European Archery/ Agincourt/crecy/etc

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Bloody hell! I think that sort of penetration wasn't really approached until the very heavy "Spanish" musket made its appearance on the battlefield (though that'd be Michael's hobby-horse I think!), and curiously enough, even that seems to have performed much the same for penetration. I seem to remember a tale in which a ball fired from a large musket (presumably something around .90 - 1" bore and long-barrelled) went straight through the breastplate of one cavalier and into the poor fellow behind him, embedding itself in the latter's chest.

This sort of penetration did indeed take muskets. Low draw weight bows were replaced by high draw weight bows because the low draw weight bows weren't good enough at penetrating armour. Using high draw weight bows comes at a significant cost: your archers need to train more, need to be fitter, and need to be drawn from a smaller pool of potential recruits.

High draw weight crossbows can out-penetrate bows. At the time, the best available armour penetration in a one-person long-ranged weapon (javelins can be very good for armour penetration as well, but are shorter range).

Muskets beat crossbows, while not being any slower. Maybe less accurate, but cheaper.

As for longbows beating plate armour, the thinner parts of plate armours could be penetrated at close enough range, while the thickest parts could not be penetrated at any range. "Thickest parts" tended to be chest and head, thinner parts the limbs where you prefer to carry less weight.

With the advent of the musket, where thicknesses needed to double or more than double to stop musket balls, you see the coverage of armour shrinking in order to keep the total weight acceptable. Late engineer armours could be very thick (>8mm, iirc), but gave good protection.

The numbers work out at about 70J of energy to put an arrow through 1mm of iron plate (which means that complete arrow-proof is attained at, at most, 2-3mm - don't trust iron or mild steel under 2mm to stop arrows at short range!), and about 1000J to put a pistol/musket ball through 3mm.

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Wherein, I suppose, lies the problem; the size of your army (and, by extension, the number of places it can be in useful strength) is governed by your supply of strong men with very well-honed right arms!

The Chinese did very well in maintaining large numbers of archers. The military examination system was very archery-oriented, so meant that those seeking promotion or entry into the army as officers would be competent archers. Archery had been a "knightly" skill in China since sometime B.C., so no social stigma (except general anti-military stigma at times). That, and archery being an essential skill amongst the Chinese-ruled/Chinese-ruling/neighbouring nomad populations, and the large population meant that archers were present in numbers that would have made the English greatly envious.

[A Senefelder]

skeletons of ancient archers are easily identified due to the 'abnormal' and unequal development of the bones of the left arm (if right handed).

I recall that some spinal deformation was caused as well due to the stresses put on it in achieving a full drawof the bow.

[Emanuel]

Originally Posted by A Senefelder

I recall that some spinal deformation was caused as well due to the stresses put on it in achieving a full drawof the bow.

As well as the right shoulder to hold the bow drawn.

Fascinating stuff!

[katana]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

As for longbows beating plate armour, the thinner parts of plate armours could be penetrated at close enough range, while the thickest parts could not be penetrated at any range. "Thickest parts" tended to be chest and head, thinner parts the limbs where you prefer to carry less weight.

The numbers work out at about 70J of energy to put an arrow through 1mm of iron plate (which means that complete arrow-proof is attained at, at most, 2-3mm - don't trust iron or mild steel under 2mm to stop arrows at short range!), and about 1000J to put a pistol/musket ball through 3mm.


.

This brings up the question of the 'quality' of the average armour. Many surviving full suits of European armour are the high end versions (which, likely, never saw battle) A number of these were 'heavier' gauge metal plate .... as they were designed for the 'joust' and not battle conditions.
I get the impression that, at the time, that the 'average' grade armour was of a lower quality iron/steel and that heat treatment of said metal plate was more 'hit and miss'. Top armourers were very, very secretive about their methods. Quality armour was incredibly expensive ....and not all knights had big bank balances.

All the best
David

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

An interesting take on Agincourt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0

Cheers
Chris

[David]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Folks,

An interesting take on Agincourt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0

Cheers
Chris

Thanks Chris, interesting viddy...

