W jaki sposób strzelaæ ³ukami, które s± krótsze od ³ucznika o jakie¶ 40 cm (nie mówie tutaj o refleksach)? Naci±gaj±c ciêciwê takiego ³uku a¿ do twarzy mo¿emy go z³amaæ. Jak wiêc strzelaæ z takiego ³uku aby uzyskaæ powtarzalno¶æ? W jaki sposób oblicza³o siê d³ugo¶æ strza³y do ³uków. Napewno by³o co¶ z d³ugo¶ci± ramienia, ale nie wiem dok³adnie.

Radzi³bym taki ³uk wyrzuciæ do kosza. ew przerobic na wyka³aczki

Jestem bardzo zdziwiony twoj± odpowiedzi±. Ostatnio zacz±³em siê troche bardziej interesowaæ krótkimi ³ukami w historii i okaza³o sie, ¿e by³o ich sporo, powiem wiêcej, nie by³y przerabiane na wyka³aczki Z takich ³uków mo¿na nawet strzelic na odleg³o¶æ 200m.
Teraz mi siê przypomnia³o, ¿e R. Pr±dzyñski pisa³ o naciaganiu cieciwy do mostka, ale wed³ug mnie to nie skróci odleg³o¶ci naciagania ciêciwy i musi to byæ strasznie niewygodne.
Mo¿e kto¶ ma robiony krótki ³uk i pochwali siê swoj± technika strzelania

Hmmm ... mo¿e na ³ukach siê nie znam, ale w takim razie jaki jest sens konstrukcji takiego ³uku? Gdzie one by³y u¿ywane i przez kogo? Je¶li by³y uzywane przez konnych wówczas w grê wchodzi strzelanie z kciuka (zekier)

chocby przez naszych przodkow.
poszukaj , bylo w dziale lucznictwo cos o lukach z opola i brzegu .

Bzdyru i kocopa³y.
Wiekszo¶c ³uków wykonana przez ostatnie 50 ty¶ czy 10 ty¶ lat mia³a jakies 100- 120 cm d³ugo¶ci i by³a prosta jak g³upota komunizmu.
Wjêkszso¶c strzelców do tych ³uków mia³a oko³o 165 cm wzrostu (ale nie wszyscy- bywali wiêksi).
Normalnie sie z niego strzela jak ma dobry materja³ u¿yty - jak mocny to owszem troche krzepy trzeba. Ale za s³abych do di¶ papuasia robia sobie definitywne kuku nawzajem z jaki¶ 30 do 50 metrów - co jednak dalej i celniej niz dzida.
Naci±ganie do mostka to technika strzelania "na pozycjê" nie do celu. Prawdopodobnie podczas biegu ca³ej formacji w stronê wroga.
Do dzi¶ tak polujê siê zespo³owo na gazele w centralnej afryce (nie wiem dla czego - ale widzia³em). 5 - 7 jak siê ju¿ nie m¿e skradac to zaczynba biec do statka i strzela z mostka w górê - strza³y spadaj± i zwykle któras tam któr±¶ porani - potem tzw. biegacz z dzid± gonie i z 3 godziny ta umieraj±c±. Ma³o efektywne - ale mo¿e te plemiona nie maj± materia³u na takie rasowe snajperskie ³uki.

dok³adnie tak jak Rafa³ pisze pokazane to jest na oponie z Bordeux - o long bow jeszcze wtedy nie s³yszeli , nie wiem dlaczego ale tak by³o

Nonsense. There is nothing like "shortbow" on Bayeux tapestry. See chapter in Hardy and Strickland´s book "The great warbow" - "The myth of shortbow".
The norman archery consisted largelly out of the same contingent as used by vikings. Hence longbows.
The depictions of archers show both archers with man sized, longer than man and shorter than man weapons. But the same scenes show archers half the size of cavalrymen.
Shall we then assume that average archer was only half as big as cavalryman?
Surelly we should, using your logic.
Also the height of men you wrote is not correct.
165 cm is too little for early medievall average, particulary when it comes to sort of people which are actually fighting on the tapestry scenes - freemen, which got good nutrition.
These people were different that we - antropologically - we know for example, that they had narrower hands that we do, but the average height went down first in 13. century mostly due to famine and black death. This later oscilated through whole middle ages, sometimes with lots of difference over few generations (e.g. huge difference of late 15. and half of the 16. century where the height and overall physicall ability of average population went down rapidly.

There is no tradition of "shortbow" in western warfare whatsoever, all the finds of wooden bows we have ever since late roman/early migration period which were positivelly used in warfare are longbows.
There is no reason why should suddenly shortbow appear just to join the Hastings and then again dissapear.

