Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
stevesjem:
--- Quote from: adb on November 12, 2008, 12:26:16 pm ---Steve,
I agree... a clothyard was not likely 36", especially considering that if MR arrows were referred to as a clothyard (being that most are 30-31").
As far as penetrating plate at 250 yards... I thought (and from what I've read or seen), that it was only likely to penetrate at something more like 50 yards. I assume you've seen the TV documentary on "Weapons that made Britain: The Longbow"? They did some actual testing, and found it not likely to penetrate, except at very close range. And not just penetrate, but penetrate to be effectively deadly. What are your thoughts on this? Seems to me, also, that Mark Stretton did some testing, and was only able to penetrate plate at fairly close range? Wasn't that in Hugh's book "Secrets of the Warbow?"
Then and now, a 200# warbow was not practical. Appropriate material, an archer who could shoot it properly, and considering a point of diminishing returns, all lead me to believe (and having examined the MR bows) that most warbows were not as heavy as we presently think. Certainly, some heavy bows (150#+) did exist, but more practically, they were somewhat less #.
--- End quote ---
Hi Adam
Mark has done tests which prove that a military weight arrow will only lose approx 6% of it's initial speed over distances of 250yds, the only reason it is difficult to test plate penetration over that distance is because it is very difficult to hit.
What makes you think a bow of 200# isn't practicle?, The material is available now as I have shown, so you can bet your life it was available in the middle ages, as Alistair and Alan have stated there are many archers who are now shooting heavyweight bows with just a few years training, so don't think for one moment that just because no one does it now that it isn't possible.
I'm afraid your memory of the MR bows must be failing you, as the growth ring count alone on the majority of the bows will give you an approximation of the draw weight and I can tell you now that they would all fall into the 150+ range...there is no question of it. I don't care what people may say about string thicknesses or about replicas made from Yew that is not correct.
Use the right wood with the correct density and you will get a bow well over 150#, even using dimensions of one of the smaller bows.
Sorry mate.
Steve
adb:
Hey, Steve
Medieval military archery equipment is so filled with conjecture and speculation! I love the endless debate. As far as weight goes, I do think the strings were the limiting factor. A very heavy bow, whose string only lasts a few shots, is not a viable weapon. Alas, we will never know for sure, as no strings from that era exist. The material used does, but we can only guess. Maybe they used silk strings, who knows? We can hypothesize from the size of the arrow's string nock, however.
I was also thinking about a point of diminishing return, in terms of practicality. If a 100# warbow will cast a battle shaft 200 yards, and a 190# warbow will cast a battle shaft 230 yards (these numbers are just speculation to make my point, and not based on any practical experience), then is the extra weight worth the extra effort for 30 yards?
Have you actually watched the documentary "Weapons That Made Britain: The Longbow"? In part 2, there is some very specific testing done with Mark Stretton, using a 150# warbow. Velocities are recorded with Doppler radar, with initial arrow velocity of 52 meters/ second. They also state that velocity drops rapidly. Then using controlled conditions with an air cannon and the same weight shaft, matching velocity at various ranges, they were only able to effectively penetrate plate at 20 meters! Seems very convincing to me. I think more arrows, during Medieval battles, inflicted damage to soft targets, than plate.
I have absolutely no doubt that most of the MR bows were around the 120-150# range. The MR bows are indeed made of very dense yew. Certainly, I don't have quite as skilled an eye as yourself. 200#? Probably not. It takes a very extraordinary individual to manage this type of bow. Not likely practical, either. I'm sure a bow of 300# could be made, but could anyone shoot it? I think much chest thumping goes along with ultra heavy bows. I know you shoot warbows, and very well. Are any of your's 200#, or even close? I think most of your bows are around 120-140#, yes? Very heavy indeed, but still practical and reasonably comfortable to shoot more than once. I know, having just started, that my 90#@30" bow is doable, but with some effort. I also realize proper technique plays a huge role... kind of like weight lifting.
Don't get me wrong... I don't dispute heavy bows existed in Medieval warfare, and also today. I just wonder what the upper limit actually was? Thanks, Steve, for the enlightening debate. I enjoy the opportunity to learn from your vast and ongoing knowledge!
Cheers, Adam.
stevesjem:
Hi Adam, yes it is a good debate, however it is one I have had many times with people.
Lets address each issue again.
String theory.
