[Jeremy V. Krause]

Hello everyone,
Yesterday evening on PBS I watched a program focusing on the monguls. One topic of the program focused on the composite bow used on horseback. This fellow who is appearantly an expert on the subject was using very traditional techniques in the construction of such bows (very interesting). He also used both the composite bow and an english long bow in various exercises.

In any case the claim was made that the composite bow had superior penetrating power compared to the english long bow. Both bows were used against a metal disk in single and double layers that were claimed to represent the average thickness of plate armor. No draw weight was mentioned on either bow.

I, for some reason, was under the impression that the english long bow would have superior penetrating power. Now PBS is generally a good source of info (far superior to the discovery channel). Did anyone notice this program or have any comments regarding this?

Jeremy

[Jean Thibodeau]

Oh, this should be interesting. Bow, arrows, plate armour versus arrow penetration: Lots of opinions ( Arguments ) in previous topic posts ?

The problem with a test in a program like this is that without any statistics about draw weights and arrow weights, coming to some reliable conclusions about the test is really just superficial guess work.

From all those previous topics my very " un-expert " impressions were that composite bows used lighter arrows and that the maximum range might be greater than a longbow but that the much heavier longbow arrows would have more momentum to possibly pierce plate armour at close range under ideal conditions.

Personally I have just read a lot of conflicting opinions on different topics threads on different sites Forums and I tend to the conclusion that results can vary widely depending on combinations of factors: High quality armour versus low power bow versus low quality plate versus maximum power bows, angle the arrow hits the plate, range etc ..... will give a very wide range of results. And the general conclusion that if armour was always proof against arrows, bows would not have been used and that if bows were overwhelmingly effective against armour, armour would not have been worn: The " real situation" being in a wide grey zone in between.

Oh, and no I didn't see this program and I'm just summarizing my own uncertainties about the subject based on what I have previously read here.

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

Plate armour was tested against crossbows in general (the heavy ones which needed a windlass or other tools). A good 15th century breastplate was usually crossbow-proof and a crossbow has far more penetrating power than either a long-bow or a composite bow. The expirement with the 3 metal-disks is nonsense.
Would you wear a kevlar-vest if it wasn't bullet-proof? Same thing here I guess *g*
There is one source about a mercenary in Italy during a siege (I think it was the company of "insert name here") being covered under a shower of arrows and bolts and suffering no damage at all due to his armour.

This should help as well: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s...adid=41041

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

Good point, but I don't know how greedy armourrers were back then *g*
That's probably why you should only buy labels you know, like stuff that has Landshut or Milan-stamps on it

On rare occasions it might happen that a bolt goes through some weaker part of the plate (breast-plates and helmets were often thicker than arm- and leg-parts) assuming that it was fired at an extemely close range and at the right angle.
But if we trust Dr. Alan Williams ( http://www.rdg.ac.uk/engin/home/material/ancient/AW_poster.jpg ),then you were quite safe in plate-armour from cross-bows and even early firearms.

[Dan Howard]

The above-linked SFI thread mentions a passage by Carpini who wrote extensively on the Mongols. In the relevant passage he talks about Mongol arrows being able to penetrate mail, implying that European arrows could not do this. However he also suggests that "double mail" was capable of resisting Mongol arrows - even arrows that were specifically designed to be armour-piercers.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Composite bows have somewhat more power per draw draw weight than self bows like the English longbow. However, a self bow shooting heavy arrows could easily end up with more punch than a composite bow shooting light arrows. Also, the bows the Mongols used from horseback were probably quite a bit lighter than English longbows, on average.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

There's a very interesting battle during the Peloponnesian War as recorded by Thucydides.
The Athenians had isolated a group of several hundred Spartan Hoplites on the island of Sphakteria. As a hoplite you have very good protection against missile weapons - a bronze breast-plate, a Corinthian Helmet covering most of your face, greaves, and of course the large hoplite shield. As long the phalanx stayed in order everything was good.

Ok, back to Sphakteria. The Athenians managed to win over these guys by employing lightly armed troops (peltasts) using javelins and bows. They simply surrounded them and showered them with missiles for several hours. Everytime the Spartans charged the Athenians retreated and another group of peltasts started shooting at them from another direction. Ok, this was only possible since it was a rather small island and the terrain was bad for hoplites. However, the interesting thing is that the Spartans held out for so long before surrendering despite being attacked with hundreds arrows and javelins. So the armour back then was already pretty good.
However, Thucydides mentions that quite a few Spartans were killed by missile weapons. IIRC he said that the helmets offered no sufficient protection against javelins and one Spartan lamented that the arrows killed brave men and cowards alike making no difference.
Nevertheless, pretty good for bronze-armour

Has anybody made any destructive test with bronze breast-plates? I wonder how good they were against spears or even two-handed Sarissas.

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

[Risto Rautiainen]

Regarding the inherit properties of longbows and recurve composites. The recurve bows have more efficient draw weight curves than longbows ie. they can store more energy at the same draw weight. Because of this they can hurl arrows with greater speed than the long bow, when shooting arrows of same weight. There have been claims that longbows can shoot heavy war arrows better thatn composites (thus better penetrative power), but those claims have been rebutted by tests of heavy composites made by Adam Karpowicz. Of course there are more and less efficient designs and crappy craftmanship, but as a general rule, the recurve bow is superior in efficiency. And because of the composite structure of the recurve bow it can take more shock from sending ultra-light arrows than a self bow could. Thus the recurve bow has a reputation of shooting very far. But as we all know, this does not make the recurve bow superior, just different. And I really don't know if there have been as heavy recurves as the long bow is said to be, of if those heavy recurves have been used in horse archery. Or if they ever used heavy war arrows like the long bow would have used.

OH, I guess Benjamin already summed all that up...

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Peter Bosman]

[Randal Graham]

The construction of the bow has really nothing to do with it, aside from how fast it casts a given arrow.
It's arrow weight, or the mass of the projectile, coupled with the velocity of the projectile, that'll determine the performance of the projectile in any situation.
If one bow casts a given weight projectile faster than another, then that bow will provide greater performance, including penetration.

[Peter Bosman]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]