Nobody brought longbow to Britain, nor it emerged from Wales, it was already there, as it was over whole europe and essentially everywhere on earth where wood was availble in decent quality and similar task (hunting, fighting) were required.

Longbow is predominant hunting weapon in europe since last glacial, Otzi´s bow was also longbow.
It coexisted with a holmegaard-like bows and it emerged as answer to forrestation of europe together with extinction of megafauna, when necesity of hunting smaler, more agille game rose and atlatl and spear as means of putting down wooly mamooth was effectivelly discarded.

If you want to judge the appearance of bows from medieval painting of any sort, you should take at least brief course in medieval iconography, the things will get much more clear to you.

E.G. as you might have noticed, the archers on Bayeux tapestry draw very low, with anchor down on breast. This is not very good method, particulary with bow for war, where you strive to get shoulders level. (And we know that these bows were heavy- as we have surviving examples of viking longbows)
But if you knew something about how an artist of that age depicted people, you would knew that rule was - head is always visible. Hence the strange postures - its just artist licence.




Jaro

This was not meant to flame, but I m professionall bowyer and medievall archer.
I shoot 100 pound warbow, can shoot through armour and I m member of prestigious heavy bow archery group.
I can explain you things if you are willing to listen.

Jaro

I just looked at the Opole bow find. Its longbow, probabably 188-+ cm long when braced, with long draw. Not "shortbow"really.

Longbow is not defined absolutelly by its lenght though the consensus is it shall be man-sized.

Longbow is stickbow, whose all surfaces are convex and which has widest point at the place of arrowpass. This is best definition you can actually get and it does puts lots of things into perspective.


J.

jezeli mozna to sobie poslucham
np zasieg , penetracja , vo i takie tam , ale w jakims odpowiednim temacie.

Witam,
osobi¶cie strzelam z samodzielnie zrobionego z robinii (dok³adniej - z ga³êzi) ³uku o d³ugo¶ci 145cm, naci±g 16kg, naci±gam tak zupe³nie normalnie, do k±cika ust, strza³y ok.73cm. £uk nie pêka, strzela dobrze, dono¶no¶æ do 100m, strza³y ¶rednicy 8mm. Celno¶æ ... hmm, powiedzmy, ¿e nad tym ci±gle pracujê
Co do naci±gania do mostka, najlepiej sam spróbuj - zobaczysz, ¿e ró¿nica w odleg³o¶ci naci±gania ciêciwy jest dosyæ spora... No i celowaæ trudniej.


Kiedy¶ w Muzeum Wojska Polskiego w Warszawie ogl±da³em zbroje rycerskie ¶redniowieczne, w wiele z nich nie za bardzo bym siê zmie¶ci³ (mam 180cm), tak wiêc z tym wzrostem to co¶ w tym jest... Bo rycerze, których staæ by³o na zbrojê, z biednych rodzin chyba nie pochodzili, to i na dobre jad³o te¿ chyba mieli?
Jaroslav ma racjê, rysunki rzeczywi¶cie nie oddaj± prawid³owych rozmiarów ani proporcji, ale zbroje to chyba by³y na rozmiar robione?
Sprawdza³em teraz trochê w internecie, s± ciekawe materia³y z do¶æ rozbie¿nymi danymi, ale generalnie ¶rednio wzrostem przodkowie byli nieco mniejsi od nas.

no dobrze, proporcje broni do cz³owieka przedstawiono nieudolnie , technike strzelania te¿, pewnie co co opone robili nigdy ³ucznika nie widzieli tylko s³yszeli o nim

to tak dla zobrazowania

http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/bayeux26.htm

ciekawe jak techniki walki inna broni± pokazano?

Po to, ¿eby pokazaæ, ¿e ³ucznicy te¿ tam byli?

Nonsense. There is nothing like "shortbow" on Bayeux tapestry. See chapter in Hardy and Strickland´s book "The great warbow" - "The myth of shortbow".




rozni ludzie widza rozne luki na tej tkaninie.
ja np nie za bardzo widze aby byly tam pokazene luki powyzej 188 cm.
nie pisz prosze , ze to nonsens , bo te luki sa przedstawione jako krotsze - widac to chyba wyraznie .

dla rownowagi ( w osiagach lukow ) przejrzyj najnowsza ksiazke hugha soara " secrets of the englisch war bow "

Witam

Zgadzam siê z Jaroslavem:


Ponadto bardzo ostro¿nie nale¿y traktowaæ wszelkie proporcje na takich przedstawieniach jak Bayeux - to nie jest podrêcznik sztuki wojennej, tylko do¶æ schematyczne pokazanie pewnej chwalebnej historii.

pozdrowienia Vislav

I m really sorry, I cannot write polish, unless you want me to butcher your language.

