Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Longbows again Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 
Author Message
Matthew G.





Joined: 08 Dec 2006

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun 10 Dec, 2006 12:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

i know i can draw a 100lb bow im pretty big for my age tho for my draw length since you draw to your ear is it still considdered to you mouth like on other bows my draw right now is 31 inches so i was wondering if it stayed the same or would it change becaure of the draw to the ear or chest
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Josh Warren




Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Joined: 01 Nov 2006

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Sun 10 Dec, 2006 3:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Josh,

can you draw a 100 pound longbow? I have on an 80 pounder but I could not spand the 100 pounder fully. Be careful as well. I have heard some scary stories of people test shooting bows and crossbows (arrows deflecting that bounce back...) So be careful. It may help to find people who have already done testing on it and ask them about it. Be careful. Just a friendly reminder, I'd hate anything to go wrong.

RPM


I doubt I'll be able to draw the thing. I'm in pretty good shape, but I don't think I have the muscle development in the right places to pull this bow. I do, however, have an assistant who can pull it.

Here are the arrows I've been sent:

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m163/stevesjem/Trio.jpg

I'm taking precautions. In addition to the arrow penetration tests, I intend to have my upstairs neighbor, who is a black powder shooting enthusiast, take his turn with his rifle at a few pieces of steel of varying thicknesses, shapes, and degrees of hardness. Hopefully, we'll learn a few things.

FWIW, here is a photo of the result of a 135-pound bow shooting an arrow at a 2mm-thick bottom of a meat smoker.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c39/thimosa...that-1.jpg

Note that, while the arrow pierces the outer layer, it can't penetrate the inner layer of steel to any great degree. And that's on a flat, rusty piece of metal. I am convinced that even that 135-pound bow would not be able to drive an arrow through a globose plackart-over-breastplate as used on many Italian armours of the fifteenth century, which, according to the responses I got on my Armour Archive thread on Italian armour thickness, could be as thick as this meat smoker, or even thicker. Moreover, I think that, due to the roundness of such a breastplate, many or most of the arrows shot at it would not even gain a 90-degree angle of attack, and thus would probably not fare even as well as the arrow in the photo.

Non Concedo
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




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

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sun 10 Dec, 2006 6:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Josh,

Cool. Just want you to be safe. Its that emergency training thing. Good luck with your testing.

As far as multilayered breastplates. I agree that the overlap areas would be very hard to pierce if not virtually impossible (excluding the far extremes, thin breastplates, 180 pound bows etc.). Not all the breastplate and placard overlaps however perhaps something to keep in mind. You have usually a good couple inches of over lap but the far top and bottom do not. This would in part explain some of the interesting overlapping higher on the chest on some suits if the idea is correct. Did you ever get the info for the avant suit? I am suprised how thick it was in places but have a care as the ridge is very thick but the rest of the BP is not uniform with this. It goes from around the one mil mark to 4. That is a large area of variables. I wonder if the very thick ridge was not designed mroe for melee beatings as its location makes it seem. I do agree that the overlap likely makes penetration of overlapped areas harder. It may pierce one but not the other if they are both 2mm thick. Let me know if you want to chat sometime I would love to hear how things go and what you are up to,

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Josh Warren




Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Joined: 01 Nov 2006

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Wed 20 Dec, 2006 4:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Okay, my arrows have arrived. I am in the process of arranging some reasonably accurate breastplates to shoot the arrows at and see what it takes to stop one of these monster arrows.

It now occurs to me that the 100-pound longbow I have on the way may not be representative of what the average longbowman would have been pulling; it might have been much higher.

Since I will never be able to pull a 150-pound bow, I intend to construct a machine to project my arrows with force equivalent to what a 150-pound bow would have packed. A mini-ballista, I guess. Any ideas? What if I used a couple of truck springs? Is this even a good idea?

I propose to shoot at three different types of breastplate. The first is a single-piece breastplate like what might have been worn at Agincourt, mild steel, 2mm thick in the middle. The second is like the first, but of heat-treated higher-carbon steel. The third is intended to represent what might have been worn by those Lombard knights who shrugged off the English arrows at Verneuil, consisting of a two-piece breastplate/plackart, also of heat-treated spring steel, 3-3.5mm in the center.

I think at least two of the arrows, the shorter bodkins, will be driven right through the first breastplate with little problem. I'm not sure if the long bodkin will fold up on it or not. I think they'll have some slight problems with glancing off on the second breastplate, but will still be able to penetrate it. I don't think any of the arrows will so much as scratch the third breastplate.

Thoughts?

Non Concedo
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Stratton





Joined: 23 Feb 2007

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri 23 Feb, 2007 5:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi There

I'm the guy who made these arrows for Josh, 1st of all do not try to use the long bodkin for armour piercing, it was never used for this purpose, these were designed for chain mail and padded jacks, however the other 2 will have no problem with 2mm plate, we have also tested them on 2.5mm plate with success.

