Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Armor and Archery? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 
Author Message
S. Mighton





Joined: 16 Aug 2007

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sat 24 Jan, 2009 5:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:


One thing though about the less velocity at extreme ranges - if you look at arrow ballistics, they actually have more velocity at their more extreme ranges, as a 45 degree angle and gravity actually makes them faster on impact with a high arcing trajectory. Of course they are best in velocity at close ranges, but I forget exaclty where the break point is. But IIRC, they have more velocity at say 240 yards then at 150 yards.



I've heard this said before, but I don't think it's possible. The arrow can't gain more velocity on the downward part of its trajectory than it loses on the upward part. Gravity deccelerates it on the way up and accelerates it on the way down. Meanwhile, its bleeding energy to air friction thoughout its entire trajectory. The longer the trajectory, the lower the impact velocity.

holds when the release point and the target are at equal elevatThis ion. When shooting downhill, gravity's effect on the trajectory will be assymetrical, resulting in two possible scenarios.

When shooting from an elevated flat surface to a lower flat surface (i.e. from castle ramparts onto a plain below), flight time and impact velocity are still inversely correlated for all trajectories.

When shooting down a constant slope however, you might get more distant arrows impacting with greater velocity than nearer ones, if the slope is steep enough.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,207

PostPosted: Sat 24 Jan, 2009 5:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

For the record, it was Henry V who asked local knights to find archers "of gentle progeny (de progenie generosa)." I don't see how this is particularly unclear. Any language can be questioned if you want to go down that route. For anyone else doubting Strickland, the source for mounted archers enjoying similar privileges to men-at-arms is Richard II's Ordinances of War of 1385. He also cities Anne Curry's research showing that some 15th-century archers were the scions of gentry families. I'm not making this stuff up.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Sat 24 Jan, 2009 6:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

S. Mighton wrote:

I've heard this said before, but I don't think it's possible. The arrow can't gain more velocity on the downward part of its trajectory than it loses on the upward part. Gravity deccelerates it on the way up and accelerates it on the way down. Meanwhile, its bleeding energy to air friction thoughout its entire trajectory. The longer the trajectory, the lower the impact velocity.

Well, I've looked all over for an online ballistics/trajectory calculator, but I can't find the one I had used earlier. But here are some numbers directly from the Ballistic calculator. I must say though, I remebered a bit incorrectly. The extreme angles over 45 degrees were actually a decrease in range as opposed to an increase. but trajectories over 45 degrees actually do increase impact velocity.

Here are some stats directly from a trajectory/ballistics calculator:

60 pound bow, 600 grain arrow

5 degree launch -61yds -151fps
25 degree-179yds -129fps
45 degree- 213yds-126fps
65 degree- 157yds -132fps

The suprising thing for me though was that once you get to about a 20 degree launch, the difference in velocities to 45 are virtually nil due to the acceleration of gravity, and at degrees of launch higher than 45 you pick up velocity.
View user's profile Send private message
S. Mighton





Joined: 16 Aug 2007

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sat 24 Jan, 2009 11:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
S. Mighton wrote:

I've heard this said before, but I don't think it's possible. The arrow can't gain more velocity on the downward part of its trajectory than it loses on the upward part. Gravity deccelerates it on the way up and accelerates it on the way down. Meanwhile, its bleeding energy to air friction thoughout its entire trajectory. The longer the trajectory, the lower the impact velocity.

Well, I've looked all over for an online ballistics/trajectory calculator, but I can't find the one I had used earlier. But here are some numbers directly from the Ballistic calculator. I must say though, I remebered a bit incorrectly. The extreme angles over 45 degrees were actually a decrease in range as opposed to an increase. but trajectories over 45 degrees actually do increase impact velocity.

Here are some stats directly from a trajectory/ballistics calculator:

60 pound bow, 600 grain arrow

5 degree launch -61yds -151fps
25 degree-179yds -129fps
45 degree- 213yds-126fps
65 degree- 157yds -132fps

The suprising thing for me though was that once you get to about a 20 degree launch, the difference in velocities to 45 are virtually nil due to the acceleration of gravity, and at degrees of launch higher than 45 you pick up velocity.


