Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Crossbows power / range Reply to topic
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11, 12, 13  Next 
Author Message
David Ruff




Location: Denton TX
Joined: 18 May 2006

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 9:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nathan Robinson wrote:
David Ruff wrote:
I have shot chain mail, first the bolt hits it, knocks open the ring it hits and then blasts thru the chain as if its a cloth shirt. I can only imagine the blunt shock that is trasferred to the wearer of it as the bolt rips into flesh and through the body. The same happens when hit with a longbow. heck we have a picture here on the sight of a chain shirt i think it is that was hit with what was believed to be an arrow - Nice hole!!!! i bet that hurt.

Let me caution you first by saying that calling it "chain" mail is going to generate some raising of the eyebrows to anyone making such claims of knowledge of the subject.

Anyway, I'm curious what mail you used for your tests. While reproductions are always a case of attempted approximation of historical examples, there are very few reproductions of mail that even get close to authentic examples.

I don't think anybody argues that mail or plate can and will get pierced and damaged by impact. I think the argument, when there is one, is about authentic historical armour being damaged in such ways. This is a crucial distinction.


And unfortunately we do not have enough period historial examples to prove or disprove what was done and if it could be done. So therefore we have to do close tests. In my eye when something like a bolt blows through the front and out the back (of none tempered) 12ga plate and thrue the inside front and out the back of 18 ga rear plate that tells me that a plate that got hit - regardless of temper was going to be in trouble. You have to understand bodkins were not made to hit people in cloth. It was a point that was made to defeat armor, to chisle it open and carry on. To this day we still use the type of point on broadheads and the like becuase it was effective in its design and did infact defeat armor.

Im not saying it did it 100% of the time, but it did do it. I am not saying armor did not stop arrows and bolts - they did. But they also blew through it given a proper shot, range and power of weapon. Archers and crossbowsmen knew what it took to do it, they (like knights and thier training in arms) knew how to aim, what to aim for and at what ranges to shoot at. Crossbows knew this as well if they lived long enough to become good and knowledgable about thier weapon. Thats all im saying.
View user's profile Send e-mail
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 10:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Ruff wrote:
And unfortunately we do not have enough period historial examples to prove or disprove what was done and if it could be done. So therefore we have to do close tests. In my eye when something like a bolt blows through the front and out the back (of none tempered) 12ga plate and thrue the inside front and out the back of 18 ga rear plate that tells me that a plate that got hit - regardless of temper was going to be in trouble. You have to understand bodkins were not made to hit people in cloth. It was a point that was made to defeat armor, to chisle it open and carry on. To this day we still use the type of point on broadheads and the like becuase it was effective in its design and did infact defeat armor.

Im not saying it did it 100% of the time, but it did do it. I am not saying armor did not stop arrows and bolts - they did. But they also blew through it given a proper shot, range and power of weapon. Archers and crossbowsmen knew what it took to do it, they (like knights and thier training in arms) knew how to aim, what to aim for and at what ranges to shoot at. Crossbows knew this as well if they lived long enough to become good and knowledgable about thier weapon. Thats all im saying.


I'm not arguing the point, David. Frankly, I haven't expressed an opinion on the matter. But I do argue the methods and reasoning behind your statements

There are significant numbers of authentic examples of mail to generate a good sample from which to study. No matter, that's not relevant to what I am going to say next: The important point, and I think one that Dan is stating, is that you simply cannot make the definitive statements that you're making about effectiveness and use without citing examples or testing on pieces much closer to authentic historical samples. Until you're able to do those things, I'd prefer you state your findings with the proper context and disclaimers attached. Adding such things as "In my tests with modern-made armour, we had these results" goes a long, long way. Personally, I find value and great interest in your tests and practical use of your modern-made bows and modern-made armours. I just don't believe such tests can be used to go as far as stating absolutes about historical use and effectiveness. When expressed in a matter-of-fact way without such a definitive conclusion attached, you avoid the critique and allow others to appreciate the true practical value of what you're doing.

I'm still very curious where you got the mail for your tests and who made it. Maybe more importantly, I'm curious how it was composed: what material, what construction, etc.

