I was re-watching the Doc on 'The Weapons That Made Britain - The Longbow' and on episode 2 they were doing some penetration testing. With Mark Stretton shooting a 150# warbow, they indicated 52 meters per second initial velocity (which is about 170 fps), but they didn't say how heavy the arrow was. I'd guess he would probably be shooting at least a 65 gram arrow, but it could be much more. That's decently impressive with a heavy arrow. That would be average for a target weight arrow, but with the increased mass of a heavy arrow, that would give it very good momentum. IMHO, the arrow head they were using for the armour penetration test was rubbish. With a proper heavy head, and a 1/4# arrow, I think the results would have been different.You would get a pass thru on a rhino! :o :o :o :o
Big, heavy arrows do not need as much velocity to get the hitting power and KE of a normal (lighter) arrow.
KE= penetration/damage.
Big, heavy arrows do not need as much velocity to get the hitting power and KE of a normal (lighter) arrow.
KE= penetration/damage.
Momentum = mv (mass x velocity) and is what you need for penetration with a set frontal area - the more mass you have, the higher the resistance to a change in velocity, whether due to air resistance or due to penetration into the target.
Kinetic energy = mv2 (mass x velocity x velocity) and is what causes impact damage to the target (as distinct from penetrating/cutting tissue damage from the sharp edges of a broadhead).
Illustration:
2 arrows - one weighing 300gr travelling at 300 f/s, (carbon out of a compound?), the other weighing 600gr travelling at 150f/s (warbow?)
They both have the same momentum, but the lighter arrow has twice the kinetic energy of the heavier arrow at half the velocity.
If both arrows had the same point profile and cross-section (OK, unrealistic, but bear with me), they would penetrate to the same depth, but the lighter arrow would impart a heavier impact.
Switching back to Planet Reality, where the lighter arrow has a much smaller cross section, the lighter, faster arrow would quite possibly penetrate all the way through, whereat the extra kinetic energy would be less than gainfully employed in making a hole in the scenery. The heavy arrow, on the other hand, would be more likely to stop in the target, passing all it's energy into the target - energy transfer is the key to stopping power.
Your 1/4lb warbow arrow hitting the aforementioned armoured knight downrange at 100f/s, not even penetrating the armour, but passing all it's kinetic energy to the target, would have the same energy of impact as a 12lb sledgehammer swung at 15f/s (try swinging one at this speed - it's hard work!) - more than enough to knock said knight over.
It's ok testing these bows to see if they shoot through armour but that doesn't really matter. It was the French horse's we were interested in hitting. A knight without a horse is next to useless.
A 'warbow' if made correctly will do the same as a 'normal weight' bow whern everything is scaled in proportion.
...it's not KE that kills with an arrow, it's penetration. KE is perhaps significant using a rifle, but not an arrow.
IMO I would rather stop someone by literally knocking them back with an arrow than killing, b/c the kill is not instant.Hi, squirrelslinger
I wonder if you could hunt with a warbow? use some big arse broadheads, maybe 2 inches wide or so?
Some of you may be interested in reading this http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdfGood comprehensive test.
It's actually the most comprehensive test I've seen of longbow vs armor that seems to scientically done.
He made it pretty clear (and did some headache inducing math to back it up) that he was accounting for the difference in power by shooting from closer.Some of you may be interested in reading this http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdfGood comprehensive test.
It's actually the most comprehensive test I've seen of longbow vs armor that seems to scientically done.
Unfortunately the bow used is under poundage and under draw length IMO, and probably represents only the very weakest of the Mary Rose bows.
Mind even with that it does demonstrate lethality.
Del
I watched the rest of it.
Pretty good, he does 'dress up' the odd theory and the illustrations don't always support his theories.
There are as many illustrations of whip ended bows as reflexed tips.
His theory about mounted archers going through the ford to protect the crossing is bonkers! If the water was chest deep, then a horse couldn't gallop through it and you couldn't shoot a bow from the horse. It's glaringly obvious that the archers on your side of the river would be shooting to protect those wading over to establish a bridgehead.
Del
I didn't say you can't shoot a longbow from horseback...I watched the rest of it.
Pretty good, he does 'dress up' the odd theory and the illustrations don't always support his theories.
There are as many illustrations of whip ended bows as reflexed tips.
His theory about mounted archers going through the ford to protect the crossing is bonkers! If the water was chest deep, then a horse couldn't gallop through it and you couldn't shoot a bow from the horse. It's glaringly obvious that the archers on your side of the river would be shooting to protect those wading over to establish a bridgehead.
Del
I totally agree with your interpretation, though I disagree that you can't shoot a longbow from horseback.
I didn't say you can't shoot a longbow from horseback...
I said you can't shoot a longbow from the back of the horse in the situation we were discussing (in chest deep water)...
... do pay attention ;)
A horse in water upto a man's chest wouldn't be galloping, it would be wading or swimming. And the lower limb of the bow would be in the water!
In the video he gallops his horse through water 6" deep through a stream! Not chest deep to a man through a river!
Del
Squirrelslinger there's no freakin way any arrow is going to knock any one down in fact even the heaviest of warbow arrows from the heaviest bow wouldn't even nudge an average man now of course if you shot an unarmoured man with a blunt heavy arrow it would shatter bones that's for sure but wouldn't move him at all.
Squirrelslinger there's no freakin way any arrow is going to knock any one down in fact even the heaviest of warbow arrows from the heaviest bow wouldn't even nudge an average man now of course if you shot an unarmoured man with a blunt heavy arrow it would shatter bones that's for sure but wouldn't move him at all.
....so by your reckoning Joe, if we were to take a guy in full armour, he wouldn't even notice a series of 1/2" shafted rubber tipped blunts shot at him, they'd be like flies buzzing around outside his steel suit?........
http://youtu.be/_pxHnntyduw
Really? Have you ever even handled a half-inch hardwood shafted 32" long war arrow and considered the associated point loading if shot from a heavy bow? Kinetic energy anyone?! ::) LoL
If your Spanish isn't great, he gets a reading of 115lbs off target, and then 300lbs dead on the meter. That's 300lbs of force going straight into you, at 170 feet per second. If you don't think that would knock you on your arse you're crazyHi, Will
Ah ok, I'm with you on the numbers (it's not my thing!) I was quoting the video clip where the guy said it was the same as a 44 mag bullet.Well, there a couple of thing about your statement that are not quite accurate. They apparently used a .44 magnum as a comparison, so let's use that.
However, surely a bullet is far smaller than an arrow? So even with the same force and speed behind it, a bullet is more likely to make a clean hole straight through, while an arrow has more surface area so will deliver a harder punch? I am terrible with physics, but if the arrow doesn't penetrate, isn't that more likely to deliver blunt force to the target? All the energy that should be used to punch through the armour is being spent/wasted on the area around it, like a great meaty fist thumping into the chest?
Or have I got that totally wrong?
I hunt hogs with my .44 Mag with 300 grain bullets
Ok, in the 15-16th century there appears to have only been about 5% of an army that had plate armor and not maille or jacks....so this seems to apply to some comments made here.And presumably even fewer horses...
http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf
Thanks to those who actually answered the original question. I was curious about that too.