For the bow/arrow combo you've listed there should be a launch angle between 5 and 25 degrees that achieves the same 157 yard distance as the 65 degree launch, but which will have a slightly greater impact velocity. Depending on the precision of the calculator, it may show up as an equal impact velocity, but the flatter trajectory will in real life have a slightly higher impact velocity.

Also, the numbers you've posted show an inverse correlation between distance to target and impact velocity. The shortest shot (61 yards) has the highest impact velocity, the second shortest (157 yards) has the second highest impact velocity, and so forth. A longer shot can never have a higher impact velocity than a shorter shot (assuming, of course, we are not shooting downhill/from a tower/off a cliff etc...)

Gravity's net contribution to the final speed of the arrow is always ZERO. While the arrow is arcing up, gravity is working against it, slowing it down. When it falls back down towards the target it's just regaining the speed it lost on the way up.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Sat 24 Jan, 2009 11:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

M.,

While most of what Hugh said is right on about formations there are other and often confusing period sources that might indicate varied formations were carried out. Cliff Rogers in his new Agincourt article in the HYW: a Different Vista has very convincing evidence for mixed men at arms/archers in the HYW. Id still be wary to say who killed who at Agincourt and especially Poitier but I think more important is both fulfil certain functions. The flexibility of the English tactics is what in many battles give them victory over their less flexible enemies. Several English defeats both of the HYW and the WotR can be seen as lack of flexibility. One interesting ordinance from Charles of Burgundy states that archers need learn shoot with their men at arms before them as if from a wall. This is an interesting ordinance to me as it shows another formation in use. My guess is that archers and men at arms were fairly flexible for various tactics and formations for the situation. You get some interesting lines in the Gesta and others as well that seem to indicate mixed formations.

The battle of Patay and Verneuil show what Hugh was explained in the difficulty in maintaining large forces of men at arms for the English. My guess is that most of it was simply expense as England still could raise large forces of men at arms but could not pay them over even relatively short periods. The use of stakes was a way to protect archers (in theory) to cut down on large numbers of men at arms. I think it should be kept in mind that in the 14th the most common numbers were 1 to 1, maybe 1 to 2 or max 1 to 3 (MAA to archer). In the 15th it goes all the way to 1 to 19, though the average is usually much less at 1 to 3 or 1 to 5. At Patay and Verneuil the short coming of the stake can be seen. Both forces of English had smaller groups of men at arms. In Verneuil it seems the archers protected by MAA did fine while those with stakes failed to get their stakes to stay and fled over staying, being ridden down and killed without being able to shoot into the Lombard Cavalry. Patay shows the same issue. Lots of archers w/out MAA and failure of stakes = inability to maintain the field. The bow is a missile weapon and if you have to be worrying about the incoming enemy coming in at your without obstacle you will break sooner than normal, which cuts out the archer as his weapon would have become more dangerous at closer distances. To me this is where the billman comes in. Much better than a stake and well cheaper than a men at arms. He could protect the archers from attack and remain there at the ready to move making the army more flexible.

Since we have inventories of musters and the like of the arms and armour archers had I do not think this a big issue. We can get a decent idea of the average archer and his armour this way. The garrisons in Normandy have such musters fairly often.

The sons of knights often did serve as archers, as archers. This could be in fulfilling an indenture or just for experience. I'd assume on average such men would have better armour but I have never seen one in full white harness so I'd assume not. The issue of whether all were gentry is tricky as it misses the social development in England at the time. Gentry by the 15th does not just include the knightly class. The Yeomanry was now often very wealthy and most archers and mounted archers were from this class. So clearly archers were not a rag tag peasant horde or predominantly the sons of nobles or knights. They were a wealthy upper class among the common class.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Sun 25 Jan, 2009 12:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
While most of what Hugh said is right on about formations there are other and often confusing period sources that might indicate varied formations were carried out. Cliff Rogers in his new Agincourt article in the HYW: a Different Vista has very convincing evidence for mixed men at arms/archers in the HYW. Id still be wary to say who killed who at Agincourt and especially Poitier but I think more important is both fulfil certain functions. The flexibility of the English tactics is what in many battles give them victory over their less flexible enemies. Several English defeats both of the HYW and the WotR can be seen as lack of flexibility. One interesting ordinance from Charles of Burgundy states that archers need learn shoot with their men at arms before them as if from a wall. This is an interesting ordinance to me as it shows another formation in use. My guess is that archers and men at arms were fairly flexible for various tactics and formations for the situation. You get some interesting lines in the Gesta and others as well that seem to indicate mixed formations.

