Maximum practical draw weights for horseback archery?

Hyarmendacil · Post by **Hyarmendacil** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:15 am

One thing I can't help wondering about: would armor penetration have been that important? As far as I know, the horse-archer's primary target was the enemy's horses, and these beasts were usually unarmored or far less well-armored than their riders. Even the English longbowmen preferred to shoot their enemies' horses if these were involved in the battle at all. It's also worth noting that cataphract cavalry with armored man and horse tended to be very effective in resisting light horse archers (or should that be "lighter," since most cataphracts seemed to have been horse archers themselves?), as the Sassanid Persians' experience against their Steppe neighbors showed--which might mean that bows weren't really expected to be awesomely powerful armor-piercing weapons. After all, most horse-archer cultures had other weapons with better anti-armor characteristics, especially hand-to-hand weapons like maces, hammers, and narrow-headed battleaxe. And finally, if we have to draw yet another parallel with medieval European experience, it was the dismounted men-at-arms with their poleaxes who were universally regarded as the most effective anti-armor troops--not the archers, whose role (though important) was still largely supportive.

Essentially, I'm saying that the bow shouldn't be seen as an isolated weapon--we can only get the correct perspective if we consider it as an integral part of the archer's weapon system, which in most cases included several different tools meant for different roles. In this way the arrow's armor-penetrating capabilities might not be so important as how well it merges with the other weapons within the system; certainly it'd be quite useless to have a powerful bow if its use left the archer too tired to use other weapons in the charge or in the pursuit. (Could this be what Li Chengfen meant by "excess energy?")

M Hardman · Post by **M Hardman** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:17 pm

As for the target of an archer, I think this depends on how much value you put on horses. I have read (please treat this as hearsay knowledge) that for a Mongolian archer to hit his enemies horse showed a lack of skill. The horse being very valuable to anyone who can capture it after its rider has been unseated.
I think this may also depend on the situation the archer is in. If facing a charge of knights, unseating one by killing his horse would create an obstacle and therefore be a detriment to the charge. However, in the instance where you have an almost Wild West shoot out between only two archers, killing the other archer's horse wouldn't necessarily stop him shooting back at you.
There is an excellent discussion of amour penetration in 'Secrets of the English War Bow', by Hugh Soar. The particular section (by Mark Stretton) concludes that blunt trauma caused by a standard medieval war arrow was quite enough to be considered a fatal blow. (I must note that he experiments using a 144 lb bow.)

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:39 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aznz9mj5grA
This is a movie of shooting at amour.

Ashbow · Post by **Ashbow** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:37 am

Some movie critique;)
I watched the movie and personally I think that despite the fact it's hard to reconstruct period archery gear due to lack of findings and documentation those tests with armour penetration aren't really satisfying. I think they should use some arrowheads matching the originals and the period.
I didn't managed to spot what head they used for shooting at the linen armour but the arrow used for the brass armour test has a medieval iron/steel head? (which in fact looks like a chain mail penetrating bodkin rather than armour piercing one they claim).
Did they say the composite bow used had draw of 160#? The man shooting it doesn't look like drawing such a heavy bow.
Just think it would be nice to see them shooting some brass arrowheads of different designs ( I don't expect armour penetration but who knows...)

Mark Stretton tests have been really well coducted I think. Recommend the book (and the Mark's articles in The Glade magazine) to anyone interested in the subject. He proved how the proper arrowhead design can greatly influence the penetration, example the head used for penetrating the flexible birgandine armour.

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:35 am

The penetration tests done so far have not shown that arrows can be effective against armour beyond some 50m, even with very heavy bows, unless the plates are thin or made with soft metal. There is penetration, but not enough to disable the opponent. Even at closer distances thick plate will not be sufficiently penetrated.

The quoted impact 80J and above, which supposedly causes severe trauma, does not sound plausible either. Soccer players, who often take hits in the head, would probably be all dead.

Adam

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:03 am

I don't think a test can be done that would satisfies everyone.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:17 pm

There are problems with the History Channel tests. The bow is quoted at 160 pounds but the arrow speed is only 90 miles per hour or 132 feet per second. Also their description of shooting at "point blank range" left a lot to be desired. Point blank for an arrow is generally defined as when the tip of the arrow at full draw is aligned with the centre of the target.

The Mark Stretton tests, as documented in The Glade magazine went into more detail than reported in Secrets of the English Warbow. One of the tests he performed was to determine the final velocity of the arrow at various distances. Shot for maximum range, a heavy arrow regained much of its initial velocity thanks to acceleration due to gravity. The mass of a heavy arrow caused it to be not quite so sensitive to drag as light one.

The accuracy may not have been what an individual sharp shooter wanted, but a shower of arrows had a good statistical chance of landing a few good impacts. People testing penetration today use shorter ranges because they are shooting single arrows and are trying to maximise their accuracy.

Another conclusion Stretton came to was that it was in the intermediate ranges that the arrows lost power the most. When the arrows were shot at low angles they did not have the opportunity of recovering any velocity.

Once the arrow leaves the bow, it does not matter whether a long bow or a composite bow shot it, only what its initial velocity was. I think there are opportunities for tests to expand our knowledge of the physical effects of bows and arrows, but they have to be properly thought out first and not some ad hoc demonstration for a television program.

