Long range archery

[Gob]

Classic.

[Bicycle Bill]

You know what the abos call a boomerang that doesn't come back?
A stick.

-"BB"-

[rubato]

Rubato, the English longbow was used effectively to penetrate armored people at more than 300 yards. It was used like area artillery and not aimed at particular individuals. And if the bow is too modern for your hunting art, there are those who prefer to use spear and atlatl.

snailgate

Not according to these sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

http://history.stackexchange.com/questi ... d-infantry


Armor penetration was shown only at short point-blank distances and with weaker armor. Stronger armor was only penetrated to 0.3in or even less.


Arrows lose velocity rapidly in air and it is the velocity which makes them penetrate usefully.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Surely - Batarang?

[Burning Petard]

To quote the source you cited: "Against massed men in armor, massed longbows were murderously effective on many battlefields"

In terms of basic physics, the long bow arrow has one variable that is greatly superior to modern small arms bullets: sectional density.

In firing high arc trajectory, the arrow is falling a a energy driven by gravity and the mass of the arrow, not the draw weight of the bow.

snailgate.

[Bicycle Bill]

-"BB"-

[liberty]

Rubato, the English longbow was used effectively to penetrate armored people at more than 300 yards. It was used like area artillery and not aimed at particular individuals. And if the bow is too modern for your hunting art, there are those who prefer to use spear and atlatl.

snailgate

Not according to these sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

http://history.stackexchange.com/questi ... d-infantry


Armor penetration was shown only at short point-blank distances and with weaker armor. Stronger armor was only penetrated to 0.3in or even less.


Arrows lose velocity rapidly in air and it is the velocity which makes them penetrate usefully.


yrs,
rubato

It was not necessary for the archers arrows to penetrate the knights armor for the archer to kill the knight. True the armor makers were eventually able to make armor that arrows could not penetrate, that was true for crossbows too. But like I said it was not necessary to shoot through the knight’s armor to kill him. All the archer needed to do was to kill the knight's horse. Once the knight was on the ground weighted down by his heavy he was helpless. Yeomen armed with their thin blade daggers and protected by pike men moved from victim to victim finding the cracks in the armor and slaughtering the noble warriors like pigs. The idea that a man of noble blood could be killed so easily by a peasant made the nobility that lost the battle furious.

[liberty]

Rubato, the English longbow was used effectively to penetrate armored people at more than 300 yards. It was used like area artillery and not aimed at particular individuals. And if the bow is too modern for your hunting art, there are those who prefer to use spear and atlatl.

snailgate

Not according to these sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

http://history.stackexchange.com/questi ... d-infantry


Armor penetration was shown only at short point-blank distances and with weaker armor. Stronger armor was only penetrated to 0.3in or even less.


Arrows lose velocity rapidly in air and it is the velocity which makes them penetrate usefully.


yrs,
rubato

It was not necessary for the archers arrows to penetrate the knights armor for the archer to kill the knight. True the armor makers were eventually able to make armor that arrows could not penetrate, that was true for crossbows too. But like I said it was not necessary to shoot through the knight’s armor to kill him. All the archer needed to do was to kill the knight's horse. Once the knight was on the ground weighted down by his heavy he was helpless. Yeomen armed with their thin blade daggers and protected by pike men moved from victim to victim finding the cracks in the armor and slaughtering the noble warriors like pigs. The idea that a man of noble blood could be killed so easily by a peasant made the nobility that lost the battle furious.

Now for some clarification. I might have given the impression that during the era of the dominance of the long bow a fallen knights on the battle field were always killed by a peasant’s thin bladed dagger. Knights, that is the nobility, were not always killed by the dagger and in fact were not always killed. Mostly depending on the wealth and status of the knight he maybe saved from death by an enemy nobleman to be held as hostage. Now how could a knight laying on the ground be recognized as a wealthy nobleman? A suit of armor would cost by the today's standards something like a new car. A cost that was beyond the financial range of a peasant or villain craftsman. And if the armor was decorated with gold or silver that would be a clear sign of a man worth taking as a hostage.