The battle of Patay and Verneuil show what Hugh was explained in the difficulty in maintaining large forces of men at arms for the English. My guess is that most of it was simply expense as England still could raise large forces of men at arms but could not pay them over even relatively short periods. The use of stakes was a way to protect archers (in theory) to cut down on large numbers of men at arms. I think it should be kept in mind that in the 14th the most common numbers were 1 to 1, maybe 1 to 2 or max 1 to 3 (MAA to archer). In the 15th it goes all the way to 1 to 19, though the average is usually much less at 1 to 3 or 1 to 5. At Patay and Verneuil the short coming of the stake can be seen. Both forces of English had smaller groups of men at arms. In Verneuil it seems the archers protected by MAA did fine while those with stakes failed to get their stakes to stay and fled over staying, being ridden down and killed without being able to shoot into the Lombard Cavalry. Patay shows the same issue. Lots of archers w/out MAA and failure of stakes = inability to maintain the field. The bow is a missile weapon and if you have to be worrying about the incoming enemy coming in at your without obstacle you will break sooner than normal, which cuts out the archer as his weapon would have become more dangerous at closer distances. To me this is where the billman comes in. Much better than a stake and well cheaper than a men at arms. He could protect the archers from attack and remain there at the ready to move making the army more flexible.


Randall, have you read Boardman's The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses? He postulates a different formation, one in which the archers formed ahead of the massed men at arms and billmen (intermixed) among their pointed stakes and engaged in a missle duel with the enemy. When the enemy could no longer stand the arow shot they advanced forward and the archers retreated back through the men at arms and billmen.

I can well believe that the billmen might have intermingled with the men at arms; England could no longer field as many MAAs and some billmen, especially those in the mesnies of the most powerful lords, were almost well enough equipped to qualify as men at arms themselves. But it seems disruptive to have the archers move back into or through a set formation, so I wonder if you've seen any hard research on this.

Quote:
Since we have inventories of musters and the like of the arms and armour archers had I do not think this a big issue. We can get a decent idea of the average archer and his armour this way. The garrisons in Normandy have such musters fairly often.

The sons of knights often did serve as archers, as archers. This could be in fulfilling an indenture or just for experience. I'd assume on average such men would have better armour but I have never seen one in full white harness so I'd assume not. The issue of whether all were gentry is tricky as it misses the social development in England at the time. Gentry by the 15th does not just include the knightly class. The Yeomanry was now often very wealthy and most archers and mounted archers were from this class. So clearly archers were not a rag tag peasant horde or predominantly the sons of nobles or knights. They were a wealthy upper class among the common class.


Exactly so. The lines between lower class gentry and upper-class yeomen were becoming very blurry. But the truth remains, if you can't afford to equip yourself (or, in this case, your son) as a MAA you're not fighting as one.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Sun 25 Jan, 2009 4:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh,

Most of the evidence either way would be difficult to use as conclusive. The problem is lack of detail and clarity in terminology. Many times the Latin or French used states archers were at the wings in a way that it could be in relation to a single battle of Men at arms or all the battles of Men at arms. I think we have enough evidence in chronicles and in ordinances like that from Charles's time as Duke to assume they did mix in some cases. There are some few bits of artwork that show it as well which further make me think it to be the case. I have come across enough references in HYW era accounts to think that it likely was mixed on occasion. The argument of archers only on the wings has some merits to be sure but many who argue it in academia use weaknesses for archers that I do not think really are an issue much of the time.

