[Gary Teuscher]

Ahh' the old can Longbows penetrate plate thing again?

No. I fully agree with many others that arrows from various period bows were incapable of penetrating armour at range.

I'd say plate (1-1.5 mm over mail, or the thicker plate on it's own type) would not be in danger of being pentrated by long or composite bows, probably regardless of range.

I also tend to agree with the thought that needle nosed bodkins at range were more flight arrows, and an unhardened bodkin at range was not going to do much of anything to someone in mail. I'm not one of those that believes the "Longbow had a range of 240 yards, and no armor was protection against it" statement you'll see about the longbow in some books and I-net sites.

However we do know knights were from time to time killed or severely wounded through mail by Saracen arrows (i may use the term "Turkish" bow for these - meaning the Composite recurve), and being severely wounded by a crossbow was also not uncommon (Richard the Lion Hearted maybe the most recognizable example here).

As far as the Lonbow vs the Composite bow thing, I've found that a composite bow of similar draw weight could store energy better than a longbow. Even a Composite of somewhat lower draw weight should have similar qualities in stored energy to a longbow (another issue here, but to me that is another nail in the coffin about the alleged superiority of the Middle age "wonder weapon"). Some tests of the great longbow compared to tests of reconstructed turkish bows really point this way as well.

My thought here is mail was clearly capable of being penetrated, but at what range? I know there was a wide variance in quality of mail and plate, and variance in the hardness of arrowheads, two things that play a big role. There is a passage where european knights were advised to wear "Doubled Mail" to protect themsleves, because the Mongols were using hardened arrows (I forget the specifics, but they were concerned apparently because the Mongols were hardening thir arrowheads by quenching them in urine ).

I've run some numbers for period crossbows as well (I'm looking more at the late 11th to 13th or so century weapons mostly for Crossbows), the Horn/Composite Belt claw drawn ones probably had about in the realm of 118-134 transferable foot pounds to the bolt, the wooden ones about 10% less. This is based on draw weights in the 300-350# range, this is what most crossbow makers and historians estimate the belt claw type to be roughly. The wooden ones would be about 1/2 that. Correspondingly, the Longbows in the 80-140 draw weights stored about 68-120 foot pounds, add about 5% for composites of the same draw weight. There is a fairly good range for Selfbows - mostly because there is a wide range of estimated pulls for Longbows. Several Viking bows found have been estimated in the 100# draweight, there are a few schools of thought that I have found on those on the Mary Rose - anywhere from averaging 100# to 125# or so, but with bows on both ends of this equation.

The projectile weight can vary some, but is not a huge issue in the equation. IIRC, the great warbow estimates projectile speeds in the Middle ages to have ranged mostly in the 180-200 fps range, pretty well regardless of bow type. My guess is the Crossbows in general used slightly greater weighted bolts than the longbows, whcih probably were in the 1000-1100 grain range. Turkish arrows I'm not really sure, but I would think similar to longbow weighted arrows, perhaps a bit lighter as they are generally thought to have a bit more range, though this also may be a flight arrow issue. There is a Arabic writing (around the 11th or so century, but I forget) that advises the arrows be made of Hardwood, not lighter material. Perhaps this indicates their arrows were lighter in the past, I don't know. It may seem as a lighter arrow could penetrate better as KE is based on velocity more than mass - but bows have this "decling efficiency", as the arrow gets lighter the bow is capable of sucessfully transmitting less stored KE to the arrow.

But any thoughts to if and at what range arrows could penetrate mail armour, first to penetrate enough to cause light wounds, secondly to have enough penetration to deliver a serious or mortal wound? And to keep things simple, we will assume arrows hardened to the specifications of found arrowheads (using braodheads as the arrow type).

For plate I'd say the Horn Crossbow and Longbows could not in almost every circumstance, meaning 1-2mm over mail over quilted armour.

As a teaser, those 750-1000# steel bows seem to have been capable of storing 192-256 foot pounds of energy. I wonder who effective these would be at close range vs. Plate? The stored enrgy is based a lot on Leo's remarks about drawlength - He won't make bows with more than a 4-5" powerstroke (a portion of the total draw, adding the brace length gives total draw) due to metal tolerances and the fact he cannot have a bow he sells break on someone, but estimates that middle ages steel bows would have had about a maximum 6-7", based both on metal tolerances and period illustrations.

