Longbowmen

[Mr.Marmot]

"It doesn't matter at all how long bow, what matters is draw distance and how much energy that distance can give to arrow. Draw distance is equal but recurved mongol bow wins with effective draw distance->recurve

Maximun poundage is equal, both bows can be made so strong that strongest man in world can't draw them. Only thing that matters is how strong the archer was and both trained their whole life.

Longbow was heavier and it is disadvantage, because more draw energy is wasted to accelerate bow instead of arrow.

Conclusion:With mongol bow it was possible to get lot better speed of arrow, it would have been possible to use heavier arrows, but arrow speed would have had lower, no reason to do "that. Faster arrow=better penetration with direct fire.

Longbow was slower bow so smaller arrow would not help because bow mass would have wasted more energy. Instead they had slower but heavier arrow. Heavier arrow is better in one thing, and thats when you shoot it very high and it generates its speed and energy by falling->drag of air takes smaller part of heavier arrows starting energy."

Proffesional english longbowmen could shoot much faster than a mongol archer.

[HighLord z0b]

Proffesional english longbowmen could shoot much faster than a mongol archer.

I love how you reply to a post based on a logical argument with a blanket statement without any argument to back it up.

[Mr.Marmot]

Thank you. I would post some info if I would not be as lazy as I am.

[The Englishman]

The composite bow and the longbow can be compared to an anti-tank rifle and a rocket launcher, respectively. A fully armoured European knight can be considered a tank.

Now, anti-tank rifles were for the most part effective. However, as tank-or plate-armour improved it started to lose its effectiveness. In fact, there were reports of anti-tank rifle rounds shattering on impact with some of the heavier tank armour of the 1930s-40s.

Now, the rocket launcher, it fires slower and with less velocity. But it's brutally effective at dismembering tanks because the round it fires is so heavy, it can pucnture the armour more effectively than the anti-tank rifle round.

Now, read over the paragraph, replace 'anti-tank rifle' with 'composite bow', 'rocket launcher' with 'longbow', 'round' with 'arrow' and 'tank' with 'knight' and it all makes perfect sense in medieval terms...except for the 1930-40 bit.

[eskrogh]

i really dont know how you guys even can belive that the composite bow where stronger...
its all got damn strategy, europe dident have any mounted archers, no flexiblity, but fact is fact, the longbow was the strongest weapons... the composite bow, where mass produced, and let me guess that over the half mongol army had a bow.. atleast,
numbers and speed, vs. accuracy, and strenge?
a bit unfair odds, just let me say it... ofcourse they won,

cant we all talk when the mongol bow meet the Žlongbow, in a fair match, euael numbers, both dismounted?
since i never think happend,

why dont you compare the longsword vs. the schimitar
or the Frankish knight vs. a Mamluk, or so on, they met, on a battle field, alot more than the longbow vs the composite bow...

[Luke Evans]

it seems like the longbowmen were better cuase an army was dedicated to them

[Tajl]

Now, read over the paragraph, replace 'anti-tank rifle' with 'composite bow', 'rocket launcher' with 'longbow', 'round' with 'arrow' and 'tank' with 'knight' and it all makes perfect sense in medieval terms...except for the 1930-40 bit.

I think that better example would be 5.56 assault rifle and .50 pistol.

i really dont know how you guys even can belive that the composite bow where stronger...

Yes it was true that Mongols won mostly because they were horsearchers and horsearcher was very good way of war. But it doesn't make their bows any less effective. Simple fact is that recurved bow is more effective desing it gives more enery to arrow than longbow when archers are equal.

[eskrogh]

but the longbow atleast have had a better range than the compositebow..?

so in that case the mongols, couldet go unharmed through victory...
but okay... the mongols almost conqeurd the world... if not thta kahn died

[Tajl]

but the longbow atleast have had a better range than the compositebow..?

so in that case the mongols, couldet go unharmed through victory...
but okay... the mongols almost conqeurd the world... if not thta kahn died

Composite bow with light arrow does have better max range, but it doensn't penetrate anything for that range because light arrow that has lost most of its speed to drag of air doens't have much energy->waste of arrows if enemy does have armour.

