ARROWS vs ARMOUR 2 - How powerful is a Warbow?

[@briancox2721]

Joe is an absolute unit! How many shots with that 160 lbs bow over a few days? And he's still accurate?!

[@VileCAESARB]

Which Brian Cox is this and were you allowed in the hotel?

[@briancox2721]

@@VileCAESARB one that isn't famous or barred from any hotel.

[@Belnick6666]

how many xx y did the archers train to be able to do it in a war in medieval times? It is the same with any martial art, you have to repeat and repeat, thousand and thousand of times and it build muscles in the correct places, reactions and muscle memories aka skills :P

[@killerkraut9179]

@@Belnick6666 But to much Lbs can destroy the Body !

[@wargey3431]

@@Belnick6666 we know in England that other sports were banned and on a Wednesday and a Sunday you were required to undertake archery practice Also most of those archers at Azingcourt and Crecy were not peasants but they were actually soldiers paid a retainer and paid by their lord. If your knight or lord is paying you to train and you can’t pull a 160lb bow like he requests because you have just been spending your time in the pub spending that extra money you won’t be earning that money for long

[@lindybeige]

I shot a 45 and 65lb bow for range - six arrows from each - and while the 65lb bow did go slightly further on average, it was only slightly further and the furthest arrows from the 45 went further than the shortest shots from the 65. I suspect that with bow technology, there are laws of diminishing returns in effect. 120lb was not so long ago considered to be a very powerful - if not top-end - war bow.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

Bow deign, limb efficiency and powerstroke are just as important factors than just draw weight. This is why a 1200lb steel crossbow is outputing 120 ish joules, this is why a 80lb Manchu bow can outshoot a 120lb longbow (in high Gpp category)

[@calebacrutto9601]

@@HistoricalWeapons Forgive my ignorance, if a volley is shot over a significant distance, it's aimed upwards to account for gravity. Does an arrow have a terminal velocity, say the way the human body falls, it will reach around 60 meters per second (depending on who you ask). After reaching the apex of its ascent, at that point gravity starts to take over, will that not level off the different draw weights? Or am I too Hollywoodesque in my visualization of a mass volley fired from behind ranks of men at arms?

[@HistoricalWeapons]

@@calebacrutto9601 the arrow does have an terminal velocity but still can be lethal depending on weight and shape of head. A penny dropped from tower is not lethal but fletchettes dropped in ww1 is

[@HistoricalWeapons]

@@treelore7266 yes but limb efficiency and powerstroke makes huge difference

[@nothim7321]

@@calebacrutto9601 no, because it isn't shot straight up to stall, it will lose velocity due to drag, but terminal velocity doesn't come in to play because of the angle at which it is fired.

[@georgesutherlandhoward4417]

Just want to say, I really appreciate the curated subtitles - it's a small thing, but it certainly shows an extra level of thought and demonstrates a level of professionality that too many large channels don't bother with.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

The modern English word “Warbows” is often used in the international community to describe military bows of typically heavy draw weight. It seems that in England it is typically used to describe Late Medieval English yew longbows but I personally don’t like this definition because it gives a rather narrow focus on a specific time period in English history. there’s a lot more variety even in England. For example Syrian archers were used in Roman Britan. Early Irish and welsh bows are closer to the Hedeby bows for example. in medieval history there are many other designs of “war bows” such as the Byzantine composite Warbows and the Scandinavian Warbows etc.

[@andrewsock1608]

War bow is two words😁. It is pertaining to a bow someone chose to take to war. A bow that could meet the qualifications set at the muster.

[@marcellusbrutus3346]

Since historians define medieval as fall of Roman Empire then both Syrian and dark age Viking/Saxon/Norman bows are relevant in the discussion of English war bows. That’s just england. Eastern bows are much different in design and draw weight alone won’t define their performance

[@andrewsock1608]

@@marcellusbrutus3346 that’s why asians and the like ride up right beside you on a horse to shoot you. Although the current long distance record is held by a horse bow

[@andrewsock1608]

Jack you should also remember the yew longbow was used in England even before the Bronze Age. It goes back to ancient times. As Armor was invented and strong holds built , bows got more powerful.

[@henninghesse9910]

If any archers are mentioned in medival sources from the continent, everybody goes "they have to be english mercenaries", as if the concept of a self bow is somehow higher physics. And when all of the yew is importet from continent I´d say they would also had a good idea what to do with it.

[@Bjarkenb]

Joe makes a 110lb bow look like a children's toy, when I would sprain something even *trying* to draw it - mad respect

[@stoopingfalcon891]

That was almost my exact thought too.

[@Ratd0g28]

Hell trying to string some of these bows would put me in the hospital. 🤣🤣

[@paavobergmann4920]

Yup. My thoughts exactly. 110lbs is massive, and Joe makes it look like a toy.

[@googiegress]

I would rupture at least three muscles and one organ trying to pick it up.

[@googiegress]

And then bleed out on the floor of the Wendy's

[@robbikebob]

Sad it's over for a.v.a.2... I'd like to see, for part 3 several people shooting 130 lb bows at longer range at the armour to see how many of those lucky shots find a gap in the armour... in the meantime, how about inviting Matt Easton in to do a pole axe versus armour?? Then we can see what happened to the French knights once they'd got past the archers!!

[@Kradlum]

Are you going to wear the armour :D

[@runebows6057]

i totally Agree. In reality armys were descimated by shooting in the air at long range. We still have Clout shooting, the imitation of shooting at square of 6x6 meters. This will be the idea for AvA3. shooting at knight from easy clout distance - 120 yards

[@mchernett]

It's not over yet, we've still got several AvA2 videos in the works.

[@lmonk9517]

pole axe vs armour is a waste of good armour. We all know that it would destroy it. Would be interested in seeing the difference that a shield would make.

[@chengkuoklee5734]

@@lmonk9517Shield is optional external active armour. With a shield means it'll take extra effort & time to compromise the armour, worn passively on body

[@opesam]

Commentator: You should have a machine shoot the arrows! Tod: we have one *points to Joe* 😅 What a legend! 💪

[@mikeorick6898]

Oddly enough, arrows shot with a sabot from an air cannon (for consistency/accuracy) in some other tests penetrated less than arrows shot from an actual bow, even when the speed was the same.

[@OurCognitiveSurplus]

@@mikeorick6898 source?

[@opesam]

@@mikeorick6898 I wonder if the flexing of the arrow (as in "the archers paradox") allows it to "burrow" into the target at shorter ranges where it is still flexing. Whereas a sabot launched arrow would lack that "wobble". Interesting observation if true and replicable though. 🤔

[@Intranetusa]

Joe is a great archer but he was clearly getting tired at the end of the other video (you can see the accuracy start declining). Todd's lockdown crossbow that replicated the power of a 160 lb longbow would have given much more consistent and reliable results since it would be imprevious to fatigue and maintain the same powerstroke and same draw weight with every pull of the string.

[@Keex11]

@@Intranetusa true, however half the internet would complain that it's invalid because of not using an actual longbow. so probably a good idea to use the real thing :D

[@Cahirable]

If you do decide to make AVA3, could you please test the aspen/willow shafted arrows with LM16/JM4 arrow heads? The laws of Henry IV and Henry V make it fairly clear that these were the dominant type in warfare. The heavier armour piercing arrows were likely just 1/4 of their quiver, at least based on the Duke of Bedford's inventory and a 1475 list of supplies for a campaign. Testing that heavy arrows is 100% the way to go for shooting plate, but against high quality mail I'd like to see how the lighter arrows did, and I'm also keen to know how they do in terms of shootability between different draw weights.

[@aaronlegge629]

I feel so terrible not being a backer for this series, watching this for free is criminal! Amazing stuff Tod, and Joe’s shooting is *chefs kiss* impeccable.

[@NoFormalTraining]

One thing I really love here, it that every video in this series manages to answer a few questions, but also manages to raise a few more points to investigate later on. One thing I am wondering given how many arrows we've seen loose their heads but are otherwise still intact, could those still be drawn and shot and do damage in areas like the chain mail? And I think one thing we all want to see is Joe break out the 200lb bow and take at least one shot at the armour with that!

[@rasaecnai]

"Yeah... science motherfucker!"

[@wargey3431]

I’d love to see what the 200lb would do because if none of them go through armour but the 200 can punch the helmet or breastplate you betya the lords and kinghts would have been demanding their paid retainers were marshalling with that weight of bow

[@jameslaurence6619]

​@@wargey3431 I reckon they did shoot that weight. Professional soldiers paid to shoot bows should be working on using the most powerful bows possible during a battle! They've only got a set amount of arrows, make them count!