[Chris Arrington]

In regards to heavier and heavier crossbows, I remember an artcile I read that stated that as the draw weights rose the velocities of the bolts reached a diminshing return. I hesitate to try and repeat the physics involved, as I don't remember the reasoning very well. But the key was that these very heavy crossbows were able to throw much heavier bolts at the "maximum" velocity. Which of course increased the impact energy and penetration qualities of the bolt.

I just wish I could remember where I read that.

[Gary Teuscher]

Yeah, that is pretty much the same as what I have read. The efficiency decreases as the weight or the bolt or arrow decreases. Seems like the most efficient weight for Longbow or Composites in the 140 pound draw eight or so was around 1500 grains - though it seems most arrows were lighter.

This website (thanks to Benjamin Abbot) illustrates this well:

http://www.atarn.org/islamic/akarpowicz/turkish_bow_tests.htm

[Dan Howard]

There are only two decent papers on this subject. The results of one is in Williams' The Knight and the Blast Furnace but it is likely that Dr Williams underestimated the power of a warbow. The other was in the RA's Arms and Armour Journal and this one is biased against the armour - but not as much as others I've seen.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=79261

Both tests suggest that it is highly unlikely for an arrow to punch through plate armour far enough to seriously injure the wearer.

[Randall Moffett]

Williams clearly gave an unrealistically weak draw weight. 70 pounds is perhaps just a bit more than half what the likely average was if not half. He also uses a 200pound draw crossbow.... also very underweight... perhaps less than half or even 1/3 of what is should be. Not sure where he got these from but having spoken to him several times I am sure he did not select them purposely low only that that was the info he found on them. I think Williams can easily be discounted for bows and crossbows for his direct conclusions. That said he does give the info on what would be needed to pierce the armour so still useful.

I do not think the RA Journal is biased much in either respects... if anything I think it might be the other way biased as they did not do many of the things that would have given the bow a much easier time penetrating. The major weakness in it is the jump from 1.15mm where fair penetration to lethal penetration was fairly common to 2mm where it was not. Since a great amount of the armour I have handled has had thickness around 1.5mm in places if not the majority or there abouts the jump passes an important area. The RA journal article clearly gives evidence armour could be defeated by a arrow but gives a good viewing of what the situation would require to accomplish this and the major difficulty that exists in doing so. I have been just outside the loop waiting for part two and so far seems off in the distance some.

I think the idea that there are a variety of arrows with multiplicities of use is correct. I think that from a good 50-75 yards on penetration of armour becomes extremely unlikely. I think for further than 220 you are using very light arrows that have near no chance of penetration of plate and even at point blank a flight type arrow would not have the mass needed to pierce plate. A heavy arrow from a heavy bow close I am sure could under the right conditions.

RPM

[Gary Teuscher]

Randall Moffet wrote:

[Steve Hinton]

Hi

Much of this research is a little dated

Take a look at http://www.englishwarbow,com/

You are a little under on draw weights for Mary Rose Bows these have now been recorded at much higher weights

Mark Stretton is doing a massive amount on armour penetration

In recent tests he has put a replica plate cutting head through 2mm 14swg charcoal rolled iron (arrow head penetrated out the other side by 1/2inch the target was static) which is the material medieval armour would have been made from rather than modern high carbon steels.

This was using a bow of 140lbs draw weight the arrow weighed 102g (1571gn) drawn to 31inch

He has also done tests on moving targets at 20mph (the average speed of a desrier) (additional 2 inch penetration)

Mark is currently undergoing tests with the defence academy there is a DVD available

As for Maile even broad headed blades can penetrate to a lethal depth

You also need to take ito account hitting power even if the arrow didn't cut through the percussion and deformation of the armour would be enough to damage bones and organs not an immediate death granted

[Steve Hinton]

Also forgot

Take a look at warbow by Robert Hardy

And for the original poster have you considered;

If armour wasn't being defeated by bolts and arrows why bother manufacturing heavier and more complex armour?