Heavier longbow arrow does have more energy in its maximum range, because in when speed is equal mass matters->it still doens't penetrate much but at least something->waste of arrows, but english tactic was to waste lot of arrows and againts unarmoured foes it is effectice and even against armoured foes there is allways weak spots and if few thousand archer shoot 10 arrows per minute it will cause some casualties.

->close range composite bow penetrates more
->medium range, penetration is equal
->far range, longbow penetrates more
->extreme range only composite bow can shoot but it is very inneffective
(far and extreme range are indirect fire)

[Point Blank]

Pity we can't simulate these factors better in the game.

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Tajl, you have a skewed view. -1 Authority for you!

Composite bow with light arrow does have better max range, but it doensn't penetrate anything for that range because light arrow that has lost most of its speed to drag of air doens't have much energy->waste of arrows if enemy does have armour.

True.

Heavier longbow arrow does have more energy in its maximum range

True.

because in when speed is equal mass matters

True.

it still doens't penetrate much but at least something

False. Bodkin English war arrows were fully capable of penetrating chain - see previous post for sources. If you have a source that suggests they can't, let's have it. If your source is "I just don't think it could", then forget it.

but english tactic was to waste lot of arrows and againts unarmoured foes

False. The French noblilty could hardly have been considered "unarmoured".

it is effectice and even against armoured foes there is allways weak spots and if few thousand archer shoot 10 arrows per minute it will cause some casualties.

Almost true. They will cause many casualties, as attested by Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers. Especially if the foe is not in full plate. If, as many knights would have been, they were wearing chain and plate, they were doomed. Add to that fact the horses wouldn't have been as well-armoured as the riders (at least, not at this point in history).

->close range composite bow penetrates more
->medium range, penetration is equal

Can I introduce you to the concept of fractal wrongness? It is where you start with a baseless, false assumption and proceed from there, invalidating pretty much the rest of your argument.

The longbow required more energy to draw and release an arrow. This is why the massively heavy English war arrows actually had a long range. It was not as long as the Mongol's light arrows because the Mongols were sacrificing stopping power for range by using a lighter arrow that required less energy to send it a slightly further distance.

The Mongol bow was not renown for it's ability to penetrate Western heavy armour. It was simply the Mongol's skill with it that brought it to the forefront of medieval weaponry. The longbow was renown for it's ability to penetrate Western heavy armour. It was also renown for being a weapon that required rugged phyiscal training to use effectively, rather than disciplined horseman skills.

The Mongol bow and longbow never had equal penetration - you can't expect to put less power into a draw and get the same power out of it as a bow that requires more power to use. It's been a few years, but I believe f=ma to be the magic formula here.

If this is too complicated, let's look at it this way:

You are saying a smaller, lighter bow with light-weight, long-range arrows was actually stronger than a massive, powerful bow requiring special physical training to use, with enormous heavy arrows with heads specifically designed to break chain.

Don't you think that's a silly assertion to make? I don't even understand why you'd say something like that.

[Point Blank]

You are forgetting that the more efficient composite bow will impart more energy to the arrow for a given poundage draw, ie a 120lb composite bow will impart at least as much as a 140lb longbow, though the longer longbow draw and hence longer arrows will typically impart a little more stability. Composite bows firing heavy war arrows were just as able as longbows at penetrating armor, which is to stay still not very versus plate of any quality however.

Lightweight arrows will potentially have a higher KE at close range and hence higher armor penetration though the increased velocity imparted to lighter arrows is subject to diminishing returns with increasingly lighter arrows, eventually the arrows becoming too light for the bow and not able to absorb its energy etc. At some weight and range the heavier arrow will likely retain more KE and of course the type of head affects penetration also.