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 11:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
This is not the case Dan. It is very nieve to say that longbows and crossbows did not penetrate plate armor and had trouble penetrating mail armor under battle field conditions.


About longbows, Dan is more or less correct. I'd change it to "cannot penetrate high-quality plate armour" and might nitpick a little about "rarely" and "battlefield conditions," but I basically agree. Based on Alan Williams' armour tests and Strickland and Hardy's longbow tests, even the heaviest arrows shot from the most powerful longbows won't pierce mail at extreme range. At close range, heavy arrows would penetrate, but it's hard to say exactly how often that'd happen in battle.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 2:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just to give an anecdote as to how our beliefs about arrows and armour penetration originates: Years ago, I remember seeing a T.V. program showing an arrow easily sailing thought a heavy steel or cast iron frying pan ! This was done in the program just to show that bows & arrows are not toys and can be very dangerous. ( Kids program I think. )

Now, this doesn't prove much if anything about period longbows / crossbows but it has always stayed in my memory that arrows are not something I want to be a target of. Razz

Even more, this memory tells us little as the power of the bow? It must have been fairly light and the pan fairly soft.

With performance, as Nathan has mentioned, context is everything: Modern test against modern media are still valuable to give us some relative indications of penetrating power.

If we try to recreate the closest to historical conditions we can achieve the results should be much closer to historical results but if we insist on 100% certainty of our conclusions we need a " Time Machine " !

Since David has offered to do tests against " as close to historical plate as possible " what he needs are the specifications of what would be a valid target. In any case any tests he does should give us a better idea of the power of bolts and arrows and against what !

As to tactics I tend to agree with David that close range accurate aiming would still be happening and bows wouldn't be dropped in favour of hand weapons until the last possible moment: This last possible moment would vary depending on some conditions; 1 ) if the Knights are charging over boggy or broken terrain. 2 ) If the archers are behind some cover like a ditch or a low wall. 3 ) If the Knights have to cross / run a long distance. 4 ) if the archers outnumber the Knights considerably, a bit like a pack of wolves surrounding a bear ! If a group of knights charge at some of the archers they run away while other archers not in direct peril carefully aim at weak points.

The armour might be proof on helm and breast plates but thinner armour on arms and legs would still be vulnerable. Also not all armour would be of the best quality.

Hey, I could be completely wrong ? But there are many more variables than simply breast plate being " proof " or not.

To use a WWII analogy: Against a Tiger tanks, a Sherman tank would be toast in a one on one frontal attack on the Tiger as the Tiger's armour would be proof against the Sherman's 75mm gun. A Sherman positioned to fire at the back of a Tiger could well destroy it or incapacitate it. A group of Shermans could generally take on a Tiger but at the cost of loosing quite a few Shermans. The Tiger's armour would be proof on turret and glacie, but a shot to the tracts would disable it making it more vulnerable to a group of Shermans again.

Oh, I think there is at least one case of one Tiger destroying and entire convoy of vehicles including Shermans when the Tiger was situated at the un-flankable end of a narrow pass.

So under the right conditions A Knight or small group of Knights might well be next to unstoppable by archers assuming their frontal armour was in fact " proof ", but under other conditions they could be toast.

Very longwinded way to say that there are too many tactical variables to give total dominance of any weapon system under all conditions.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 4:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Just to give an anecdote as to how our beliefs about arrows and armour penetration originates: Years ago, I remember seeing a T.V. program showing an arrow easily sailing thought a heavy steel or cast iron frying pan ! This was done in the program just to show that bows & arrows are not toys and can be very dangerous. ( Kids program I think. )

Lucklily armour wasn't made from cast iron frying pans.

Quote:
Now, this doesn't prove much if anything about period longbows / crossbows but it has always stayed in my memory that arrows are not something I want to be a target of. Razz

Even more, this memory tells us little as the power of the bow? It must have been fairly light and the pan fairly soft.

Cast iron is brittle, not soft. It is likely to shatter upon heavy impact.

Quote:
With performance, as Nathan has mentioned, context is everything: Modern test against modern media are still valuable to give us some relative indications of penetrating power.