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Folks,

An interesting take on Agincourt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0

Cheers
Chris

Salaams Chris Evans ~ I think your inclusion of this video is key to understanding the battle. I was wondering when the researchers would get down to the effect of the English archers on the French Knights horses but it was somewhat glossed over however they did agree that horses were much more vulnerable since the horse armour was not steel (as was the French Knights). I think much more confusion can be attributed to French Knights horses; shot out from under them, collapsing into the mud and causing and adding to the knock on effect in the funnel. Great video thanks...
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Notes; In reference to Turkish weapons so that Forum may compare European with Turkish and for interest please see http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/turkish/and http://turkishflightarchery.blogspot.com/ whilst at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow there is an excellent description and history of the English Longbow.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ibrahiim,

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

I was wondering when the researchers would get down to the effect of the English archers on the French Knights horses but it was somewhat glossed over however they did agree that horses were much more vulnerable since the horse armour was not steel (as was the French Knights).

I was wondering too.

Great and very informative links, especially on Turkish archery - Thank you.

Cheers
Chris

[Timo Nieminen]

Lots of good info on armour and arrows in Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace", and some more in Atkins' "The Science and Engineering of Cutting". The quick summary is that good body and head armour was arrow-proof. Good hardened armours were thinner for the same protection, but lower quality armours (thicker and heavier) should have been sufficient too.

This is looking at battle armours, not sporting (e.g., jousting) armours.

[RDGAC]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

The Chinese did very well in maintaining large numbers of archers. The military examination system was very archery-oriented, so meant that those seeking promotion or entry into the army as officers would be competent archers. Archery had been a "knightly" skill in China since sometime B.C., so no social stigma (except general anti-military stigma at times). That, and archery being an essential skill amongst the Chinese-ruled/Chinese-ruling/neighbouring nomad populations, and the large population meant that archers were present in numbers that would have made the English greatly envious.

It's a funny thing, the way that missile combat seems to have been considered somehow "un-chivalrous" in the West for such a long time. Especially funny, when you consider the readiness with which some nobles were noted to buy pistols, once they were a viable technology. Perhaps the cachet associated with ownership of expensive, complex guns, meant really for personal protection or war, outweighed the "dishonourable" nature of the machine.

Kronckew, I am impressed by the sheer complexity of those prep and storage arrangements. Can we add simplicity of maintenance and storage to the list of the arquebus/musket's desirable attributes? (I know absolutely nothing about bows - my interest begins at the moment some bright spark worked out that you could propel things into other things with gunpowder, really, and was always given to understand that maintaining a bow in working order was a pretty simple affair. Don't get it too wet, keep the string dry, make sure you don't wrap it round your head, etc.)

Edit to add: The Teflon thing seems an interesting aside, though I'm slightly sceptical of it being intended to aid in penetration, unless it does so by reducing friction in the barrel (while still permitting the round to grip the rifling by deformation). Can't imagine it'd do too much to aid in AP properties unless the bullet struck the target at exactly 90 degrees, without deforming at all. Which it may do - terminal ballistics isn't my strong suit either!

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by RDGAC

It's a funny thing, the way that missile combat seems to have been considered somehow "un-chivalrous" in the West for such a long time.

Bows, crossbows and, later, guns, were standard hunting weapons for Western nobles.

But not often allowed in tournaments, so not a military skill one could display in tournament. Get rich by captures in the melee, become a sporting superstar via jousting - what can archery offer in competition with these? Well, they can still go ahead and win archery competitions, and even kings (e.g., Henry VIII) were sometimes noted competitive archers. But that doesn't lead to William Marshal-like riches, or jousting stardom.

Sword and lance as THE weapons of the knight, mace as the symbol of authority push the bow to a lower status position.

I think at least some of the "un-chivalrous" idea is just modern. But lower status of missile weapons is a foundation for such ideas.

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Can we add simplicity of maintenance and storage to the list of the arquebus/musket's desirable attributes? (I know absolutely nothing about bows - my interest begins at the moment some bright spark worked out that you could propel things into other things with gunpowder, really, and was always given to understand that maintaining a bow in working order was a pretty simple affair. Don't get it too wet, keep the string dry, make sure you don't wrap it round your head, etc.)

Compared to a longbow, which doesn't have much in the way of storage/maintenance issues, I don't think a musket has any big advantage.

Compared to storing composite bows in a less-than-ideal climate, a musket is much better. Babur wrote (in Baburnama) that bows only lasted for a few seasons in India, due to the humidity. Not at all good if you want to stockpile them in your armoury - by the time you want to use them, they'll be useless. Muskets will store better. (As will steel bows.)

A musket might well have a much longer life than a longbow, when in use. Wood fails with time. Flight bows are sometimes only good for 2-3 shots; military bows are less optimised and last better. But they don't last forever.

[kronckew]

ah, well. did a bit more research.

armour piercing handgun bullets are made with a sintered tungsten alloy or a case hardened steel penetrator core that unlike lead does not deform when striking a kevlar jacket. the deformation of the lead projectile (even if copper jacketed) spreads the impact load even further on the kevlar layers not yet penetrated, slowing the projectile and resisting penetrating further. the pointier tungsten penetrator doesn't deform and thus can get thru more layers of kevlar.

teflon is used to protect the bore of the handgun from frictional erosion from the harder projectile. they may also be copper jacketed to aid in engaging the rifling. they are also less accurate and have a shorter effective range.

kevlar jackets that have been shot have been compromised and are replaced as further shots in the area where bullets strike have broken kevlar strands and if hit again may be penetrated. normal bullets may also penetrate up to 18 layers of kevlar armour at close range when fired out of longer (5"+) barrels. people wearing kevlar who are shot are often put out of action temporarily or even knocked out due to soft tissue injury and trauma. it's like being hit hard with a hammer. still better than being penetrated by a bullet.

the gravity powered device used in the video to impact a soft iron bodkin onto a flat steel armour plate backed by what appears to be an inflexible hard backing layer may be an over simplification of the terminal ballistics. tests with actual arrows show penetration of breastplates, tho the points were usually stopped in the padded undergarment (but would have been uncomfortable to any wearer).

the agincourt video above implies the bodkin points were soft iron and could not penetrate armour at all. contemporary accounts recorded that they could at close range. case hardening was a known technique used since late roman times, often used to add carbon to rods used in pattern welded swords. maybe the bodkins were case hardened? not terribly hard to pack a bunch of them in an air tight container filled with leather, hooves, salt and urine and heat the mix. case hardening of armour items would be more difficult. actual tests with case hardened bodkins would be interesting.

the subject of kevlar also brings to mind the old layered linen armour which would stop arrows and resist sword cuts. british archers wore padded jackets for the same reason. nothing new under the sun.

[Chris Evans]

the gravity powered device used in the video to impact a soft iron bodkin onto a flat steel armour plate backed by what appears to be an inflexible hard backing layer may be an over simplification of the terminal ballistics. tests with actual arrows show penetration of breastplates, tho the points were usually stopped in the padded undergarment (but would have been uncomfortable to any wearer).

Tend to agree with your observations.

The reason that video caught my attention is that it pointed out that there was more to that epic battle than what the more popular renditions would have us believe.

Cheers
Chris

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

The reason that video caught my attention is that it pointed out that there was more to that epic battle than what the more popular renditions would have us believe.

An interesting exercise on the effectiveness of the English longbow is to (a) write down the best estimate of the number of men-at-arms killed on the French side ("men-at-arms" = "armoured soldiers", so knights and other well-armoured soldiers), (b) write down the best estimate of the number of English archers. Then calculate (a)/(b), which is the maximum possible average number of men-at-arms killed per archer. Some French men-at-arms were killed by things other than arrows - at Agincourt, many (most?) of the French men-at-arms killed were killed when Henry V ordered the prisoners to be killed.

Compare this result with outcomes expected if the more extreme propaganda of arrows slicing almost unimpeded through enemy armour was true.

Clearly, the longbow, and English archery in general, was effective (at least often enough to justify the investment). Perhaps not the superweapon it is sometimes claimed to be. Better to appreciate the weapon for the reality, rather than the fiction.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Timo,

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Clearly, the longbow, and English archery in general, was effective (at least often enough to justify the investment). Perhaps not the superweapon it is sometimes claimed to be. Better to appreciate the weapon for the reality, rather than the fiction.

At one stage of my life I played around with bows and crossbows and even owned a real English long bow. Based on my experiences, my suspicion was that as a weapon of war it was probably more effective against slowly advancing armoured infantry, rather than heavy cavalry. Galloping horses at 20mph (30ft/sec) can close the range of a bow, say 900ft in around 30sec or thereabouts, not giving all that much time to shower them with arrows, but foot soldiers would have allowed for much more time.

But, as always, troop dispositions, coordination, battlefield terrain and so on were far more important than weaponry.

Cheers
Chris