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

You are forgetting that the more efficient composite bow will impart more energy to the arrow for a given poundage draw, ie a 120lb composite bow will impart at least as much as a 140lb longbow

I'd like to see your calculations, please.

Remember the modern Mongol bow is much bigger and more advanced than the bows the Golden Horde used, although for it's day it was a triumph of technology. The longbow was old tech, but you can't change some of physic's basic principals.

though the longer longbow draw and hence longer arrows will typically impart a little more stability. Composite bows firing heavy war arrows were just as able as longbows at penetrating armor, which is to stay still not very versus plate of any quality however.

Well, could I see your sources for this? Everything I have found implied that the Mongols did not use massive arrows generally, as they would have been impractical for use when mounted. Add to the smaller size of the bow, I have trouble accepting that the Mongols would have been able to easily penetrate armour. I think they are more likely to have relied on accurate shooting.

Lightweight arrows will potentially have a higher KE at close range and hence higher armor penetration though the increased velocity imparted

I feel there will be other factors that limit their abilities here, but I'm at work and don't have any sources to hand.

to lighter arrows is subject to diminishing returns with increasingly lighter arrows, eventually the arrows becoming too light for the bow and not able to absorb its energy etc. At some weight and range the heavier arrow will likely retain more KE and of course the type of head affects penetration also.

Indeed, but we need to establish the efficiency of the composite bow of the Mongol age and the longbows of the same time to compare.

On a hunch, I don't think the composite bow would match it, but then, it didn't have to. It wasn't meant to work like the longbow did.

Good post though, btw, and I wish I had the resources and time to answer it fully.

[Point Blank]

Work by Szollosy Gabor has demonstrated that composite bows deliver a VASTLY higher energy per pound than longbows. Although how much said bow can affect a given arrow gets complicated. Generally speaking, longbows can be shown putting an average of .78J - .85J per pound. Gabor shows composite bows giving anywhere from 1.14 to 1.42J per pound. In essence, the longbow revolution in England uses social and training factors to match the performance taken for granted with composite bows further east -- aka, the ability to consistently defeat mail, and often smash through lighter plate defenses (for example, in Iberia, where turkish bows are known to go through three layers of mail). Note, of course, that Seljuk darts are a totally different story... ridiculous range and flight-speed, crap penetration power.

Also see http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Perform...rkish_bows.htm.

[Gorrrrrn]

Reuven Amitai-Preiss, "Mamluks and Mongols: an overview," Chapter 10 of his Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 214-235.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst372/readings/amitai-preiss.html

Really interesting comparison between Mongol and Mamluk training, tactics, logistics etc.

(nb people are discussing the power of the Mongol composite bow without taking into account that:
on horseback and at speed you have much reduced accuracy compared to stationary and on foot. Also Mongols shot fewer shots in any given time frame. On the other hand, they had greater ability to manuever and could turn into effective cavalry troops which could run down any archers caught outside defensive positions or protected by other troops. (Although many english longbowmen also had mounts and could serve as light cavalry if needed.)

(from memory in early m2TW campaigns my English armies did rather well against the Mongols. Any one fancy setting up a custom battle to see how they fare against each other in SS6.1?)

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Good points Rozanov, and I'd set up the battle except I'm at work!

I've been speculating on what the outcome of a historical Mongol vs English battle might be like, and I have a funny feeling the Mongols would have declined battle, to be honest.

The French were aggressive and over-confident, sure that peasants could not defeat noblemen. The Mongols were not burdened by such chivalric notions, and therefor would have seen the situation for what it is: a bloodbath. I suspect they would have simply moved on, or harrassed the English army instead.

The Mongol strength comes from mobility and range, whereas the English strength came from massive rains of powerful arrows. This trumps the mobility angle as there is no need to go anywhere if you have a very long range weapon. Add the rate of fire of the English to that and I think the Mongols would have seen they couldn't win a battle on English terms, and would have changed to guerilla tactics or simply wandered off.

