The LongBow part 3 of 12

Back


The Long Bow

Channel: Entertainment
Uploaded: September 22, 2007 at 2:18 am
Author: Pwata

Length: 00:04:03
Rating: 4.81
Views: 14698

Tags: Archery

Video Comments:
traktorlaila (August 10, 2008 at 9:24 pm)
Even if the arrow didn't penetrate armour at a distance, it would still kill a horse. Without a horse, the knight fighting capability is severly reduced.
relentlesssinner90 (October 1, 2008 at 5:37 am)
Note the reason Warhorses wore armour.
VeikoTG (July 19, 2008 at 7:40 pm)
The documentary is wrong it does not kill only on 20 metres, it kills at long range also, the power of the arrow increases, when it is coming down from the air, extra power gives the spinning, like modern bullets. And it pieces the armor at long range! Big Mistake!!!
matt2house (July 27, 2008 at 3:34 pm)
hmmm it depends how thick ur armour might be. cos at agincourt the longbowmen had to shoot at the horses cos the french knights worn some really thick armour plating. this demonstration of the arrows at different ranges proves it.
Felix0nubi (June 25, 2008 at 6:01 pm)
Excellent comments from airnt. I miss here important variables like weight of the bow, the arrows the influence of the speed of the attacking knights (Note that the knights might travel with more than 10 m/s - thus increasing the relative velocity of the arrow by the same amount.
airnt (June 3, 2008 at 5:00 am)
how many knights would have worn a hauberk at this point, underneath the breastplate that is. let's say 80% would have worn one (very conservative estimate)

some 90% or so of arrows loosed on the battlefield were broadheads, he's using a (hardened?) bodkin.

he took the stongest bow he could get away with, and the weakest breastplate...
so the top 10% of the longbows?
against the bottom 30% of breastplates?

*to be continued*
airnt (June 3, 2008 at 5:02 am)
*continued*
with that air cannon the arrow will hit with less flex, so there is a greater chance of purchase in the steel, no sideways forces

he hit the steel at the ideal angle, straight onto the metal. was the breastplate dished or raised? if it was dished the metal would be thinnest here, if raised, thickest like the originals.

this would have been a 5% hit chance on a static target for a good archer at 20 yards if you assume this sweet spot to be 2 inches across?
airnt (June 3, 2008 at 5:03 am)
*continued*
this might therefore be representative of [20%*10%*10%*30%*5%=] 0.003% or so of the arrows loosed in battle at 20 yards???

At 20 yards, that allows for one arrow per archer at the very best.

so out of maybe 7000 archers on average, i would predict, no more than 0,21 shots would be represented by this test....

that makes it insignificant.
airnt (June 3, 2008 at 5:07 am)
*continued*
bear in mind that even if you assume that only the last arrow to be loosed by an archer is this effective, you start to understand why crossbows were in such favour: only one shot counts, so rate of fire is irrelevant

therefore, the main advantage is that the bow is a area interdiction weapon.
BLAZEX09 (May 15, 2008 at 12:53 am)
The Armour would be made of low quality Iron and they failed to take into acount the speed of the advancing Knight.