| Author |
Message |
Glen A Cleeton
|
 Posted: Tue 07 Nov, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
There are some pretty good bow training tips shared on this board.
http://www.englishwarbow.com/forum/index.php?
I share it here not as a point of contention but as perhaps helpful to some that may wonder about technique and training.
There are some other spirited and friendly discussionsgoing on there there as well.
Three finger pull-ups seems to be one of Mark Stretton's routines. Something about tendons being pretty critical to the whole program.
Cheers
GC
|
|
  |
 |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 07 Nov, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This is hardly evidence of penetration of plate, |
I was using it as evidence of heavy bows, not penetration of plate.
| Quote: | | and given the scarcity of plate amongst conquistadores (in spite of the popular image of them), I'm inclined to believe that he's not talking about plate here. |
Hard to say. Probably not, but plate armor definitely was used by the wealthier Spaniards in Florida.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Tue 07 Nov, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Josh,
We are slipping backwards again, we already spoke about some possible reasons some accounts say armour was defeated adn in others not. I personally think it is context. The armour will defeat most arrows in many curcumstances. Not all, therefore both types of accounts make sense and therefore can be true.
I also mentioned what seems to be a trend (although in reality difficult to measure considering the small amount of armour pre 1450 to that after where it is much more abundant) that armour gets thicker, possibly to counter arrows but per Williams more likely early firearms as well as more
One of the first parts of University life for my first degree in history (some time ago now) we had few years of theory classes on history and one teacher I had really had a lot of good points on historic reasoning. We looked at a number of articles and their rebuttals then my teacher had us look and see how they could be interpreted, if either was clearly more correct or more soild and last if their was overlap between them, how and where and how this changes the interpretation. Anyone could right an article that says armour was going to deflect all arrows or be pierced by any arrow. Which is right, which wrong? I think this is looking for the overlap. There is too much to say any arrow could defeat armour and there is plenty of evidence to claim armour could be comprimised.
James B.,
I agree the main job of the archer of the field was NOT to pierce through armour. There are plenty of places they filled I assume would be much more effective at a range and capable of. Yet I still think it did happen from the many accounts that exist. I also do not think it would be negligible in a battle to those killed so and think numerically, with fully armoured me being in the small minority on the field usually, losses add up quickly.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dick D
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Discovery documentary clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUI3gMTZL-4 (unfortunately its cut in the end)
English warbow (Probably atleast 150lbs bow as they say its equivalent of lifting the archers weight), shooting at 200yds on a roadsign. Also testing if it can penetrate plate at closer range.
Fun to watch atleast
|
|
|
|
|
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
That you tube clip is crap. He shots through a flat piece of metal on an ungiving back drop at close range with a hardened arrow point, it is not at all realistic. Armor was harder that arrow tips, armor was curved and work hardened, people have give and are moving, and any archer at that distance from a horseman is less an a second away for a lance in the chest or being trampled.
I really wish they would stop doing these poor tests on bad TV shows. The Royal Armories did a good video on the subject, the Weapons that made Britain was also quality.
|
|
 |
|
Daniel J. Willis
Location: Hampshire, England Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
You'd really think Discovery could of put enough in the budget to cover a few bits of repro armour!
I can't believe an "expert" such as Hardy would endorse such a meaningless "test."
They don't even say what the draw weight of the bow he's using is (apart from the meaningless reference to something about "equal to lifting his own weight") which would at least of been slightly informative.
And they wonder why so many academic historians and archeologists dislike "popular histories!"
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That you tube clip is crap. |
I don't know. I think it's pretty neat seeing Simon Stanley in action.
| Quote: | | I can't believe an "expert" such as Hardy would endorse such a meaningless "test." |
It doesn't surprise me. From The Great Warbow, it's pretty clear Hardy thinks longbows could pierce good plate armor. I just hope the other stuff he writes isn't as dubious. A lot it seems far more reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh Warren
Location: Manhattan, Kansas Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
It doesn't surprise me. From The Great Warbow, it's pretty clear Hardy thinks longbows could pierce good plate armor. I just hope the other stuff he writes isn't as dubious. A lot it seems far more reasonable. |
Just what is in The Great Warbow? Again, how many mm of steel have this Stretton fellow & his ilk penetrated? I still don' t think even the heaviest warbow could pierce one of those later 15th century double-thick breastplates. Those things often exceeded 2mm...