[Tajl]

False. Bodkin English war arrows were fully capable of penetrating chain - see previous post for sources. If you have a source that suggests they can't, let's have it. If your source is "I just don't think it could", then forget it.

Yes it was capable of penetrating chain, when fired directly, but with indirect fire it is lot harder to penetrate armour.

http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/...f-the-longbow/
(internet source i know, but maybe you can show us some source that shows how longbow penetrates armour from 200m.

False. The French noblilty could hardly have been considered "unarmoured".

Thats why longbows killed only few of them. Longbowmen on the other hand killer many... with axes.

Almost true. They will cause many casualties, as attested by Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers. Especially if the foe is not in full plate. If, as many knights would have been, they were wearing chain and plate, they were doomed. Add to that fact the horses wouldn't have been as well-armoured as the riders (at least, not at this point in history).

If knights would stand close to longbowmen and give them free direct point blank shots, then longbows would cause lot of casualties to armoured foes, with indirect fire... think physicks and maybe give us source?

The longbow required more energy to draw and release an arrow. This is why the massively heavy English war arrows actually had a long range. It was not as long as the Mongol's light arrows because the Mongols were sacrificing stopping power for range by using a lighter arrow that required less energy to send it a slightly further distance..

With both bow desingns you can build strong enough bow that no human can ever draw it, so it is all about strenght of archers. Bests english retinue longbowmen trained their whole life, best mongol warrioir trained their whole life, i see no difference here.

The longbow was renown for it's ability to penetrate Western heavy armour.

Why then they fail every time when they try to test it agaist plate? Of course you can proof me fron, just post some source?

It was also renown for being a weapon that required rugged phyiscal training to use effectively, rather than disciplined horseman skills.

Thats because english used as massed indirect fire. Archer must be strong if he wants to shoot far with quite inneffective bow design.

The Mongol bow and longbow never had equal penetration - you can't expect to put less power into a draw and get the same power out of it as a bow that requires more power to use. It's been a few years, but I believe f=ma to be the magic formula here.

Exactly, and important letter is m, mass of bow that moves, see when you use bow and release your arrow, the arrow is not only moving part. Every moving part takes its energy from same source, your draw.

[Lord_Calidor]

There's another piece of misconception and sorta urban legend hidden among these posts - that knight, when dismounted, is helpless against cav. This could be the case if knight had a rough landing from his mount, and is wounded, concussed etc. However if he's in relatively good shape, he's as tough nut to crack as when mounted. From using his lance as a sort of pike, using his horse's body as a cover, or just picking up an axe (remember, knights didn't have primary & secondary weapon, as in the game - they carried a bunch of weapons besides lance/sword combo onboard his mount). He is just as dangerous with a sword ie. If he manage to evade the charging horse, he could hack of, or at least wound it's legs, aim the rider's legs or some other part. While even in full plate harness, footman is reasonably agile and nimble, which could not be said for a horse in a full charge, or cumbersome, long and heavy lance. It's pretty much a one-off chance - point in the right direction and hope for a hit. It's very difficult to make corrections while you're already charging, lance couched, shield in front.
And if a dismounted knight gets a hold of a pole weapon, it's pretty much a tough job for a horseman.

[Insurgent]

I think the composite bow was slightly better, but the longbows used by the English and Welsh were more devastating due to the fact that the wielders were more skilled and fought and trained dismounted giving them greater accuracy and time to draw the bow. The composite bowmen were often mounted making them more inaccurate.

The training of the two nations was different. The mongols trained in riding a horse and firing which takes much skill to pull off well. The Welsh and English meanwhile trained in how accurate and powerful they could make their shots- on foot.

[Lord de Lyonesse]

and longbows unrealistiacally superior to orther bows.

Well first of all no they are not 'unrealisticly' superior to other bows they are in fact realistically superior to other bows thats how the English defeated the French during the 100 years war so their...