[Wolfgang Armbruster]

[Sean Flynt]

I was especially impressed by the Hardy/Strickland info about the conservation of velocity of an arrow from a longbow at maximum range. They indicated that at impact the arrow retained as much as 75 percent of its initial velocity, due in part to regaining some velocity as it fell out of a high trajectory. Very interesting.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Gordon Frye]

And of course one of the primary reasons for the English Chivalry dismounting for most of their fighting is that longbows and their clothyard shafts wreak havoc among unarmoured horses. Since the vast majority of cavalry horses were unarmoured, it was a grand way of evening things out into a straight-up infantry fight.

This doesn't mean that musket balls were in any way less effective in killing horses, but a horse wounded by a musket ball isn't in the same boat as one who has an arrow sticking up out of it's flank, something that was well known to drive horses mad with pain and fear. Hard to control them at that point, to say the least, and a horse bucking his way out of ranks is a lot more disruptive to a formation than one simply falling and dying. And it was something that could be done at long range with a high trajectory to get the poorly armoured horses in the back ranks, which wasn't really an option with musketry.

Allons!

Gordon

[Elling Polden]

The high trajectory also means a steeper angle of impact.
As the tank nerds among us knows, angle has a hughe impact on armour penetration.
For instance, the mighty Panther tank only had 80mm of front hull armour, the same as the Pz IV H... The Panther, however, had a 60 degree slope on its front armour, making it impervious to shells that would devastate the IV...

A longbow arrow coming down at, say 80 degrees angle at its maximum range, would have a lot less armour penetrating punch than its kinetic energy would sugest.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

Well, if the war-bow was such a great weapon I wonder why plate-armour was always tested against cross-bows and firearms for getting the proof-stamp but not a bow *g*
I'd assume that a cross-bow that had to be spanned with a windlass or something else has a lot more power than a bow. However, that's just my theory and I could be wrong.

[Elling Polden]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Well, at Agincourt at least, English archers certainly didn't consider themselves too good for close combat. In my opinion, that was one of the great things about English archers: their willingness to grab a mallet or sword and wade into the melee.

[Dan Howard]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Mark Eskra]

Ever faced a line of 20-50 yahoos with hot lead hell coming at you? Me either. I believe muskets made good scare tactics as well as killing devices. Plus, you give anyone taller than a musket a musket, teach him to load and fire en masse, and you'v got a machine. No skill required, really. I'll take a musket with buck and ball over a bow anyday.

[David Ruff]

[Jean Thibodeau]

'David;

For muskets I agree with you in theory but in practice some things I would qualify: Loading prone is doable and maybe sharpshooters may have done it or used cover, but generally in formal battles it was a stand up in line and load taking your chances. Lying down might have worked but the sergeants of the time would probably have you lashed for cowardice after the fight if you survived. The officers would probably not be happy either.

As to range: Effective at 50 to 100 yards for aimed fire at single targets except that I don't think aiming was trained for in the 18th century. Against a massed target with massed fire the danger zone could be much longer but tactical doctrine would have considered this a waste of powder and would have waited " to see the whites of their eyes and then go to bayonets.

My friend Gordon Frye whose expertise is early 16th century cavalry and that period' s history, and who also shoots period reproduction matchlocks and wheelocks, mentioned that in the 16th century musketeers where expected to aim and used tight fitting ball and had a decent chance 50% of hitting a single target at 200 yards. In the 18th century, much smaller for the calibre ball was used with paper cartridges to maximize rate of fire over accuracy.

Accuracy not a factor a musket ball fired at 30° to 45° should go at a guess to 600 yards and still be lethal. For some reason
very long range volley fire doesn't seem to have been used as far as I know ? Probably considered not a cost effective way to use powder and ball ? You were probably aware of most of this already.

[Rod Parsons]

What it does say is the bows are considered (by Musashi) to be unsatisfactory when the enemy is more than forty yards away.
This does not mean that a yumi warbow will only cast a heavy arrow 40 yards,
which is patently absurd to anyone with longbow or any othe war bow culture experience.

What it most likely means is that Musashi apparently considered 40 yards the distance beyond which an archer would not with certainty hit an individual.

Given that the strongest of the present day heavy war bow archers are making around 350 yards with a "flighting" war shaft and over 250 yards with a heavy war shaft (4oz /1750 grains) and that a competent archer would begin to single out individuals at 100 paces and that the mediaeval archers would have been more experienced and more accustomed to the heavy weights, 400 yards is not unlikely as an extreme distance with the flighting arrow and 300 yards with the heavy shaft for barrage fire.
100 yards is pretty close, but the projectile takes some time to arrive, but at 40 yards shooting into a press, you would not expect to very often miss your man.

Any serious study of warbow use in cultures that fought massed where armour was developed and return fire expected shows that the draw weights are pretty much standardised by the need to meet the demands of the task.
The median for cavalry bows appears to be in the 90lb to 120lb range, for infantry bows in the 120lb to 150lb range, with the heavy mob going up into the 160lb to 180lb range.

No -one in such a culture would even bother to make a warbow that shot a heavy shaft only a mere 40 yards. Even a low weight lady's sporting bow will cast a heavy shaft further than that.

Rod.

[David Ruff]

[Rod Parsons]

David,
Whilst the angle of the strike is always a factor with plate armour, it should be born in mind that not everyone on the field would have had protective equipment of the same standard, and even so, a direct strike with a long heavy bodkin can with a direct strike still penetrate 3" to 4 " at the closer ranges.
I reckon that even such limited penetration would have a serious effect when inflicted by a 3oz to 4 oz shaft travelling at around 155fps.
IMO the function of plate is primarily to greatly increase the chances of a deflection rather than, in general use, being totally proof against penetration.
Quite possibly some of the best plate would be more penetration resistant particularly in the most sensitive areas, but how many in a force of several thousands would be so equipped?
As for losing power, at extreme distance with a high trajectory, studies have shown that the heavy shaft coming down regains most of the speed lost in climbing to the peak of it's trajectory.
As for the suggestion that has been made that the longbowmen would run from a close encounter, this is not generally supported by the history. In fact they were, with a few exceptions, noted for their aggressiveness.
Also in the later period when in the better equipped affinities, gentlemen and archers alike took to using maille and brigandine, the disparity in individual protection was not so great in the field as in earlier times.
Rod.