Non Concedo
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Just what is in The Great Warbow? Again, how many mm of steel have this Stretton fellow & his ilk penetrated? |
As far as I know, Stretton doesn't have anything to do with The Great Warbow. They didn't conduct any tests of plate for the book that I know of. Strickland recounts a bunch of old tests and writes that new tests are needed. Hardy writes that longbows could pierce good plate armor, but doesn't give much (if any) evidence to support that idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dick D wrote: | Discovery documentary clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUI3gMTZL-4 (unfortunately its cut in the end)
English warbow (Probably atleast 150lbs bow as they say its equivalent of lifting the archers weight), shooting at 200yds on a roadsign. Also testing if it can penetrate plate at closer range.
Fun to watch atleast |
Ha! That's from the "Greatest Weapons Ever". The production company had Brian McIllmoyle and I do a bunch of armoured grappling and also train a rugby team to do 16thC pike drill. All in one day. That show was not intended to be an academic resource if you know what I mean.
I had a good laugh discussing this with the director since they shot the longbow segment about two weeks before meeting us. Hardy had absolutely convinced them that the longbow could plow arrows right through plate harness at 200 metres. Then he filmed us pounding each other with daggers and swords, tumbling and stabbing, with no injury. He was less enthusiastic about Hardy's opinion thereafter. Roadsigns are not like armour. Flat mild steel plates on ballistic gel are not like a man at arms completely covered in 14th-15thC composite armour. Useless demonstration.
OTOH, I wouldn't want Simon Stanley shooting at me. I don't have very much faith in my mail or my visor compared to my other plate harness elements. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Josh Warren wrote: | | Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
It doesn't surprise me. From The Great Warbow, it's pretty clear Hardy thinks longbows could pierce good plate armor. I just hope the other stuff he writes isn't as dubious. A lot it seems far more reasonable. |
Just what is in The Great Warbow? Again, how many mm of steel have this Stretton fellow & his ilk penetrated? I still don' t think even the heaviest warbow could pierce one of those later 15th century double-thick breastplates. Those things often exceeded 2mm... |
The arrows didn't penetrate harness as much during the WotR. But Agincourt was two generations earlier and substantial numbers of the first French battle wouldn't have had anywhere near that much harness on, especially on their limbs. The second battle had even fewer fully armoured men. It wasn't like the French crown compelled men to wear the pinnacle of Milanese plate at the time. Clearly it was a target rich environment for heavy bows. Does this constitute "pierce good plate armour?" There are many gaps to hit in the best plate of the time. Those unfortunate souls wearing lesser quality harness had that many more targets to hit. Thickness of breastplate is irrelevant when an arrow storm plunges into your flank from 50-70 meters away. 
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Glen , thanks for that other forum you posted. I will take my time and check it out. It will be interesting to compare notes with other people who actualy shoot heavy bows like I do.
| Dick D wrote: | Discovery documentary clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUI3gMTZL-4 (unfortunately its cut in the end)
English warbow (Probably atleast 150lbs bow as they say its equivalent of lifting the archers weight), shooting at 200yds on a roadsign. Also testing if it can penetrate plate at closer range.
Fun to watch atleast |
That video was fun to watch, thank you for posting it. I don't believe that bow is more then 55 lbs. Minor tell tale signs that I picked up. Anyone that is putting more then 90 lbs of stress on their wrist will wrap it up. Also the amount of compression on his hand does not look right. That plus the size of his shoulders and uperback. I know size can be missleading, but that guy is way off. 55 lbs will go through plate at the close range he is shooting it at.