Sometimes a fallen knight would be killed by pike, poleaxe or a war ax. At Agincourt all was that was necessary in some parts of the battle field was to role the knight over on to his face and like an upended turtle he would lay there until he died. (Out of time)

[Crackpot]

Not to mention most infantry etc was not equipped with plate armor

[wesw]

high arching shot....

that way the arrow is gaining velocity again as it falls.

we used to shoot arrows straight up and then dodge them as they fell back to earth.

not very bright of us, but i guarantee that they would have penetrated our thick skulls if they had hit us

[MG McAnick]

i guarantee that they would have penetrated our thick skulls if they had hit us

I shot an arrow into the air
It fell to earth I know not wh...
Oh Shi...

[Bicycle Bill]

I shot an arrow into the air
It fell to earth I know not wh...
Oh Shi...

I sneezed a sneeze into the air
It fell to earth I know not where.
But disapproving were the looks of those
In whose vicinity I snoze....

-"BB"-

[oldr_n_wsr]

i almost killed my cousin with a lawn dart. We were playing long distance lawn drts and he wasn't paying attention. I yelled and at the last minute he put his hand up above his head and it went through his hand rather than his head.

He died in 2006 at age (at the age 46) of pancreatic cancer.
Miss you Rickie. Sorry I put the lawn dart through your hand.


PS
I still have those lawn darts.

[rubato]

Having consulted the literature for bow hunting, crossbow hunting, and the historical literature on the military use of bows they are ineffective (as I said) at 300 yards except for slightly wounding horses and "disrupting military formations".

The kinetic energy of arrows at that distance is too little to be significant.

And thank you for playing "avoid the issue".


yrs,
rubato

[Burning Petard]

Rubato, to quote the source (Wikipedia) you cited:
Against massed men in armour, massed longbows were murderously effective on many battlefields.[40]

Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows".[41]

Archery was described by contemporaries as ineffective against plate armour in the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346), the siege of Bergerac (1345), and the Battle of Poitiers (1356); such armour became available to European knights of fairly modest means by the late 14th century, though never to all soldiers in any army. Longbowmen were however effective at Poitiers, and this success stimulated changes in armour manufacture partly intended to make armoured men less vulnerable to archery. Nevertheless, at the battle of Agincourt in 1415 and for some decades thereafter, English longbowmen continued to be an effective battlefield force.[40]

Your second source used controlled testing with direct fire at the target, not firing UP at angles of 45 degrees or greater, in which the arrow goes up until its initial energy is matched by the total force of gravity, and then falls accelerating with the force of gravity, and impacting on the target with the effect of the high sectional density driving into relatively small contact area by the entire mass of the long shaft. Arrows are known to penetrate sand bags that stop a bullet. Granted, your source indicates the longbow ineffective against good armor by late 15th century, but very effective earlier.

I am 'avoiding the issue?'

snailgate

[Jarlaxle]

Haven't you figured it out yet? Rube knows what he knows, and will not be challenged by anything as trivial as FACTS!

[Econoline]

This belongs in this thread.

Yes it does. It just does.




ETA: The audio is a bit loud, at least on my computer. You might want to turn it down--or off--right away...

[rubato]

Rubato, to quote the source (Wikipedia) you cited:
Against massed men in armour, massed longbows were murderously effective on many battlefields.[40]

Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows".[41]

Archery was described by contemporaries as ineffective against plate armour in the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346), the siege of Bergerac (1345), and the Battle of Poitiers (1356); such armour became available to European knights of fairly modest means by the late 14th century, though never to all soldiers in any army. Longbowmen were however effective at Poitiers, and this success stimulated changes in armour manufacture partly intended to make armoured men less vulnerable to archery. Nevertheless, at the battle of Agincourt in 1415 and for some decades thereafter, English longbowmen continued to be an effective battlefield force.[40]

Your second source used controlled testing with direct fire at the target, not firing UP at angles of 45 degrees or greater, in which the arrow goes up until its initial energy is matched by the total force of gravity, and then falls accelerating with the force of gravity, and impacting on the target with the effect of the high sectional density driving into relatively small contact area by the entire mass of the long shaft. Arrows are known to penetrate sand bags that stop a bullet. Granted, your source indicates the longbow ineffective against good armor by late 15th century, but very effective earlier.

I am 'avoiding the issue?'

snailgate

You're pathetic.


At 300 yards arrows are not effective weapons. All of the sources agreed about that. Their lethality was nil at that distance. Get over it. Accept reality and stop whining.



yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

Stop taking to yourself. Some my find it confusing.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Stop taking to yourself. Some my find it confusing.