Bodkin -

It does not depends on "what different people see", but what we know of medieval iconography and what we know of the contemporary bow finds and the warfare.

The closest bows we have (to Hastings) are viking bows from Haithabu. The very much cited big bow is 42X32 mm at girth and around 190 cm NTN. I have seen it myself its big bastard of bow. This are the measurements of biggest Marry Rose bow and comparing to that one its quite short (well relativelly - it means it must have been stiff). Old estimation of weight 45 kg is clearly wrong and outdated. If you attempt to make such bow from medium quality yew, youll end with something around 130 pounds or 60+ kg. This is also reason why Harm Paulsen was unable to make replica of that bow. Because to make such heavy warbow is demanding and requires differen skill. His viking bow replicas are notoriously underpowered.

Also there is "small diameter tree argument" - all these bows were made from small diameter trees, which are stiffer per mass due to growthrigs running in semicircles. Means these bows were even stronger and that by 15-20 percent.
Smaler Hedaby bows will easy rate 80#-90# at 30-32´´ of draw if executed correctly and from reasonable yew.

This will corespond well about what we know of viking (norman) warfare. (Remember all the naval archery shoot outs from heimskringla.

Another example is a ship bow from 11. century from Balindery Crannogg. It is again around 190 + cm long 38X32 mm at girth. Its easy 100# at 32´´ or more.

All these bows are meant for long draw and if they are descendant from western longbow tradition
then its confirmed (as we know from earlier Nydam bows, which were found with arrows, which are very long).

Then there is "thick tip" argument - all these bows have unreasonably thick tips. This is also reason why a "Viking bow replica " with a drawweight of 50# sucks. It simply does not shoot.
Reason lies in simple physics. If such bow is made 80#, 90# or more heavy, the tips will have tendency to break off. So you make them thicker. On warbow, which is meant to shoot heavy arrow to get enough killing force and arrow penetration it doesnt matter.
If you but put such heavy tips on light bow, it will not shoot, because it does not have sufficient power to move aditionall mass - and I cannot accept these people as stupid to use bow which wont work.

There is 10. century bow find of Mikulcice. Though from different cultural area its longbow-ish weapon 34X30 at girth probably around 185 cm long (though half has been found), quite quadratic in profile, but again the tips are supported by large chunks of extra wood because the bow was bloody heavy, probably used for shooting franks and avars in armour.

There is clear line of heavy warbows in longbow style from 4. century till 16. century - from Nydam, Viborg, Hedaby, Balindery to the Marry Rose, which is supported by both iconographic evidence (if you know how to read it) and also by written account, though sometimes sparse.

I know of single medieval find of bow which would qualify as "shortbow" and that is from 13. century france, and its clearly not fighting bow, because its usage in warfare of the time would be laughable.

Now here comes important QUESTION you shall ask.

Why should anybody in cultural area where the tradition of using heavy longbow in warfare already exists for several hundred years, equip himself with whimsy, short, shortdraw and underpowered weapon, for scenario where he would most certainly face an enemy who can both outdistance him using heavier bow and longer draw and where an armored target might present himself in numbers greater than small?

If you want to present any argument, you should start with answering the last question....

Also any material evidence of wooden "short" bows used in warfare on western battlefield would be helpful.


Jaro

What I m asking is, would you go to the fight with a bow, long about 150 cm, lets say 25 kg/60 cm which if made in longbow design does shoots from 100-130 meters, if you knew that youll face an enemy who can outdistance you almost twice (as a bow in 80#/32´´ easy shoot heavy arrow at 200 meters) and who can deliver a projectile with good armourpiercing properties at said distance?

I certainly would not.
You could use such (short) bow for hunting, but why? The finds are extremelly rare, I know only about 1 from what we call middle ages.
If you know about more, lets present the finds.
"The bayeux tapestry" evidence for them is simply nonsense.



Jaro

coz nie zrozumialem chyba wszystkiego jak nalezy i odpowiedz nie bedzie precyzyjna
luki z okresu sredniowiecza o dlugosci mnejszej niz elb , to np luk z opola i brzegu
w pismie tb jest tez jak pamietam kilka przykladow .
na zamku habsburg zachowaly sie drzewca strzal o dlugosci 62,8-64,5 cm i wadze od 22,4-25,9 g - oczywisciue bez grotow .
ta dlugosc tez do elb nie pasuje .
tak czy inaczej w europie oprocz dlugiego luku byly uzywane i krotsze egzemplarze .
co do ikonografii to zgadzam sie , ze moze nie byc precyzyjna , ale nie az tak drastycznie jak to sie sugeruje wobec lukow z takniny z bayeux.
prosze zauwazyc , ze na przedstawieniach lucznikow z wojny stuletniej ladnie zaznaczona jest np biel cisu w lukach , strzelanie przy uzyciu dwoch palcy , pozycja z wykrokiem nogi do przodu ,ladnie pokazana wielkosc lotek , a to tez ikonografia i tutaj raczej nikt nie robi zastrzezen.