By the way Josh what happened to you going on the www.englishwarbow.com/forum.
Also what happened to the piece of armour you were locating for us to do the same tests that you are proposing on this site, don't forget this is one of the reasons we at the warbow forum sent you the bow and arrows for free.

The other thing i will say is unless you are able to shoot a heavy weight warbow comfortably then the tests are futile as you will not get the best out of either bow or arrows. A machine will not give you the same results as an archer, we have already proved this on Mark Strettons Armour piercing test dvd, this dvd is available from http://www.diyarchery.co.uk/product%20images/Mark%20DVD.htm

Cheers

Steve
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Josh Warren




Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Joined: 01 Nov 2006

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Fri 23 Feb, 2007 1:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thank you for the arrows, Steve. Don't despair--I haven't given up on the project.

I'm still working with an armourer to produce a proper breastplate. Getting one done with the thickness graduated (thicker in the middle, thinning out at the sides) is proving difficult.

I do not yet have a bow from Thimo. I have contacted him, though, and will see if he still wants to send it to me. I confess that I don't think I will ever be able to pull it unless I sit down and brace it with my feet. Wink

Real life intruded and has curtailed my web-surfing to some degree; note that I have not been very active on this forum lately either. The last several weeks have seen me visit the Armour Archive a bit, but I haven't had much time for the other forums I frequent.

I still hold to my initial opinion on the subject, for the most part. While I have been impressed with the results you gentlemen on the englishwarbow forum have achieved with your powerful bows, I still think that high-end armour would indeed keep a man safe from even the longbow. I still think the primary source evidence points to plate armour being a very effective defense against the things.

I admit that, when I first began looking around the Web for more information on the longbow a few months back, I had not been prepared for the tenacity with which Englishmen cling to the notion that the longbow could punch through any wearable armour. The issue seems very tied up with English patriotism.

Non Concedo
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




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

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sat 24 Feb, 2007 12:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Josh,

We spoke about the use of shields in conjunction with armour to combat archers.

Here are some examples.

Neville’s Cross- 1346. Geoffrey le Baker. pg. 87-88. 2,000- men armed with ‘cassidibud politis et umbonibus numero firmatis.” armed with helmets polished and a number of firm shields (more or less, its off the top of my head, it may be worth looking at a translated copy)..
“sagittas anglicorum in primordial belli frustravit”. the arrows of the english in the first of the battle were frustrated.
Warbow 192 and other times in the book Strickland makes the comment the archers were shooting behind the better armed me to destroy the lighter armed men. It is possible but I figure many of the archers were taking close shots which would be more likely to penetrate from close rank.

Crecy crossbowmne without pavaises- froissart, 125. Reason they cannot hold out against archers. I am sure from a good distance a shield would offer great protection.

Cocherel- 1364. Froissart, 149. Men at Arms were too heavily armoured and pavaised. French victory, ruse and armour plus shield. Small, small number of archers less than a fifth.

Auray- Froissart page.162. Once more well armed with shields and armour but once more the number of archers is only 1/3 or less of army. Join in melee as they cannot halt french on rush.

Agincourt. Anne Curry, Agincourt. pg. 161. Monstrelet, 107-8. French men at arms had to keep helmets down to avoid being killed by arrow’s, especially the men without shields.

It seems to me that shields were not out of use but in decline. It seems into the 16th century forces of shieldmen still are used. I assume once close your chances of being killed are heightened but much better chances with a shield than without.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 24 Feb, 2007 3:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There is also the Battle of Poitiers (1356). Geoffrey le Baker wrote that a group of French horsemen:
"had the special purpose of overrunning the archers, and of protecting their army from the arrows. Standing near their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards..."

There is a Hungarian source that recommends cutting the tips off bodkins to give them a chance of penetrating plate. I have no idea which typology this source is writing about. Russ Mitchell may have more details.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 24 Feb, 2007 4:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:

Warbow 192 and other times in the book Strickland makes the comment the archers were shooting behind the better armed me to destroy the lighter armed men. It is possible but I figure many of the archers were taking close shots which would be more likely to penetrate from close rank.

Why do you think that your analysis of the battle is more accurate than Strickland's?
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




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

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sat 24 Feb, 2007 7:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan,

Ah I must have missed that example. Do you know which edition of Le Baker and the page? I will go back when I have a second to reread it.

The hungarian source brings up an interesting point.. The long tipped bodkins would be close to impossible to punch through plate, likely crumpling on impact, but perhaps giving it more of a chisel like profile would do the trick or at least increase the odds.

