Originally Posted by Peter Hudson (Post 285122)

You are all invited to see the following set of superb Archery by Lars Anderson; a legend in this specialisation...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Long...&ie=UTF-8#ip=1


You will be confronted by rather a lot of Archery Videos on that page but look for those by LARS ANDERSON... Here is a good starter by Lars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk



Regards, Peter Hudson.

Originally Posted by Edward C. (Post 285048)

Were the bodkin points hardened ? As a amateur metal worker I would think that would be key to getting an initial "bite" on plate armor, so it would not skid off on an oblique impact.

Originally Posted by Teisani (Post 278998)

Making a suface greasy or non-stick doesn't necessarily reduce it's friction drag (viscous drag). If it did we would coat airplanes with teflon and save a lot of money in kerosene. So any improvement that you would see will not be due to drag reduction.

Aerodynamic drag in the low subsonic speed range that arrows travel in, is due to 2 reasons: viscosity of the air and longitudinal pressure distribution over the arrow.
The viscous part is due to the air sticking to the exposed surface of the arrow. So to reduce viscous drag you need to reduce this wetted area in ratio to the arrow's mass. Or change the material to a higher density. Like kinetic armour piercing rounds APFSDS for tanks use depleted uranium or tungsten due to their high density. Of course you will need to use a stronger bow to maintain initial velocity. Coating with a lubricant will not work.
The pressure drag is due to high pressure in the front, and a low pressure wake developing in the rear. For an example of a optimized shape, look at a symmetric airfoil. Blunt in the front (required for wings but not for arrows) and long gently tapering back (always a necessity).

So, for a medieval archer to improve, I strongly recommend a research and development programme in the field of computational fluid dynamics and material science, towards the development of depleted uranium arrows of an optimized cross-section distribution. Oh, and to train more, so he can chuck the damn things with gusto. I don't know... maybe hit the gym.

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson (Post 285142)

Yes they may have done that although it seems that wooden arrows had the habit of snapping since they didnt exactly fly absolutely straight thus on impact were unstable and could break ... Interestingly had the arrows been made of metal they would probably have sailed straight through the armour...Anyway it does seem that greasing the shafts did enable much better penetration of shields and armour not to mention the damage to horses.

Armoured Knights at Agincourt thrown off their horses because they ...the horses ...had been hit by arrows...causing their riders to be ejected into the muddy battlefield would have been in a bad way and likely to have both been either badly injured and possibly trampled by those just behind them. This would have been bad enough had it only affected a few of the cavalry however, scores were dropped which must have caused mayhem and chaoss......The storm of arrows was enough to make the Knights turn their heads away so there was less chance of getting an arrow through their visors...

Regards, Peter Hudson.

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman (Post 285431)

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?

Originally Posted by kronckew (Post 285393)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson (Post 278851)

Reference
A http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...nt+arms+armour


Incredibly this weapon which comprises of two bits of wood and a length of string was like a machine gun when unleashed en masse on an enemy formation on land or aboard ships and was faster to reload and more devastating untill well after the advent of gunpowder.

I have designed this thread with a short starter as I have some interesting material to add as it rolls out to allow maximum input from members.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.