So long as the modern replicas are reasonably close approximations of medieval examples.

Quote:
If we try to recreate the closest to historical conditions we can achieve the results should be much closer to historical results but if we insist on 100% certainty of our conclusions we need a " Time Machine " !

Not really. It is perfectly possible to get wrought iron made with period techniques. It is perfectly possible to get plate and mail made using historical terchniques. It is perfctly possible to get arming arrments made with handwoven linen. These replicas are expensive however and rarely is the attempt made. The few tests that have been done using decent replicas contradict David's claims.


Quote:
Since David has offered to do tests against " as close to historical plate as possible " what he needs are the specifications of what would be a valid target. In any case any tests he does should give us a better idea of the power of bolts and arrows and against what !
The first task is to source a supplier of carburised wrought iron. Without this, any conclusions dawn from the results are suspect.

Quote:
The armour might be proof on helm and breast plates but thinner armour on arms and legs would still be vulnerable.
And injuries to these areas are unlikely to prove immediately fatal.

Quote:
Hey, I could be completely wrong ? But there are many more variables than simply breast plate being " proof " or not.
Of course there are. My position has always been based on statistical averages. Over the years I have put countless citations and examples in front of people and all they come back with are misinterpreted sources or half-assed back-yard experiments with no scientific foundation what so ever.
The chances of a man being killed through his armour by a longbow or crossbow under battlefield conditions are so low as to be statistically negligible.

I'm still waiting for an extant breastplate with a crossbow bolt hole in it. I am sure that it occurred on rare occasions but if the occurrence was as common as David claims then one would think that there would be some surviving examples.

I'm still wiaing for a single source claiming that men were killed through their plate armour. I know of two examples of injuries - one involving a gorget and one involving a vambrace. Both were relatively thin plates compared to helms and breastplates but neither of these injuries were severe enough to take the victim out of the fight.
View user's profile Send private message
Alex B.





Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 20

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 6:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:

The chances of a man being killed through his armour by a longbow or crossbow under battlefield conditions are so low as to be statistically negligible.


I have to nitpick here ... all your claims revolve around plate or breastplates, but remember only a minority of soldiers wore full suits of plate. People wearing open helms or half-plate or coats of plates or jacks are still open game to crossbows and longbows. Horses are still vulnerable, and I certaintly don't want my horse to die while at a full gallop ... sounds like a quick way to a broken neck and/or a trampling.
View user's profile Send private message
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional



Location: Upstate NY
Joined: 18 Oct 2003

Posts: 1,563

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 7:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Not making a comment on the possiblity or impossibility of holes getting punched through things or anything like that just simpley the lack of examples that show it. When things get broken now we throw them out or take them to get repaired, and if they can't be repaired we throw them out,go to Walmart and get another, when things got broken then they tried to repair them, if that was impossible than they tried to recycle it into something else(everything costs money and money wasn't so easy to come by so better to make what you can out of it than waste it) and if that was impossible then welcome to the garbage pit. This very practicel formula of economic conservation doesn't make for boatloads of survivals of much at all. Chuck in the ravages of time and i'm not sure its all that realistic to expect there to be any examples of broken stuff of any sort from that time period hanging about to awfully much at all so to say that one hasn't seen any may not be so much proof that they didn't exist. It makes it conjecture to say they did but it also makes it conjecture to say they didn't. Thus welcome to theories and thats what makes discussing it fun!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David Ruff




Location: Denton TX
Joined: 18 May 2006

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It will be some months before we can run a test that will be close to real as possible. the two bows we will be testing need finishing.

I have contacted the forges chainmail maker that is making me a 12" sq of butted up chain and a 12" square of riveted mail.

I have contacted the head smith at the forge that is going to make a front plate, this will be from historical references and all stats on the plate will be listed.

The missiles used will be made to spec as well.

Testing will be at period ranges - longbow at 50, 40 and 30 yard and crossbow at 90, 80 and 60 yard against each target.

I have said in previous post that crossbows and longbows were not the end all to weapons, many shots bounced and made pretty dents. However, at close range..... well we will leave it to the testing. Heck i could be wrong and if i am great - no harm in learning.