"62,8-64,5 cm i wadze od 22,4-25,9 g"
- what is the datation and where do they come from? No arrowheads... Could pretty much be a boy´s arrows.


Is the bow from Opole the same I know of? (10. century bow) - Which is pretty much longbowish weapon.
What are specs on it? Even so - this is again not a regular find. Its a single bow. I m asking is are they found regulary in any period, or is that and that particular bow only and extreme sample of the gauss curve?

What are the examples "w pismu tb" you speak about.


You just do not present any decent argumentation. You have to name sources fo start.

I m sure that shorter and less powerfull bows existed, though only a fool would take them to war for obvious reason. And the bows on Bayeux tapestry arent one of these.

I know only about one find of such bow from 12. century france, it looks more like neolithic hunting bows. Its not very powerfull. Nobody would care to use such thing in war, where an opponent with bow will face him, or where any form of protective garment was in use.

http://sweb.cz/hawkwind/Source_arc.jpg

This is the french bow. Its about enough to take small game, nothing you would use for shooting at somebody who shoots back.

While these bows (short and small) pop up here and there, they are very scarce in numbers and they lack clean pedigree (origin) of full grown bows used both for hunting and war.

I cannot see the reasons why anybody would use such small bows for war (e.g. at hastings) anywhere where he could face archers able to outdistance him and shoot through armour.
Particulary in area where longbow was used for war and raids for several hundred years.
Surelly Harald did not have much archers at Hastings, we think he sacrificed them for his succes at Stamford bridge. Something normans could not have known. (And if they did knew, surelly they wont be discarding their longbows in favor of short and less powerfull weapon) - Where is logic to that?


I hope you see my point. There is very much of hersay and "urban legends" about archery among reenactors and its time for purge.

There is another problem I see and that is kids and women as archers. Archery as "Cinderella" has became a refugee for people who "dont have money to be knights" (though to make a good archer is expensive as well), but I cannot see a girl or a kid using a bow in medievall warfare.
Reason is still the same - warbows of any sort and style are heavy, they need strong and tough men to handle them. The effectiveness of light bows on longer distance is disputable even if there is little armour on battlefield, once there is armour in use it goes down to nill.

Jaro

Witam

£uk z Opola http://www.freha.pl/index.php?s=&showt...post&p=2488

pozdrowienia Vislav

opis tych strzal znajdziesz w ksiazce "mittelalterliche geschossspitzen "
oprocz promieni strzal bez grotow sa tez promienie beltow bez grotow i jakos nikt nie pisze , ze byly do dziecinne zabawki.
co do tego jak luk chcialbym na polu bitwy , to po pierwsze nie chcialbym tam byc , a jezeli juz to chcialbym czolg.
nie zapominaj tez o tym co pisal violett-le-duc - idzie to mniej wiecej tak :
luk francuski z 12 wieku nie byl dlugi , ca 140 cm
tb to magazyn - kwartalnik " traditionell bogenschiessen"
ciekawe pismo ,fajne artykuly.
min w 1999 roku na zamku von najac ( 1252- 1263 ) robiono testy z 3 rodzajami lukow .
longbow nie byl lukiem ktory chceliby miec obroncy .

Tak z ciekawo¶ci..."wspó³czesny" ³uk afrykañski z plemion zamieszkuj±cych np.Mali ma d³ugo¶ci ok 70 cm a strza³y ok.60 cm.Znajduje sie on w Muzeum Miejskim w ¯orach.Jako ciekawostke moge dodaæ ¿e strza³y nie s± upierzone.Gdyby kto¶ by³ zainteresowany moge przes³aæ foto.

Witam

Obawiam siê, ¿e wszystko zosta³o pomieszane. Do jednego worka wrzucani s± szkoleni ³ucznicy dla potrzeb wojennych, obroñcy czy atakuj±cy bez specjalnego przeszkolenia, ³uki afrykanskie i nie wiadomo co jeszcze.

Proponujê skorzystaæ z klucza 4*w http://www.freha.pl/index.php?s=&showt...st&p=180621 i dalej rozpatrywac odmienne sytuacje.

pozdrowienia Vislav

Most of my info si cathegorically stated, that is right, but that doesnt mean that it isnt correct.
Forgive me, but since start of this thread we discovered that
short wooden bows
"Probably existed."
"That our predecessors used them"
"That they are on Bayeux tapestry"

and similar things. Only medieval example posted is that sheet find with france bow posted by me. Most of my commentary is to the fact that the effectivity of such bow in warfare is limited as an answer to a post by Rafal ? (or who was that commenting that these are on bayeux tapestry.)