[@wea69420]

@@jameslaurence6619 No one is gonna shoot a 200 pounder all day. Joe here has said in previous videos that he can only get a few shots at 200lb before his performance declines rapidly, and I can't imagine medieval peasants doing that much better even with constant training. The function of archers is to harass troops at a distance, forcing them to turtle down and slow their march; and for that purpose almost any warbow draw weight will be sufficient.

[@jameslaurence6619]

@@wea69420 firstly they weren't peasants... they were professional soldiers in the Kings army. They were therefore the best archers in the country, paid for their service in battle. They're not just any peasants. Secondly, as per the previous comment, they don't need to shoot all day, just long enough to loose their quivers.

[@michaelporzio7384]

Amazing series, every history professor teaching about this era should watch these videos, they could learn a lot. Thanks!

[@wea69420]

Man, Joe is such a beast with that bow. I hope this team continues making this stuff. Academic level content posted out in the open, truly invaluable

[@simrock_]

A thought on the target, the plate does take a specific minimum energy to pierce and is then generally no longer affecting the arrow since the arrow head is a tad bigger than the shaft. Whereas the foam behind will get out of the way, but then grip the whole penetrated length in a way, that it will grip harder the further the arrow penetrates. So arrow penetration depth does not grow in a linear fashion with force delivered. Same with how arrows or other projectiles are harder to pull out the further in they penetrate.

[@Alastair510]

Spot on, that was my thought also.

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

Very true.

[@yajurka]

I don't think that intention of these videos is to say "160lb bow delivers 20% more energy than 110lb while being 40% harder to draw". It's just simple demonstration to see how bow weight affects the original test. The main film is the only real test, these minor videos are just food for thoughts.

[@mikeorick6898]

Mark Stretton has done penetration tests out past 200yds with a foam target. A 144lb bow and 72gram/1111grain arrows. They never penetrate more than they do at 20yds. They did however penetrate more at 80 than 40-60, and more at 200 than 120-180.

[@Erpyrikk]

a target made of spaced layers of plywood would be clearer.

[@arturleperoke3205]

Toby is a real asset in this experiments. His deductions from socket to warbow-weight highlight his scientific background!

[@rayq1234]

I love seeing Joe draw these war bow. Really impressive! Keep on going :D

[@jeroylenkins1745]

13:00 I agree in a battle you need distance. However a high volume of fire would also be important. I'm wondering if the lighter bows would allow the archers to be able consistently push out a big number of arrows would also be important? The same number of hits can be achieved by having a high rate of fire over s slightly shorter range as a slow rate of fire over a longer range.

[@simonista8976]

Thank you again for these wonderfully produced films to everyone involved! I agree with pursuing the question of range,arrow-weight and bow-poundage.Finding generally effective arrows for their archers would have been important for the historical people involved logistically in Henry V's campaign for France,variety introduces complexity and complexity often leads to confusion. Accuracy not being a major issue at longer-ranges is probably true,to my understanding anyway,but I have heard Toby Capwell describe elsewhere how the English archers were probably shooting flat and at shorter ranges at the French and in such a situation accuracy might be a great force-amplifier - obviously this a question worth pursuing. I am very much looking forward to your future projects,again thank you.

[@TheDukeBoxer]

I shoot a 130lb English long bow and it took me a while to get to that draw weight. I have such HUGE respect for Joe and the level he is at. I'd love to see more videos about this subject. Great content guys.

[@Lovemy1911a1]

These videos are fantastic. They are providing so many interesting bits of information and it's opening up so many other questions. Truly hope we get more of these Arrow vs Armor. Now I'm so interested on what different builds of mail can do against arrows & when bow weights start to over power mail or gambison. You know you're doing good research when answering a question opens up a bunch of new questions.

[@dallinadams9422]

I like how you guys break apart all of the different variables for these tests

[@carlredbird3054]

There's lots of information on Chinese Manchu war bows, and the draw weights. An explorer wrote about a military garrison in China, and an archery contest they had every year. Would have to look up the exact #'s. But out of say, 80% could pull an 80lb bow, 40% could do 130lb, and maybe maybe 10% could pull 160lb, they also had the champions bow at over 200lb that a few guys could actually use and they would get a money bonus for hitting a target with the champion's bow. He also mentioned that the official royal deer hunters had to be able to use 120lb bow minimum. Medieval Chinese Manchu war bows would probably be similar draw weight to the English, and same can be said from the strength of the archers themselves I have a Korean bow at 130lb at 32 inches, and have tested heavy arrows, and points. It will easily stabilize arrows over 4000 grain, and broadheads at over 1200 grain. There's a great picture of Manchu war bow used by the Chinese military, they tied a grenade to the front of an arrow and let it fly lolz 😂.

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

They haveore faith in their bow than me to use it like a grenade launcher!

[@robwerth]

I wonder how they measured the poundage in equivalent units of measure back then?

[@Zaeyrus]

I don't know if you'll read this Tod, but your first AvA video had a dramatic, life-changing effect on me, well it was more Joe's explanation on the biomechanics and because of your combined effect I've decided to start working out and improve my fitness and maybe one day be able to draw a bow such as the one Joe is using! Thank you for that. Truly amazing video! I was expecting it to be even better then the 1st one and it exceeded all my expectations! I'm very disciplined, committed and the results are coming in! And I just may be able to draw it (not shot it, I'm no archer 🤣)

[@Mr.56Goldtop]

Best of luck Luka!

[@patxiuribe5200]

It happened the same to me with armor, you need to be very fit to wear ti.

[@Intranetusa]

If you're intersted in more information about the biomechanics of archery, Justin Ma's The Way of Archery channel has a great video called "The Draw" where he explains the use of proper posture and optimizing the use of certain muscles for heavier draw weight archery. He also talks about Joe Gibb's posture as an example and Joe makes a comment in the video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6eqcox4gs2Vgbs

[@alexanderflack566]

@@Intranetusa Well, you beat me to that. I shoot English longbow (as well as some asiatic), and that is the first video I link to anyone interested in trying historical archery. It has been a significant help to my form. Another helpful thing to do after watching that is to go to Joe's channel and watch some of his videos to get views of his form from different angles. Here's a link to that: www.youtube.com/@Joe8Gibbs

[@Intranetusa]

@@alexanderflack566 Thanks. Yep, Justin Ma's channel videos are amazingly helpful and Joe Gibb's channel also has some excellent content.

[@RAkers-tu1ey]

Great series. Looking forward to the distance shoot.

[@jakeb2623]

Christmas has come early. These videos are the best thing I've watched all year. Thanks Santa Tod

[@leoscheibelhut940]

Just when you think something has been decided, a thousand new questions arise! Great job.

[@MarchalisVan]

Remember, don't use a draw weight that's too heavy (From experience). you get all sorts of problems down the line, some you don't think of at first like serious joint pain between your knuckles every time you shoot, elbows that just can't take the stress of of getting pulled so hard. But mostly, some bodies just aren't designed for it. For example, If your elbow can bend "past" straight, like mine, it really limits your max draw weight as your elbow will feel grindy as you balance your bones into a straight line, those little micro movements are really bad under huge repeated stress. Don't hurt your self is what I'm saying.

[@petergosden1]

The shooting against an armoured figure showed clearly that frontal plate will likely never be penetrated by the heavy bow and the heavy arrow. Albeit that the energy transfer to the figure is noticeable. It was also perfectly clear that there were a number of weak spots that could be exploited by the archer, eye slots, shoulders, armpits, lower torso. Even at 15 yards Joe could not aim specifically at the weak spots with an expectation of success and relied on lucky hits. Yet a weaker bow, perhaps with a lighter arrow, perhaps with a different head would be ideal for those weak spots because it could be shot with accuracy at these ranges - see our friend in his The Historysquad KZbin series. And see his filming from inside the helmet through the eye slits. And if the plate is known to be adequate protection against any arrow why would the archer persist with the heavy and less accurate bow? The only thing not yet considered is the need to address a knight's horse - would the heavy bow and arrow have a distinct advantage there sufficient for it to have justified the standard? There will always be more questions. I get the sense that we are at the beginning of a long journey. Your work is incredible. Thank you so much. I have waited months for this new series and the results have been as fantastic as I have come to expect from you and your team. Peter.

[@rexbarron4873]

I seriously doubt those weak spots would exist in real life...look up rondels and shields

[@steemlenn8797]

The thing is bowman do not want to shoot at ranges close enough that one little sprint can behad them before they can drop their bow and reach for a melee weapon. I could imagine lighter bows and arrows used against the armor piecing 160lb archers from behind your own armored lines. Archer seldom have plate and I guess even a far less deadly arrow could still pose a threat against an archer in mail or gambeson. You only need to hit his arm anyway.