Further more I can tell you that the bow he is shooting is either not a very good one or he's a bad shooter. The bow has a high kenetic energy. Upon release you see the whole bow move forward. That is taking away from the force going into the arrow.
I don't think people realize what it is to pull 150 lbs with one arm to the ear. Most super strong guys can not even do one pullup with one hand completly. Doing a on-hand pullup uses a much larger muscle and the leverage is also much greater and it still can't be done. The only people who can do it is rock climbers and male gymasts who diet hard to lower their body weight so they can do it. It works for them cause they are competing against thier own body weight. In the case of the longbow, we are talking about a fixed 150 lbs.
By the way here is an interesting tid-bit. For every inch you underdraw a bow, you loose 3 lbs on a 50 lb bow (6% per inch). On a 150 lb bow that should scale to 9 lbs per inch. Often people draw to their chin instead of their ear. That is 6 inches x 9 = 54 lbs lost.
Another factor to consider is that each bow is designed by a craftmen specificly to match an archer's draw length. So if a long bow was intend for a 6.5 foot man to be 110 lbs at 40 inches and a 5.10 foot man picks it up and draws it to his 31 inch draw length.... he is NOT pulling 110 kbs. In this case I calculate he is only pulling 50 lbs. Amazing isn't it!!!!
You can have the same misinterpitation in reverse. My bow draws at 65 lbs at 31 inches. That is what I specified when I ordered it. If a 6.5 man tries to draw mine to his 40 inches you will be adding 4 extra lbs per inch. So my bow all of sudden becomes a 90 lb bow.
Now for the grand finaly. I am capable drawing a 100 lb bow at 31 inches. It is not ideal, but I can get a shot off and rest. Give this bow to a 6.5 foot man to draw 40 inches and presto you have a 154 bow.
You might ask, won't the bow be bending too much. Yeah, and it might even break, but that all depends on the wood. There are a lot a variables there. The same type of wood from diffrent trees might have diffrent flexibility. There might be a small diffrence in thickness, density, moisture, etc...
I did a whole physics write up on my website. Here is the link again in case anyone missed it.
http://mysite.verizon.net/tsafa1/longbow/longbow.htm
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
 |
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | But Agincourt was two generations earlier and substantial numbers of the first French battle wouldn't have had anywhere near that much harness on, especially on their limbs. |
Uh, period accounts are pretty clear that the French were very heavily armored at Agincourt. Jehan de Waurin even describes some wearing long mail coats under their plate armor. Also, at least one French source claims that, because of the armor, English arrows did very little damage.
| Quote: | | I don't believe that bow is more then 55 lbs. |
Seems unlikely, as Simon Stanley can shoot 190lb bows, though he doesn't enjoy it.
By the way, he claims the bow shoots a three-ounce arrow at 193 fps. Assuming those numbers are roughly accurate, the bow is at least 150lbs. If the numbers are exact, it's over 150lbs or more efficient than the bows tested in The Great Warbow.
| Quote: | | 55 lbs will go through plate at the close range he is shooting it at. |
Maybe if it's very thin wrought iron. According to the tests done by Williams, a 55lb bow wouldn't have a prayer of pentrating a 2mm breastplate of the lowest quality. That would require 87.5 J. The most energy an arrow from 55lb bow would have is 55 J. Probably not even that much.
By Simon's numbers, on the otherhand, his bows gives the arrow about 147 J. This would be enough to pierce a low-quality breastplate. The idea that warbows could pierce bad plate at close is supported, at least possibly, by Fourquevaux. Stanley and Hardy are sort of right, it's just that most armor was better than they think.
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Wed 08 Nov, 2006 1:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I forgot to mention. If the bow he was using was so powerfull he would also be wearing a very thick leather armbrace to keep the string from hitting his arm and bursting a vain. I sometimes still get bruises on my forearm through my brace from my 65 lb bow 
I also forgot to mention that as the breaded string streches over time, you will also loose lbs of draw weight. I am not sure how that scales. I have observed something like 10 lbs per 2 inches but the scale was not my own and I have not done enough experiments to be certain.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, Vassilis, are you suggesting he was lying, then? That the whole thing was staged? That's a very odd idea, as peer-reviewed works report Stanley ability to shoot very heavy bows. Do you think they had him shoot a weak bow just for the camera? I guess it's possible.