We have our polish coleaugues posting on similar czech forums english. So I thought english is O.K.
I can write russian, though it will take me some time to remember the bukvy again and our russian coleagues probably find my russian either funny or insulting. ))

Sorry for trying to add something to theme which I hold dear.

To the original question - shooting style with such short bow only mean that it can be comanded by person who is not physically fit and also that the anchor would be either very short (somewhere to chin) or floating and snappy (much like some american native people do). I dont find either very effective in terms of power and accuracy, but it might be just enough for hunting of small game, which is exactly what these bows are for.

Jaro

Witam. Ja tylko dodam że też mam gałęziaka z robini, dł. 144 cm.Taki znalazłem materiał i z takiego zrobiłem,nawet nie sezonowałem bo myślałem że szybko się złamie bo krótki-po prostu nożem w 30 minut.Strzelam z niego już rok i ciągnę jak kryma bisoka - do kości policzkowej.Celność dobra.Strzelam chwytem śródziemnomorskim.

Witam, myślę, że w końcu doszliśmy do konkluzji: łuki bojowe, wojenne musiały być wielkie, silne etc, ale te do polowania - nie, bo i jak uganiać się po zaroślach z dwumetrowym kijem. No i lżejszy łuk da się szybciej naciągnąć i lepiej celować, a siła przebijania nie musi być wielka. Czyli mamy oba typy i spór był o pietruszkę...

Tu bym się nie zgodził, na 30m z 20kg łuku spokojnie na jakiegoś jelenia można się zasadzać (są dane na stronach amerykańskich o polowaniu z łukiem) - zwierzyna z zasady nie używa zbroi

mia³em tu nie pisac bo dalej uwarzam ¿e skandal siê tu dziejê. Ale. Z 30 metrów z ³uku 150 cm o naci±gu 21 kg grot przeszed³ przez ¶winiê, przecinaj±c ¿ebro i przebijaj±c osierdziê (p³ytko ale starczy³o) - ¶wnia oko³o 90 kg. Wysoko¶c strzelca czyli cos tam jednak o d³ugo¶ci jego ramion - 170 cm.

Z 30 metrów z ³uku 150 cm o naci±gu 21 kg grot przeszed³ przez ¶winiê, przecinaj±c ¿ebro i przebijaj±c osierdziê (p³ytko ale starczy³o) - ¶wnia oko³o 90 kg. Wysoko¶c strzelca czyli cos tam jednak o d³ugo¶ci jego ramion - 170 cm.


-Yes very nice. But I can shoot around 200 meters with arrow , which will go through reasonable quality plate armour, and around 230 meters with one which will beat chainmail and 280 with arrow of weight you used for hunting that swine and its perfectly capable of killing of unarmored man.

If you want a bow of 11. century warfare, take a look at Balindery crannog bow. Around 190 cm of lenght 38X32 mm at girth, made of yew probably 100 pounds of weight or more, perfectly capable of long distance shootout between ships, shooting through chainmail or padded jack or killing a horse.
This bow is identified positivelly as a fighting bow. Older bows from Hedaby are similar, the big bow even stronger than Balindery, smaller ones perhaps in 80# range.

If you face such bow, you will face exactly the level of performance described above. If you do so with inadequate weapon, you will be dead long before you can engage the enemy.
If you bring "shortbow" to war, you get killed, the argument that something like this was used at Hastings is nonsense.

Also be carefull with "you cannot hunt with longbow, because its too long" argument.
Longbow developed perhaps after last glacial as answer to hunting fast and more agile game in newly forrested europe. The english longbow before its militarisation, such as weapon of "Robin hood" era (Now I mean "barony wars" ) was still a weapon of yew between 5´ 6´´ and 6´´ selfnocked and some 70# for deer. And that is still in originall caledonian forrest, with its thick undergrowth and bush, which is basically unpassable once you make one step from the path.

A hunting bow culture such as e.g. Cherokee, if we look at some recent parallel, will develop a warbow only slightly heavier than heavy hunting bow, (like 70# for largest game, 80# for war), but that all goes away at the moment when any protective garment is used.
Interestingly Cherokee too lived in forrested areas, lived in palisade entenched cities and used longbows and by the time of white men arrival, they were in process of development of basic armour. (They hovever considered war a past time, not a means of political pressure).
Apparently similar situation calls for similar solution.

A shorter hunting solutions existed in post glacial europe, (holmegaard) but - in the light of medium man´s height of the era, these also were full grown weapons. They can be used for war, such in case of tribal warfare and they were surelly, but once you face armour and somebody shooting further than you, the arms race kick in.



Jaro

ja poprosze o konkrety , jezeli mozna oczywiscie :
jaka jest grubosc tego " sensownego pancerza "
jaka glebokosc tej penetracji na tych 200 mm i wiecej
jaka waga tej strzaly i typ grotu

jaka byla waga strzaly ktora dostrzeliles na 280 m?

rozumiem , ze to bylo uzyskane z cisowego elb 100 lbs ?
jezeli tak to prosze podac przy jakim naciagu liczac od grzbietu jest uzyskane te 100 lbs i jakie jest bh.

pozdrawiam

ja poprosze o konkrety , jezeli mozna oczywiscie :
jaka jest grubosc tego " sensownego pancerza "
jaka glebokosc tej penetracji na tych 200 mm i wiecej
jaka waga tej strzaly i typ grotu

jaka byla waga strzaly ktora dostrzeliles na 280 m?

rozumiem , ze to bylo uzyskane z cisowego elb 100 lbs ?
jezeli tak to prosze podac przy jakim naciagu liczac od grzbietu jest uzyskane te 100 lbs i jakie jest bh.

pozdrawiam

I would adwise you to take a look at Marc Stretton articles in "The glade".
Heavy war arrows work all the way, they dont loose much of ther penetrating abilities due to high momentum. So the distance is never issue once the arrow comes down on balistic curve.

Anyway most of my distance shooting is with hornbeam 100# bow which I used to shoot 500 grn arrow at very nearly 300 yrds or 280 meters. This is good hunting arrow weight perfectly capable of killing swine or unarmored man.
A 125# yew bow which I can also draw and shoot delivers an arrow of some 1300 grn at 190-200 meters or more if you have a good day and 800 grn (50 gram) at 240 meters (260 yards).

The heavier is perfectly capable of going through any munition quality armour such as 1.2-1.4 like most cheaper infantry 15. century garb with 90 percent of hits at long distance. The cuirras we shoot at is hardened 1.6 mm all black with carbon, much more tough than anything todays reenactors use and this bow with such arrow still beats it regulary.
The chainmail is out of question as its simply not made to stop piercing blows.

The penetration is usually 3-4´´ which is ****itating wound or a kill when in in chest as it delivers from 120 to 170 Joules (depends on bow and arrow) and this is equivallent of very good sving with two handed mallet. For comparition 60 J of blunt trauma at unprotected chest causes your heart stop, ribs break and pierce our bowels, pneumothorax or similar thing.
120 J of blunt trauma shatters the biggest cow or horse bones upon impact.

http://sweb.cz/hawkwind/HPIM1114.JPG
http://sweb.cz/hawkwind/HPIM1106.JPG

"Anyway most of my distance shooting is with hornbeam 100# bow which I used to shoot 500 grn arrow at very nearly 300 yrds or 280 meters. This is good hunting arrow weight perfectly capable of killing swine or unarmored man.
A 125# yew bow which I can also draw and shoot delivers an arrow of some 1300 grn at 190-200 meters or more if you have a good day co do blachy i penetracji to and 800 grn (50 gram) at 240 meters (260 yards)."

nie podales kilku danych o ktore prosilem , ale i tak mozna
powiedziec , ze aby osiagnac owe 280 m potrzebna jest zacna predkosc w okolicach 62- 65 m/s



"The penetration is usually 3-4´´ which is ****itating wound or a kill when in in chest as it delivers from 120 to 170 Joules (depends on bow and arrow) and this is equivallent of very good sving with two handed mallet. For comparition 60 J of blunt trauma at unprotected chest causes your heart stop, ribs break and pierce our bowels, pneumothorax or similar thing.
120 J of blunt trauma shatters the biggest cow or horse bones upon impact."

jakies bajki powtarzasz .
ja je tez slyszalem .
kiedys pewien gosc wlozyl sobie kilka kamizelek kuloodpornych , wyszedl na ulice i zaczal strzelac .
policja prala do niego z szotgunnow gdzoe pociski maja energie ponad 3000 j i. dlugo nie mogli go dorwac.
podobnie bylo w australii , gdzie bandyci osaczeni przez policje zrobili sobie opancerzenie z roznego zelastwa .
ostrzeliwali sie na stojaco i dopiero strzaly w nogi polozyly temu kres .
tak czy owak rozpowszechniane wiadomosci , ze trafienie strzala o energii 120 j ( skad zes wzial te 170 j ? )w pancerz na klatce automatycznie eliminowalo trafionego jest ewidentna bzdura .
co do blach i penetracji ,to blache 1,5-1,6 mm bez problemu przebija sie przy uzyciu luku o naciagu 60 lbs
w przypadku takich " pancerzy " kazdy mogl polozyc rycerza , najemnika , czy tez piechociarza .
poza tym bledem jest porownywanie energi z relatywnie lekkiej strzaly do jakis mlotow ( nie podales wagi , a przeciez mialo byc porownanie )
to sa calkiem inne bajki ze wzgledu na cos co sie pomija czesto , chodzi mianowicie o ped .

zanaczam , ze moglem cos zle zrozumiec i wtedy za moje bledne odpowiedzi przepraszam .
tak nawiasem mowiac skoro moderator dopuszcza obcy jezyk na polskim forum , to powinien robic za tlumacza aby wszyscy ktorzy chca mogli brac udzial w dyskusji .
to tylko takie skojarzenie bez zadnych zlosliwosci .

pozdrawiam

Witam.
Ja uwa¿am, ¿e skoro pan Jaroslav jest Czechem, ¶mia³o móg³by pisaæ w swoim ojczystym jêzyku.
Wprawdzie chyba wiêkszo¶æ z nas zna dosyæ dobrze angielski, ale mimo to bez s³ownika technicznego czasem trudno zrozumieæ o co chodzi. No a z czeskim my¶lê nie bêdzie problemów bo jest przecie¿ bardzo podobny do polskiego. Poza tym to trochê dziwne aby dwa s³owiañskie narody komunikowa³y siê za pomoc± jakiego¶ ca³kiem "obcego" jêzyka.

Witam

Tak siê sk³ada, ¿e w dziale £ucznictwo jest zamieszczana du¿a ilo¶æ linków do materia³ów anglojêzyzycznych bez t³umaczeñ i nikt tego nie kwestionuje. Bywaj± równie¿ ciekawe informacje w jêzyku rosyjskim.
Czytam w obydwu jêzykach z do¶æ dobrym zrozumieniem tekstu, nie podj±³ym siê jednak roli t³umacza w ¿adn± ze stron. Sam je¿eli mam k³opoty ze zrozumieniem szczegó³ów technicznych, wtedy siêgam do s³ownika - nie jest to ¿adna ujma.

Generalnie zgadzam siê z opiniami Jaroslava w tym i podobnych tematach - nie podejmujê polemiki w szczegó³ach. W sam raz dla mnie nie s± a¿ tak istotne, aby podejmowaæ poszukiwania w tym kierunku.

Jako moderator dbam aby ilo¶æ wypowiedzi poza tematami nie by³a zbyt du¿a, a dyskutanci nie obra¿ali siê wzajemnie. Czasami podsumowujê temat, albo podrzucam ciekawy w±tek - na tym moja rola siê koñczy.

Jak narazie nie odczuwam potrzeby dodatkowych interwencji w tym temacie.

pozdrowienia Vislav

p.s. jêzyk czeski - mo¿na eksperymentalnie spróbowaæ, chocia¿ osobi¶cie wolê j.angielski. Po prostu przy 'podobnych' jêzykach ³atwiej jest o nieporozumienia. Zreszt± znajomo¶æ jêzyka angielskiego w 'm³odych' pokoleniach winna byæ powszechna.

"Anyway most of my distance shooting is with hornbeam 100# bow which I used to shoot 500 grn arrow at very nearly 300 yrds or 280 meters. This is good hunting arrow weight perfectly capable of killing swine or unarmored man"

this is good hunting arrow weight only if You combine this arrow with good 50# recurve
such arrow will have high momentum and fairly flat trajectory at usual hunting distanses of 20 yards or so
Your set-up of 100# bow and 500 grain arrow just doesn't make any sense: ist bad for hunting and bad for bow itself

Bodkin:

"nie podales kilku danych o ktore prosilem , ale i tak mozna
powiedziec , ze aby osiagnac owe 280 m potrzebna jest zacna predkosc w okolicach 62- 65 m/s"

--Yes that is perfectly right. In flight shooting even higher speeds were attained with light arrows, 300 fps is not impossible with a wooden bow. When a Stanley or Stretton shoot 300 yrds with a 800 gr arrow they must have 65 m/s or more to achieve that distance and they use much heavier bows (but again comparativelly much heavier arrow).
So its perfectly right figure.

"tak czy owak rozpowszechniane wiadomosci , ze trafienie strzala o energii 120 j ( skad zes wzial te 170 j ? )w pancerz na klatce automatycznie eliminowalo trafionego jest ewidentna bzdura .
co do blach i penetracji ,to blache 1,5-1,6 mm bez problemu przebija sie przy uzyciu luku o naciagu 60 lbs
w przypadku takich " pancerzy " kazdy mogl polozyc rycerza , najemnika , czy tez piechociarza .
poza tym bledem jest porownywanie energi z relatywnie lekkiej strzaly do jakis mlotow ( nie podales wagi , a przeciez mialo byc porownanie )
to sa calkiem inne bajki ze wzgledu na cos co sie pomija czesto , chodzi mianowicie o ped .
zanaczam , ze moglem cos zle zrozumiec i wtedy za moje bledne odpowiedzi przepraszam .
tak nawiasem mowiac skoro moderator dopuszcza obcy jezyk na polskim forum , to powinien robic za tlumacza aby wszyscy ktorzy chca mogli brac udzial w dyskusji .
to tylko takie skojarzenie bez zadnych zlosliwosci ."

One after another


to blache 1,5-1,6 mm bez problemu przebija sie przy uzyciu luku o naciagu 60 lbs

---that is so apparent nonsense I wont comment it. Better provide some proof for such outrageous claim. The difference between you and me is what I write is funded by scientific testing by Mark Stretton, who is currently writing the book about armour penetration and arrowheads based on his recent serie of articles and research. It doesnt exists online, but anybody can order magazine and read it.


w przypadku takich " pancerzy " kazdy mogl polozyc rycerza , najemnika , czy tez piechociarza .
poza tym bledem jest porownywanie energi z relatywnie lekkiej strzaly do jakis mlotow ( nie podales wagi , a przeciez mialo byc porownanie )

---Since munition quality armour is not shootable through by 60# bow, not everybody could disable a man wearing it. But a skilled longbowman with heavy bow, proper arrow weight and arrowhead can kill a man in munition quality of armour. Or crossbowman for instance.
60# bow is also too light to work for any war arrow.


"skad zes wzial te 170 j
jakis mlotow ( nie podales wagi , a przeciez mialo byc porownanie )"

---use elmentary school physics mr. Watson, m1xv1=m2xv2. Newton figured that 400 years ago. When comparing Kinetic energy its perfectly right to use mallet as comparition. If I said "momentum" that would be something else.
170 J is perfectly right for heaviest arrows in 100 gram range such as Mark Stretton, Joe Gibbs or Simon Stanley use or Nigel Canning.
If you want to have a feel, dress in the armour, lay on the ground, give your friend 2 kg mallet on 1 meter shaft and let him hit you full force in the middle of the chest. Good luck. Report your feelings, when you return from hospital.
Sufiice to say that in face of sustained longbowman fire youll be hit every a while with two or three arrows at once.
I have serie of pictures taken by Towton Lads regarding penetration of hardened armour in HRC 40 range, sch quality as its in wallace collection, but I m not permited to post them. Buy latest "Glade magazine" read and learn.

At this point I m not discussing you, I m instructing you, fact that you cannot do or undertsand the things doesnt mean that somebody else cant do it.


Daniel Bochra:

"this is good hunting arrow weight only if You combine this arrow with good 50# recurve
such arrow will have high momentum and fairly flat trajectory at usual hunting distanses of 20 yards or so
Your set-up of 100# bow and 500 grain arrow just doesn't make any sense: ist bad for hunting and bad for bow itself"

---It is always good hunting weight arrow. What you perhaps meant is that its good "hunting setup" if combined with a 50# bow.

Your set-up of 100# bow and 500 grain arrow just doesn't make any sense: ist bad for hunting and bad for bow itself

---As you can notice its not a HUNTING SETUP, its FLIGHT SETUP. Fact that an arrow I consider light and use it as flight is good enough weight for hunting and has enough weight to kill a man is something else. Anyway 500 grn is about on dry fire speed for 100# bow. But unless completetlly dry fired (without an arrow) "the usage of too light arrow is bad for the bow" is long debunked myth.



Jaroslav

nie mam juz sily dokladnie wszystkiego tlumaczyc , ale z tego co zrozumialem ( o ile dobrze zrozumialem ) czesc z tego co piszesz jest czystym sf
wiem tez , ze nie przegadam kogos dla ktorego elb jest "wunderwaffe"sredniowiecza , a tak ciebie zaczynam odbierac.
podpierasz sie testami strentona i filmem ktory zrobili wspolnie z zespolem , ale chyba ogladalismy rozne filmy , bo tam nie bylo mowy o osiagnieciu 65 m/s , ani o sensownej penetracji blachy powyzej grubosci 1,6 mm.
65 m/s dla elb to tylko wyselekcjonowany super material i kilka strzalow , bo potem raptownie spada i predkosc stabilizuje sie na poziomie 50-55 m/s , co daje realne odleglosci w okolicach
200-220 m i na tym koniec .
krol mial oczywiscie lepsze egzemplarze , ale to sa kurioza


chetnie z toba publicznie bym popolemizowal przytaczajac merytoryczne argumenty ( bardzo lubie liczby i sprawdzone fakty ), ale moj angielski nie pozwala na to .
moze jest jakis chetny , dobrze znajacy jezyk , obeznany z grubsza z tematem tlumacz ?

pozdrawiam