THE ENGLISH LONG BOW.

[kronckew]

Peter, I think the metallurgy of the period would not have allowed for making all-metal arrows light enough to be fired at the velocities required to penetrate their armour. Some experimental archaeology may be required.



Waxing the arrows could also have prevented them absorbing water in the rain & warping. They are occasionally varnished to make them more weather resistant.



Turkish flight arrows were indeed an aerodynamic shape & minimal flights. Some has grooves in the rear portion in lieu of flights to assist stabilization. Their composite recurved bows were more efficient at allowing long draws with shorter bows, but were more prone to weather damage and warping from mishandling as they are unwaxed/varnished to save weight. And they took a lot longer to make properly. They would have bone knocks and points for lightness. They were generally shorter than normal target or war arrows, and generally used with an overdraw device.

[kronckew]

Just for interest, Metal arrows:


See this re:Lars & 'anyone can shoot thru armour'


Metatron mythbusting

[urbanspaceman]

All this talk about penetrating armour has made me realise I have absolutely no idea what percentage of the enemy had plate armour, and also, as has already been mentioned, mounts skewered with arrows dropping themselves and their riders into the melee would have left plenty of opportunity to shoot into un-armoured areas of the body, as I'm assuming virtually no-one had full body armour in the grand scheme of things.
I do realise we have an interesting, academic discussion here on the forum, but some of these videos are rather over-dramatised, are they not?

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

All this talk about penetrating armour has made me realise I have absolutely no idea what percentage of the enemy had plate armour, and also, as has already been mentioned, mounts skewered with arrows dropping themselves and their riders into the melee would have left plenty of opportunity to shoot into un-armoured areas of the body, as I'm assuming virtually no-one had full body armour in the grand scheme of things.
I do realise we have an interesting, academic discussion here on the forum, but some of these videos are rather over-dramatised, are they not?

Agreed Keith ... Essentially much damage to the attacking French Cavalry would have been caused by horses dropping under their riders...Once they were thrown off I imagine the Knights were in something of a crush with horses behind them crashing into the melee and knee deep in bloodied mud...plus weighted down in full suits of armour.. The archers were also in the business of taking prisoners for bounty money and were armed like soldiers ...
Amazingly the French seem to have been goaded into the attack and failed to deal with the flanking English archery lines. ...The lines of archers on the English flanks thus had a very successful day. The French also had archers however, they didn't use them...
The video is only an aid to instruction/knowledge and some may be a bit much ...or over the top. I use them a lot but hope readers can fit the good parts into my equation. Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by kronckew

Peter, I think the metallurgy of the period would not have allowed for making all-metal arrows light enough to be fired at the velocities required to penetrate their armour. Some experimental archaeology may be required.



Waxing the arrows could also have prevented them absorbing water in the rain & warping. They are occasionally varnished to make them more weather resistant.



Turkish flight arrows were indeed an aerodynamic shape & minimal flights. Some has grooves in the rear portion in lieu of flights to assist stabilization. Their composite recurved bows were more efficient at allowing long draws with shorter bows, but were more prone to weather damage and warping from mishandling as they are unwaxed/varnished to save weight. And they took a lot longer to make properly. They would have bone knocks and points for lightness. They were generally shorter than normal target or war arrows, and generally used with an overdraw device.

Thanks for the excellent drawing of the bolt/arrow and it is interesting that they also had grooves in their arrows.. The Comanche arrow also has grooves...three in fact, so it is something they knew about centuries ago...I noted from my own archery practice how an arrow snakes toward a target and how it develops spin similar to a bullet. I noticed how the arrow bends itself around the bow then wobbles its way onto the target... with further twist being done by the flights. In a three finger draw it also causes the string to twist and in slow motion it shows how the arrow performs on its way to the target. Peter Hudson.