An actual question. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Sam

2008-10-01, 01:59 AM

I mean... lets take total war and hope they aren't completely off. You have an entire unit fire upon your enemies and... nothing happens. You can actually watch the opponents shudder from the impact!

Here is what I do know
-if it goes into your brain, you die.
-if it hits a limb, it isn't fatal... unless it gets infected.

But basically, mine is a question about accuracy and piercing power. I remember reading in The Face of Battle that the longbows didn't decimate the French forces at Agincourt- they were beaten by the manueverability of the English troopswho didn't need to trudge through the mud.

Errr... I need to put this is answerable questions.

- How hard is it to aim and fire a bow?
- How good were the elite?
- How effective were basic bowmen?
- How much armor does it take to stop an arrow?

Finally, where is the "real world weapons" section you spoke of? That... would be interesting.

skywalker

2008-10-01, 02:01 AM

Well, I'm going to go ahead and say that most bows(and arrows) you would consider shooting someone with are quite capable of inflicting grievous injury on a person.

Harold, if he was shot in the eye, died from it. The question is not whether or not the shot killed him, but whether or not he is the one getting shot in the eye at all. If he got shot in the eye, that's what killed him. Funnily enough, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_Chronicle) is Wikipedia's feature article right now.

@G_W:IMO, bows and arrows always appear more deadly in pop-culture because they're typically used by the character who's obsessed with accuracy, therefore he(or she) is much more likely to deliver a killing blow.

In most cases, tho, a standard hunting arrow(or anything more deadly) fired from a standard bow will injure, definitely hurt, probably slow you down and cause bleeding, and an accurate shot will probably kill, altho again, possibly slowly and painfully and with a lot of blood involved.

That said, a lot of medieval soldiers who died from arrow wounds died because they could not be saved by the medical treatment of the time. They were put out of the fight by severe pain, blood loss, and possible muscle interference, and then died later. Henry the 5th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_of_England)(as a prince) was actually wounded in the face with an arrow, anyone else would've died from it, but of course the crown prince has a few more people with vested interest in keeping him alive than the average common soldier.

So the stories of someone heroic(Boromir) fighting through the pain and blood loss caused by multiple arrows are plausible, altho I would note that Boromir's story is framed as one of tremendous heroism, that is quite astonishing to onlookers.

EDIT: Agincourt was a strange situation, not only was it muddy(which would've been no real advantage for the English, who were wearing armor as heavy as the French), but the field was hemmed in on both sides by forest. The French were actually disadvantaged by their high numbers, because the rear lines were so eager to get to the front, they severely hindered the mobility of the front lines. The French front was at first unable to move to escape the hail of arrows from the longbows, then unable to move any direction but forward between the narrow woods and towards the English. The English line, by contrast, was thin enough to bend but not break under the French advance. When the bowmen dropped their bows, they were able to press in on the French sides even more, further complicating the French problem.

But the arrows certainly helped a lot.

To answer your questions: You have to be decently trained but there isn't much else to do in Medieval Britain for a commoner during leisure time. According to Wikipedia, all other sports were banned on Sundays. The British cultivated a culture of bowmanship. Like the Swiss pikemen later, English bowmen were sought-after mercenaries. So even the most basic Briton(not just English, Welsh too) was quite good with the bow. With the arrows the British used at Agincourt(Bodkin points powered by great longbows, the arrows had been stuck in the ground for safe-keeping, and the bowmen had been pissing on the ground all day), there was very little french armor that could stop them.

Real-World Weapons is stickied at the top of gaming.

And I know this edit has been ninja'ed to hell by now.

ghost_warlock

2008-10-01, 02:05 AM

Finally, where is the "real world weapons" section you spoke of? That... would be interesting.

The thread is right here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80863). :smallsmile:

Jimorian

2008-10-01, 02:09 AM

This kind falls into the whole trope (not one that I even need to look up, because I've noted this for years) of "The bad guys die with the first shot, the good guys always linger."

There are very few "instadeaths" with one shot of anything. In most cases, you'll have a conscious, probably screaming, quite possibly still very dangerous, person with that bullet/arrow in their body. This is the reason that there is no such thing as "shoot to wound" for police or soldiers -- you can really only incapacitate somebody quickly with shots that are meant to be deathly traumatic.

But most movies/TV shows don't have time to deal with any real kind of aftermath (unless it fits plot points), or it makes things FAR too uncomfortable for the viewer. Rambo stepping into a room with a machine gun doesn't leave a bunch of silent bodies, but a bunch of grown men holding their intestines and screeching for their mothers.

As for arrows, I was always impressed with the "reality" of the scene in Dances With Wolves where the muleskinner guy is ambushed after dropping Costner off at the camp.

Tirian

2008-10-01, 02:09 AM

My reading of the trope leads me to conclude that tropers think that bow & arrow = Golden Gun. :smallwink:

Well, in the fourteenth century and at fifty yards, it pretty nearly was. An English longbow is very accurate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySSGPG27anA) at that range in the right hands, and will definitely leave an impression on its target. And if Wiki is right in spite of the lack of citations, a veteran could fire between 60 and 72 arrows at the rate of ten a minute.

Of course, the hailstorm of arrows technique is much more of a lottery.

Spiryt

2008-10-01, 02:10 AM

I provided a link.

Anyway, your questions are very detailed and hard to answer.

Firstly, noone really know - bows are used in sport, hunting and reenacting today, but it can never give a full idea about that what was happening many years ago. I suggest searching on sites like MyArmoury, and general history forums. Although you can get nice answers here too.

-if it goes into your brain, you die
There's a torso too. Many vital things to shoot.

-if it hits a limb, it isn't fatal... unless it gets infected.

Unless it sever your artery, and you bleed to death... Or hit the bone and smash it. Certainly fatal. In a bit longer period, but still.

