Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

Questions concerning Rate of "fire" per minute

<< < (4/13) > >>

Ian.:
I was taking more about the Barbow video that was trying to be something it wasn't, I know Keiths post was about accuracy its a good type of shooting to do that I think we should do more of it.

CraigMBeckett:

--- Quote from: peasant1381 on December 20, 2011, 03:36:05 am ---Yep you need real armour to do a kosher armour test. What we've set out to show with the metal plate is that an arrow still has considerable powers of penetration at long range. Ballistic curves and terminal velocity etc.

--- End quote ---

The question, in this context, then becomes "What is Real Armour"? As far as I am aware the single most extensive metalurgical testing of medieval armour revealed that the majority of the plate was not steel but iron with only a few extant examples actually being steel. The deformation and penetration of iron plate armour would be considerably different to that of any steel, mild, or of higher carbon content. I would also suggest that if armour is still extant then it is likely to have been of better quality than that which has not survived. Which leads us back to the fact the English saw fit, over an extended period, to develop an artillery arm or indeed developed their armies into artillery regiments with supporting Men at arms, now if the armour of the day made its wearer effectively immune to bow shot why would they have persisted and why did the English succeed in numerous engagements when overwhelmingly outnumbered by plate wearing adversaries mounted on well barded horses. By the way we are talking of the armour that was used during the majority of the 100 years war not that which was produced towards the end of the period.

Craig.

Ringeck85:
I don't know about the "armor was almost all iron", I'll see if I can find any articles or research that might debunk that.   About that, brief q: do you all think that plate armor was designed primarily to defend against arrows, or against edged weapons like swords?  It certainly works well against the latter, as sword techniques of the time rely on getting the point in gaps of the armor, or using the weapon as an improvised club or leveraging device for grappling.


Anyway, before I get off topic on that,

Let me try this at another angle.  Rapid loosing as a technique and not a quantity of arrows"per minute".  As in, not the rate of discharge, but the speed at which the arrow is drawn and loosed.

It would be a waste of arrows to try to discharge as many as possible within a longer stretch of time, I think that's the consensus.

But would the arrow have more or less penetrating force depending on how long the archer held the arrow at full draw?  I see a lot of videos of the long range shots, the archers take their time at full draw, or rotate the bow upwards after achieving full draw with the arrow point angled downward at first.

Does this improve the energy/speed of the arrow (and thus improving its range), or would holding it at full draw for that long make the arrow lose stored kinetic potential?

The bows the Byzantines used weren't warbows by a longshot  (they used composite bows similar to those used by nomadic groups and other mediterranean and middle eastern cultures' they also used crossbows at this time, too but this passage refers to the former), but here is what the Strategikon says right away about training an individual soldier:

"He should be trained to shoot rapidly on foot, either in the Roman or Persian manner.  Speed is important in shaking the arrow loose and discharging it with force.  This is essential and should be practiced while mounted.  In fact, even when the arrow is well aimed, firing slowly is useless."

("Maurice's Strategikon; translated by Geoge T. Dennis, pg. 11)

Now, do you think that his advice regarding rapid draw/loosing is completely unrelated to warbow archery centuries later?  Or does Maurice have a point here?

At what point of time does aiming an arrow become counter productive to the speed at which the arrow is loosed?  And if this is a case of comparing apples to oranges (which it likely is, I just want to see what you guys think about the quote), why are the shooting mechanics of warbows so vastly different to their composite ancestors/contemporaries in the East?

bow-toxo:

--- Quote from: Ringeck85 on December 17, 2011, 01:06:20 am ---Hello all war bow enthusiasts!

As someone who's interested in building strength and getting into war bow shooting in the near future, I have a question.  Well, I have several:

Is there a historical source that indicates how fast per minute medieval archers would ideally loose their arrows?  I'm referring to this as "rate of fire" though I realize that there might be better ways of saying it. And how many at a time did they have on hand for this? How important is volume of arrows to your practice of the English war bow?


Thanks
--- End quote ---

      It is reported that archers were expected to shoot at least ten aimed arrows a minute. [a minute was first recognized in the 15th century]. The Duke of York struck off four of his 300 archers who failed the test following the 1415 siege of Harfleur that began Henry V's French campaign. This is of course with a powerful warbow, and modern warbow archers have not been able to better it. It is a different story and a much easier feat with a light weight bow.  Standard minimum issue was a sheaf of 24 arrows, sometimes two sheafs or even three sheafs have been reported. Concerning accuracy, a Vevetian visitor reported that any decent English archer, whether shooting level or with elevation, would hit within a half palm of his mark. Good luck on your project.                                                                                                                       

                                                                     Erik   

Ringeck85:
Thank you Erik.  I have a question for you:  What specific primary source or sources does that information come from?  Some of the people here do not think that is from an accurate, primary source, it might be BS made up by a secondary source.  Do you know specifically where that comes from?  Because I've heard of the 12 arrows per minute thing before, but I've never read the specific source that says that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page