Also, I really doubt you could do that to a metal street sign with light bow. Street signs resist some bullets. They're not armor, but they're pretty tough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh Warren
Location: Manhattan, Kansas Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ben, what is the source you mention that says that English arrows did little damage to the armoured French at Agincourt? I'm very interested in that...
Non Concedo
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's from Jean Juvenal des Ursins: "The French were scarcely harmed by the arrow fire of the English because they were well armed."
Anne Curry's book is the thing to get if you're interested in Agincourt.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel J. Willis
Location: Hampshire, England Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vassilis,
It seems like you've put a lot of time and practical effort into studying this, which is great for everyone interested in the subject, it also seems like you are really confident in your views.
Have you thought about expanding the information you've got on the website with a lot of the opinions you've expressed here? Maybe try to put together a rough essay or just expand the info on webpage and present it to others with more specialist archery experience (say, on an archery specific equivalent of myArmoury where manufacturers etc. contribute (i think someone provided some links earlier)).
Getting some feedback from people working along the same lines as you might be more useful than trying judge history based solely on your experience (don't mean that to sound like criticism, just think you need to consider the work of others alongside your own rather than just dismissing any claim different to yours as wrong for this/that reason etc.).
I know you don't think they existed, but if (for the sake of argument) the majority of Warbows were as powerful as others claim, how do you think they would have faired against various armour types (that's what the thread was about after all) i'm pretty useless when it comes to physics so i can't deduce much from your equations!?
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
Anne Curry's book is the thing to get if you're interested in Agincourt. |
Don't say things like that, you're making me think i should've carried on walking down the history corridor and done my MA with Anne instead of stopping at the door i did and spending a year researching the Cold War!
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ben,
I think the account is very accurate in its place, yet dangerous to hinge ones views of the complete version of agincourt on one account but already been here in previous posts. There are plenty of contemporary accounts of people who were close to the action in the opposite camp.
Anne Curry also makes the point the English victory was due to Englsih army composition being full of archers over men at arms. In fact speaking with her it seems like she tried avoiding the entire penetration issue. The book should be out soon in paperback for those interested. I can get more up to date info if anyone likes as I will see her fairly often.
Daniel,
Who did you study with?
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Nov, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel J. Willis wrote: | Vassilis,
It seems like you've put a lot of time and practical effort into studying this, which is great for everyone interested in the subject, it also seems like you are really confident in your views.
Have you thought about expanding the information you've got on the website with a lot of the opinions you've expressed here? Maybe try to put together a rough essay or just expand the info on webpage and present it to others with more specialist archery experience (say, on an archery specific equivalent of myArmoury where manufacturers etc. contribute (i think someone provided some links earlier)).
Getting some feedback from people working along the same lines as you might be more useful than trying judge history based solely on your experience (don't mean that to sound like criticism, just think you need to consider the work of others alongside your own rather than just dismissing any claim different to yours as wrong for this/that reason etc.).
I know you don't think they existed, but if (for the sake of argument) the majority of Warbows were as powerful as others claim, how do you think they would have faired against various armour types (that's what the thread was about after all) i'm pretty useless when it comes to physics so i can't deduce much from your equations!?
|
The feedback I am getting is very valuble. The last caculations that I made regarding the effects of underdraw or overdraw were a result of having to think a little harder about why the peices don't seem to fit and where they do come together nicely. I demonstrated how how 100 lb bow at 31 inches can be overdrawn to 155 lbs at 40 inches. Someone mentioned that some of the Rose Mary bows were tested to distruction. That implies that they were definelty overdrawing them. In the last inch before a bow breaks the resistance goes up almost exponentialy.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic