Question Concerning Effective Bow Range

LoganAW622 · Post by **LoganAW622** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 am

Hello, this will be my first post here. I have a rather general question.

What would you say the effective ranges for the following bows in formation firing on another massed formation of troops would be?

European longbow
Korean hornbow
Mongol hornbow
Turkish hornbow
Chinese

Assume whatever time periods you like under around 1600AD. Assume realistic ammunition (not flight arrows) designed for mail and plate armor penetration.

Thanks for your help!

LoganAW622 · Post by **LoganAW622** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:26 am

Oh, and one other question - Could you tell me or direct me to information concerning average speed of an arrow as it leaves some of these bows?

MJuingong · Post by **MJuingong** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:30 am

LogAnw622, welcome.

As to the second question-arrow speed-work through the ATARN archives and table of contents, there is at least one article on arrow speed, specifically, a Turkish bow reconstruction.

Maybe-I emphasize maybe-
http://p081.ezboard.com/bpaleoplanet69529 may have something about that, but that site usually deals with wooden bows.

As to your first: well, 1600 is a bit late. Archery was generally out of use in Western Europe, and the armor available there probably defeated all, or at least most, forms of "muscle powered" archery. Central Europe and eastward-possibly still effective, especially in Far East and India.

Armor penetration is still a vexed subject. Hardy's LONGBOW, Strickland and Hardy's THE GREAT WARBOW have much to offer on the English Longbow. I don't know about real experiments done on other armors by examples or replicas of the other bows.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:44 am

Mark Stretton in England is doing a lot of careful work on arrow penetration of armour and flesh from heavy longbows. His results are being published in The Glade magazine. He differentiates between the types of reproduction armour he uses, both in regard to the manufacture of the materials and the class of armour (e.g. plate, brigandine and mail).

The most recent one I saw was on the effect of shooting at someone charging you on horseback. He set up a breast plate on a moving frame and shot at it and also timed the shots and the speed of the target. I found the article to be exceptionally well thought out and the conclusions interesting to anyone interested in the ballistics of arrows. The bow weights ranged between 85 and 140 pounds.

Getting back to the original question, The nature of the target, the type of arrow and bow and the relative motion of the target all affect the effectiveness of arrows. There isn't any one answer nor is there a ranking of various bows. Each is designed for its own area and the types of target found there. Some work better than others, but they all work.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:10 am

Was reading an article by E McEwen, 1978, Nomadic Archery...where he states generally that Middle Ages self long bows shot 300 yards and that horn bows were capable of twice that distance. The main advantage, he states, was tactical; in that a long bowman was afoot and a hornbow archer was mounted. A nomad could more readily control if and when hand combat would take place, a foot archer might not.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 2:38 am

On the Chinese bow, the foot bow would send a massive, heavy arrow far enough to do quite a lot of damage up to 60 metres. But none of these Asian bows (Chinese, Mongolian, Korean) was normally used in massive formation shooting. They were nearly always used in battle on horseback, with an effective range of 30 metres.

nomytso · Post by **nomytso** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:56 am

You can find interesting information here: http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/, especially in articles published in Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries papers.

nomytso · Post by **nomytso** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:01 am

I'm sorry, correct address is without comma
http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/

Thomas Duvernay · Post by **Thomas Duvernay** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:20 pm

Good questions. It's kind of hard to answer, in the case of Korean horn bows, however. It's rather unlikely that a great number of archers (either mounted or foot) shot horn bows, as they were relatively expensive, so your average archer could not afford them (and it's doubtful they would have been gov't-supplied). More likely, they used simpler wood or bamboo bows. With that said, there were different types of shooting strategies employed. The first type was an unaimed longshot; it was effective against unarmored, or lightly armored forces. Another strategy was to get a more aimed, closer shot; it was more effective against improved armor, but put the archer in danger of being picked off by matchlock gunfire. The next progression was the point blank shot; essentially, one arrow/one kill--employed only when the enemy was starting to scale fortress walls. The reason for the change in strategies was a shortage of arrows, where each shot had to count.

As for Korean horn bows, they have a decent effective range--a couple hundred, up to a few hundred meters. I have measured modern Korean horn bows for speed; with a bow in the mid-50s @thumb ring draw length, and 405gr bamboo arrows, the speed was around 210fps. War arrows would have weighed more, as would the draw weight of the bows, so it would just be speculation regarding the earlier time period.

T

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:26 am

Also, according to McEwen, another indicator of variable ranges is the large difference in arrowhead size. The shape of the points may be according to perceived penetration qualities by the archers but the large difference in their weights correspond to the distance of the expected shot. There is a record of an order for arrowheads of 50 heavy points, 50 medium weight points, one hundred light points and two hundred very light points. The expectation is that many harassing shots can be made at great range before the enemy arrives at a really dangerous range. Several examples were given.

Stephen, Mongol points show the complete range of size and weight. And do Chinese quivers not have compartments in them which could be used to separate arrows of different type? This is not to disagree but to elaborate.

Thomas, of course arrows were always in relative short supply. Records in England demonstrate that wars were kept waiting until the necessary number of arrows were on hand. One accounting showed that the crown had less than 40 arrows for each available archer; possibly a four minute supply! -j-

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:49 am

Stephen, Mongol points show the complete range of size and weight. And do Chinese quivers not have compartments in them which could be used to separate arrows of different type?

Yes to both.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:12 pm

Hey, Jack, any chance I can get a cite on that arrow order? That dovetails right into my own research...

istanbuli · Post by **istanbuli** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:12 pm

Though I can not remember the source below is a piece of painting to give a rather clear idea about the type of quiver that might have been used to classify the different sets of arrows.
e

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:34 am

Effie; perfect, well done!

Russ; The article paraphrased is : Miller,R., E McEwen and C A Bergman; Oct 1986; Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery. World Archaeolgy Magazine. V 18, #2, pp178-195.

The footnote quotes the source as; Dalley,1984. The Mari King is facing a long seige and needs more arrows. etc. -j-

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:16 pm

Thanks bunches.

(Edited b/c I had a brain fart and equated the city of Mari with the Mari people...)

Question Concerning Effective Bow Range

Question Concerning Effective Bow Range

arrow seperation