Orda Khan · Post by **Orda Khan** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:24 pm

I agree with modern tests being inconclusive, there are too many variables to achieve an accurate result. I do however believe that the bow played a very important role in military history and I admit to being slightly annoyed when that importance is questioned due to modern tests and theories. Even full plate armour had small areas where one piece fastened to another etc, I am sure a fair few arrows found these weak areas, if we consider an arrow storm. At Carrhae we hear reports of shields being pinned to arms and feet pinned to the ground. I am sure the fear factor certainly help in disorganising enemy formations and I am certain that not every warrior, legionary or man-at-arms owned a full set of armour.
With a 40# bow and using brass bullet piles, a friend of mine put an arrow through the side of a refrigerator he was throwing out. That surprised me I must admit

Alex S. · Post by **Alex S.** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:09 pm

Hi again!

I was thinking, what about the velocity of the enemy itself??? Obviously if the enemy is on horse, they will be accelerating at a good speed. Anyone know the speed of a charging horse? We really should add this to the whole equation, this would really change the results on armour penetration I believe. Even if they are traveling only 30 miles/hour that is an extra 44 (?) feet/second to that arrow. So if the arrow is moving 180 ft/sec then that would equal to a real speed of 224 ft/sec, no? What would the joules would that equal to?

Think about it, what does more damage, a speeding car hitting a parked one or a speeding car hitting another speeding car? I don't know how such test can be done, but its worth a thought.

Alex

Ashbow · Post by **Ashbow** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:46 pm

Mark with others have done some tests involving targets moving about 20 mph, that was the supposed speed of a charging war horse, they found arrows penetrating a breast plate at a close range even 1"-2" deeper than shooting at the same but static target.

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:39 pm

The problem with the tests are not the results, but conclusions. An arrow, to have an immediate effect, must hit the "vitals", meaning basically penetration of breastplate. The plates were normally well above 2mm thickness, and arrows do not penetrate such plates anymore than a couple of inches, and only if shot from a very close distance. The rest of armour is thinner, so there maybe an extra inch there, but still hardly a fatal shot. Plus these must still be square hits. People can argue forever what such shots could do an enemy and never come to any objective conclusons. We do not even know if the actual "average" draw weight of longbows - listed as 150lb or 110lb, depending who is talking. Oddly enough, all tests are done with 140-150+lb bows...

There is no questions arrows could be deadly and certainly were in the right circumstances. Obviously archers aimed at flesh if they could. A friend of mine is hard at work doing all kinds of tests of penetration vs velocity at various distance, and comparing English arrows with Turksih and crossbow bolts. The resuls will be impartial, as opposed to some overenthusiastic reports. I hope he will finish soon.

Adam

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:43 pm

I'm looking forward to the test results, I like the idea of impartial testing. Too many are taking their own bow as "superior" and only focus on what makes it so good in their testing. History has shown that other bows worked effectively in battle too. There may have been much more factors involved than the ones currently tested.

The period I study is almost exclusively Qing (but not limited to bows and arrows) and during most of this period they did not wear much armor anymore. However, it is clear from earlier times that it was indeed common to first shoot the largest (unprotected) target. If there was a horse, they shot the horse.* Sure, horses could be used after the battle, but the primary concern seemed to have always been to win the battle and then worry about the spoils.

I am looking forward to being able to test Qing bow penetration, because the bow's focus is so different from most other composite bows. I wonder how this and the size and weight of their arrows will affect how they do against armor. I expect surprising results, but no speculation can match actual field testing. The problem is, no-one seems to shoot a 100+ pound Manchu bow these days.

(*See, among others, Qi jiguang's writings.)

-Peter

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:53 pm

Adam and others have made some valid points here. It is important to remember that actual use in battle is different from tests.

I don't agree that the major effective use of arrows is in their fatal effect. Wounding can have more damaging consequences because of the incapacity of the victim, the resources used to get them out of the battle line if they are important enough and the disruption to the battle line.

Taking out a commander as with Harold at Senlac Hill is a rare event. Usually archery caused disruption in enemy lines. In the case of the Parthians, they used to concentrate and slow down their enemies.

We tend to think from films that everyone in an ancient or mediaeval army wore the best armour of the time. In fact, none but the wealthy could afford this equipment. Organised state armies like the Byzantines equipped their men with the best armour the state could afford, but that limited the size of armies or the armoured component of them.

Armour and weapons were in a continual race to outwit each other (or at least eh people who made them were), but these things were limited by two lacks: money and knowledge.

Ashbow · Post by **Ashbow** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:11 am

Adam, I also think use of only such strong bows like 150# for tests can lead us wrong, people sometimes quote average pull for warbows too high I think. We don't know it.
Mark Stretton did use heavy bows for the tests but he also invited others using bows 100# which I think should be more comparable to the warbows used say during 1400's in the area.

I would just like to say I didn't like the above movie not because they didn't manage to penetrate the armour

but because I think the tests were rather poor, just would be nice to see what would happened when 'proper' period arrowheads were used etc.

The tests you mentioned sound interesting:)

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:53 am

What an arrow will or will not penetrate is a complex problem. This is just an example. We friends shoot at targets made of compressed glued together layers of cardboard. When the targets are new, the arrows will sometimes penetrate 4 inches of layers. when the targets become old those same arrows will actually bounce off soft damaged places in the target.

This got me to thinking about scale armor and how the scales are somewjhat loose and do not make such a good surface for penetration. A shirt of metal plates would have been valuable and heavy but before that, heavy leather scale armor was worn. It would be interesting to make sample pieces of different armors for these tests.

The other variable would be the exact composition of the scales. Were they tempered steel? If so what kind of steel and what temper? And the points; were they good tool carbon steel like a sword or were they everyday mild steel, iron? This would make a huge difference for accurate penetration tests.

I am coming around to the thinking that bows of all strengths were available for persons of every ability in antiquity. I have now seen some pretty strong bows from Central Asia. -j-