The crossbows tested will be 450lbs 700lbs and 1700lbs or a goatsfoot bow, a windlass bow and a crankline bow. The long bows will be a 90lb and a 127lb. I figure this will give a nice array of power and what it took. Until then i will refrain from any comments unless period/factual.


If anyone wishes to give me the information needed on a typical late 1400 to mid 1500 type plate that would be great, or i am going to use my own refences and call the test valid.


David
View user's profile Send e-mail
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 9:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Ruff wrote:
I have contacted the forges chainmail maker that is making me a 12" sq of butted up chain and a 12" square of riveted mail

Skip the butted mail entirely Happy

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 10:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I agree with Nathan that the butted maille is too weak to stop almost anything and wasn't used in Europe. In the far east some butted maille was used for less important things like maille neck guards. The Japanese also used butted maille but their styles of maille were very different and would sometimes be made up of rings wound more than 360 degrees: Multiple turns and their mail was also hardened, I think, making it a bit better than soft butted maille.

In any case I look forward to seeing the results of your tests. And maybe in the mean time we could maybe discuss other things about crossbows and crossbow making, as well as " proven " accuracy. Razz Laughing Out Loud

Hard to dispute small groups on target ! If one can keep bolts within 4" to 6" groups at 50 yards getting a bolt through a visor would happen often ! And even more often if half a dozen crossbowman all aimed at your visor at the same time.
( Sorry, couldn't resist adding the last ! ) I expect the accuracy being equal or better than a good handgunner could get.

I know I have been able to knock down chicken metal silouhettes at a 100 yards while standing using a 9mm CZ 75 at least 50% of the time. A friend of mine could do the same with his CZ 75 and I have knocked down the larger pig silouhettes with a
.45 ACP at 150 yards once I got the range. ( Sandy shooting range. )

So up to what range could one keep one's groups within a foot or so with a crossbow ?

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 01 Jun, 2006 11:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alex B. wrote:
I have to nitpick here ... all your claims revolve around plate or breastplates

So? My argument is a direct counter to the claim that a crossbow/longbow can penetrate plate armour. Nothing was said about lighter armed men. I agree that only a minority of any host is armed "cap a pie" and that the majority would be vulnerable to arrow fire. How is this relevant to whether an arrow can penetrate armour?
Quote:
People wearing open helms or half-plate or coats of plates or jacks are still open game to crossbows and longbows. Horses are still vulnerable, and I certaintly don't want my horse to die while at a full gallop ... sounds like a quick way to a broken neck and/or a trampling

When have I ever said otherwise? This discussion has been going on for at least five years here and on other forums. There should be plenty of ammunition in previous threads if you think I'm contradicting myself. I have said countless times that there are plenty of ways for crossbows/longbows to be useful on the battlefield without a single piece of armour even being scratched.
View user's profile Send private message
David Ruff




Location: Denton TX
Joined: 18 May 2006

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 1:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Thibodeau wrote:
I agree with Nathan that the butted maille is too weak to stop almost anything and wasn't used in Europe. In the far east some butted maille was used for less important things like maille neck guards. The Japanese also used butted maille but their styles of maille were very different and would sometimes be made up of rings wound more than 360 degrees: Multiple turns and their mail was also hardened, I think, making it a bit better than soft butted maille.

In any case I look forward to seeing the results of your tests. And maybe in the mean time we could maybe discuss other things about crossbows and crossbow making, as well as " proven " accuracy. Razz Laughing Out Loud

Hard to dispute small groups on target ! If one can keep bolts within 4" to 6" groups at 50 yards getting a bolt through a visor would happen often ! And even more often if half a dozen crossbowman all aimed at your visor at the same time.
( Sorry, couldn't resist adding the last ! ) I expect the accuracy being equal or better than a good handgunner could get.

I know I have been able to knock down chicken metal silouhettes at a 100 yards while standing using a 9mm CZ 75 at least 50% of the time. A friend of mine could do the same with his CZ 75 and I have knocked down the larger pig silouhettes with a
.45 ACP at 150 yards once I got the range. ( Sandy shooting range. )

So up to what range could one keep one's groups within a foot or so with a crossbow ?



