Before I begin questioning, I must introduce myself briefly as a newbie of this excellent site.
I'm a high school student living in South Korea, who is interested in ancient and medieval arsenals, including bows and arrows. For my own ID, I usually use "Sinsigel". I hope that I might have plesant time in this site, and communicate with others members with appropriate courtesy.
My own question is rather simple. While reading some thesis and articles about composite bows(including the ones written by Mr. Adam Karpowicz), I began to wonder why Turkish warbows were longer than the Turkish flight bows in general.
According to one of the Korean academic thesis researching the structure of Korean composite bows, the bows with shorter length perform better than the longer ones, due to the shorter bows' smaller mass which allows shorter bows to lose less kinetic energy than the longer ones.
(Assuming that both short and long ones are made of same material, and that their draw weights are equal.) Why would then the bows for warfare - which indeed should perform excellent to gain advantages in war . - would be longer than the bows for flight shooting? Is it because the difference of the weight of the arrows that these bows are shooting?
It would be very thankful for me if I could learn much more about this matter.(Indeed, I'm merely an amatuer of all the amateurs. :wink: )
P.S. I'm very sorry to disrupt the members again, but I have one more thing to inquire about the construction of turkish bows. How do constructions of war, flight, and target bows differ from each other? And what results does these differences bring?(Turkish, of course.) I've searched Kani's expalanation of bow making(From Dr. Klopsteg's <Turkish archery>), but I couldn't find the appropriate answer.
Bede
Flight bows have different requirements than do war, hunting or target bows.
The purpose of a flight bow is to shoot an arrow as far as possible without any consideration of accuracy or penetration. Therefore they can use the lightest arrows possible with the necessary length. This allows the use of lighter limbs which reduces the inertia of the bow. Even durability of the bow is not that important because it is that single longest shot that counts.
A war bow has two kinds of targets, the individual and the mass target. It needs a certain amount of accuracy and it must be durable. If it fails in accuracy, then your enemy will kill you. If it breaks in use, then your effectiveness as a warrior is reduced. The war bow is made longer because it is easier to tiller the limbs for more balanced motions which increases the accuracy. The war bows were also more robust. Adam can confirm whether they were more stable (i.e. broader in the limbs). The heavier limbs that these bows had were not as much of a disadvantage shooting heavy arrows as they would have been shooting light flight arrows.
Target bows did not need to shoot as heavy arrows as war bows and did not need to be as robust, but they would have benefited from longer more stable limbs.
There are a large number of classes of Turkish bows and they were specialised for each use. Even within one type there were variations, which we might not even notice.
Adam Karpowicz
Bede is correct about the variations and the types of bows. Generally, wiith a right design, longer bows can store more energy, needed to push a heavier arrow, but at the penalty of greater limb mass. On the other hand, Ottoman arrows were rather short at 26-29" and light around 300 to 600 grains. It meansd even very short bows can be effective. Indeed, it is difficult to tell the difference in length and design between the types (length 42+in ntn on the average, max 51-52"). The longest bows were the infantry war bows, the rest, horse, flight and target, were all shorter of varying lengths. I sent an article to JSA-A about more detailed characteristics of bows to be published this year.
Adam
MJuingong
May I respectfully state that in these three posts the subject of different shapes etc. has been more clearly explained than in any book, including TBB?
I hope to read that article in JSA-A, might have a problem getting access to it.
Thimosaby on paleoplanet, primitive bows, is setting forth on a series of experiments to test the ELB's effectiveness on armor, usually European armor of the 800-1100 period, but probably going into 15ths century plate. Are any similar experiments in train for Turkish, Korean, Chinese/Mongol, Japanese, Indian, bows?
MJuingong
Bede
Mark Stretton has already published a series of articles in The Glade that very clearly describe experiments he conducted on English longbows of equivalent strengths to those found on the ship, the Mary Rose.
He tested shooting light and heavy arrows, tested armour and animal carcase targets. He calculated terminal velocities for arrows at different ranges and also shot at moving targets and came up with an analysis of what advantages archers had when shooting at charging knights.
MJuingong
Bede:
Thank you for the info on Stretton and The Glade.
Now I must find where the magazine, and its past issues, can be found in New York City.
Sinsigel
Thank you for answering kindly, Mr. Bede and Mr. Adam Karpowicz.
However, I would like to ask one more matter, if possible. According to Mr. Karpowicz's first article on turkish bow performance experiment in the atarn's Islamic/Middle-east section, the efficiency of the bow(and the arrow's velocity also) increased when longer bows shot heavy arrows, and when shorter bows shot light arrows.
Then what would be the reason for this? And does this happen in other type of bows, too? I'm sorry for asking again, and I hope all of the members may have good time.
Reto
Efficiency in this aspect means not only velocity but also range and penetration of the arrows into the victims armor/body for a kill.
The Arabs/Turcs at the time were ahead of the Europeans not only but especially in Maths, Physics and also balistics. They increased the speed/velocity of their bows and reduced at the same time the weight of their arrows, whereas the e.g. the English men increased the draw-weight of their war bows and the weight of their arrows (in other words: mass times weight versus velocity times "reduced" weight). The lenght of the bows and arrows therefore differ from each other but the result was the same: Effieniency.
Reto
Adam Karpowicz
To clarify:
Efficiency = arrow energy / stored energy
Arrow energy = (arrow mass * velocity^2) / 2
Stored energy = what the archer feels drawing the bow
All bows, composite and longbows, show increased efficiency with heavier arrows. It is because a heavy projectile can absorb a greater proportion of the stored energy. As Bede explained, the energy is used to accelerate the arrow, to acclerate the bow limbs plus string, and some of it is wasted on plastic deformation (hysteresis). The energy for limb/string acceleration and the part wasted on hysteresis is nearly constant. When the arrow mass goes up, then the greater portion of stored energy is used for arrows, thus the greater efficiency with heavier arrows.