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

A hea ier projectile tends to increase penetration. As for the accuracy of the archer aiming for weak spots, they fired in volley at range. They were no where near close enough to pick their shots and aim for gaps, nor was there the time in a pitched battle. At least that's my take. 200 yards is a very long ways to choose to hit a 2 inch gap reliably, that's effectively 1 minute of angle, which is considered a very good standard for accurate modern rifles, many rifles aren't mechanically capable of that.

[@andrewsock1608]

Yes I think the archers in a Mobil army were used to kill horses and unarmored men. Of corse they could do more but that was not the plan. Most Archers were usually allowed to run away / retreat when out of arrows, broken string or bow, or over run by the enemy. Close range was not expected of them unless they had the uncommon order to stand ground and die fighting.

[@jonathan_60503]

Though in battle you're not just engaging targets at 15 yards or less - where you might hope to target weak points. The more powerful bow also gives you a longer range (and mentioned in this video) and arrows fired from it should retain more velocity at any given range - and at those extended ranges its mostly your mass of archers aiming at the mass enemy formation -- and where any given arrow hits is mostly down to luck. The longer you can keep the enemy under fire the more chances you've got for a lucky hit on someone's weak point. So even if the 160 lbs bow *is* less accurate up close it would probably still be militarily advantageous to go with it, rather than a weaker bow, just for the extra effective range. (And if you every end up in a fight against someone else with longbows you wouldn't want the shorter range; as your archers aren't especially armored -- and even with shields to hide behind you don't want your archers getting shot at from beyond their own range)

[@vanivanov9571]

Something to consider in future: You might want to put something like wood or padding over your steel frame, so that your arrows take less damage when they accidentally strike it.

[@Jim58223]

I'd like to also see a chrono added to this for each shot Joe does so we can see how much energy he loses as he shoots throughout the day. As well as the speed of each arrow depending on the bow he uses.

[@qacarxan3647]

I'd love to see a comparison of Turkish composite bows versus armor, and next to a longbow as well. We have pretty good ideas of draw weights on those thanks to research by Adam Karpowicz, and we also know that due to their design, with equal draw weights and equal arrow dimensions, they can throw an arrow faster than a self bow like the English longbow. And many Turkish arrows had metal tangs going deeper into the shaft, which would presumably have an effect on penetration of iron or steel. I'd be happy to chip in for a kickstarter to make that happen.

[@CasualPhilosophy]

Some of the variation is probably due to the arrow flexing as it flies. So the head of the arrow is sweeping an arc as it goes, and it's pretty much random where in that arc it'll be when it connects. If it's at the left or right extreme, you're getting something close to a side-on shot. If you hit somewhere in the middle of the arc, then the point is more dead-on and will improve the piercing with less resistance.

[@mikeorick6898]

Some previous testing has shown how, with what, and how well the heads are attached can make a difference. Oddly enough, arrows shot with a sabot from an air cannon (for consistency/accuracy) penetrated less than arrows shot from an actual bow, even when the speed was the same.

[@ewanobrien50]

I, as a modern archer, find it hilarious that these lad consider a 100lb bow ‘light’. Mad respect to Joe. The man must be a machine.

[@Deadknight67]

Outstanding work I just love your investigations on the topic, it's fascinating.

[@adamgrove5155]

So happy there are multiple videos out of this, great stuff

[@El-Burrito]

Props to Joe, all that shooting must be tiring as heck!

[@Dvergenlied]

It’s impressively obvious, too, how much easier the 100lb bow was for him than the 160.

[@Man_Emperor_of_Mankind]

@Shiro’s Ghost Definitely And even then, a 100lb bow is still really heavy. It takes a lot of work to build the strength to proficiently shoot a 60-70lb compound bow, which is far easier to shoot than a traditional 60-70lb bow which doesn't have cams. 100lb bows with no cam system are beasts, and they're the easy bow for Joe

[@brianmincher716]

@@Man_Emperor_of_Mankind yup, I’ve got a 70 lb compound and it’s absolutely nothing compared to even an 80 lb longbow. 110+ is super rarified air. Not many folks can pull those weights and even then takes a long time to work up to it, I’m sure.

[@corbinbearden4062]

Wimps…

[@martinwatson3471]

Just injured myself shooting 60lbs, so we'll done. Fascinating stuff. Seen videos concluding that arrows could not pierce medieval armour but they seem to miss the point ( sorry) that archers were effectively shooting at riders sides, not fronts, because of the herse formation. Also denser closer target so fewer misses

[@mikeorick6898]

Bows can vary widely within and between types. Some composites are just a little faster at the same draw weight with the same 972 grain arrow (yew 206 v Tartar 211fps), and some are a lot faster at much lighter draw weights with the same 1230 grain arrow (Qing/80lbs/190fps, yew/125lb/175fps). Yew bows made from that same tree at the same time to the same dimension can vary in weight and speed.

[@danielba01]

Kevin Hicks @thehistorysquad has an interesting claim, that the Mary Rose bow were actually kind of unfinished bows, and each bowman would make his own adjustment to it once issued, and at the end the bow might have turned out a bit less powerful. As a former soldier (me as well), he says that upon being issued a personal weapon, he used to modify it and adjust it (weight distribution, balance, carrying system and sights) to his preference with the help of the unit's armorer. I have a very similar experience. which makes me believe that every soldier in every army might have done the same for his weapons. Kevin has been shooting professionally (i recommend looking him up) and says he doesn't even know what's the poundage of his bow, he doesn't care and it's just the way he likes it. Though I'm sure it's around the 90 mark if not higher)

[@Intranetusa]

Interesting. I've read other people say the Mary Rose draw weight estimates were inaccurate because the researchers simply estimated the draw weight based on thickness of the prod....without taking into account that not all woods are the same and a lower quality wood would have to be made much thicker than a high quality wood to achieve the same draw weight at the same draw length. And I've read tha the Mary Rose being a former flagship and having a prestigious status may have skewed draw weights to above average.

[@Countryboy071]

I absolutely love this channel. As an archer and historical battle fanatic, i continue to think about this regarding draw weight. I shoot mainly traditional and takedown recurve. Ive bows of 34, 40 and other limbs of 50 and 60lb. Years ago at my local club, ive tried others: horn/Hungarian, Asian bamboo, hickory self bow and a compound. Ive settled into more traditional barebow, wooden feather fletched arrows, i also prefer a selway leather bow quiver, it seems to reduce noise and vibration. Back to the pont! Have never shot a longbow before. Im only 5'5" tall and small to meium build, however, 60lb recurve is not a problem for me.

[@JosefGustovc]

I forgot how great this video was. So important that we got this made, and that it gets people talking and trying to shoot all different weights of bows and arrows, and see how much velocity loss there is over distance, how accurate or not the arrows are, how interchangeable are different weights of bows are with different weights of arrows, etc... Well done us!

[@tods_workshop]

I wholly agree with you Augusto, we do stand in awe of the high poundage bows and of Joes shooting, but were lighter bows still effective? The 160 did not go through plate (well not really) but I think that the 135 would easily go through the mail, so I have to ask what the point of the 160 is if it only does what a 135 does? More to look at here for sure

[@peterleffler2062]

Always great videos. Thanks Tod, Joe, Toby and crew. It occurred to me that each arrow will have deformed the steel plate to some extent. The ripples or ridges/furrows - the deformations - will have made slightly more and less resistant areas which might account for some of the variations in arrow penetration depth. In an ideal world you would use a new piece of steel for each arrow - but that's not very practical so I understand why it was done as it was . Fascinating stuff.

[@strydyrhellzrydyr1345]

Hey Todd... did that one arrow... The 18.5 from 160 lbs bow... it looks like it might have come out the bottom of the backing material.. which would help it go in further...

[@mattsoutherden]

Agree. That was my first thought, and why I came to comment.

[@mattsoutherden]

I should add that this is in no way a slight on the video, which, as usual, is awesome. I realise that this would not have been at all obvious to the guys from where they were standing when filming. It's much more apparent from the camera location.

[@LewisEdwards1990]

I've used slow motion footage to analyse my arrows kinetic energy and momentum, and comparing that with penetration of a straw boss. Something you could easily do to help quantify the differences between arrows and bows

[@odysseus9504]

Bow-Weight!! There's more!

[@heldermonteiro2718]

draw length is more important

[@bradstone82]

Underrated comment here. ☝️

[@paulmears5330]

I would NOT want to be anywhere near where an arrow from a 100+lb warbow was hitting!

[@vanivanov9571]

You can make a comparison to Qing archery standards. They had similar weights of bows, and records about how many people could draw them. Good to test out the difference practically, all the same.