Well what i can do is the following on the 450lb'er.

I can keep a 8" grouping to 80 yards using a period type reconstruction thumb board on the 450lb, this however is using a rest of some sort. Free hand it widens to about 11".

I can hit man size targets at 100 yards using the 450lb'er 5 out of 6 shots - (max range i have in the back yard). Most of the shots seem to hit either throat of the area between the throat and solarplex region. I think this is due to the way i aim the bow on the thumb board, i aim for the forehead.

I can maintain a 15" grouping on a slow moving target out to 80 yards - target size was about 20" square.

I can hit a man size moving target 4 out of 6 times at 80 yards - funny enough - usually the legs.


I have been shooting crossbows about every day over the past 4 years and i shot medieval type crossbows in SCA competitions for a year or two. I have set a few high scores etc. When i competed in 2002 in the barony of the steppes i was known for the ability to fire and hit 20 yard targets in rapid succession - i averaged 8 to 9 bolts in 30 seconds. That is fact..... The bow used was a 65lb western type design. In 2005 i came back and averaged 7 to 8 bolts in 30 seconds on a 121lb italian type. The roller nut on bow bows was NOT pinned or set to reset itself. The first season i set a high score of 109 points out of a total of 120 as well. I believe that has still not been broken.

Now granted these were look alike medieval crossbows and not period, but the 450lb crossbow has the same type of accuracy as the target bows i build. A crossbow is very accurate as long as your bolt weight is the same, the string is centered and you use the same point of aim. Not much interferes with it as does a bow shooter. It is a mechanical release.

To speak to the conditioning i have undergone, in 2002 i could not hand span 160lbs. In 2005 i was hip cocking thr 121lb. In 2004 i was able to foot stirrup cock a max of 175lbs. Today i can foot stirrup cock 240lbs. The arms and back tone to the weight and while i do not recommend it, the body gets very used to it.


But thats just my abilities with a crossbow after 4 years of shooting almost everyday. Who knows what a medieval person could do.


David
View user's profile Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 1:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Ruff wrote:
I have contacted the forges chainmail maker that is making me a 12" sq of butted up chain and a 12" square of riveted mail.


"Riveted" does not equal "historical". There are plenty of riveted mail manufacturers whose product in no way resembles museum examples. Invariably they perform poorly in tests - generally because the links are too large and riveting is substandard. What extant sample is your "chainmail maker" trying to replicate?

FWIW this is the only online test that even goes close to using a decent replica of historical mail.

http://www.cotasdemalla.com/test2.htm

As can be seen, mail (and its associated padding) can be quite capable of resisting a bodkin arrowhead. The test has problems. Namely the inadequate backing and the low draw weight of the bow, but the distance was shortened to partially compensate. These results should come as no surpsise to anyone who has studied military history. Arrows and spears were the most common threat on any battlefield. If mail was highly susceptible to these weapons, it would not have been worn for over two thousand years by virtually every metal using culture on the planet.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 1:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Allan Senefelder wrote:
Not making a comment on the possiblity or impossibility of holes getting punched through things or anything like that just simpley the lack of examples that show it. When things get broken now we throw them out or take them to get repaired, and if they can't be repaired we throw them out,go to Walmart and get another, when things got broken then they tried to repair them, if that was impossible than they tried to recycle it into something else(everything costs money and money wasn't so easy to come by so better to make what you can out of it than waste it) and if that was impossible then welcome to the garbage pit. This very practicel formula of economic conservation doesn't make for boatloads of survivals of much at all. Chuck in the ravages of time and i'm not sure its all that realistic to expect there to be any examples of broken stuff of any sort from that time period hanging about to awfully much at all so to say that one hasn't seen any may not be so much proof that they didn't exist. It makes it conjecture to say they did but it also makes it conjecture to say they didn't. Thus welcome to theories and thats what makes discussing it fun!


