Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

Questions concerning Rate of "fire" per minute

<< < (2/13) > >>

CraigMBeckett:
I think debate on the accuracy or otherrwise of the English Bowmen will rage on as there will always be those who believe either way with no way of convincing the other side. All that can be said for accuracy is that the statutory requirement of shooting  at the buts was done at all ranges including long range, and at all these ranges they shot at relatively small targets.


--- Quote ---In addition, arrows can be seen before they hit.  The shorter the distance, the less time the target has to react. Arrows are not very effective against armored targets at long range, so horses and lightly armed troops would be the most likely long range targets of a volley.
--- End quote ---

While you can see arrows approaching you would have difficulty telling exactly where the arrow will fall and may dodge into the flight, in addition when large numbers are flying it would be very difficult to ascertain which one of the thousands in the air is coming close to where you are and, wether on horse back or on foot, when in a mass of men advancing on the enemy there would be very little room to dodge.

I won't get into the debate on the effectivness of arrows against armour except to say our ancestors were not stupid, if the weapon was not effectve it would not have been used, if it was not efffective why did the English develop their forces such that the majority of the men were equipped with the inneffective weapon, as for effect at distance, if not effective why waste your weapons, why not save them until the enemy was close and how come so many armoured knights, who never came close to the English lines, were killed? In addition how did 5,000 men, (or is it 9,000 depending on who you believe), armed with such an ineffective weapon defeat an army of more than 5 times their number when most of those who attacked, with the exception of the mercenary crossbow men, were well armoured.

Craig.

JackCrafty:
 :-X ;)

peasant1381:
Ring
If you want to set some goals for yourself try these. Once you have a decent poundage bow and a sheaf of military arrows get yourself a chest sized sheet of metal around 1mm - 1.6mm and shoot at it at long range - anything say from 150 to 240 yards - what ever you can manage. Look at shooting all of your 24 arrows one after another. Don't try and rush it just shoot at a nice steady rate around 4 - 6 shots a minute. Try it with your arrows through your belt and then with your arrows stuck in the ground. Alternatively set 4 marks at different (long) distances and shoot 1/2 a doz at each. One thing you will discover - your arrows will penetrate the metal plate at long range.

This is a 1.2mm plate hit at around 165 yards. 70g ash arrow with a machined tudor bodkin shot from a 110lb pacific yew bow.

peasant1381:
Oops my mistake the shaft is NZ Tawa which has very similar properties to ash.

Ringeck85:
That sounds like an excellent thing to test once I get to that poundage!

Question, do you ever put a layer of padding behind that sheet of metal that would symbolize a gambeson/jack?  I think that that is a crucial element that is often missing in "armor penetration" tests.  Arrows might penetrate the armor, but might not penetrate far enough past the shock absorbent padding (which would have been worn under the armor of the time)  to be a debilitating wound.

A thought, anyway, though not necessarily informed by experience (yet!).  How much does that padding make a difference in how the plate absorbs the shock of the blow?  I know it makes a world of difference with plate or mail against a sword blow.  Without the padding, you get broken bones from the blunt trauma of impact; with the padding, you're a lot safer.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page