[@rattytattyratnett]

It would interesting to investigate the use of the 12:49 lighter, smaller bows found on the Mary Rose. The Mary Rose site states " The length varies from 1839mm to 2113mm. The cross- section is mostly D-shaped, and at the centre of the bow about 35mm wide and 33mm deep. Draw-weights suggested are between 65 and 175 pounds, with a peak at 110 pounds." Some of the Arrows were also short 28". These lighter weights and shorter arrows could be used by less specialist archers. If shooting from ship to ship, sailors wouldn't be wearing armour, accuracy would be more important than ability to pierce armour.

[@leebaldwin8072]

Which weight would Joe prefer to take to battle? Rate of fire and comfort? Surely a factor??? Great videos absolutely love these great job lads!!!! Seriously!!!

[@darthkek1953]

That might depend if he's facing plate armour or not.

[@wetincornwall6882]

Rate of fire would be determined by the bloke in charge.

[@LeVraiPoio]

Got to point out the 9cm deep arrow. In the slowmo we can see how the archer's paradox make it collide an other arrow, get diverted and lose a bunch of energy in the other arrow's shaft. Another thing to consider to avoid flukes, even though the archer has little control on that, is the angle at which the arrow enters the target. I don't know if it's the camera angle, but I have the counterintuitive impression here that the ones on the top and bottom have impacted real strong, and with quite an angle. I would have expected the opposite. Angled shots imply a little more metal to pierce, but if my impressions are correct, something else has to be at play. Maybe the bendiness of the arrow shaft, depending on where it is in it's oscillation at impact time. Dunno really, need more data, slomo wide shot maybe.

[@MacDorsai]

First, an absolute fantastic series of videos. My praise for all involved. I have a suggestion for another armor test, though it would require a little research, calculation and adjustments to the bow weight for validity. I was looking up bow weight for Mongolian and Turkish bows. Apparently they are documented (by museum examples) to have bow weights of 100-180lbs, with a conclusion that 166lbs were feasible, but the average was lower. That seems remarkably close to your calculations on an English war bow. One of the comments spurred this post. The statement was that Mongolian bows and archers were accurate from 600 - 800 yds. That was a pretty broad statement and no one could reasonable believe you'd aim at an individual target. But if you were shooting at a mass of men, that certainly seems possible. The Lee-Enfield No1 Mk3 for example had volley sights so that a group of soldiers could shoot at an area target a thousand yards and more away. That required an extreme elevation to get to that range and that brings me to my point here. All of your testing has been at essentially point blank range where the arrow velocity is solely dependent on the bow weight and the short range. It is also directed against armor where the thickness and slope are the most advantageous. I believe that long range shooting was also done and as such, the arrows were shot at a high arc and then encountered the enemy in a downward plunge manner. I suspect, but it would have to be verified, that the bow weight got the arrow to that distance, but the velocity at impact was solely (or almost) the result of gravity and the height reached. That could be calculated/measured and then the requisite bow weight determined to get the same velocity at a close range target. Position your armored dummy at a corresponding angle to simulate plunging fire from a long range "arrow storm". I'll admit, this is a lot of work. I don't know how much difference it makes when armor of the time was also intended to protect against melee blows from above. So maybe the simple test would be to angle the dummy, use the standard bow and see if you had penetration. If you had effective penetration with an attack from "above", then you'd have justification to test for the assumedly lower velocity of a plunging area dependent on gravity. Anyway, I don't know if you had considered any of this but I thought I'd share. And again, a fabulous set of videos that I consider the standard that none other have met.

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

Thr volley sights were basically never used because it was considered a waste of ammunition, and I believe they were for groups of men over 2000 meters away, since the standard sight went to around a 1000 or more(I don't want to have to dig out my Enfield to check). Agreed the extreme range would be wildly inaccurate but capable of harassing groups, but I have always found the 6 and especially 800 very questionable. That is a very long way, especially with a short bow, which would presumably have a shorter acceleration period. Just my 2 cents. Cool questions though, I wondered about some of those points myself.

[@Alicatt1]

@@sinisterthoughts2896 The Mongolian bows were of different construction than the English Longbow, they did not have the same woods there and used different types of horn laminated together with the woods they had, those bows were quite fast in their action. it has been a good few years since I last shot an eastern style composite recurve, was quite impressed with the arrow speed and hard hitting at the target with what was a comparatively low poundage bow.

[@mikeorick6898]

Carpini reported Mongol bows at 166lbs in the 13th century. A record shot at that time was from a cousin of Temujin at about 590yds. Bows can vary widely within and between types. Some composites are just a little faster at the same draw weight with the same 972 grain arrow (yew 206 v Tartar 211fps), and some are a lot faster at much lighter draw weights with the same 1230 grain arrow (Qing/80lbs/190fps, yew/125lb/175fps).

[@MiddleIrvington]

As I recall, they made a video previously in which actual Medieval armor was fired at, and try as they might, were unable to do more than mildly dent it. Having said so, the arrows did deflect dangerously, which was then countered by metalwork on the armor plate away from the face and other vulnerable body parts...

[@ilmeni541]

There's really no substitute for experience, and for me it's Joe's take that comes closest to answering the question. If the arrows are feeling sluggish out of the 110lb bow, better out of the 135lb bow, and sweet out of the 160lb bow, then I think that's a very good reference for what they were using--assuming they've got the arrow weight right. Joe said in a previous video that shooting much more than 160lbs was too taxing to be practical in battle, so I think we can assume that bows greater than 160lbs were quite rare. I'm sure there was a range of draw weights used, but based on this I think it's reasonable to conclude that they were targeting at least 135lbs. The arrows have to feel right to the archer, and Joe is the best reference for what a trained archer would have wanted.

[@adam-k]

Nope you cannot say that. Shooting #110 bow performed just a little bit worse than the #160. If you can field 10 000 men where they all can shoot #110 bow and a thousand of them can shoot #160 that is much much better than if you can field only 1000 men who can shoot a #160 bow. At the end no arrow could penetrate plate armor. However even #90 bow with lighter arrow can penetrate the gaps protected only with mail. Shooting more arrows with higher accuracy is more beneficial than shooting few powerful ones with lower accuracy. And again setting your standards lower doesn't mean you cannot hire the best people too. Maybe they get better pay.

[@Deadknight67]

Also, the English encouraging the training of bow from youth would bring a variety of abilities, it wasn't a formal training to reach a goal or being able to shoot a specific draw weight bow. 160 lbs seems like a lot for anyone without dedicated training (that's my assumption I can't say for sure I have no experience, so maybe someone could give better insight.) Joe is a great archer with a lot of experience, he's not necessarily a representation of a young englishman that's been shooting a bow for sport that is enlisting in the army.

[@ilmeni541]

​@@adam-k If the arrow feels right coming out of a 135-160lb bow, then it would be strange if the majority of archers were shooting a bow lighter than that, no? Wouldn't they make arrows more suited to the lighter draw weight? Perhaps you are right, but if so then archers were seemingly using mismatched bows and arrows, which would be surprising. To be clear, it's definitely possible that some archers shot 110lb bows, but when the arrow is suited to a 135-160lb draw weight, surely it's reasonable to expect that such draw weights were the most common.

[@ilmeni541]

@@Deadknight67 Of course. The arrows being suited to a particular draw weight implies to me that such draw weights were typical, but it doesn't mean they were the only ones used.

[@adam-k]

@@ilmeni541 except the bows on Mary Rose were different draw weights, and English archers shot flight arrows and livery arrows from the same bows. standards didn't existed and They probably weren't as picky for arrow weights as we are today.

[@minisam1988]

I love these videos, you answer a couple of questions and give yourselves a dozen more. Love it, true detectives.

[@nilo70]

You guys are performing basic, repeatable, scientific measurements here that have NEVER been done before ! History owes you thanks .

[@Belnick6666]

what?????????????????? how do you think they were invented in the first place? you mean they rediscover scientific measurements?

[@neidhartmuller8804]

@@Belnick6666 todd invented the scientific method

[@neruneri]

@@Belnick6666 In the context of modern people trying to investigate this particular topic? His comment is accurate. It's not very cute to deliberately misrepresent what somebody is saying.

[@AAH730]

Uh, The Bows Not Have Invented By Joe

[@nilo70]

@@AAH730 no one has measured the amount of penetration over a measured distance with a known weighted arrow on a known target density you big silly

[@lsnogaming2893]

Absolute brilliant content. It makes sense that a heavier bow will shoot an arrow much faster so the impact energy from the arrow is greater. Kinetic energy ( mass x velocity x velocity / 2) shows this. I do believe though that there is too much focus on just shooting the really heavy bows. Many bows have been said to be under 100lb so it would be great to test the theory on these too. One of my yew long bows is 90lb and very comfortably shoots an 80g arrow a considerable distance. Really love what you guys are doing. Keep up the great work

[@SAS-R2]

Credit to Joe for shooting that heavy bow ✨

[@jayejaycurry5485]

Oh no, sir, thank you for such great work. I love watching your videos.