In Le Baker he mentions that at the battles start the armour has frustrated the arrows (sagittas anglicorum in primordial belli frustravit -primordial meaning at first , the start or beginning) used by the archers but later the men at arms are being shot at. Douglass was hit by arrows and he was among the heavily armed men at arms, clearly some archers were aiming arrows at them. I think that men closer to the men at arms would be loosing arrows at the men closest to them (the men at arms) and the men further out along the flanks would be aiming at those behind as it would keep from friendly fire and would increase the area covered and support their own men at arms. In the end it is not he is wrong, I think it likely was a part of the battle the archers loosing arrows at the lightly armoured troops behind but that not all were shooting at them. My assumption is that if men such as Douglass and David were hit by arrows, and they were amoung their better armoured men in the Scot force then the aim was at the men at arms as well.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 24 Feb, 2007 12:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Ah I must have missed that example. Do you know which edition of Le Baker and the page? I will go back when I have a second to reread it.

I wish. I took notes from Baker a few years ago and didn't record the references. Stupid. If someone has the cite I would be grateful.


Quote:
In Le Baker he mentions that at the battles start the armour has frustrated the arrows (sagittas anglicorum in primordial belli frustravit -primordial meaning at first , the start or beginning) used by the archers but later the men at arms are being shot at. Douglass was hit by arrows and he was among the heavily armed men at arms, clearly some archers were aiming arrows at them. I think that men closer to the men at arms would be loosing arrows at the men closest to them (the men at arms) and the men further out along the flanks would be aiming at those behind as it would keep from friendly fire and would increase the area covered and support their own men at arms. In the end it is not he is wrong, I think it likely was a part of the battle the archers loosing arrows at the lightly armoured troops behind but that not all were shooting at them. My assumption is that if men such as Douglass and David were hit by arrows, and they were amoung their better armoured men in the Scot force then the aim was at the men at arms as well.

So why assume it was direct fire? Why could not the men at arms get hit from volley fire along with the lighter armed troops?
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




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

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sat 24 Feb, 2007 1:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan,

I suppose my main point was that they were not just aiming and killing the lightly armoured men behind but the men at arms as well who initially were repelling the arrows but later were not able to. Not sure what your question is perhaps. Strickland just seems not to directly state what the accounts does that the men at arms were not invincible once the range was diminished (pg.192). He states they were only loosing arrows effectively at the lighter armed men while the primary sources indicate they had effect on the heavy men at arms as well later in the battle. I assume 'later' to mean after they were closed (i.e. close shots) in as it is clear initially their armour and shields had protected them but later they did not. How would you interpret the line differently? I may not understand what you are asking. I never mention direct fire only that once closer they archers start inflicting casualties on them.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
George H.





Joined: 26 Dec 2006

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sat 03 Mar, 2007 5:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:

... in archery you use both arms and step into the shot by pushing with the left and then pulling the right.


I heard it once said in a discussion of the subject that longbowmen essentially pushed the bow away from them instead of holding it out and pulling the bowstring back. That reminded me of an old-time barbell stunt called the "one-arm bent press" where someone would shoulder a barbell with one hand, press it up while leaning away from it, and then stand back upright once the arm was locked. Would a press-out style of longbow shooting work? Since it's been ages since I've owned a bow, I pass this along to others for experimentation and discussion.
View user's profile Send private message
George H.





Joined: 26 Dec 2006

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sat 03 Mar, 2007 6:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Marcos Cantu wrote:

Its very rare for someone wearing body armor to be knocked down when they are shot. If the force of a bullet was able to knock someone down, it would also knock down the person doing the shooting.


I saw a video in which a man in a vest with a ceramic plate element in it stood on one leg and let his friend shoot him in the chest at a distance of one meter with a 7.62 NATO FN FAL to prove this very point; neither was knocked down.
View user's profile Send private message
George H.





Joined: 26 Dec 2006

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sat 03 Mar, 2007 6:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
I have a cousin who had his kevlar vest on luckily and a rifle bullet hit him, did not penetrate him or his kill plate but broke a half dozen of ribs but the internal organ damage was what was the most dangerous.
RPM


Was it ever ascertained what the caliber of the projectile was?
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




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

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sat 03 Mar, 2007 11:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

George,

I think their is a huge difference between getting hit by the 7.62 NATO FN FAL as the projectiles itself are fairly small and light weight, not like is reassuring if you get hit by one but most full auto have smaller rounds. The mass of the projectile (7.6mm by 51mm) is important in the equation. It has has a muzzle velocity of 823 m/s (2,700 ft/s) so someone with math skill can figure it out. It also has an effective range of 600m.

List of cartridge sizes. Never knew alot of these even existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rifle_cartridges

I do not think so but I could email him and ask. By the sound of it it would have had to have been a fairly large caliber weapon I assume. I am not even sure they caught the guy who assaulted him. He lives in a rough area but I did not think it was that rough.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Longbows again
Page 8 of 8 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 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