Chroniclers thought it note worthy and recorded the suprise of English archers when their arrows failed to penetrate the latest Italian plate armour in the mid 15C

Why If maile was so good was it relegated to covering the spots where movement was compromised by plate?

A lot if not the majority of arrow heads were case hardened (as case hardening only alters the molecular structure at the surface of the arrow head most of this is removed by the action of oxidisation (rusting)) by burying the arrow heads in organic matter i.e. crushed bone and cooking. the urine would work in a similar manner producing a slightly higher carbon content 'skin ' over the surface.

Hope this is helpful

[Steve Hinton]

Forgot something else

My bow is Italian Yew and behaves and shootscompletelyy different to Oregon and English Yew. The ring density per inch is far greater my bow is 110 lbs draw weight and it will put (with a moderate archer at best pulling it) 1137grn bodkin headed arrows 220 to 230 yrds my new improved arrows will go further

The difference between Asian composite bows and self wooden bows is recovery speed (the ability for the bow to snap back to its pre drawn state) which will impart more speed to an arrow of the same weight shot from a wooden bow of the same draw weight (taking intoconsiderationn the law of diminishing returns)

The main reason for going down the composite route is material availability. (most English Warbows were imported from Spain and Italy)

Another good book to look at is Arrowstorm by Richard Wadge

[Richard Hare]

Gary,

I can't help but feel you are trying to re-invent the wheel here.

It appears your research is more important than looking at the actual historical facts.

Longbows with a decent archer behing them will fire an arrow an awful long way...I'm not saying how far, because the facts are out there already and don't need re-hashing.

It appears now that longbow arrows are even having trouble with penetrating mail?

One or two questions, and then I'll go and leave you alone;

In the Hundred years war, why did the percentage of archers increase, from about 20% of total man-power, up to 80% of the total???

It wasn't because their little arrows Might irritate the odd enemy.

Why did the French avoid at all costs engaging the English in a head -to-head confrontation after Agiuncourt??

Why was it that an English army, only a fraction the size of the French, could not only hold its own, but almost monotonously take the day???

Why was it, on the odd occasion when the English archers were surprised and scattered , that the English lost the battle??

Why were archers paid more than foot-soldiers, if they were not much good??

Why train for bloody years, if your skill is to no avail when it comes down to the nitty-gritty??

Please Gary, Go and read some History.

Very best wishes,

Richard.

[Chad Arnow]

[Steven H]

[Daniel Staberg]

[Joshua Connolly]

Richard,

Well, I'll personally try to offer an explanation from my own humble resources. Admittedly some of this is more my own theories about the situation, without having too much of a wealth of historical data to back it up. Forgive me for intruding.

[Randall Moffett]

Resting English victory on the ability of the longbow to pierce plate armour is a dead end. My guess is that maybe one in 100, 1000 or even more may have done so. Alone it would likey not change the battle but combined with other casualties it caused it hampered the enemy and watered them down. That said I think it played a part in the weapons effectiveness but not how most would assume it would. I think there is a great likelihood that armour of the 15th would have left sufficient gaps to make the penetration issue less important. Knights always have some holes in their defences. Horses even more so. So at a distance I think it is fair to think that a man in plate was fairly safe under his armour.... but with tens if not hundreds of thousands of arrows flying around they do not need to pierce the armour. 1000 times better than being unarmoured but not invulnerable. I think closer up they were shooting and wounding or killing knights and other plate armoured men with more frequency, not per se mostly through plate armour. There are plenty of accounts from the late 14th and 15th that indicate men being wounded or killed by archers. That said even at close range it does not have to be through the plate but since the closer one gets this possibility increased this would be when it would happen. This is what I think happens at Patay and Verneuil. The archers cannot do any close shooting as their stakes had failed or they were caught unaware and they have to leg it. As far off the well equipped heavy cavalry is sitting safe their only option would be to run as shooting close would give them a short space of time before being crushed.

I think there is mail and mail. I cannot see many of the period hauberks I have seen, and I have seen perhaps a dozen to two dozen standing up to needlepoint bodkins. Part is that the point easily can get through with no force behind it. With an arrow it would have even less of a problem. OF course as I said there is mail and mail. Some mail was clearly intended to be proof. Whether it truly was is another question entirely. We have several accounts of men being killed by arrows through mail. We have some that do the other. One should not discount either but try and reason why in some situations it works and others if does not. Rereading some English accounts of Halidon last week I am surprised any one still thinks mail held up well against mail in all situations if they have looked at the primary sources. Dropping like leaves in autumn was one expression of how the knights of Scotland fell to the arrows. Unlike plate with chinks, mail of this time had few... unless it pierced their helmets, which I think is less likely.

Clearly with manpower of archers it does indeed rely around cost in part. The issue remains though is that the English have some of their greatest victories with masses of archers. Clearly they were effective against men at arms.

I think the English loss of the HYW has nothing to do with war directly. It has everything to do with ineffective leadership and an apathetic parliament back at home. While the English in England and Normandy fought over who was responsible to pay for the constant wars Charles VII simply walked in and did what the English should have been doing. There is little doubt to me that the long duration of the war shows the value of the archer against any troops of the day. The massive French attacks at the late 1440s saw the English garrisons in the lowest they had been ever. Most of the towns surrendered without any weapons even brought to bear on them. I think everyone knew Henry VI was not a man like his father and there was no sense in waging a war without real physical royal support.

RPM

[Gary Teuscher]

Richard hare wrote:

[Randall Moffett]

Gary,

I think discounting the average draw weight given from the Mary Rose bows is dangerous at best. All research points to 140-160 as the largest % that were recovered. Since we have no other bows we know to be military bows for late medieval to early modern this literally is all we have to go off for Western European longbows. The only person who contended with the Mary Rose bow findings on any real grounds has since changed his view after realizing his math was wrong. The 100 pound draw is just unrealistic. I can after 4-5 days a year draw one with little effort at this point. Anyone who practiced even once a month should be able to get to 120 with ease. The gent you are thinking of is Pip Bickerstaff and his reasons for dropping the draw weight to 100 pounds also would discount crossbows being any higher than 100 pounds as well, claiming that the material used in period was incapable of such tensile strength which is completely false. There are really no real arguments I have heard that adequately indicate why people arrived at 120 as an average or 100 for that matter. At least the Mary Rose estimate is based on real finds with real context, full stop. The only real issue is if the bows were more powerful in the 16th over 15th or 14th which would not to me seem to be the case but that is an entire matter in itself.

Tests on arrow heads and hardness are all very, very inadequate as well. Most measure a million of one type with but one or two other ones. Part is the lack of certain types so using them for anything that might cause harm to them limits how much use is possible but I’d be careful making general assumptions off very limited sample sections. Same goes with armour. No one has done anything in real numbers to get thickness really into the equation. Until someone takes the time and effort to look at a much greater and more proportional number of both arrowheads and armour the debate will always be lopsided.

Williams testing did include a 16 layered padded garment in his equations on penetration. Since many seem to think that non-padded garments were used by the mid 15th it is hard to say if it should be included. To me I think they were to some extent always padded to some degree.


RPM

[Josh Warren]

As I've posted recently here the last time this topic came up a few weeks ago, I think the written primary source evidence comes down heavily on the armour side of the argument. There are more existing historical records that state that armour resisted arrows than there are records that state that men were killed by arrows through steel plate armour. See here:

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15336

The recent tests published and noised about by Stretton and company almost invariably depict the archers shooting at either flat or barely-shaped pieces of steel, and never more than one layer of steel. Plenty of later fifteenth century breastplates feature significant overlap of the breastplate and plackart, pauldrons, wrapper, bevor, etc. On some later harnesses, nearly every inch of the upper body is sheathed in no less than two layers of steel, which could exceed 4mm in thickness in vulnerable spots, as recorded here by men who have personally handled and measured these pieces:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewto...=thickness





It was armour such as this that defeated the longbow. Note the deep plackarts, effectively forming an almost double-breastplate, as well as the huge pauldrons and elbow defenses. Between those and the brow reinforce and wrapper on the armet, any weapon that strikes a man so armed will very often be opposed by more than one layer of steel.

[Dan Howard]

[Josh Warren]