I remember reading in The Face of Battle that the longbows didn't decimate the French forces at Agincourt- they were beaten by the manueverability of the English troopswho didn't need to trudge through the mud.

Very correct, but it doesn't change the fact that many of them, especially less/unarmoured were injured and/or killed by arrows.

How hard is it to aim and fire a bow?
Depends what bow, what arrow... Aside from obvious things like arrow and bow's size, there are personal preference. The most important factor would be still bow's draw weight.

How much armor does it take to stop an arrow?

Again, all those factors listed before... Complicated by the fact that there were dozens of armor design in history, each working slightly, or completely different way.

ghost_warlock

2008-10-01, 02:13 AM

Of course, the hailstorm of arrows technique is much more of a lottery.

Didn't they use stones in the Lottery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lottery)? :smalltongue:

(Sorry, I'm in a weird, linky mood tonight. :smalleek:)

skywalker

2008-10-01, 02:15 AM

*Looks around*

I surprised that his edit, in fact, was not ninja'ed very much at all.

...

Points at edit^ (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5024234&postcount=5)

Don Julio Anejo

2008-10-01, 02:28 AM

As a rule of thumb, plate armor is extremely good against arrows. True, a bodkin arrow fired from up close and impacting the armor at an angle close to 90 degrees could probably go through, but most of the time it didn't. It struck at random angles, often oblique (as bows were usually fired in an arc) and simply bounced off armor, like shells bounce off modern tanks.

Also. In battle it's usually better to wound an enemy than kill them. A dead soldier is dead and doesn't need to be taken care of (you can just leave him on the battlefield and pick up his corpse if you win the battle). A more or less seriously wounded soldier, on the other hand, is not only taken out of combat, but also needs medical treatment, a place to rest, can't do anything except lie around and also happens to slow down his army. Enough wounded and the army can't go anywhere and can't fight because too many healthy men are taking care of sick ones.

Spiryt

2008-10-01, 02:34 AM

Also. In battle it's usually better to wound an enemy than kill them. A dead soldier is dead and doesn't need to be taken care of (you can just leave him on the battlefield and pick up his corpse if you win the battle). A more or less seriously wounded soldier, on the other hand, is not only taken out of combat, but also needs medical treatment, a place to rest, can't do anything except lie around and also happens to slow down his army. Enough wounded and the army can't go anywhere and can't fight because too many healthy men are taking care of sick ones.

This is true, but as most thing, not absolute. Firstly, if wound isn't so serious, and guy is though, he can still keep fitghing, even though less effectively, most probably. But with really high andrenaline rush, wounds can only enrage further. There were different examples.

Similary, if wound isn't so bad, and the guy is though, two weeks can for example past, and he's ready to fight again. Not good.

And if enemy has nearby castle, or at least good logistic, so he can send his wounded away, to town, hospital or something?

In many regards, it's better to kill.
And in battle noone was thinking about wounding or killing, just to stop the enemy in any way.

Although, important knights were indeed sometimes taken alive, for money.

EDIT: As for bodkin arrow, I agree. The problem is that there is still padding under plate, and bodkin arrows aren't too good at penetrating those. Still, probaby really well shot arrow from heavy bow could at least damage plate clad man, or his plate.

valadil

2008-10-01, 08:41 AM

Errr... I need to put this is answerable questions.

- How hard is it to aim and fire a bow?
- How good were the elite?
- How effective were basic bowmen?
- How much armor does it take to stop an arrow?

Learning the basics isn't hard. Getting good at them is. From what I've read, the English army's test for archers was that they had to be able to hit a man sized target 12 times in a minute at 200 yards. I've never shot at more than 90 yards, but I don't think my bow would cover the distance even if I tried. Yew longbows were something in the range of 100-150 pounds to draw and archers from those days can be identified by their altered bone structure from pulling all that weight. Modern bows are usually in the 40-60 pound draw range, though heavier bows are usually of the compound variety - a compound has most of its pull in the middle of the draw so you can hold it in full draw and aim for longer.

As far as annoying arrows goes, there's a difference between someone shooting at you and an army firing wildly in your direction. I think the latter, where no one target is singled out, is what they would call annoying.

Ilena

2008-10-01, 08:47 AM

Arrows and crossbows ... both deadly .. i mean how long did people use bows and arrows and crossbows? 2000, 3000 years? If someone is using a weapon like that for that long, its gota be doing something right, a longbow can penatrate plate armor at short range (tempered plate armor that is, i forgot what battle it was but the italian mercs from the french had that armor and the english longbows could not hurt them until they came in close), it all really depends where you hit the person, yes a shot to the arm or leg, not deadly unless it hit an artery, chest shot ... depends where it hit, again may or may not be deadly on impact but hurts like hell .. probably more then a bullet wound as you have a foot of wood sticking out, when it comes to removal ... well thats a differnt story, as arrows normally have barbs on them to prevent their removal, so unless you have an arrow remover (long peice of metal with a hole on the end to fit over the tip of the arrow) then its gona do alot of damage coming out, or even more damage if you push it through, soldiers of that time had a reason to fear arrows and crossbows ... so yes they are deadly,

UncleWolf

2008-10-01, 10:39 AM

An English Longbow(with about a minimum pull of 120lb in some cases) in the hands of a decent marksman with a good arrow could easily pierce platemail from a good distance.
The hail of arrows effectiveness would have to depend on what army you were using it on. If it was Roman Legionnaires, it wouldn't be really effective because of the phalanx formation. On the other hand if you used it on the Gauls, it would be much more effective because they didn't use the phalanx.

Edit: The Solomon Island arrows were much more deadly against unarmored foes because they had barbs on the heads that fell off in the wound causing infection.

It all just depends.

eidreff

2008-10-01, 10:48 AM

One other thing, archers would push their arrows into the groud in front of them for easy access when firing. They also "went to the toilet" on that same ground. If the arrow didnt get you the infection often did.

Dragonrider

2008-10-01, 11:38 AM

I love this article. (http://www.istad.org/tolkien/pilinn.html)

Renegade Paladin

2008-10-01, 11:48 AM

An arrow will kill you in pretty much the same way a bullet will, only it'll hurt more. It's a comparatively large object forcing its way through your body at high speed. It doesn't matter what the object doing that is; it can be an arrow, crossbow bolt, bullet, rock, coin dropped off a skyscraper, or an animal's teeth. Any of those can kill you. The question isn't what's doing it; the question is whether or not it hit anything vital.

RightHandless

2008-10-01, 12:08 PM

In case of Harold, if he really got hit in eye with arrow, it on 100% went very high arc and up the hill (Harold forces had defensive position on the hill) so arrow literally "felt" on him, wounding his eye, but hadn't enoguh force to penetrate into the brain anymore (even trough sof tissue like eye). So Harold, being tough guy, survived this painful injury. Just to be killed later, heh.

He looses points for failing to pluck out the pierced eye and eat it.

UncleWolf

2008-10-01, 12:16 PM

He looses points for failing to pluck out the pierced eye and eat it.

He was not Xiahou Dun.:smallbiggrin:

DeathQuaker

2008-10-01, 12:19 PM

Yes. It's pointy and flies at high speed. It can be definitely deadly and was certainly intended to be--that's why it's a weapon. Modern bows are usually used to hunt big ol' deer and we're smaller and more crunchy than they are, so I can say it's good at piercing and killing big tough things even.

The other thing about arrows is that you have to HOPE they fly completely through you if they hit you. If the arrow gets stuck, and you try to pull it out backwards, you're tearing through your flesh WORSE because of the way the arrowhead is shaped (though modern arrows don't have the pointy triangle shape). I've only honestly seen this part in movies but I think it's fair to say if you wanted to get an arrow out, you often would have to push it through. Or leave it there, I guess, and hope to god it didn't get infected or become toxic (let's see, when it was a medieval weapon... good chances are it became infected/toxic). Ick.

snoopy13a

2008-10-01, 12:27 PM

Archery was the primary sport for commoners in the British Isles. The king of Scotland actually banned golf because the people were playing that instead of shooting bows and arrows.

eidreff

2008-10-01, 12:27 PM

The Roman Army surgeons had special tools designed to fit behind the barbs of an arrowhead so that it could be withdrawn from a wound. Of course this entailed pushing a tool similar to a pair of pliers into the wound and fishing around for the correct grip on the arrow head.

reorith

2008-10-01, 12:43 PM

dq, you can get modern arrowheads in a pointy triangle shape with expandable blades. pretty neat huh?

also, this (http://i34.tinypic.com/t6xrmc.gif)

Spiryt

2008-10-01, 12:48 PM

I felt urge for duscussing about those "easily penetrating plate" arrows once again, but I resigned.

Instead, about deadliness of arrows

Swallowtail broadhead (http://www.medieval-fightclub.com/images/frame_arrow_dovetail.jpg)

Close range missile with huge head, very sharp edges - used to produce big (even though sometimes not deep, due to it's shape) wound and terrible bleeding.

Danzaver

2008-10-01, 01:09 PM

I'm not well versed in warfare, but how effective are arrows?

An arrow fired from a 150 pound longbow will travel at 50 meters a second, but then rapidly decrease in speed (I think i got that right - working off memory here), so the closer the range, the more effective. The power of the english longbowmen came from their ability to fire rapidly. Ironically though, it is often understood now that it was a myriad of other factors, and not the arrows factor, which won the day at Agincourt.

Arrows were fairly good at piercing chain, but plate offered more resistance, not for the strength of the metal, but for the angles of deflection it provided. However, there were cases of German knights in the 14th century, who, resisting the transition to plate, would wear two suits of chain and padding, one over the top of the other, and most arrows would just not have the puncturing power to go through both.

It is feasible to wipe out an army with arrows, if they just stand there and take it, or if they only send out small units at you one at a time. You are far more likely to demoralise an army with arrows than wipe it out.

The question of the effectiveness of arrows depends on how you use them. Islamic horsemen woudl constantly attack and withdraw while peppering with arrows and attempting to encircle in a tactic they called the 'karr wa farr'. The mongols, also, could fire backwards in the saddle while at a gallop. The English longbowmen could fire at a very respectable rate, aiming for rate of fire over accuracy, which could demoralise an enemy or force it to go to ground, or simply prepare it for a cavalry charge.

One could certainly kill, no question there. King Harold (or is that Harald - I never remember) aside, the legendary spanish hero El Cid also died from a single arrow. They would both have been lucky shots though. But, if you survived the arrow, you may well die from infection. Especially if it were an English or Welsh arrow, whose longbowmen were said to often stick the arrows into the dirt before firing.

I mentioned the plate issue, and someone else mentioned arrows 'easily penetrating plate'. Ther are two reasons I disagree with this, one, as I mentioned above, it was very difficult to strike plate straight flat on, there would always be an angle of deflection, and two, metal is not just simply metal. There was a constant arms race to develop better, stronger metals, and it has been demonstrated that the French were far enough along in that arms race that the English arrows at Agincourt could not have penetrated newer suits of plate, even if the could score a direct hit. However, they would still be deadly if they struck between the plates.

EDIT: Also, didn't William Tell defeat the English with a single arrow?

reorith

2008-10-01, 01:18 PM

EDIT: Also, didn't William Tell defeat the English with a single arrow?

no, william tell defeated an apple with a single arrow. it is an easy mistake to make and we forgive you.