The War of the Roses is a very hard time period to figure out battle tactics specifically as the English chronicles are usually not very detailed. I have just spent the last few months reading several of the primary WotR accounts and the brevity of detail for most of the main battles is surprising. That said in several accounts having archers before the bills and men at arms does seem common. Typically if there artillery was used in conjunction with archers to cause casualties and/or goad the enemy to attack. It seems the archers would often duel each other the loser then leaving their MAA and others to deal with the victor. In few cases after this duel of archers does it reverse dramatically the battles outcome, so it seems if you lost your archers the battle was already likely lost. Of course this is a very early stage in my research on the WotR battles but from the few where there is a clear archery duel it seems so. That said there are several accounts w/out any info on archers in the battle.... or anyone else really either involved. It is a very odd shift as many 15th century English chroniclers earlier are much more detailed. Many rely on foreign chronicles for WotR details which is a mixed bag to get into.

Very true statement. I think the line between upper yeomanry and lower gentry, like and esquire could be nearly non existent. There are several men who work their way up from mounted archer to man at arms. You are right it all comes back to money for what position you serve as a soldier. Most kings from Henry II on have some type of requirements of arms and armour to wealth. This scale gets updated fairly often during the late medieval period. It is hard to say if the difficulty on getting men at arms was due to them being few in numbers in the second half of the 15th. Most of the research on the period does not show a massive drop in the numbers that make up the largest producers of men at arms, the esquire class and thereabouts. I think the likelihood is that billmen were cheaper both for a lord to equip if needs be, cheaper on the social scale of what military obligation an individual had and that the lower this scale you go the pool of manpower increases greatly. Since the lord was obliged to bring a certain number of men to his wealth it might be more tied to what you can get more for your money as well. The numbers of knights does decrease from the late 13th on but I do not think this for men at arms in general is the same. In the 15th it is still men 15-30 which would include many of the merchants and tradesmen of the kingdom and much of the gentry. Several men of Southampton for example had to provide men at arms in addition to themselves as their military obligation to the king.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Cincinnati, OH
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 21 pages
Reading list: 231 books

Spotlight topics: 15
Posts: 9,193

PostPosted: Sun 25 Jan, 2009 1:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Folks (Hugh and Benjamin in particular),
Please debate without the heat and thinly veiled condescension.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Sun 25 Jan, 2009 9:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
The War of the Roses is a very hard time period to figure out battle tactics specifically as the English chronicles are usually not very detailed. I have just spent the last few months reading several of the primary WotR accounts and the brevity of detail for most of the main battles is surprising. That said in several accounts having archers before the bills and men at arms does seem common. Typically if there artillery was used in conjunction with archers to cause casualties and/or goad the enemy to attack. It seems the archers would often duel each other the loser then leaving their MAA and others to deal with the victor. In few cases after this duel of archers does it reverse dramatically the battles outcome, so it seems if you lost your archers the battle was already likely lost. Of course this is a very early stage in my research on the WotR battles but from the few where there is a clear archery duel it seems so. That said there are several accounts w/out any info on archers in the battle.... or anyone else really either involved. It is a very odd shift as many 15th century English chroniclers earlier are much more detailed. Many rely on foreign chronicles for WotR details which is a mixed bag to get into.


Hi Randall,

That explains a lot. I've done a little high-level research on the Wars of the Roses, but lately I've been trying to go deeper and I'm not finding the same wealth of information I have found regarding the HYW. Battle accounts that I have read are as you describe them, but I think I was assuming I just hadn't found the right sources yet. Thanks!

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Mon 26 Jan, 2009 8:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

S. Mighton wrote:

Quote:
For the bow/arrow combo you've listed there should be a launch angle between 5 and 25 degrees that achieves the same 157 yard distance as the 65 degree launch, but which will have a slightly greater impact velocity. Depending on the precision of the calculator, it may show up as an equal impact velocity, but the flatter trajectory will in real life have a slightly higher impact velocity.