[@Afro408]

Well done Joe. It appears to me that the penetration depends more on whether the arrow strikes the plate square on, or slightly canted. Shooting at the test plate this close ensures good strikes, but the arrow is still wobbling from being bent around the bow limb and hasn’t settled down. It’s easy to see, in the slo-mo, which arrows strike square on and they usually penetrate further, because all the kinetic energy is concentrated directly down the shaft. Great series Tod and team! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏😁🥃🥃🥃🥃🥃

[@perniciouspete4986]

That's precisely the reason that armour is curved, so that an arrow always strikes a curved surface. Curved surfaces are also effective against sword strikes, etc..

[@Afro408]

@@perniciouspete4986 I should have qualified my statement by referring to this particular test only. 🤷‍♂️😁

[@ameenoahmad]

Bows are so powerful. The way the arrows shivered after hitting the target... so scary to imagine them piercing you

[@badasbob4761]

I'd be really interested to see an experiment to model the effect on the wearer of having arrows bouncing off your armour. There's a lot of force going somewhere, and a lot of it will get transferred to the person inside. I'd suspect that, even if the arrows didn't penetrate, the cumulative effect of the blunt force trauma from multiple hits would eventually take it's toll.

[@deadjester]

We know from the accounts of the battle that it took a toll mentally on the French, even if not always physically. The French kept to the centre of the battlefield trying to keep away from the archers on the flanks. That wouldn't happen if they weren't worried about arrow penetration, and also bruising from the bounced shots. Also the bowing of their heads and leaning their body forward to avoid arrows piercing gaps in their armour, as well as the eye slits and breathing holes of their helmets says a lot.

[@danielmarshall4587]

VERY MUCH SO, was thinking that my self watching the slow speed of the arrows striking the metal frame, NASTY.

[@garywebster3044]

Not really the plate and the padding underneath distribute the energy quite well. You can also see people bash the fuck out of each other in full plate with blunt weapons it would be almost completely worthless if it didn't.

[@AAH730]

Cool

[@badasbob4761]

@@farseervisions they did a follow up test which was really interesting, and no there isn't any noticeable transfer of energy. Go take a look, it was interesting and well done. That said, what I describe above is the definition of blunt for trauma - transfer of energy from a projectile through the armour. It's the term used today for the bruising caused by ballistic armour when it stops a bullet.

[@WheediesManchild]

When he was mentioning how on a battlefield distance is more important than the accuracy that was needed in this test a question came into me on how effective arrow volleys even are- if a large group of people shot their bows at the same time at roughly the same area how many arrows would collide and break before even reaching the target?

[@adam-k]

I cannot remember where I read it but the baseline wasn't draw weight. You had to be able to shoot the standard arrow over a specific distance. 220 yard or something. Your bow was yours, you got the arrows.

[@dragoscoco2173]

I guess there were a bit more baselines. Your bow, but you had to draw it to the ear, so a standardized individual draw length to which you had to fit your bow quite well. And if your 220 Yard is valid than that could go as follows: Small archer using a 160lbs bow drawn to 28", with short 28" arrows. Medium archer using a 130lbs bow drawn at 30", with standard arrows. Tall archer using the 110lbs drawn at 32", with long 32" arrows. They would use quite different bows and arrows but might as well reach the same distance.

[@backonlazer791]

There's one thing most people don't really talk about when it comes to bows and it's not mentioned here either. Just because a bow has a high draw weight doesn't automatically mean it's super powerful. It has a lot to do with its construction and materials, since that effects how fast it releases the energy once you let the arrow loose. I really want to see testing done with heavy and lighter bows made out of different materials and using different manufacturing methods to see how much of a difference that makes, or if the draw weight really is the king when it comes to power. That pretty much sums it up. Have bows of different make (still using medieval methods) as well and compare them. Draw weight, as I understand it, is just one factor that determines how powerful a bow really is. If a lighter bow can have similar results there are many benefits of using it over bows with heavier draw weight. It drains less stamina, and is also easier to draw and aim (I imagine, as I have never drawn very heavy bows).

[@gregrobbins6487]

People talk about this, but it is actually quite some. Heavier bows shoot heavier arrows. The heavier the arrow, the slower the arrow, but the greater the efficiency and the more energy imparted. The modelling has been done and at max range arrows still have nearly 60% of the energy they left the bow with. As with all things there is a trade off between range and hitting 'power'.

[@stevegeefanplastic]

Hi Tod, I love the vids, these last few especially. I do have what is probably a stupid question. Given that there may have been bows with different draw weights, is it possible that the archers were arranged in a similar manner. The heaviest/strongest used at the longest distance, the medium bows at the middle distance etc? This would seem to be an advantage with an increasing number of arrows being released as the enemy advanced and the lack of range with the lighter bows would to a large extent be negated. Keep up the great work, stay safe and stay well.

[@4hodmt]

And that formation gives an incentive for archers to train with heavier bows. The weaker you are the closer you are to the enemy.

[@shaundouglas2057]

BRAVO! finally a video and another good one from Tod's workshop that talks about and makes much sense of what may have been the draw weights of English warbows.

[@dmr6640]

Keep up the testing. Can each bow hit a target effectively at 100, 150, 200 meters?

[@themadpsyentist4633]

It really can't unless you've got men standing literally shoulder to shoulder... I would encourage anyone to try this but with a traditional bow and totally consistent arrows it's difficult to hit a man sized target at even 50 yards more than half the time much less at 100... They probably would have only shot at that distance if they had plenty to spare which seems unlikely given how hard it is to produce a perfectly straight arrow weighed and spined without modern machinery. There's archers that can but that's only with highly specialized equipment and aiming techniques they certainly didn't have back then. 200 meters is total pipe dream btw that's near the maximum range of any normal bow.. but that being I'm sure they tried it every now and then just for kicks. Doubtful they killed anything but probably made the enemy uncomfortable at least.

[@skeezixcodejedi]

For the non-archers they should add a few points of clarification; ie: a typical recurve Olympian is shooting say 40-55# (pounds) to a target 40-70m away (sub yards if you want for metres, pretty close.) For hunting, you need a minimum of say 40# or so for a deer (relatively soft animal.) So most archers today are doing 40-60# recurve; for compound they go up much higher, as the bow does a lot of the work for you, so you can draw much heavier weights with much less effort. Most experienced archers are not going to be able to draw a 100# bow, let alone a 135 or 160# .. those are _heavy_, which is to say _really really hard_ to draw; and to draw a few times, without really hurting yourself, takes quite a lot of practice over years to slowly build up your back and arm muscles. 100# is heavy but achievable, but even drawing 160# .. HOLY JEEBUS, thats some serious draw strength in Joe. Those medievil archers were _STRONG_.

[@TaxTheMonkey]

I'm so impressed with the amount of thought and effort everyone has put into this. Well done everyone involved.

[@AgentGB1]

Awesome test videos!!!

[@Alastair510]

Would be very useful to know the difference in ranges.

[@yrrosimyarin]

Everyone watching this should go look up matching your arrow spine to your bow. There is way more to it than I ever realized before I got into archery, and it depends on so many factors -- bow design, bow weight, draw length, arrow material, arrow thickness, head weight -- and all of them factor in to making the arrow shoot accurately in your bow.

[@SquidsEye]

That's super important for hitting an individual target, like in competition or for hunting, but it probably matters a lot less when your target is a large horde of advancing frenchmen. At that point it probably comes down to a numbers game of just throwing as many arrows into the group as possible, as fast as possible, and hoping that some of them hit a sweet spot. Like Joe said, it doesn't matter much if your arrow veers off to the side of your target, since there will be another bloke stood there too.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

I'd have liked to hear from Joe about how tiring each of them are to shoot, and how quickly can he shoot them off? ie if the enemy is charging at you, could the 110/135 lb bows get off an extra arrow in that time?

[@harrylangton3206]

Most all the time between shots is in knocking an arrow, and I don't think bow weight would significantly affect draw time in any case. I think Joe has said that he only likes to fire a 200lbs bow five or six times, so that one tires him out a lot at least!

[@valandil7454]

It's interesting how important the right weight and material arrow is to shooting I remember getting my 1st 50lb composite recurve and having to have replace the arrows that came with them because they were overly light and short carbon fibre, they barely left the string. My replacement 30-40gram wooden ones fly beautifully but now I fire a 100lb and they're too light, ruined my shot entirely

[@stav1369]

Love the channel but I am going to have to disagree with you Tod on surviving artifacts. There are four other late Medieval bows that exist. They range from 60-100lbs in draw weight The Spencer Bow Dating to the 14th or 15th century, The bow is 79” long with a draw weight of 100 lbs. It is made of English yew wood and had horn nocks on the ends to hold the string. (Hardy, p. 54) The Mendlesham bow This 53 inch bow was found in Suffolk England. It dates to approximately 1540, had a draw weight of 80 lbs. (Keiser) The Flodden Bow A 90 lbs bow claimed to date to 1513 where it was used in the Battle of Flodden. “a landmark in the history of archery, as the last battle on English soil to be fought with the longbow as the principal weapon.” (Keiser) The Hedgeley Moor Bow The first bow comes from the battle of Hedgley Moor in 1464, during the War of the Roses. A family who lived in the castle since the battle had preserved it to modern times. It is 1.66m (65in) and 270 N (60LBF) daw force Henry Gorden and Alf Webb, "The Hedgley Moor Bow at Alnwirck Castle", Journal of the society of Archery Antiquaries 15 (1972) 99. 8-9 I have a video on it kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqu1qWtpZ6ZseJY Time stamp 5:50 We also have surviving bows and bow fragments from the high middle ages from the 12-13th Century. Along withthe bows were war arrowheads including various needle bodkins and broad heads associated with this period of the middle ages., Publication: Late Viking Age and Medieval Waterford. Excavation 1986-1992 Maurice F. Hurley, Orla M.B Scully with Sarah W.J McCutcheon The bows are estimated not to be much heavier than 60lb. They are self-bows like late medieval Longbows but they are short bows which is reinforced by the arrow shafts also found at the site that measured about 21 inches instead of 28+ that the arrows on the MR had. Not England but we also have the Hedeby Longbow wich has a draw weight of 100lb. But this is a Viking bow. As for “standardised” arrows their were 3500 arrows recovered from the MR. They were not 1 standard weight. They were between 28-32 inches. They also varied in thickness although the majority were 1/2 inch which are best suited for 100+lb bows. But this suggests that ammunition for war was made for different weight bows. The MR had mostly heavy bows but it did have some bows as low as 80lb.

[@Intranetusa]

Interesting. I've read other people say the Mary Rose draw weight estimates were inaccurate because the researchers simply estimated the draw weight based on thickness of the prod....without taking into account that not all woods are the same and a lower quality wood would have to be made much thicker than a high quality wood to achieve the same draw weight at the same draw length. And I've read tha the Mary Rose being a former flagship and having a prestigious status may have skewed draw weights to above average.

[@stav1369]

@@Intranetusa I think the estimates are fairly accurate from what I have read. But a point of clarity in regards to the MR's status in the fleet. She was not flag ship at the time of her sinking but the Mary Rose was the Flagship under three different admirals before that. So, while not the flagship at the time of her sinking, she was nonetheless a very important ship in the fleet at that time and the ship of the Vice Admiral. She was not an ordinary ship. We also suspect that some of the bows on board the ship belonged to Retinue archers brought onboard by Vice Admiral George Carew. Retinue archers were amongst the best archers in England. Specifically chosen for their strength and skill so they were not ordinary archers. This may explain the very heavy bows. I for one don't doubt that Wabows got that heavy. We have reliable evidence and surviving artifacts of bows from other cultures, Ottoman, Chinese and Korean that used similarly heavy draw weights. So we know it's humanly possible. I just think the above context of the MR makes the bows found on her above-average samples of bows.

[@Intranetusa]

@@stav1369 Yep, I understand the Mary Rose's status and called it a former flagship. I agree with your assessment that if those Mary Rose estimates based on thickness were accurate, then they were likely the above average archers belonging to more pretigious retinue archers . The weight distribtion of the estimated bows is similar to the weight distribution of other above average to elite archers of the Middle Eastern and East Asian civilizations that valued archery. The 10th-13th cent. Song Dynasty for example had requirements for its "1st class" archers (probably top level elites) to use at least 160 lb bows for infantry and 120 lb bows for cavalry. For second class archers, 148 lb bows for infantry and 104 lb bows for cavalry (above average archers). And so on.

[@somewhere6]

Consistently good presentations!

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks

[@ryddragyn]

The Manchu thought 80# was reasonable and adequate, although they had people capable of far more. HOWEVER: their design of bow had a high ratio of stored energy to peak draw weight, so they are equivalent to much heavier longbows.

[@mikeorick6898]

I know of one test where an 80lb Qing bow shot faster (175 v 190fps) than a 125lb yew bow with the same 1230 grain arrow.

[@alexanderflack566]

@@mikeorick6898 Do you have a link to that test? Also, incidentally, Manchu bows *massively* overperform in the energy per unit draw weight category. They're something like 25-30% more energy stored per unit draw weight than Korean or Turkish bows, which themselves outperform most historical composite bow designs. But it's worth noting that a 106@28 Turkish flight bow that I've seen test results for got 185 fps with a 1067 gn arrow, while a 110@30 yew longbow shot 185 fps with 972 gn and 175 fps with 1157 gn. That's 101-107 J for the longbow versus 110 J for the Turkish, and their flight bows were better than their war bows (since flight bows tend to be high-maintenance and prone to limb twisting, which you don't want in a military bow that sees more abuse and needs to be more dependable).

[@alexanderflack566]

@@mikeorick6898 Also, here's a chart to illustrate that point: images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/588245596b8f5babc805aeef/1604068150549-EKNEC7PG2L2J1XR0QQ9Z/Screenshot+from+2020-10-30+10-25-27.png?format=1500w That shows a Manchu bow versus assorted other bows (Korean, Turkish, English longbows, Tatar) in terms of energy stored per unit draw weight through the draw.

[@henriknemeth3370]

@@mikeorick6898know of the test you are talking about, but I can’t see how it could be correct. I think a simple chronograph error occured. The reasons I say this are the following: 1. Although it is well known that Manchu bows store a lot of energy per draw weight, much more than flatbows or composites of other design, there is no reason why they would be dynamically efficient. They are heavy limbed, large eared bows. The bow featured in Peter Dekker’s test allegedly achieved a dynamic efficiency of ~95% at 15 GPP, which is more than the already amazing efficiency Adam Karpowicz’s light limbed, short turkish bows produced at an even higher GPP. There is no way that can happen. 2. The maker of the bow, Wen Chieh wrote that the longbow outperformed the Manchu bow when both launched a 100 gram arrow. As the Manchu bow supposedly achieved 135 J of KE with an 80 gr arrow, that would mean the longbow got even more, perhaps significantly more, if we take into account the weight difference between the arrows (100 gr vs 80 gr). It is highly unlikely, that a 120 lbf longbow shoots an arrow with upwards of 140 J of KE. 3. I know of only one other test with a Manchu bow, and that one achieved only 71% dynamic efficiency with 18 GPP, which seems to be much more realistic.

[@mikeorick6898]

Could be. Got a link to what WC wrote about the 100g arrow test with both bows?

[@manusbrewer]

Well done! One thing I am curious about though is the change in energy delivery to the target at the longer ranges. Our archery instructor implied that after traveling such a distance, the spine cycle would have dampened out and more of the energy would drive into the point instead of flexing the arrow. It would be wild to compare high speed of the impact at that range with these. Tricky though, hitting such a specific target at 200m!

[@mikeorick6898]

Mark Stretton has done penetration tests out past 200yds. A 144lb bow and 72gram/1111grain arrows. They never penetrate more than they do at 20yds. They did however penetrate more at 80 than 40-60, and more at 200 than 120-180.

[@alexanderflack566]

@@mikeorick6898 I saw that; personally, I think it's just the small sample size. Doing that test with a few hundred (or even just a few dozen) arrows would probably form a pattern around an exponential decay curve or something.

[@hugetird]

I’m really interested in how a 200 pound bow works and if it was even at all possible for archers to continually shoot them. I’ve seen joes 200 pound bow and holy cow is that thing crazy. I wonder if they could penetrate armour or just shatter the arrows instead?

[@alexanderflack566]

With socketed heads like these? Shatter them. With a Manchu style shanked tip, I would bet that the 160# longbow used here would stand a decent chance. Breaking an arrow shaft and/or shattering the tip absorbs a lot of energy that could (or would, at least most of it) otherwise go into damaging the target.

[@chengkuoklee5734]

Joe said in AvA 1 that he maximum shoots 5-6 arrows before he's too fatigue.

[@alexanderflack566]

@@chengkuoklee5734 With the 200# bow, yes. With the 160# he says he can get through two sheaves (that's 48 arrows) without a problem.

[@henriknemeth3370]

@@alexanderflack566 Are you stating this based on intuition, or are there any studies about the performance of socketed heads vs tanged heads that you know of?

[@Subgenrelol]

I think my rotator cuff would simply evaporate trying to shoot all those in such quick succession with that thing lmao

[@gvii]

Has Joe ever lost an arm wrestling match? I'm betting no. And I hope he wouldn't take this the wrong way, but I'd be afraid to shake his hand. I kinda prefer it to stay attached to my arm, oddly enough. I've shot a lot of bows in my time, but him shooting those monsters recurves like that is absolutely impressive. Not only can he pull that thing back, but he can reliably hit what he's aiming at. Just amazing, anyway you look at it.

[@washellwash1802]

Joe has never struck me as anything but a gentle giant and I'd happily shake his hand or arm wrestle him. I'd lose, but I don't expect to be hurt.

[@gvii]

@@washellwash1802 It's called a joke. I guess that wasn't clear enough. It takes immense effort to remove parts of the body from someone. I figured it would be rather clear I wasn't being serious.

[@ryanschmidt3319]

In AvA 3 I want to see different weight bows at the armor. I would also like to see everything tested against other armor (brigandine, scale, lamellar, mail, lorica segmentata, etc).

[@danielba01]

And Joe is making a good point in the end: The archer was never the equivalent of the modern sniper (like the Robin Hood movies). In the battle field you had a bunch of archers and you would have used them more like a machine gun.

[@johnharris7756]

Hey guys, loving this series. Please do some longer/long range testing. Shooting so close I feel is a little unfair to the armor.

[@ryanmay1298]

Amazing you're doing the work acamedic archaeologists and historians won't. Amazing set of films. I look forward to seeing the tests done at range, it would be interesting to see the damage drop off over distance. Again thanks for the films.

[@TeutonicEmperor1198]

As long as Tobias Capwell is in the frame, Tod's video has the academic backing that it needs! And to be honest, who could be better and more knowledgeable than him?

[@ryanmay1298]

@@TeutonicEmperor1198 Couldn't agree more, well said.

[@markfergerson2145]

Something else Joe could probably give the best insight on is rate of fire as it relates to bow weight. As the enemy gets closer a lighter bow will have similar if not the same effectiveness as a heavy bow at extreme range, so if an archer can loose more arrows per minute with a lighter bow it should be worthwhile to have archers who are only able to pull lighter bows in reserve for when the enemy gets close. That way you can incense the danger to them the closer they get.

[@alexanderflack566]

A 145# bow delivers more energy at 100 meters than a 110# bow does at point blank, per Tod's testing of arrow speed loss at a distance and Joe's testing of Mary Rose replica bows of various draw weights.

[@thechumpsbeendumped.7797]

What does self yew mean?

[@nutyyyy]

It's naturally laminated, made from a whole piece of yew, rather than being glued together.

[@kaliz-kan]

A bow made out of a single piece (stave) of yew. Usually with added horn nocks. Yew of a good enough quality for a powerful longbow is expensive today so we more commonly see "laminate" bows - two or more pieces of wood (they may be the same species of wood but usually not) glued together. This aims to replicate or improve on a "self yew" bow.

[@chstoney]

It means a bow made from one piece of yew wood as opposed to composite bow made from wood with other materials like sinew and horn.

[@nobbytang]

I did some rough calcs regarding weight of arrow, speed on hitting target over a few distances and it worked out under 50 mtrs it was like being hit by a middleweight boxer,, just on momentum regardless of penetration of armour..(. 3.6 ounz warbow arrow)....

[@888Grim]

Excellent series =) Not sure about the best way to test this (humanly) but I'd be very interested to see how different bow and arrow weights dealt with warhorses.

[@mikeorick6898]

With or without barding? A 500-grain arrow from a 50lb hunting bow can kill a moose...

[@888Grim]

@@mikeorick6898 Both, and I'm not a hunter, but are we talking about slipping a modern carbon fiber arrow through a large animals side and ribs, into it's heart, from concealment? because I would expect that's a somewhat different situation from needing to insta-drop a charging warhorse. (I feel like this came across as smug or sarcastic but i'm really not a hunter and i'm asking a genuine question)

[@mikeorick6898]

@@888Grim no problem. 500 grain wood arrows from 50lb bows kill them too. Arrows do not insta drop anything unless they hit the brain or spinal cord or break supporting bones. They bleed out. It is easier to get through bone with heavier arrows from heavier bows but even elephants have been killed (eventually) with arrows from 75lb bows. You could put multiple arrows in or through a charging horse and it will keep moving for some time before it stops. Stepping on an arrow, or a caltrop might do that better. A French knight reported he was hit five times and his horse fifteen times in one battle for example. Both survived.

[@debudada]

I found the archer's shooting stance awkward , then I researched further that the common stance wont let you draw such a heavy bow , one has to bend to use the back muscles fully , and this very stance has been depicted in medieval tapestries

[@georgewashington1621]

Todd, there was a very interesting episode of the Australian guy, forgot his name, he was shooting arrows from different longbows with his brother, and a 90lb or 100lb longbow was outshooting a 120lb bow, the same arrow was flying further or at the same distance. So, what i'm saying is it is quite silly to talk in just draw weights without chronographing.

[@MontyCantsin5]

@George Washington: Was there any mention of the force with which the arrows shot from lighter bows were hitting a target? Did cause as much damage as the 160lb bow used here? Ultimately, I think in the medieval period, archers would have thought less about distance and more about the killing potential of the longbow (after all, shooting up in air in a battlefield situation to gain distance seems to be a myth). But it is an interesting question and one I thought about when watching the main feature of this new round of tests. What harm would a 90-100lb bow do to the same armour when shot from a greater distance? Hard to believe it would really damage any plate armour at all.

[@foldionepapyrus3441]

That is not a huge shocker - as they alluded to the weight/stiffness of the arrow has to match to the bow. That 120lb probably wasted a huge amount of its energy bending the arrow that was too light, as the arrows own inertia means the the arrow head wants to stay put at release and the shaft wasn't up to the task of resisting it.

[@georgewashington1621]

@@MontyCantsin5 from my understanding of physics, the impact force has to be in direct relation with the maximum distance the arrow can travel, so an arrow that travelled further would have higher impact force and penetration. But it is possible that the results they were getting were affected by the angle at which they were launching arrows, as they were shooting with thier own hands, not any kind of a machine or vice, and they were estimating the angle themselves.

[@klafsen]

Sounds like Shadiversity's video, the problem there was that Shad wasn't shooting high enough. Edit: The name of the video is "Shadiversity's brothers DRIVE HIM CRAZY while testing the MEDIEVAL LEGOLAS | feat, JAZZA"

[@tods_workshop]

In reply to Monty. All bows differ in efficiency and also one shooter to another and indeed one arrow to another.

[@bandit6272]

Nearly 2 hours of history nerd excellence on war bows vs armor? You spoil us, Tod

[@billgerard4687]

There is a movement in traditional archery hunting to use as heavy an arrow as possible because the arrow will penetrate further even using very light weight bows. I think the same principle applies here as heavy arrows have great momentum. I hope you can do further testing with lighter bows to check this out.

[@KroM234]

Yes because hunting range is usually under 13 yards, so very close range. So having a heavy arrow that drops quickly doesn't matter at such short range. But that only works with modern material arrows that can be balanced to reach a minimum speed despite the lighter weight of the bow. But you can't do that with wooden arrow shafts (shooting too heavy arrows on a weaker bow). Real trad hunters (I mean those shooting using primitive techniques, wooden arrows, no anchor point, both eyes open, pinch/thumb draw) usually have higher poundage bows than what they tipically draw for target shooting because they don't draw it anywhere near max draw.

[@steemlenn8797]

That could be important against mail armor. Once you break the ring, the important bit is how far the arrow goes in.

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

Same principle applies in firearm ballistics. Generally, heavier bullets penetrate game deeper.

[@Alicatt1]

I don't bow hunt, I do shoot 3D field targets though and use a compound bow of 60lb draw weight (the one in my pic to the left

[@ethanmcneal3871]

Where I'm from, it's completely diffrent. As much draw length with as little arrow weight as possible. However with basic math, it's easy to see that both are effective. But I will say as someone who shots a carbon base arrow, with the arrow being so light, I don't get the distance I would with a heavier arrow nut I do get a greater velocity. My max effective killing range is at about 60 yards.

[@Deepranger930]

I had thought for a while that they would different units of archers that were used specifically against different kinds of troops. Lighter draw bows and different heads for lightly armored units. Heavy draw for mounted armored units, etc.

[@vanivanov9571]

Something to note is that even with a 60# bow you can definitely take down a human. Some warbows were possibly as light as that. Lighter bows also allow for faster shooting, which is specially handy for horse archers--the Qing specifically lowered their military standard for bows for that reason (and because they were having trouble recruiting strong archers).

[@Omeet888]

The gao ying archery style they used recommends you shoot half of what the max you can pull is. They had massive tests to see the strength of each archer. The testing bows go up to and over 200#.

[@vanivanov9571]

@@Omeet888 Right, and those statistics could be used as a rough standard for other countries. I forget how many people they said could pull over 200#, but you can presume roughly the same percentage in Britain. Possibly more, if you figure the people are larger or culturally more invested in heavy bows.

[@matiasfalcone2821]

The thing is, can a 60# bow take down a human WITH armor? As far as I understand it, the term warbow is used for bows created to be used at a battlefield, in which most if not all would have some level of armor protection. Faster shooting with a small chance of doing real damage (lucky shots in the less protected areas) is not such a great trade of. I much rather shoot 10 arrows instead of 20-30 if those arrows had a higher chance to incapacitate an armored opponent. Also this tests were made to mimic the conditions of a historical battle, and from the context given in these videos the archers seem to be standing on the ground instead of being on horseback (longbows are just to big to be used while riding a horse)

[@vanivanov9571]

@@matiasfalcone2821 Wasn't suggesting mounted archers at Agincourt... giving other contexts. 60# will take down big game, and will probably pierce a fair amount of gambeson. Don't know what levels of maile it'd pierce. I gave basically the lighest bow anyone might consider taking. 80-90# was fairly popular, I think--I recall something about a lot of Yumi being found in that weight class.

[@wetincornwall6882]

@@vanivanov9571 40lb bow is the legal minimum for hunting across much of the US, and that can take down most everything.

[@MrGana2]

I love these series :D

[@jimintaos]

I think that an important question that needs an answer is: how long can an archer keep up a rate of fire with the various bow draw weights? Maybe a lighter draw weight ultimately puts a lot more arrows in the air. Then too is the question of recruits. How many guys could they get who are in peak shape to pull war bows of high draw weights? A hundred Joes could not put as many arrows in the air as a thousand Tods.

[@danspragens4935]

One thing they brought up in the first AvA test three years ago (can't recall if it was mentioned this time around) is that Joe can handle a bow of up to 200 lbs., but it tires him out quickly. Whereas with a 160 lb. bow, he can shoot all day. Obviously those weights would vary from archer to archer, but presumably a given archer who expected to go on campaign would gravitate to a draw weight that hit a similar sweet spot.

[@tods_workshop]

I agree Jim, this is a very valid point and if an arrow does the job from a 120lbs, why shoot a 160 as you will be able to put more out from a 120. In response to Dan, yes he can 'shoot all day' but that means a few, rest, a few and so through the day. That is very different from saying you have 300 arrows, let me know when you are done. This was filmed the day before the main film and of course we now have to assume that the arrows would likely go through mail from a 120 or 130 so as they don't seem to go through plate from a 160 - what is the point of the 160?

[@foldionepapyrus3441]

As we know Bow practice was a legal requirement in England at the time we can expect that the bottom end of the barrel at muster is capable of pulling whatever the required bow weight was at least a few times - the 'average Joe' of the period may well put Joe to shame in draw weight they can manage as they were supposed to be training to whatever the desired standard was. Personally I expect Joe is actually a good yardstick for the performance of the historical Englishman, but rather hard to make any definitive answer. I'd love to see what Joe's skeleton looks like - I remember reading somewhere about the level of lopsidedness in many skeletons of the period shoulders, and that being theorized to be to because they were archers - and while I expect Joe's diet is better than ye ol' English archer's would have been so he may not show the effect comparably it could still perhaps be a good indicator or the draw weight they were using.

[@tommeakin1732]

You're definitely right to say that lighter bows will allow a man to fight for longer and likely put more arrows in the air in a given time frame, but the issue is that we don't really know where the baseline was. In a context where most of the male population is required to learn to shoot and regularly practice, I think it's hard to say. Due to our modern sample size of *dedicated* warbow shooters being pretty small, I'm not sure how to use them as a reference point. I'm inclined to say Joe would probably sit on the higher end (I believe he can pull a max of 210lb) as I believe he trains and shoots every day. However it's unlikely Joe has "peak body type" for the task; just statistically speaking. Though he's definitely not the worst body type. If almost all the male population has to shoot, you're going to find those peak body types, and I think it's hard to say what that does to the stats. There's also considerations of things like diet, but that's a bit of a minefield in itself as I think some medieval peasants could end up eating quite respectable diets by modern standards (and curiously the standards of the nobility for that matter), but others could grow up during times of famine. I'd have to learn more about that to guess how that'd impact the stats

[@danspragens4935]

@@tods_workshop Fair, but then that makes me wonder what Joe's sweet spot would be for shooting about the number of arrows at about the pace one might expect an archer to shoot over the course of, say, the French advance to the English line at Agincourt. As to the point of 160, it seems (as your discussion at the end suggested) that effective range might be the thing that would push archers toward higher draw weights. In fact, that might make an interesting focus for AvA 3 whenever that might happen. You could look not only at the effective range of different draw weights, but (as came up in the separate Agincourt video from AvA 1) the relative effectiveness of lofted/indirect shooting vs. straight/direct. And there might be some other related questions to do with longbows at greater distances.

[@victorcast2467]

Personally I think in this test calculating the speed of the arrow to check the joules of energy would be interesting. You guys could also check how many joules you need to pierce different sections of armor.

[@dropshot1967]

Have you thought about investigating the changes in the physical power of medieval man and modern man? I recently spoke with a physical therapist that told me about a study that showed that on average, men now are less strong than a century ago and that they are about as strong as women a century ago. I could imagine that medieval men were even stronger because they were used to even more physical work to survive. That strength difference could in turn have a significant impact on how heavy the bows were that could be used.

[@Kingdomkey123678]

Joe has been training with the bow for as long as a medieval longbowman. He started in his teens and is now in his 30s, he claims to be able to draw and shoot a 160lb bow all day with minimal fatigue. The man has more than made up for the modern “easy” life style we all have these days

[@Red-jl7jj]

It is not genetics, but simply men doing less work. Even women 100 years ago were doing plenty of work (hard work, very hard work).

[@3000pigpig]

would love to see a comparison of East vs West heavy war bow performance (Manchu bow vs longbow)

[@Is_this_username_unique]

If the English / Welsh longbow was such a devastating weapon why didn't other European nations adopt it? I suspect it was due to the length of time that needed to be invested to train an archer to use it effectively (probably starting from childhood). A longer training period would develop the muscles and technique needed to shoot a heavier bow, which would suggest to me that a heavier draw weight was more likely the standard on the battlefield.

[@JosefGustovc]

No need to train from childhood. A mid-XVth century Italian source says that in an army sappers should be equipped with an English or a Turkish bow, and it needs to be strong man to shoot effectively. These sappers, the authors says, should be recruited locally. So what he says basically, than an Italian farmer can shoot an English bow effectively. No need to train since you're 4 =).

[@steemlenn8797]

@@JosefGustovc Shoot yes. Hitting?

[@Is_this_username_unique]

@@JosefGustovc That's very interesting. So perhaps the idea of English farmers practising at the butts once a week from childhood was more a cultural preference rather than a military necessity. But if any relatively strong man could shoot a longbow, that makes it even more perplexing to me that they weren't more widely used in other European armies, given how effective they were.

[@Red-jl7jj]

@@JosefGustovc "Not so, they may serue yet to many purposes. For all those weapons (before spoken of) [pikes, calivers, muskets] prouided, shall serue but for your trayned men: and your bills and bowes, which euery man, or most men can handle, shall, (if neede require) be put in place of seruice befitting them weapons." - Robert Barret “Moreouer, they obiect against Archers, that men in this age are not so mightie and strong of bodie, as they haue been in former ages, and therefore cannot shoote so strong, and work so good effects with their arrowes, as their forefathers haue done in times past; which is as friuolous an obiection as all the rest: and the reason is this, that they may see by experience, (if they list) throughout England, as also amongst other Nations, as manie sonnes, as tall or taller than their fathers, or bigger and stronger, as they shall see lower, slenderer, and weaker.” - John Smythe

[@Red-jl7jj]

1: The effectiveness of the longbow is very much overstated. 2: Most combat would be skirmishes and sieges. The longbow is not easy to shoot well whilst in cover. 3: As the campaign drags on, longbowmen will have trouble shooting their bows. 4: Longbows are not very accurate. When shooting at single targets at distance, this can be a problem. 5: Preference Edit: it should be noted the Burgundians used the longbow, and some of the Franc Archers.

[@xact13]

Todd wailing away and waving his arms: “We just don’t KNOW!” Don’t forget to have fun throughout all this brother lol