That argument might work if there weren't plenty of extant pieces of armour with evidence of battle damage including holes made from pikes, pollaxes, firearms, etc. Not a single breastplate that I know of has evidence of being holed by a longbow or crossbow. David reckons he has seen some. I'm still waiting for one to be cited. I would welcome it since it would enable my research to progress.
View user's profile Send private message
David Ruff




Location: Denton TX
Joined: 18 May 2006

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 10:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
David Ruff wrote:
I have contacted the forges chainmail maker that is making me a 12" sq of butted up chain and a 12" square of riveted mail.


"Riveted" does not equal "historical". There are plenty of riveted mail manufacturers whose product in no way resembles museum examples. Invariably they perform poorly in tests - generally because the links are too large and riveting is substandard. What extant sample is your "chainmail maker" trying to replicate?

FWIW this is the only online test that even goes close to using a decent replica of historical mail.

http://www.cotasdemalla.com/test2.htm

As can be seen, mail (and its associated padding) can be quite capable of resisting a bodkin arrowhead. The test has problems. Namely the inadequate backing and the low draw weight of the bow, but the distance was shortened to partially compensate. These results should come as no surpsise to anyone who has studied military history. Arrows and spears were the most common threat on any battlefield. If mail was highly susceptible to these weapons, it would not have been worn for over two thousand years by virtually every metal using culture on the planet.




Dan im suprised you would use the link as a plausable test.......


Theres a BIG difference between a 50lb bow (even at close range) and a typical longbow in period dan. Say the arrow is drawn 20" - this is about right for an archer with a 28" arrow. This would be 1000 in/lbs of energy off the 50lb bow. It is also firing a heavy arrow. The writer didn't cite the weight of the bodkin but i would guess it is about 250gr to 350gr. That is to heavy for such a bow. The arrow will travel slower then it would off a bow in the 90 to 150lb size OR the typical period weight used by archers of the past. EVEN AT CLOSE RANGE the arrow s still coming off the bow slower then it would on the correct weight bow. The mary rose brought examples of bows up and they surmised the bows were in the 90 to 150lb area. Historical examples also back this up.

The test has no bearing on anything other then a low weight bow being used.

So say we have a 100lb long bow at 20" of draw (by the way this is low as the english drew to their ears and used longer arrows of about 33 to 35" long, but we'll go for the sake of math) thats 2000 in/lbs of energy or roughly twice the potential. This will give you a better punch and will enable you to fire a heavier missile at the same speed of a lower pound bow. I know this as in one of my videos on my site you can see me firing a 50lb horse bow with a VERY simular tip as was tested. It didn't pierce but about 3" into 1/2 plywood from about 25 yards. The arrow didn't stabilize in flight, it was very slow and cumbersome in flight.


Now comes the big guns......

Crossbows.... the typical heavy crossbow drew well into the 700 to 1500lb range. We know this from examples around the world and see the windlass and cranks they used. from my testing i know the approx it takes to load the bows. A windlass was good to about 700 to 800lbs, a crank was used for larger bows. These bows drew about 6" no matter what they were spanned with.....

6 x 700 = 4200 in/lbs of energy

6 times 1500 = 9000 in/lbs of energy.

The crossbows pulling this energy are firing roughly the same weight bolt as a typical war arrow - if not a tad more.

These pound figures are taken from an expert that held the medieval bows in his hand - "Payne Gallwey" whom estimated the bow he tested in at 1200lbs and surmised it pulled 1500lbs in period. To second that, my master and the person who taught me to build these heavy bows held the bows in that book as a child (Robin Allen) at http://www.thecrossbowmansden.com/Home.html

Robin has about 50 years experience in playing with medieval crossbows and in building heavy medieval and international target class bows. He has run tests, and lived in england, and saw the displays. I trust his word and judgement as an expert in the subject.


Now back to the piercing of the mail.

Based on shooting a mail shirt with a 50lb bow, with an arrow too heavy for the bow to begin with - it means NOTHING other then the person wearing the mail got a good poke, but would have survived it. Try that with a 90 to 150lb bow and the damage would have been alot more. The other thing we have not even touched is the blunt force trauma that happens when that mail stops the arrow. put that over a kidney or the heart, put it on the neck and theres going to be some serious damage. I say this as i have been hit by a mere 75lb bow pulling 530 in/lbs with a blunt IN armor and im here to tell you - you feel it and it leaves a nice mark to a nice shade of bruise. Even more so if that 50lb test is sending that tip a mere 2" into the body when it stops the arrrow + the force, that would be enough to comprise the heart or even the brain and we are using a bow 50% the weight of a typical longbow. Not to mention that would also be enough to slow the target down for a followup shot.


Dan i see your reasoning and your therory as a valid one, maybe with more examples of holes in armor we could definitely put to use the argument that armor was not indeed a invincable way to walk through a battle unharmed, but it wasn't.

Armor was a means to take away damage and increase survivability, it was heavy, it slowed you down and it for the most part deflected what was coming at you. but it in no way EVER was designed nor did a good job at deflecting everything. At close range (about 30 to 40 yards for a bow and 60 to 80 yards on a crossbow) it got pierced and did not do its intended job. Think about it, why do you think armor got thicker and heavier as we rolled into the 1600's??? because the weapons coming out got more potent, heavy crossbows and gunnes began showing up in masses, this carried on until armor was to heavy to wear and it got phased out. The day of the knight in armor was over. Bows, crossbows and gunnes won the day and carried onto into history. IT WAS NOT because swords, daggers, pikes or spears got deadlier.


Lastly, by my recollection there were only few cases (for the most part) that ANYONE ever wore full armor. Jousting and guarding the king come to mind, parade comes up as well. A fully armored knight was very likely to survive a onslaught of missile weapons, but he was NEVER invincable and the case of a fully armored knight on the battle field was rare at best. That leaves 1000's in partial armor, sub standard (munitions grade) armor running around the field. This included knights on the field that got killed by arrows and bolts they were the favorite target of an archer no matter which flavor of weapon.

"Riveted" does not equal "historical". There are plenty of riveted mail manufacturers whose product in no way resembles museum examples. Invariably they perform poorly in tests - generally because the links are too large and riveting is substandard. What extant sample is your "chainmail maker" trying to replicate?



So i say again, give me the spec's of armor that is "period" in your eyes, and is to your specs and lets run some tests, every referance i have said about making armor you have asked about historical accuracy or shot the idea down.. You have your beliefs based on armor, i have mine based within playing with, and building the weapons that defeated armor. Or i will run the tests based on references from the past and there will be no arguments in either case.


OR find me a solid test using reproduction period armor and period longbow and crossbow and show me where the armor stopped it. Either way im running tests for my website, but i would like to include you in it.


David
View user's profile Send e-mail
Wolfgang Armbruster





Joined: 03 Apr 2005

Posts: 322

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 11:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
At close range (about 30 to 40 yards for a bow and 60 to 80 yards on a crossbow) it got pierced and did not do its intended job.


How do you know? Mail was rather easily pierced by crossbows I guess, but plate armour? Again, the tests made by Dr. Alan Williams suggest that plate-armour was a sufficient defense against crossbows.
Armour got thicker and heavier mainly because of harkebuses. It became also softer to take away the shock from the bullets. Earlier armour was tempered to keep arrows, bolts and polearms from biting.

I don't doubt that breast-plates were sometimes pierced by bolts but if they were pierced everytime at closer ranges why did people still rely on pike-phalanxes for such a long time? I mean, why not just equip most of your soldiers with heavy crossbows and let them mow down the enemy in volleys *g*
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 11:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There's armour and there's armour.
Just like there's crossbows and crossbows.
And hits and hits.

Few pieces of armour where alike, even at the same place at the same time. Some might be better, some worse.
Even if we had a historic armour and a historic crossbow, these might not be representative for it's time.