Gravity's net contribution to the final speed of the arrow is always ZERO. While the arrow is arcing up, gravity is working against it, slowing it down. When it falls back down towards the target it's just regaining the speed it lost on the way up.


The 20 degree launch had a range of 156, velocity of 132 fps. About the same as the 65 degree, but no loss in velocity. I do believe the model is very accurate, takes into account air resistance as well as length and height of fletching.

Without doing calculations, I see why the higher shot does not lose velocity compared to the more level one at the 156-157 yard range. The high launch travels a greater distance, so one would expect for air resistance, and thaqt would be true if air resistance was constant, but it is not. Due to the De-acceleration of the higher trajectory fighting gravity, then slowly going downwards, it travel at a slower speed through much of its journey.

As air resistance increases with velocity (something to the effect of a doubling of velocity squares air resistance), the longer but slower journey of a more vertical launch accrues no more, even a slight bit less of air resistance at certain ranges.
View user's profile Send private message
Ahmad Al-Tabari




Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Joined: 12 Sep 2010

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed 15 Sep, 2010 12:07 pm    Post subject: Disadvantage of a Bodkin         Reply with quote

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the extent of penetration a bodkin inflicts when shot a mail armoured warrior. Unlike conventional arrowheads, a bodkin's construction does not have any barbs. And so removing it is not nearly as painful and dangerous as removing a broadhead. And as most of you might know, Most of the damage caused by an arrow occurs when it is being pulled out. And so assuming a bdkin did pierce the mail and the padding underneath, if the penetration was not to deep, then the mail armoured opponent might still be battle effective.

Something quite interesting I read in the "Mail Unchained" article mentions that felt might offer some resistance to bodkin arrowheads as it is not made of a woven structure. This is quite plausible since the Crusader infantry whom Baha'a Al-deen was astonished to see alive after being hit by so many arrows (many of which were likely meant to pierce armour), wore felt coats (most likely under their mail).

So this would be an interesting test for all you Longbow fanatics to try Wink

"My blow cut about four inches off the dagger blade and severed his forearm in two. The mark of the edge of the dagger was left on the edge of my sword. A craftman in our town, on seeing it, said: "I can remove this dent." But I said: "Leave it as it is. It is the best thing on my sword." The mark is there to this day." -Usamah Ibn Munqidh
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,207

PostPosted: Fri 20 Dec, 2013 7:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I remain curious about this thread's initial question. Even assuming many/most/all historical full suits of plate armor or full arm/should harnesses made archery excessively difficult, there's nothing inherent about plate armor that necessitates this. From the Middle East to Japan for hundreds of years, heavily armored mounted archers formed the elite core of many militaries.
Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,457

PostPosted: Sat 21 Dec, 2013 12:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think it would be best to examine the cultures whose nobility valued the bow like the japanese

the earlier japanese armour the O-Yoroi was very much a mounted archery specialised suit
it has assumetrical arm protection, the brestplace was also assymetrical, forming a C shape around the body, the lamellar on the front was covered with a layer of cloth to avoid snagging the bowstring.

and lastly the 'shoulderguards' known as O-sode were effectively lamellar shields affixed to each shoulder. the whole thing was geared towards delivering and receiving mounted arrowfire.. it's also worth noting that they just as much duelled instead of employing the mass horse archer tactics of the mongols, the ottomans, and everyone else.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,370

PostPosted: Sat 21 Dec, 2013 1:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I can shoot a bow with the Dendra panoply. Throwing a javelin is awkward but it doesn't hinder a bow.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,457

PostPosted: Sat 21 Dec, 2013 1:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

i noticed that trying to shoot a longbow of sorts using your sandard, target archery form and pose was dificult wearing my nasel's spaeroconical helmet with aventail

http://www.flickr.com/photos/64955660@N08/5925080409/ (as shown here)

the nasel and aventail got n the way of me seating the draw point around my chin.

i then borrowed a kettle hat and noticed just how superior it was for such an activity.
none of the above issues came into play
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Armor and Archery?
Page 4 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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 2003-2019 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum