A Comparison Test And Appraisal Of Historical Warbows

segolden · A Comparison Test And Appraisal Of Historical Warbows

Thought this article I wrote for a club magazine would be of interest, since it may have some bearing upon certain issues.

A TV documentary from the UK a few years ago showed a brief test of British long bows and war arrows against armor worn during the 100-Years War period. The idea was to see if such equipment could actually penetrate chain mail, shields and plate suits at various ranges. The results showed that, unless ranges were around 20-meters or less, even bodkin or “needle-nose” heads would not cause more than a shallow non-lethal wound. Most shots at 60-meters merely dented armor, while the typical layered soft-wood shield was sufficient to stop all arrows at any range. Accuracy appears to have been a problem, so no testing was shown at the typical 200-yrd. ranges reported in historical chronicles of the time.

Our local SCA branch, ___________, decided to conduct its own test not long after the program aired.

Firstly, criteria had to be set for the experiment. Since the group has both Asian and Longbow shooters, two types of bows were tested: a 55-lb. at 28”-draw English-style 68” longbow (average draw-weight ascertained from historical data); and a 54-lb. Mongol-style 55” short recurve.

Projectiles for the longbow were the traditional “yard-long” heavy war arrows, wooden shafts of approximately 720-grs. weight with feathers and mild iron bodkin heads, 810-grs. with barbed two-blade heads. The Asian bow used both the above shafts to simulate long-distance war arrows, and lighter (420-gr.) Korean bamboo shafts with both bodkin and barbed heads. Both bows were drawn with the Western split-finger style of release and glove.

Targets were the following: a breastplate of mild steel armor, generously contributed by Lord _____ of ______; a riveted chain mail long-shirt of mild steel also contributed by Lord _____; a 5/8” plywood shield; a leather-jerkined straw dummy and several target-butts. Shooting was conducted at ranges of 20 to sixty yards as a longer field was not available, but seems to have had little effect upon the results since conclusions were obvious by the time shooting ended at the 60-yd. mark.

As for the resulting data:

Longbow, bodkin points, against shield: 20-yds, full penetration, over 3” beyond backing; 40-yds., full penetration, ¾” beyond backing; 60-yds., backing splintered, almost full penetration. (Asian bow had virtually the same results as the longbow. Neither bow fully penetrated the shield at any range with war arrows and barbed points.)

Asian bow, light bamboo shaft and bodkin, against shield: 20-yds., full penetration, 5” beyond backing; 40-yds., 2” beyond backing; 60-yds, backing splintered, tip visible. The barbed head did not fully penetrate in shooting beyond 20-yds.

Longbow, bodkin points, against chain mail: 20-yds., penetrated 3” into dummy; 40-yds., penetrated 1” into leather jerkin under mail; 60-yds., dented leather jerkin, point usually wedged in mail rings or bounced off. No barbed shafts penetrated at any range. The Asian bow with same shafts and points had the same results.

Asian bow, bamboo shaft and bodkin, against mail: 20-yds., penetrated 3” past armor; 40-yds., wedged deeply in armor rings, leather penetrated; 60-yds., dented and bounced off mail.

Longbow, bodkin points, against breastplate: 20-yds., penetrated one-two inches beyond plate if struck directly, otherwise tended to glance off; 40-yds., one direct hit/shallow penetration, nine more glanced off and dented plate; 60-yds., one shallow penetration, nothing else but minor dents. No barbs penetrated. Results were similar with the Asian bow and these shafts.

Asian bow, bamboo and bodkin, against plate: 20-yds., penetrated 5” into dummy; 40-yds., three shallow penetrations; 60-yds, neither barbs nor bodkins penetrated the plate.

Observers noted that the iron heads were softer than the steels used in the armor, and generally tended to bend or distort when striking metal, inhibiting penetration. As a further experiment, a carbon arrow (420-grs.) with a modern steel field point and a Magnus-brand two-blade broadhead was shot into the mail using the Asian bow. At twenty yards both heads penetrated the chain mail shirt and the dummy, though the broadhead was ruined. Both heads deeply penetrated the breastplate at the same distance. One has to wonder what results we would have gotten at longer ranges, had time permitted.

Overall, the test seems to show that even heavy war arrows would have had some difficulty in damaging Medieval personal armor, particularly if mild iron or steel was used in manufacturing arrowheads. One has to suspect that it was the horses and lightly-clad auxiliaries of the armies of the period which took the majority of casualties from archery, thus stripping the knights of their protection and maneuverability.
*****
Now, taking my notes from the time of this grand experiment, I’ll try to refresh my memory of how all this came about, and hopefully provide some answers to folks’ questions. I had a few problems with the way things turned out, though I had to go with majority rule when it came to running the project and writing the article.

My initial misgiving was about how the projectiles were chosen. Indeed, English war arrows were around 1,000-grs., if (?) they were the assumed 36” in length as in most documentation. The question in my mind was whether this was an actual “yard” as measured today, or a “cloth-yard” based upon the Royal Cubit, just under 28” and virtually identical to the Egyptian Cubit? The shorter (lighter) shaft was finally decided upon due to the fact that we had no bows set up for, or bowmen who shot, the longer arrows. Did we gloss over something important? Probably, but compromise can’t often be avoided in recreating the conditions of the past.

The 55-lb. longbow was used for several reasons: one, it matched the available Asian bow’s draw weight for comparison; second, most felt the average shire archer would not be drafted into an archery auxiliary carrying a heavy warbow, and chances were he would go into the campaign with what he hunted with (big example of a lack of historical knowledge among the club); finally, nobody in the club shot anything over a 70-lb. compound, so both rationalism and pragmatism had to be the final arbiters here. Herein lay the disadvantage of not having the resources of a television network or sufficient research.

Both plate and mail armor created the greatest controversy, however. Our distrust of the TV program and its results, and the problem of not being able to ascertain what type of mail or plate were used in their broadcast, gave everyone pause for a while. In the first place, we could not duplicate the heavier draw-weight of the classic warbow, so we knew the results of our test wouldn’t be fully comprehensive. This was one reason that nothing was shot beyond 60-yds, and why we didn’t search out a longer field.

Secondly, the style of manufacture in chain mail varied considerably, with some being iron rings tooled together in loose patterns, up to and including tempered steel rings individually riveted and woven into dense patterns. As things shook out, the riveted mail was chosen to simulate the expensive and more effective armor of the French elite. This stuff is hard to get through even in full-out sword combat re-creation. The results were interesting, and most people opined that even the smallest shire-hunter would’ve been a minor threat, at least to their mounts. Some of us, however, always felt that we were missing something without the higher draw-weights being included.

Just how the armor was presented for shooting had an effect on the test. If the armor was draped over a light and hollow human-shaped form, arrowheads would bounce off regularly at longer ranges. Stuffing the dummy with water-soaked straw and foam, duplicating the weight and density of a human body somewhat, caused the shafts to penetrate much more often. Almost all the penetrations at 60-yards occurred when this was done.

The parallels between the development of tank vs. anti-tank warfare and archery vs. mounted Knights is intriguing. As some have pointed out, the bodkin is designed to work as a modern anti-tank projectile does: the point grabs the armor and actually sticks to it as it strikes, allowing the momentum of the shaft to force it through the material even from off-angles. Interestingly, if the bodkin is slightly softer than the armor plate, it can actually penetrate more, due to the distortion of the point causing more friction against the smooth plate and allowing it to catch. Hardened steel points simply add to this effect by being heavier, sharper and thus able to open the tiniest hole whereby momentum can then act to shove the projectile through. This was the true reason behind keeping armor suits at a high polish and made of many angles: the less friction-producing and direct a hit was, the more likely a point would slide off harmlessly. Unfortunately, we saw few indications of these phenomena except at close range, again probably due to the lack of heavy-draw bows (the Mongols carried bows upwards of 170-lbs. as did the English yeomen, for instance).

I still think the conclusion that archers were more of an indirect danger to heavily-armored knights than otherwise has some validity. Some accounts of period battles do show similar results. I also consider the likelihood that heavier warbows were an extreme threat at various times to be equally valid, depending on what technology was available to the combatants and what the ranges were. The use of these monster longbows well into the age of gunpowder proves that they could give fits to any opposition, but that they were an overpowering weapon that could be used without thought or tactical considerations may have been exaggerated just a bit. That there is considerable controversy here I will grant, as some have seemed to take any negative results from such testing as an insult to their country's prowess. I present these articles in the hope that we may evaluate both present and past weapons in a new light, and appreciate what fantastic accomplishments our ancestors made with such almost mythic tools.

Small addition: Read the accounts of the Spanish Conquistadors and army detachments in the American Southwest prior to the coming of US cavalry posts. They contain near-constant references to the penetrating abilities of Apache and Yaqui bows against both plate and mail armor, with at least one case of a horseman being pinned to his mount when an arrow penetrated both legs, mail leggings and the horse's saddle. Combine this with the fact that bows could shoot faster than any musket, and this was the only situation in the Western Hemisphere where the Spanish troops were out-gunned by the locals, and eventually forced to leave.

nick1346

Hi segolden,

Nice article. The trouble with all armour piercing tests is always one of accuracy. It is hard to replicate the actual equipment used during the high point of English medieval archery, but a few tests are now underway ( the UK defence acadamy are doing some) and myself and a few others hope to do something in the near future.

The two major failings of most tests seem to be the draw wieghts and type of longbow used and shooting at the wrong kind of plate. Usually it is a 'victorian' recreational bow of low draw weight, which not only lacks the raw power but also the cast needed to throw a heavy arrow. The only type of bow which should be used is an English Warbow of appropraite draw, with realistic arrows.

The other problem is the type of armour plate or mail. There where many different grades around on a battlefield and, depending on the time in question, some of this was of extrodinary quality. Milanese armour of the late 1400's was extremely well developed and would actually be tested against bows and crossbows, the chances of piercing some of those breastplates would have been about zero. But the amour is a whole, an arrow can penetrate the softer areas or indeed cause huge trauma on the body and limbs without having to penetrate it.

The finest armour however would of cost the equivilant of £1,000,000, few on the field could of afforded such. Testing against suits of the like would be pointless as it would be representative of a very small section of an enemy host. An tests should represent the average quality, tests against such would be the most revealing.

All of that been said there is the 'fun' factor, that of just finding out for yourself

A couple of weekends ago we made a very short video sequence of us shooting at a 'maniken' comprising a roughly shaped breast plate, made out of 2.2mm hcs and a visor off 3mm hcs. The purpose of the video was not to prove any armour pirecing theories but was an excercise in put a short sequence of film togther. We did this because we are hopefully going to make some short films with a HD camera on various bits and bobs. Here it is the quality isn't great but its ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ppoxi3PM4

(Admin I hope you don't mind links sorry if I've enfringed any rules)

Liam

Nope, post as many relative links as you wish, we are all here to learn from each other

segolden

You've got the idea, Nick, we want any and all data. One of the reasons I put that article up was to provoke more contributions, as my access to first-hand experience is limited over here. You also make excellent points about quality of armor, something I was concerned about during our little experiment. Just as one example, Turkish armor quality in general went up considerably after the Expulsion Edicts of 1492, when Iberian Jews arrived in the Ottoman Empire. They brought a large body of technical knowledge and European fighting methods which had been lost during the Mongol invasions to the Eastern Muslims. Such exchanges and trickle-down transfers had a profound effect upon later campaigns in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.