All bows progressively loose efficiency with lighter arrows. However, since most composite bows have lighter limbs (the limbs are shorter), less energy is wasted there. This makes the bows more efficient with lighter arrows. I also played with an idea of how the limbs' natural frequency of vibration influences the arrow velocity (I wrote an article about it for the Primitive Archer a while back) - the shorter and lighter the limbs, the faster their return to the resting position once released, which gives arrows more speed.
Plus (this is not related to efficiency) the composites, being reflexed, store energy quite well, so they have quite a bit of it to push heavier arrows too. I believe composites longer than 55" can not show any of these advantages however, unless used with arrows of extreme length, over 36".
Adam
redhawk
Reto, I don?t agree
I think the English longbow is one of the most unefficient and overrated bows in the history of bowery.
The English longbow is a bow for a special kind of making war(Crecy, Poitiers, Azincourt) and nothing else, only useable by a small number of especially trained soldiers. Not useable on horse, not useable as a hunting weapon. Not at all easy to handle.
I think the design of the English longbow makes only sense when built with high drawweights and it is very difficult to make it really right, for not to talk about all the problems with yew-wood.
English longbows are far away from shooting an arrow 840m.
So I don?t see too much efficiency in the English longbow when compared to a hornbow.
No doubt there are excellent bowyers who are making excellent English longbows, but I would never go so far to call them a milestone in the history of bowery.
Tomaz
I don't believe the Arabs, let alone the Turks at the time had a sufficient grasp of maths and physics to apply it to bows. Ballistics is a highly complex science that only really developed after the late 18th c. But obviously it is possible to improve bow designs empirically, and this is something that archers and bowmakers of all nations have been striving for over time.
As for the longbow, I agree that its impact on medieval warfare has been exaggerated out of all proportions. But I certainly wouldn't say it was such a poor performer. The basic design has remained almost unchanged since the Stone Age. That in itself is an excellent proof of its practical value. And it is a very useful hunting weapon in fact (that is what it was used for most of the time), with little to go wrong.
Maximum range is not the only concern either. I have been quite impressed by the results of some recent research on heavy military longbows, especially in regard to kinetic energy and armor penetration. Efficient or not, the longbow seems to shoot a heavy arrow just as well as a composite bow at a comparable draw weight. Not bad for a plain wooden stick IMHO.
Nick
I wonder, has Redhawk much experience of longbows? I agree the composite bow is a much more technically advanced device. But the longbow was obviously effective enough - as evidenced by its widespread use. It was a robust, rugged weapon - good for the field. It was also compared to the composite much easier and much cheaper and quicker to produce. Even when you consider the difficulties of yew wood, making a composite bow is still more complex and time consuming. It was (is) good for hunting, and there are paintings from the middle ages clearly showing them being shot from horseback. Absolute maximum range (with flight arrows) is not everything, and there are many factors to consider as to how effective a weapon a particular type of bow may be. Also what type of bow became prevalent in any given culture depends on other factors such as availability of materials, climate etc.
jack farrell
Time to put away the pencil and paper and take your composite into the field. The English have had a competition for years to determine how far a war bow will cast a heavy war arrow. If your composite horn bow shoots strongly, why not find out what their rules are and make a trial of your own? I would like to know. Is a horn bow up to competing against the longbow? Jack
Tomaz
The English have had a competition for years to determine how far a war bow will cast a heavy war arrow.
It's not as simple as that unfortunately. The longbow used today is different from the war bow of the middle ages and so are the arrows, let alone the men who shoot them. A lot of important research has only been done in the last few years. There have also been a few recent experiments with very heavy bows (in the 150lb range) patterned after the Mary Rose finds. Ranges of up to 250m were achieved with heavy war arrows, in excess of 300m with lighter ones (which were still twice heavier than the typical Turkish flight arrows).
That said, it would still be interesting to see how the medieval longbow and composite bow compare within a realistic setting. Even though one would need to take into account the difference between the tactical deployment of English longbowmen as opposed to steppe horse archers.
jack farrell
I've said it before and I'll say it again. What is needed is a STANDING ARCHER WARRIOR CONTEST. A generous prize should reward accuracy, distance, speed, penetration, stamina, endurance and etc to a person using a single set of primitive equipment only, fairly and scrutinizingly judged. No quibbling. I will pledge $100 towards the sucess of such an event.
No plastic, no epoxy, no dacron, down to the stitching of the quiver!! We deserve to know who is the man/m'am. Jack
Nick
Couldn't agree more. The results would be very illuminating and may lay this Old Chestnut to rest once and for all? However, we would need to test a variety of composite bow designs as they were often significantly different e.g. Manchu and Turk. Also the tactical deployment and the resultant bow design would need to be considered. After all horse-bows were not as powerful as infantry bows in general - for the style of shooting they were used for, they didn't need to be. In fact too much draw weight would not be desirable.
Consider the North American Indian short self or reinforced flatbows as an example - great for their intended purpose. But compare one directly with an ELB for range, power etc. - pathetic. However, a 100lb+ longbow in the hands of an Indian on horseback in the 19th century plains would be about as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot!
jack farrell
Nick; I love horse archery but those guys already have their contests. I would like to see it taken to the max, a competition between the heavyweights, the war bows! -j-