Spiryt

2008-10-01, 01:21 PM

An arrow fired from a 150 pound longbow will travel at 50 meters a second, but then rapidly decrease in speed (I think i got that right - working off memory here), so the closer the range, the more effective. The power of the english longbowmen came from their ability to fire rapidly. Ironically though, it is often understood now that it was a myriad of other factors, and not the arrows factor, which won the day at Agincourt.

Most simple bows, no matter the draw, seem to be speeding arrows up to 50 - 54 m/s. I heard that shorter bows could gain more velocity, if arrow was very light, and draw lenght was good, despite the overall shotness - something like that (http://www.wybranowski.republika.pl/graf/luki/duze/d_lmm_d.jpg) ).
I don't know it's true, if somebody knows more, please tell.

Of course, modern compound bows can get 100m/s with light arrows, but that's different story.

As for Agincourt, I don't like this all extreme opinions. Yes, there were many factors that helped the English - but they still used the opportunity perfectly, and utilized all advantages that their archers could have.

mangosta71

2008-10-01, 01:53 PM

Depending on a number of factors, an arrow might or might not penetrate plate mail. However, plate mail was expensive, so a very small minority of troops on any given battlefield would have been wearing it. Yes, the rain of arrows tactic means that they hit at oblique angles, but it also makes head shots more common, and most standard infantry (peasants) would have been wearing at most a leather skull cap. If the infantry formation had shields and were disciplined enough to use them to create a turtle shell, raining arrows on them became less effective. As they charge, and the archers start picking out individual targets, the guys in plate would probably tend to draw the most fire. If 50 guys are all taking aim, it's a good bet that at least one of them will roll a nat 20. :smalltongue:

Spiryt

2008-10-01, 02:30 PM

Indeed, taking down (at least a bit ) a guy with plate armor was certainly possible.

Although your descrpition assumes some super cold mind guys taking aim at single guy, in battle chaos, when they're being overrun and when rear archers can't really aim or shoot at close range, beacuse obviously their mates are blocking.

Of course this could happen, but most probably archers will be running away for the cover of some other infantry/their own knights. Beacuse standing with bow drawn against charging knight means leaving this cradle of tears.

And if 50 guys were taking down 1 guy, his mates will go close freely.

And about defeating knights, the thing people keep missing :
Horses. Potentialy easier to hit, always not so armoured (unless some king or something), usually unarmoured at all. Why aim at this mail/plate/plates clad bastarad on horse's back then?

Of course, knight's horse is big animal, hard to kill, but still any wound and pain dealed to it can screw the attack (again, at least a bit).

But overally, I would call any archers more "battle controlers" than "strikers", if we use D&D terms :smalltongue:

Or maybe rather the mix between those, but anyway, infantry capable of slowing/distrcting/dishearting enemy with rain of arrows, disorganizing his lines, killing those who weren't able to defend against arrows (unarmoured, immobile, tight formed Scottish pikeman at Falkirk being nice example). Et cetera.

valadil

2008-10-01, 03:21 PM

An arrow fired from a 150 pound longbow will travel at 50 meters a second, but then rapidly decrease in speed (I think i got that right - working off memory here), so the closer the range, the more effective.

I think they're actually a bit faster than that. I got my 30 pound recurve tested and it came out at 214 feet/second, which is roughly 70 meters per second. Some of the 80 pound compounds I've seen were in the 300-330 feet/second range, or 100-110 meters/sec. You can't use cedar arrows with a bow like that, the string goes straight through the arrow when you try to fire.

Arrows are slower at a range, but they still can have good momentum behind them. I've heard of knights getting shot through one leg, through the horse, and out the other leg, pinning the knight to the dead horse, all the way from the other side of the battlefield.

mangosta71

2008-10-01, 03:27 PM

Yeah, best situation, the archers are at the rear. Failing that, place them to be interspersed among pikemen or behind some sort of fortification. Sure, they have swords, but they aren't really trained very well in their use, in addition to the swords being low quality. Part of the reason archery was so common - good wood was easier to find, and cheaper, than metal.

The 50 on 1 thing was an exaggeration, but remember, the guy in plate mail is probably a nobleman. Often, if the nobles were taken out of the battle, their troops withdrew and went home. In addition, plate armor being as heavy as it is, he would likely be on a horse, making him a big, easy target. But you have a point about the horse - they may not be exactly easy to kill, but give one enough pain to throw the rider off, and he's dead meat. After all, those guys in plate had to be winched onto their horses. If he's down, he won't be getting back up unaided.

Controllers versus strikers - depends on their tactics. If it's a formation supporting a line of infantry/cavalry, sure, controller. If it's a small group using hit-and-run, I'd say striker.

Krade

2008-10-01, 03:30 PM

What?!?! An actual QUESTION?!?! HERESY!!! You shall be BURNED AT THE STAKE!!!

*Please refrain from wearing a dynamite vest during your execution*

Spiryt

2008-10-01, 03:42 PM

I think they're actually a bit faster than that. I got my 30 pound recurve tested and it came out at 214 feet/second, which is roughly 70 meters per second. Some of the 80 pound compounds I've seen were in the 300-330 feet/second range, or 100-110 meters/sec. You can't use cedar arrows with a bow like that, the string goes straight through the arrow when you try to fire.

Arrows are slower at a range, but they still can have good momentum behind them. I've heard of knights getting shot through one leg, through the horse, and out the other leg, pinning the knight to the dead horse, all the way from the other side of the battlefield.

Yeah,compund bow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_bow). The thing that has nothing to do with historical bows, other that being a bow.

Also, can we know the mass of arrow from your recurve? Also, modern or historical recurve? That's pretty important. Like I wrote, it's pretty possible for recurves with proper arrows to gain that speed (also, 214 fps, means 65 m/s, that's kind of a difference.)

Nice bow, BTW. Never seen it, but it must be nice.

As for momentum, sectional density, and other things that makes arrow penetrating despite of fairly low kinetic energy, they drop when the arrow lenght drop. So in fact shooting very fast but light arrow may be not very good idea.

As for your story - well it's a story. I could believe in something like that, if a man and horse were completely unarmoured, in extremaly lucky conditions. But generally it sounds like story.

Any source for that?

skywalker

2008-10-01, 03:51 PM

Did anybody actually read my first post up there?

Pikes were not used all that often during the times that longbows were most prevalent on the battlefield.

A lot of nobles didn't necessarily ride horses into battle.

And just because someone's charging, doesn't mean they're charging the archers.

They could be charging the infantry next door.

Spiryt

2008-10-01, 03:57 PM

The 50 on 1 thing was an exaggeration, but remember, the guy in plate mail is probably a nobleman. Often, if the nobles were taken out of the battle, their troops withdrew and went home. In addition, plate armor being as heavy as it is, he would likely be on a horse, making him a big, easy target. But you have a point about the horse - they may not be exactly easy to kill, but give one enough pain to throw the rider off, and he's dead meat. After all, those guys in plate had to be winched onto their horses. If he's down, he won't be getting back up unaided.

No, no , no! Guys, please not those myths again. Knights were sometimes winded up in jousting armours, which were not battle ones, obvioulsy. Knight could fell of a horse (although there are nice chances of injuries in the process), and could fight on feet without problem.

If you want, I can provide sources like : 4th myth here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm). Brief one, but there are thousands more on forums, sites, and even movies with guy making push ups in amor.

skywalker

2008-10-01, 04:05 PM

No, no , no! Guys, please stop with those myths again. Knights were sometimes winded up in jousting armours, which were not battle ones, obvioulsy. Knight could fell of a horse (although there are nice chances of injuries in the process), could fight on feet without problem.

If you want, I can provide sources 4th myth here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm). Brief one, but there are thousands more on forums, sites, and even movies with guy making push ups in amor.

I know jousting armor, at least in some cases, was actually heavier than battle armor...

Also, you get a bit hard to understand when you get excited. Just for your own reference.

Falling off a horse, for someone who spends a good part of their life on a horse, should not be a dangerous exercise, IMO. I guess if you're wearing heavy poundage of armor, that could be the difference, but serious injury from falling off a horse? If you don't know how to fall off feet first, what are you doing on a horse in the first place?(Being bucked off being the exception to this rule).

Spiryt

2008-10-01, 04:19 PM

I know jousting armor, at least in some cases, was actually heavier than battle armor...

Also, you get a bit hard to understand when you get excited. Just for your own reference.

Falling off a horse, for someone who spends a good part of their life on a horse, should not be a dangerous exercise, IMO. I guess if you're wearing heavy poundage of armor, that could be the difference, but serious injury from falling off a horse? If you don't know how to fall off feet first, what are you doing on a horse in the first place?(Being bucked off being the exception to this rule).

Sorry, it's late, and I'm experiencing net (and other) problems, which make me mad.

Jousting armour was of course always heavier than battle one. It was made in special purpose - two punks could ride against themselves at full speed, with heavy lances, and yet chances of serious injuries were fairly low. Insane protection for the cost on everything else, but that was sport, after all.

And about the rest, I agree. The armor could certainly be nasty during accident, but could also be saving sometimes - if one hit the big rock lying on the ground, armor could disperse quite a bit amount of energy...

EDIT: Also, two interesting short movies

1 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0kKLgSTkCEo&feature=related)
2 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=related)

Not to mention that it all should be really put in the "Real world weapons..." thread.

snoopy13a

2008-10-01, 05:13 PM

The real reason that Henry V won the battle of Agincourt was because he gave a powerful motivational speech beforehand :smalltongue:

Unfortunately, his old drinking buddy, Sir John Falstaff, wasn't alive to hear it :smallfrown:

Henry did manage to seduce the French princess in a following act though :smallbiggrin:

Mando Knight

2008-10-01, 05:28 PM

Assuming that the force exerted on the arrow by the bowstring is a conservative force that has a constant magnitude throughout the draw length, then the velocity of the arrow is equal to the square root of (bowstring draw force times draw distance times 2 divided by the mass of the arrow). This is most likely an inaccurate assumption... but using a 53.6 g arrow fired from a 667 N (~150 lb) draw weight bow with a draw length of 0.76 meters (all derived from measurements from replicas of Mary Rose longbows), an English longbow can fire an arrow at 137.53 m/s, or 307.65 mph, or 451.22 feet/second, or about Mach 0.40 (at sea level at ~288.15 kelvins). (Take whichever units you want)

This is less than half the speed of a bullet, but arrows are heavier and thus have higher momentum...

Spiryt

2008-10-01, 05:37 PM

This is probably OK math, but it doesn't apply.
Like I said, in many sources I've seen 52 m/s as a velocity of most arrows from longbows. The losses of energy in the movement of bow's arms, and other factors must be just too important.

Check here (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131), guy is shooting from modern comopound bow, using only 25 g arrows, and still get's "only" 90 m/s. And compund bows have much better efficiency than traditional ones in that regard.

He also quotes Great Warbow by Robert Hardy and Matthew Strickland according to which 150 pound longbow could send 110g arrow at... 52 m/s.

Of course, those can be as well uncorrect from some reason, but 137 m/s is not plausible in any way.

EDIT: Measuring (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m746lj90izs&feature=related) with some quite pro looking stuff. Good archer (Mark Stretton if I heard right, found a bit in google about him) is pulling 150 pounder.

Result? 52 m/s again (if I geard right, again :smallwink:), although it loses velocity quickly (the fate of all heavy arrows, it seems)

Jack Squat

2008-10-01, 05:54 PM

*snip* coin dropped off a skyscraper *snip*

This is incorrect. I'll use a penny as an example, because then I don't have to worry about doing math, but a penny's max air speed is around 64 mph, and it doesn't have enough mass to do more than maybe, maybe break the skin. That's without it tumbling, as it surely would with a skyscraper, due to air currents and such. Even if one were to drop a silver dollar, that's not going to be able to get up to speed enough to do much more than cause some pain, and a possibly the need for stitches.

Mando Knight

2008-10-01, 08:41 PM

*snip*

Ah... yeah, your examples are way out of proportion with my initial calculation... I'll switch to the spring potential energy through Hooke's Law... (why was I using a constant conservative force before?)

...which yields about 68.628 m/s, using a 667 N (149.95 lb) draw weight bow, a 1661 grain (.1079 kg) arrow, and a .76 meter (2.49 feet) draw distance...

The difference in speed is far easier to chalk up to the differences between an ideal spring and a bow, the air resistance on the arrow, and the friction on the arrow by the bow (bowstring and/or limbs).

thubby

2008-10-01, 09:07 PM

most projectile weapons remove a threat, not necessarily kill. guns have this problem, and is the cause of much distress in the user. how many marines have said "it's not like the videogames, you don't just shoot them, and they die, no, they *agonizing description i have no desire to repeat*"

Vaynor

2008-10-01, 11:41 PM

I think this is appropriate. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnnoyingArrows)

Mando Knight

2008-10-01, 11:42 PM

But overally, I would call any archers more "battle controlers" than "strikers", if we use D&D terms :smalltongue:

And so you solve the problem as to what the Martial Controller will do all day.:smallamused:

Yarram

2008-10-02, 01:49 AM

I've fired a bow a few times, and we're talking shortbows here, not longbows, and it could still go 150 metres.

On accuracy: We did an experiment where we put a target in the centre of the feild about 80 meters away pointing upwards and we all tried to shoot it. [About 30 of us, 10 at a time].
Only a couple of us actually hit the target. All in all being accurate is pretty hard.
On the other hand if you have 200 archers, thats 200 firing at once, there is alot of squre ground covered, and longbow arrows sink quite deeper thn shortbow arrows, then the odds of at least a couple of people being hit by arrows is quite hard.
Also an arrow will sink about 3-4 inches in the material we were firing into, which was alot denser then flesh, so it can be assumed that the arrows would hurt alot. If that hit you in the neck or chest, then it would seriously incapacitate you, and you'd probably die. At the same time if you were hit in a limb, you would be incapacitated too. Despite what movies say, if you consider how hard it is to walk around when you have an ingrown toenail, imagine how hard it is to charge into battle with an arrow in your leg. Plus, if you fell off your horse/fell over you may get trampled by the people behind you and die.

Assuming 20 out of 200 arrows hit someone each volley, through bad luck etc. and each person that gets hit by 1 arrow gets taken out of the fight, then a group of archers could easily take out mellee fighters if the terrain suited them.
1 more thing:
If you ran at me with a sword, and I had a bow, and you were 40 metres away from me, it's likely I could stick an arrow in you before you reached me. It's pretty easy to hit a target ANYWHERE between 5-10 metres. Also consider all an archer has to do is drop his bow and pull out his own sword if people get close to him.

Mando Knight

2008-10-02, 10:27 AM

On accuracy: We did an experiment where we put a target in the centre of the feild about 80 meters away pointing upwards and we all tried to shoot it. [About 30 of us, 10 at a time].
Only a couple of us actually hit the target. All in all being accurate is pretty hard.

Now imagine if you had been trained in archery for ten years, so much so that you can accurately hit a man at 200 yards several times a minute, and that your very skeletal structure had changed to accommodate your lifestyle.

Got that down? Now, put several thousand of you together on a battlefield, with a hundred arrows to the man. That could number up to a million arrows, all fired by well-trained archers within minutes. If one well-aimed arrow doesn't kill a knight in armor, how about ten or twenty?

Spiryt

2008-10-02, 10:52 AM

Now imagine if you had been trained in archery for ten years, so much so that you can accurately hit a man at 200 yards several times a minute, and that your very skeletal structure had changed to accommodate your lifestyle.

Got that down? Now, put several thousand of you together on a battlefield, with a hundred arrows to the man. That could number up to a million arrows, all fired by well-trained archers within minutes. If one well-aimed arrow doesn't kill a knight in armor, how about ten or twenty?

Actually modern longbow shooters (as well as other bow shooters) agrees that hitting man sized target accuratelly can be asuered (if other factors are favourable) from about 80. Assuming that target isn't defending himself too well (motion, shields). As far as I know, at bowhunting 50 meters is considered perfect range. Now of course, way better shots are possible, but I'm talking generally.
Shooting a man from 200 meters is actually often hard with SMG's (with sinlge fire of course, burst are different thing).

I heard somewhere, that too be taken on campaign, paid archer was expected to hit immobile horse sized targer at 200 yards. Sound quite plausible, although still amazing.
And "several" as far as I know means "more than ten". And 12 shot per minute means shot every 5 seconds. This is hell difficult even from my 30 pound bow, and all sources like here (http://www.longbow-archers.com/heavybowarchers.htm) agrees that such tempo could be achieved only in short periods of time. Shooting 5 - 6 times per minute. And with shooting as fast as 12 shots per minute, no aiming was done. Just "at that army" (of course, even hitting whole units with consistency and good effect was hard stuff)

And if one arrow bounce off, the rest will do just the same. Of course, hit's in visors and other weak points are possible, but still. As for aiming at them, it could be tried only from closest distance by most cold blooded archers... Again, not saying that such "sniper shots" weren't happening from time to time, but certainly they were rare.

Seriously, I love longbow and bows in general, but I think they're too heavily mythologized (is that a word?). They were awesome weapons, with a lot of tactic possibilites, but they weren't any wunderwaffe even in the period of their greatest successes.

Renegade Paladin

2008-10-02, 12:48 PM

This is incorrect. I'll use a penny as an example, because then I don't have to worry about doing math, but a penny's max air speed is around 64 mph, and it doesn't have enough mass to do more than maybe, maybe break the skin. That's without it tumbling, as it surely would with a skyscraper, due to air currents and such. Even if one were to drop a silver dollar, that's not going to be able to get up to speed enough to do much more than cause some pain, and a possibly the need for stitches.
Acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.81m/s^2. Note that the mass of the object does not figure into the equation. Air resistance of course results in a terminal velocity based on the drag relative to weight, but even if your conclusion is correct, you justify it on false premises. :smalltongue:

Also, I bet one could make a penny have an air speed of more than 64 mph. :smallbiggrin:

snoopy13a

2008-10-02, 01:00 PM

Acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.81m/s^2. Note that the mass of the object does not figure into the equation. Air resistance of course results in a terminal velocity based on the drag relative to weight, but even if your conclusion is correct, you justify it on false premises. :smalltongue:

Also, I bet one could make a penny have an air speed of more than 64 mph. :smallbiggrin:

Mass does figure into kinetic energy and momentum so it would affect how much damage is done.

Actually, with an internet search, the terminal velocity of a penny was estimated to be around 64 mph which probably wouldn't do any damage. However, one can shoot a penny out of a cannon with a velocity greater than the terminal velocity though:

http://www.jimcarson.com/2004/01/monday-morning-armchair-physic/

Renegade Paladin

2008-10-02, 01:03 PM

Mass does figure into kinetic energy and momentum so it would affect how much damage is done.
I am aware of this; however he attributed the penny's terminal velocity to its mass, rather than its drag coefficient. That's the problem. :smalltongue:

KuReshtin

2008-10-03, 07:22 AM

I am aware of this; however he attributed the penny's terminal velocity to its mass, rather than its drag coefficient. That's the problem. :smalltongue:

The penny myth has been busted by the Mythbusters.

I quote from the Mythbusters Wiki:

This myth was already tested back in Season 1: Episode 4: Segment 1 - Penny Drop.
They tested shooting pennies at concrete, tarmac & a skull encased in an inch or so of ballistics gel with a slightly-modded staple gun (getting 64.43 MPH, Terminal Velocity of a penny), then with a sniper rifle with a barrel attachment to hold the pennies and fire them at 3 times the speed of sound.
The end result was Myth Busted - No WAY a penny falling at it's Terminal Velocity would crack the sidewalk, let alone a human skull. Even test-firing at Adam's buttocks, it did nothing more than leave a slight stinging sensation after each hit.

Renegade Paladin

2008-10-03, 12:32 PM

Dear God.

I did not say his conclusion was wrong. I said the method he used to arrive at his answer, which I did not know the truth of one way or the other, was wrong. Mass has nothing to do with acceleration due to gravity.

I should hope that's clear enough.

valadil

2008-10-03, 01:11 PM

Yeah,compund bow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_bow). The thing that has nothing to do with historical bows, other that being a bow.

Also, can we know the mass of arrow from your recurve? Also, modern or historical recurve? That's pretty important. Like I wrote, it's pretty possible for recurves with proper arrows to gain that speed (also, 214 fps, means 65 m/s, that's kind of a difference.)

Nice bow, BTW. Never seen it, but it must be nice.

As for momentum, sectional density, and other things that makes arrow penetrating despite of fairly low kinetic energy, they drop when the arrow lenght drop. So in fact shooting very fast but light arrow may be not very good idea.

As for your story - well it's a story. I could believe in something like that, if a man and horse were completely unarmoured, in extremaly lucky conditions. But generally it sounds like story.

Any source for that?

Wish I could remember the mass of the arrows I was shooting on that bow. It's been a while. As far as the source goes, it was from a book on medieval weaponry in my high school library. Given that I graduated high school in 01, the fact that I remember the story at all is pretty good. That book is also where I got the standard for archers qualifying for the english army.

I realize modern bows are more efficient, but I wouldn't be surprised if a period longbow at 150lbs could shoot as fast as a modern compound at 80lbs. I don't have a lot to back that one up on though.

As far as firing speed goes, I can get off 11 arrows in 30 seconds. I've never trained for speed and I use a side quiver (a back quiver is faster because after you release your hand is in the right position to draw another arrow). I'd heard about a tournament where you have thirty seconds to shoot as many arrows as possible and you score all of them. I tried out a couple 30 second rounds just to see how I did. Like I said, 11 arrows in 30 seconds (most of them going in the red or blue at 20m) with no speed training or gear. To me that indicates that 12 arrows in a minute is feasible, especially if you're going for the hail of arrows approach rather than aiming for a single target.

skywalker

2008-10-03, 02:25 PM

As far as firing speed goes, I can get off 11 arrows in 30 seconds. I've never trained for speed and I use a side quiver (a back quiver is faster because after you release your hand is in the right position to draw another arrow). I'd heard about a tournament where you have thirty seconds to shoot as many arrows as possible and you score all of them. I tried out a couple 30 second rounds just to see how I did. Like I said, 11 arrows in 30 seconds (most of them going in the red or blue at 20m) with no speed training or gear. To me that indicates that 12 arrows in a minute is feasible, especially if you're going for the hail of arrows approach rather than aiming for a single target.

Especially when those people have been trained for speed, if not by decree, then by the simple male competitive instinct.
Bill: I say I can hit that target over there 10 times in 20 seconds.
George: No way...
*Bill does so*
George: Well I say I can hit it 15 times in 20 seconds.
...
etc.

Since these guys had nothing else to do with themselves on Sundays, Christmas, and any other holidays they could think of, you can see how they might get better than even modern olympic archers. Who just might, every once is a while, take the day off to go skating, or play some basketball, etc, not to mention reading, watching tv, posting to the internet, etc, that medieval peasants did not have access to.

Spiryt

2008-10-03, 04:07 PM

I realize modern bows are more efficient, but I wouldn't be surprised if a period longbow at 150lbs could shoot as fast as a modern compound at 80lbs. I don't have a lot to back that one up on though.

Around 60 m/s with maybe 55 g arrow could be possible (for really far 350 yards + shots, for example), but not really faster. That's right, 150 bow, would be able to shoot much heavier arrow with the same velocity, not the same arrow with greater velocity. In fact, shooting with too light arrows from heavy bow damages the bow, doing nothing too arrow (simply no more energy could be transmited to arrow, so it stays in bow wtih bad effcts).

As far as firing speed goes, I can get off 11 arrows in 30 seconds. I've never trained for speed and I use a side quiver (a back quiver is faster because after you release your hand is in the right position to draw another arrow). I'd heard about a tournament where you have thirty seconds to shoot as many arrows as possible and you score all of them. I tried out a couple 30 second rounds just to see how I did. Like I said, 11 arrows in 30 seconds (most of them going in the red or blue at 20m) with no speed training or gear. To me that indicates that 12 arrows in a minute is feasible, especially if you're going for the hail of arrows approach rather than aiming for a single target.

Shot every 2,7 second? I say it's impressive, I were able to get shot about once in every 5 - 6 second, or so from my 30 pounder. Still, it could be effective tactic with 30 pound bow, possibly used by horse archers to get really dense volleys of arrows, but not for longbowmen. We are talking about 100 lbs + bows here.

Every longbow fan shooters site I've seen agrees that while 12 per minute is possible, it's good only for that minute or so, for longer shooting 5 -6 times a minute is better.
And hail of arrows from such heavy bows isn't "rather than" aiming. It required skills and aiming to actually drop arrows at longer distances accurately. All clout shooting competitions show that it isn't really easy.

Not to mention that too rapid shooting doesn't allow too good draw and loose, especially with such heavy bows, important thing too.

Since these guys had nothing else to do with themselves on Sundays, Christmas, and any other holidays they could think of, you can see how they might get better than even modern olympic archers. Who just might, every once is a while, take the day off to go skating, or play some basketball, etc, not to mention reading, watching tv, posting to the internet, etc, that medieval peasants did not have access to.

They rather had to cultivate the crops, heard the cattle, gather wood for winter, and do others such things. There is always something to do on farm, even today with modern harvesters and other things. And the fact that there weren't Internet or basketball doesn't mean that they hadn't anything to do in purely "fun" sector. They were other things, and getting completely drunk on feasts was certainly as popular as ever.

Of course, there could be many wealthier peasants with more free time and passion and talent in archery. Or somebody else who could became exeptional archer.

On the other hand there were certainly much more of guys who doesn't wanted it at all, who were just botching obligatory training each week, getting some skill, and that's all.

And certainly only those who decided to be proffesional mercenaries/archers could get something like olympic level ( aside from the fact that olympic shooting is shooting to some abstract colorfull targets, not fighting). Modern olympic level is something out of range of almost any medieval men. Olympic level is constant training and dedication to it, organizing all your life schedule to it. Knights could be more able to "olympic level" as a specific caste, constantly trained to fight from their earliest years, and yet majority of them certainly weren't any killing machines, obviously.

LLet's not generalize peasants as some great archers, most of them would be archer's in the first place beacuse of order and tradition, many would be probably quite decent, but that's it.

Milions of kids have nothing to do on Sunday's today, and they don't have any level (let alone olympic) in anything (even if they're actually forced to do something, so they do it).

skywalker

2008-10-04, 12:08 AM

They rather had to cultivate the crops, heard the cattle, gather wood for winter, and do others such things. There is always something to do on farm, even today with modern harvesters and other things. And the fact that there weren't Internet or basketball doesn't mean that they hadn't anything to do in purely "fun" sector. They were other things, and getting completely drunk on feasts was certainly as popular as ever.

Of course, there could be many wealthier peasants with more free time and passion and talent in archery. Or somebody else who could became exeptional archer.

On the other hand there were certainly much more of guys who doesn't wanted it at all, who were just botching obligatory training each week, getting some skill, and that's all.

And certainly only those who decided to be proffesional mercenaries/archers could get something like olympic level ( aside from the fact that olympic shooting is shooting to some abstract colorfull targets, not fighting). Modern olympic level is something out of range of almost any medieval men. Olympic level is constant training and dedication to it, organizing all your life schedule to it. Knights could be more able to "olympic level" as a specific caste, constantly trained to fight from their earliest years, and yet majority of them certainly weren't any killing machines, obviously.

LLet's not generalize peasants as some great archers, most of them would be archer's in the first place beacuse of order and tradition, many would be probably quite decent, but that's it.

Milions of kids have nothing to do on Sunday's today, and they don't have any level (let alone olympic) in anything (even if they're actually forced to do something, so they do it).

Well they couldn't cultivate the crops on Sundays, that was against the rules, remember? I kinda doubt they were rich enough to get drunk every Sunday, especially when getting drunk on Sundays probably wasn't looked upon with much tolerance...

I didn't say they would be olympic level, I said it would be easy to see how they might, especially considering that they had nothing to be doing for recreation otherwise, and probably no other way out of the drudgery of peasanthood.