Archery boast

Just be careful - an activity centre near me had a bit of an incident recently. One of their students on a have-a-go didn't pay attention and instead of drawing back only until the arrow was about an inch ahead of the bow, drew back another couple of inches. This meant the tip was resting against the fleshy bit between thumb and fingers. Then they loosed the bow.

I suppose it's one way to get a cheap piercing. Even a 20 pounder isn't going to have trouble driving an arrow through a little flesh like that and out the other side.

 

I'll... keep that in mind. Thanks.

 

The Fish has spoken. All hail the Fish!

 

Here's one that was meant to go into people.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2lbB3OMNns&feature=related"]Medieval arrow penetration into steel plate.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

 

I jsut want to ask one question - do you need a license to carry that stuff around?

 

Nope. It's 'sports' equipment. Same as my rapier, longsword and sabre.

What I couldn't do would be carry it around on, say, a night out. If questioned then I'm fine so long as there's a valid reason. "Yes officer, I brought my longbow into work because I'm off to the range at lunchtime."

Bow's aren't lethal weapons under the law, but arrows do fall under the category so you need to have reasonable cause to carry them.

If anyone wants to give it a try, see if you can convince your local vicar to follow Mary's example here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10300924

Edit: I've also just discovered that apparently archery has left its stamp on the genetics of the English. It is literally in our blood - two bones of the left arm (radius and ulna) are up to 2mm thicker than those of the right arm due to 30 000 years of archery practice.

You are also subject to a fine if you are the father of children over the age of 7 and have not provided them with a bow and arrows.

 

I don't think I'm leaving my house. EVER. AGAIN. Except on a REALLY rainy night.

 

Use a tree.

 

Perfect. Just make sure you don't hit it more than eight times and it should be fine.

 

As for the youtube-movie and the claims of arrows penentrating plate, I just want to add that that is a bit controversial.

This is a topic that often ends up with two camps yelling at eachother; the full plate'rs that claims that it couldn't be done, and the archers that sais that it could be done.

Here are my oppinion on it:

bodkins were generally meant to punch through armor, and some believes that the shorter version is meant to punch through plate. Then one have to consider the metal-quality of the arrowhead and the plate. Very few plates have survived, and they do in general tend to be made of steel that is more resilliant than the metal found in the bodkins that have survived.

One then have to consider what a knight would wear beneath the plate. The youtube-video in this link is a poor show, the plate is like 1mm thick (which is not historically correct), and in addition, it only penentrates some 2 cm, not enough to reach much more than the skin.

So in order to get a dangerous hit, you have to punch through the plate, and still pass it by at least 5cm with the point. One theory on the butt-nosed bodkins, is that they are wider than the arrow-shaft, so that the arrow isn't slowed down by the friction between the shaft and the hole in the plate.

Here are some links to what I'm talking about:
Some bodkin-remake that mabye can punch through and clear the way for the arrow shaft:
http://ih0.redbubble.net/work.7290609.2.flat,550x550,075,f.bodkin-arrowheads.jpg

Video IMO more explaining (IMO they use wrong arrowhead on this one, you need the snub-nosed bodkin): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk&feature=related"]Longbow vs Plate Armour - YouTube[/ame]

 

Of course very few have survived - the ones that didn't have been mistaken for colanders due to the number of holes.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if armour could stand up somewhat better than is generally shown in demos - particularly as archers wouldn't usually be firing a straight shot but arcing instead. However even if the armour wasn't perforated, they carry a lot of force. I've seen (and experienced first-hand) 30lb arrows with duck blunts knock people off their feet, with or without armour. On a battlefield, mid-charge, that's pretty much a death sentence in its own right.

There is an example using 2mm plate, but it's not as dramatic. Still perforates nicely though. Whether it would perforate the heavy fabrics beneath is a different matter - I suspect that it was probably a hit and miss thing in any case.

Either way - the idea of peasant archers being able to put arrows through the noble's plate armour is more poetically satisfying.

 

I must admit the fact that arrows might not have been strong enough to penetrate through steel plate is somehow less than reassuring in light of that oak photo.

 

Given the fact that you wouldn't be hit with just one arrow but would have had to walk through a rain of arrows eventually something would penetrate.

The Bear.

 

Speaking of longbows, there is probably one gentleman that really bears mentioning: Lt. Col. John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming Churchill, also known as "Jack."

http://www.wwiihistorymagazine.com/2005/july/col-profiles.html

The gent in question was leading commando raids armed with a longbow and a claymore (the sword, not the explosive) and was reportedly very disappointed to see the end of WW2.

Obviously had a screw or two loose somewhere but he kept the tradition alive, eh?

 

but at least you'd have a nice shade.

 

I'd like to see a decending arrow penentrating plate, going through padding beneath and still have enough punch to severely injure the person innside.

To summarize my oppinion:
A: CAN AN ENGLISH LONGBOW PENENTRATE PLATE ARMOR AT 10 FEET? -yes, provided the metal is hard enough, if the angle is right, and if the arrowhead is designed to do the job.
B: CAN AN ENGLISH LONGBOW PENENTRATE PLATE ARMOR AND PADDING AND KILL/INJURE AT 10 FEET? -I doubt it, and haven't seen evidence of the contrary yet.

The point many miss when they want to debate the penentration-capabilities of the long-bow, is excactly what Polar Bear sais, if you're hit by several arrows, one is bound to hit somewhere where the plate does not cover. Fully covering plate armor does not emerge until the end of the 15th century.

I talked to a french guy doing this stuff [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmTkT5o2BJ8"]Bohurt 4 - Pojedynki Grunwald 2010 - YouTube[/ame] and one in his group got hit in his helmet with a blunt (too heavy) 1h-sword so that the helmet was penentrated and got a long gash. He didn't notice until after the battle was over and he took of his helmet. On an other occation, he took part in a battle where people fired ordinary arrows (the target points you get on standard arrows when shopping), shot with 30lbs bows, and one guy got hit in the side of the knee, just above his leg-plate, and he went down from that. I have hard times believing that people get knocked over by the kinetic force of an arrow.

-but on the Visby battle I attended last week: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po04hSGEHoc&feature=related"]Battle of Wisby 1361 - After the battle - YouTube[/ame] -and our archers shot some direct fire with blunt arrows at the enemies at 60 yards range, wit roughly 30lbs-bows. One of the arrows hit a knight in the [incert name of the place that will be cencored if i mention it on MAP], and he certainly fealt it and toppeled over -to much merryment for us and the spectators