Also, even if a weapon is capable of piercing armour, this does not mean that it will automatically be effective. There are lots examples of the same weapons failing to rout even unarmoured foes.
Up until the introduction of rapid fire, semi automatic firearms, engagements where expected to be settled with close assault.
With the introduction of the self igniting, bayonetted musket, one got a formation that was able to deliver great firepower, with shock effect, at close range, and subsequently enter close combat, something archers or crossbowmen seldom did.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 3:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Julio is currently putting together another mail test. Using a similar sample of mail as in his previous test but with better reconstructions of weapons and a more accurate aketon. However, I'm not sure that any crossbow he can come up with would be as accurate as David's reconstructions. It would be excellent of David's crossbows could be tested against Julio's mail. Unfortunately I believe Julio is based in Spain. I'll send him an email to see if anything can be done. I believe that this is the crossbow he is currently planning on using. Draw weight is probably under 150 lbs.
http://www.arcomedievo.net/ma1.htm
[click on "ballestas", followed by "Nuestras ballestas siglo XII-XIII"]
View user's profile Send private message
David Ruff




Location: Denton TX
Joined: 18 May 2006

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 8:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Julio is currently putting together another mail test. Using a similar sample of mail as in his previous test but with better reconstructions of weapons and a more accurate aketon. However, I'm not sure that any crossbow he can come up with would be as accurate as David's reconstructions. It would be excellent of David's crossbows could be tested against Julio's mail. Unfortunately I believe Julio is based in Spain. I'll send him an email to see if anything can be done. I believe that this is the crossbow he is currently planning on using. Draw weight is probably under 150 lbs.
http://www.arcomedievo.net/ma1.htm
[click on "ballestas", followed by "Nuestras ballestas siglo XII-XIII"]



Hey dan, if you can set that up that would be great. The gentalman would gett he mail back of course. As far as a under 150lb crossbow, tell him don't bother. He would need a 6" draw 400 to 800lb crossbow to make the test realistic. Altho a modern crossbow might put down the same type of numbers a heavy longbow of the period might, the results are skewed due to speed, bolt and the like being WAY different.


Altho i have no historic facts on crossbows in volley fire, crossbows in my opinion were not used for this type of assult, as a crank bow took about 3 to 5 minutes to crank, load and fire. Even in volley fire the longbow would have desimated any crossbow force attemping it. Smae goes for a windlass bow at about 1 to 2 minutes to crank, load and fire and a goats foot is fast, but would not impact enough.

My 450 goats foot puts holes in plate, we will test tempered plate on it, but i know for a FACT it would not defeat plate backed with chain. Then again, how many really wore plate, chain, padding all at the same time? I can't imagine a country would take the amazing time to create all that for every fighter?

To be honest i am wondering if one of my heavies in the 900+ range would defeat plate backed with chain as well. I have no doubts it will "kill" one/either of them, but both will be a fun test.


David
View user's profile Send e-mail
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 9:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

3 to 5 minutes to crank ! That is slow Eek! I guess one gets a manageable amount of effort to turn the lever of the crank at the price of having each 360° turn of the crank only moving the crossbow string a fraction of an inch at each turn.

For it to take 3 to 5 minutes the number of turns must be close to a hundred or more ??? Wild guess ?

Now for an extremely heavy crossbow the leverage advantage would have to be very high: Would cranks with less leverage, but much faster loading times, have been used with more moderate power bows using a crank ?

Lets say a crossbow in the 500 pound draw range that could have been cocked using a goatsfoot but using a crank instead for ease of use on horseback or other awkward positions when loading.

If it's going to be 5 minutes until your next possible shot you are not going to waste a shot just shooting in the general direction of the enemy. The only exception might be in a siege for harassing fire or if your crossbow can outrange the ennemie's missile weapons ? Here I'm thinking the use of crossbows by King Richard in the Third Crusade: Assuming the crossbows outranged the Turkish horse archer bows, or at least had more stopping at extended range. Volley fire might have been used or more probably a continuous snipping at any horse archers getting into range or close enough to be effective against the crusaders armour. ( Probably fairly close then, and well within the effective accurate range of the crossbows. ) Well, this was before the English used longbows en masse as far as I know.

I wonder if longbows were used sporadically before becoming the English weapon of choice. Any idea of what is the earliest documented use of longbows in any quantity.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Crossbows power / range
Page 4 of 13 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11, 12, 13  Next 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum