrows.
| Quote: | | (Of course, Turkish-style archery also persisted for some time beside guns. Higher arrow speed has many advantages.) |
I don't think it really persisted all that longer than in the general Western Europe....
I think that Janissaries had already began to exchange bows for firearms on quite large scale in 15th century.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Nov, 2013 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Calculating from the numbers given, I get stored energy of 138.18J, and kinetic energy of 138.96J, for an efficiency of over 100%. |
You know a weapon's good when it violates the laws of physics! Thanks for providing a concrete reason to doubt the listed numbers. Contacting the author seems in order.
| Quote: | | An efficiency of over 80% is quite plausible, and perhaps even approaching 90% (based on Karpowicz's Turkish bow tests). The 94.84% given in the article is close to the best efficiency measured by Karpowicz, but here the arrow is lighter and the bow heavier, so I'd expect a lower efficiency. |
That makes sense, but various account identify the Manchu bow as particularly suited for launching heavier arrows, so it be might be more efficient. Karpowicz notes that the longer Turkish bows tests are more efficient with heavier arrows while the shorter bows are more efficient with lighter arrows. The longest bow tested managed 91.2% efficiency at 15.83 grains per lb. The shortest bow tested, by contrast, only achieved 81.7% efficiency at 16.79 grains per lb. Based on this trend, the longer Manchu bow should have over 91.2% efficiency at the tested 15 grains per lb.
| Quote: | | Assuming the force-draw curve is correct, 110J to 125J of arrow energy would be plausible. |
That sounds much more reasonable, but is still a tremendous amount energy for an 82lb bow.
| Quote: | | As for the comparison with the yew longbow, the longbow in this test was delivering more energy at a lower draw weight than the bow in Stretton's experimental tests is chapter 5 of Soar, "Secrets of the English War Bow". So the longbow result seems plausible. |
It delivers somewhat less energy per draw weight than the bow tested for The Great Warbow. I'm not sure why, but Stretton's bow tend to post relatively poor numbers. I'm guessing it's not easy to make a fast-shooting yew bow, which stands consistent with historical English interest in quality wood and bows.
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | I wouldn't say it was the weapons that mattered. |
I don't mean to attribute excessive importance to hardware. Certainly what you mention is key. However, it strikes me as appropriate that bows would remain military weapons in a region that had the relatively most powerful bows. While the Qing military certainly employed firearms, archery remained important on the battlefield at least through the seventeenth century. (I'm not sure how effective archery was later on, but the Qing maintained it as military skill into the nineteenth century.) As Dzengseo's account shows, Qing mounted archers successfully contributed amidst plentiful gunpowder weapons. He described personally charged into gun and artillery fire, killed with his bow as he went. He described specifically shooting dead one opponent up close, attesting to the Manchu bow's stopping power. He described arrow volleys routed opposing war elephants. Curious, the incident that scared him the most didn't involve guns or elephants, but indiscriminate arrows flying from his own side when the army stumbled upon an abundance of game. A number of officers received fatal injuries from wayward arrows.
On Turkish archery, my understanding is that horse archers remained important into the late seventeenth century. That's about a century later than the English bow lasted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Nov, 2013 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| Quote: | | An efficiency of over 80% is quite plausible, and perhaps even approaching 90% (based on Karpowicz's Turkish bow tests). The 94.84% given in the article is close to the best efficiency measured by Karpowicz, but here the arrow is lighter and the bow heavier, so I'd expect a lower efficiency. |
That makes sense, but various account identify the Manchu bow as particularly suited for launching heavier arrows, so it be might be more efficient. Karpowicz notes that the longer Turkish bows tests are more efficient with heavier arrows while the shorter bows are more efficient with lighter arrows. The longest bow tested managed 91.2% efficiency at 15.83 grains per lb. The shortest bow tested, by contrast, only achieved 81.7% efficiency at 16.79 grains per lb. Based on this trend, the longer Manchu bow should have over 91.2% efficiency at the tested 15 grains per lb.
|
For all bows, short or long, you gain efficiency as the arrows become heavier. What length affects is the weight at which you have "enough" efficiency, and the drop in arrow speed hurts more than the gain in energy from becoming heavier. "Enough" depends on what you are doing with the arrow. It isn't really the length of the bow that matters here, it's the weight of the limbs per unit stored energy (so for the same bow design, limb weight per pound of draw weight). Longer bows tend to have heavier limbs, so you should see a dependence on length.
As Peter Dekker says, the "problem" with the Manchu bow is that the long ears are heavy, and they don't get that much lighter if you build the bow weaker. So performance isn't so good at low draw weights. Overall, it's a big heavy bow compared to other continental Asian composite bows, and needs heavy arrows as well to get to high efficiencies.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| Quote: |
Assuming the force-draw curve is correct, 110J to 125J of arrow energy would be plausible.
|
That sounds much more reasonable, but is still a tremendous amount energy for an 82lb bow.
|
That's the benefit of the recurve-reflex with long ears. The force-draw curve is convex, rather than concave (as you get with a stick bow). That gives a lot more energy for the same draw weight. Also, note the long draw length. Going to a (draw length - brace height) 10% greater, all else being the same (i.e., having the final draw force being the same) gives you 10% more energy.
Yes, it's a lot of energy for an 82lb bow, but that's why these bows are built the way they are.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Nov, 2013 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
To further complicate things, Adam Karpowicz lists yew longbow numbers from a personal communication with Pip Bickerstaffe that far surpass those from The Great Warbow: 188 fps at 12.85 grains/lb. 164 J from a 120lb bow. 150lb Mary Rose reconstruction shot by Simon Stanley only manged 190 fps at 7.76 grains/lb and 167 fps at 11.08 grains/lb - and all the other yew longbows I've seen numbers for perform worse. Matheus Bane's 75lb Oregon yew bow shot 158 fps at 13.13 grains/lb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Nov, 2013 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | To further complicate things, Adam Karpowicz lists yew longbow numbers from a personal communication with Pip Bickerstaffe that far surpass those from The Great Warbow: 188 fps at 12.85 grains/lb. 164 J from a 120lb bow. |
That's a pretty efficient longbow! Assuming a 6" brace height, and no stacking, and that the bow was drawn to 32", that's an efficiency of 93%. Assuming all of the measurements are correct.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guy Bayes
Location: United States Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 64
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Nov, 2013 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i don't really pay much attention to any of these things until some non-affiliated person reproduces the results
too easy to make minor errors...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Nov, 2013 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy Bayes wrote: | | too easy to make minor errors... |
Indeed! For tests like these, you really want a mechanical shooter, not a human shooter, to make sure that the bow is drawn back to the correct distance. Otherwise, it's easy for a human to pull a little further back, and get quite a bit more energy. Especially if one is used to using techniques such as "thrust and snap", where the bow hand pushes the bow forwards, and the string hand pulls back a bit further, just before release.
The Karpowicz tests use mechanical shooting.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | And doesn't require a very heavy bow--I suspect an 80-pound composite bow shooting a heavy arrow from point-blank range (which was the horse archers' preferred range) would have a fair chance of achieving this kind of penetration against a mail-clad opponent. |
Looking at some of Williams tests (I frequently use these a bit but they seems most accurate), mail needs about 80j to penetrate, mail over a jack 100j. By guess mail over a gambeson would be in the 90j range.. |
What do you mean by "penetrate"? The above figures are enough to damage the mail but nowhere near enough to seriously injure the wearer. Even Williams' 120J test resulted in only 35mm of penetration - hardly enough to take someone out of the fight. The website from where you found those results have misinterpreted the figures. ALL tests were performed with mail over 16 layers of quilted linen. None were performed with mail by itself. I've already said this in another thread. You really need to read the book itself not someone's 2nd hand interpretation of it.
From pp.942-943
at 80 J two links were broken - no damage to padding
at 100j the mail was penetrated and the padding holed but only barely - no injury to wearer
at 120j the mail and padding were holed and the plasticine was penetrated 35mm - injury but not serious. |
is also an inch and the test in flawed by the fact that used uniform medium. An inch in someone's throat or in between ribs could kill a man. An inch deep wound is enough to start a bleed out. Also, different areas have the body have the arteries and even organs in different spots, for example the kidney region of the body is in between to layers of muscle and not really in the internal body cavity and you can punched or clubbed to piss blood there hard enough to be piss blood relatively easily.
What's you definition of take someone out of a fight? Have them drop like rock upon being hited? Having them quickly unable to be a participant in a battle?
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | is also an inch and the test in flawed by the fact that used uniform medium. An inch in someone's throat or in between ribs could kill a man. |
In the throat maybe but not in the ribs, certainly not quickly enough to be useful.
| Quote: | | An inch deep wound is enough to start a bleed out. |
Which is a wasted blow if he is capable of fighting for an hour or so beforehand.
| Quote: | | What's you definition of take someone out of a fight? Having them quickly unable to be a participant in a battle? |
This. The whole point is to stop them from fighting as quickly and efficiently as possible. Whether he dies after the battle is irrelevant to the outcome of that battle and to the person dealing the blow. There are only a very few rare instances where penetration of an inch is enough to incapacitate a fighter. It seems to me to be a stupid idea to rely on this remote possibility when you are fighting for your life.
Also keep in mind that the mail that Williams tested was not particlarly heavy. If the the same test was performed against, say Roman mail, then you would need an even heavier bow to do the same damage.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Also keep in mind that arrowheads varried, mail varried, and mail wasn't always worn with as much padding as the test. We've so many historical accounts of arrows and others weapons piercing mail and causing serious injury that I'm skeptical doing so always required 120 J or more. For example, a fifteenth-century Burgundian source thought Turkish arrows would probably pierce light mail, while reconstructions indicate that historical Turkish bows probably delivered no more 95 J on average.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Also keep in mind that arrowheads varried, mail varried, and mail wasn't always worn with as much padding as the test. We've so many historical accounts of arrows and others weapons piercing mail and causing serious injury that I'm skeptical doing so always required 120 J or more. For example, a fifteenth-century Burgundian source thought Turkish arrows would probably pierce light mail, while reconstructions indicate that historical Turkish bows probably delivered no more 95 J on average. |
Also, what is average weave/link tightness, if an arrowhead's tip is thinner than the hole in the links, it doesn't matter how much force the arrowhead delivers because there a chance that the arrow might slot itself thus avoiding the metal in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Nov, 2013 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Here is an account of the 82lb-Manchu-bow test from the bowmaker. It lists the longbow as 119lbs rather than 128lbs and says the longbow delivered more energy with arrows over 100g. The linked thread also contains pictures of the test shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 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