This just doesn't carry at all, yes I know how big the nock slots in the arrows were (1/8") and I know what materials were used, however there are no surviving strings of the period and the knowledge of how to make them is lost to us, but one thing that you can be absolutely sure of is the string fellows of the day would not be making strings that broke after a few arrows...there would be little point and the Warbow would be pretty useless if the archers could not rely on their strings.
Diminishing returns.
Tests have been done using self yew bows of differing draw weights to see what weight bow is needed to get a battle shaft the minimum practice distance of the day (220yds) This is the distance between the "Butts". Now the arrow would weigh in the region of 75grams, now just to make the 220yd distance you need a bow of 120lb minimum, that would be shot at an elevation of 45deg, so not an aimed shot, now take into consideration that the target they would be practising at was a garland of about 10" diameter, this needs to be an aimed shot, so a much flatter trajectory was used and obviously a much more powerful bow would have to be used to do this.
A very heavy bow may not send an arrow that much further than a bow which is lighter, however what it can do is send a much heavier arrow to the target and as such a heavier arrow has much more hitting power.
Weapons that made Britain.
Mark is one of my closest friends and let me tell you that he was very unhappy with the program as they changed a great deal of what he did to coincide with a prior agenda they had, this was done after he had left, he has also said that if he had known what the producer had in mind, he would never have got involved. The air cannon test is a sham, as the head type used was not a plate cutting head but a long type 7 (needle bodkin) which were used against chain mail, not plate armour, also the paradox of the arrow is completely lost when using the air canon, this is the way the arrow reacts as it travels around the bow, giving much more power in the arrow.
The MR bows.
These bows are incredible and are made from High Altitude Alpine Yew, Probably Italian, This wood is not like any yew that you may be familiar with, I have made more replicas of these bows than probably anyone and from the correct wood, even when using the worst piece of yew with very low density 30 rpi, the weight still hits 130#+ and even then the bows I make are at least 2" longer, so shorten them by 2" and you will be at the 150#+, Now if you take a similar density piece of wood 60+rpi the weight increases massively. This is the defining point, The bows are there and all measurements can be taken and if the correct wood is used to replicate them you will see the draw weight, regardless of what you or anyone else may think, this is fact.
This is not about chest thumping as you put it, this is the reality of it. Archers of the day were not like the archers you see around today, these were the best, they had trained since the age of 6yrs old and spent their life training, the military archers were the best there was and were chosen from around England and Wales for their skill by having competitions and only the best were taken as military archers, Now think of the MR, this was Henry VIII flag ship and you can bet your life that as an avid archer himself, the archers on board his ship were the best of the best.
You need to get out of this mind set of looking at archers today and comparing them with the archers of the medieval period, there is no comparison, Mark Stretton has shot a 200# bow and I'm sure he won't mind me saying it really did hurt, Another friend of mine, a young lad of 23 managed to draw back a 202lb bow to 29", There is also a young Welsh lad who is shooting 140lb bows and is only 15yrs old, My own son is just turned 10 and is shooting 55lb bows, these are just recreational archers, as are all archers nowadays, their lives do not depend on them shooting bows, however the medieval archer had a reason to excel and become a military archer as it was a good way of getting them out of the poor villages and a chance to become quite wealthy.
Any way That will do for now.
Cheers
Steve
adb:
Thanks, Steve!! Your info is always enlightening. Yes, I agree... we're playing at being archers. I believe it would be a different story if your life depended on your ability with a heavy bow.
Cheers, Adam.
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: adb on November 12, 2008, 12:26:16 pm ---Steve,
I agree... a clothyard was not likely 36", especially considering that if MR arrows were referred to as a clothyard (being that most are 30-31").
--- End quote ---
Why would someone refer to MR arrows as clothyards ? A clothyard was likely 36 of today's inches, three of today's feet and 36 of today's inches. If my postings #12 and #15 have not made that clear and if you won't take the word of the English Board of Trade, i guess it's time to change the subject. Where I got the information that one MR bow waas 5' 11" long is irrelevant. Members with access to the MR site can check whether it is a fact. If it is not, I will be very embarrassed and retract the statement. Let us know.
Re. whether the strings for heavy bows lasted for more than a few shots but we can never know because we have no strings from that time. We can get a hint from the fact that earlier archers had three linen strings and as John Smythe tells us, Elizabethan combat archers, instructed to discard a string at the least sign of weakness, carried only two extra hemp strings, implying that there was not a lot of breakage.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version