Yeah, tell that to the capharacts in the byzantine/Persian and Byzantine/Avar wars. You know, the ones more heavily armored than French knights ever were and have holes shot in them. Or the samurai that met Korean composite infantry archers.
Draw weight on any composite bow can match or beat a self bow, since bone and horn beat wood. The bow part of a crossbow is composite after all.
, the maximum draw weight of an English longbow was significantly higher than a typical recurve bow, with the best longbows reaching draw weights between 150 and 180 pounds, while most high-quality recurves would max out around 60-70 pounds depending on the design and archer’s ability; essentially, a historical English longbow could reach considerably higher draw weights than a modern recurve bow. So while you can penetrate some armor while riding around on your pony an Englishman will just knock you off the horse your on from farther than your maximum range with his longbow.
It has nothing to do with modern recurve bows. There is no functional limitation to the draw weight of a composite bow. They had plenty of examples that could hit 70 kg. Composite bow archers can and did produce the same exact results as longbow archers. They often flat out exceeded them with inordinately high draw weight bows. And that makes intuitive sense. Look at a crossbow: a small composite bow with a draw weight so high that humans needed mechanical advantage just to draw them. If you think the English were somehow more professional as archers and stronger than everybody else, you’re vastly mistaken.
Look dude. I’m not trying to get overly analytical and in a life and death debate but no that’s factually incorrect.
The reason I said modern recurve was because if you try to put excess strain on traditional recurve bows most of them will shatter or delaminate as they are laminate technology.
Yes, both types of bow will fire the same types of arrow. The key difference is the English longbow Men can put a lot more oomph behind his shots than a recurve bow man. I am not saying that the English would draw to 180 ft lb for every pullback I am saying that their artillery pieces could do that.
To put it another way, the theoretical maximum range was much higher on a longbow than the theoretical max range on a recurve bow because you can use double or triple the maximum draw weight on the same arrow.
These shoot through armor yours don’t
Yeah, tell that to the capharacts in the byzantine/Persian and Byzantine/Avar wars. You know, the ones more heavily armored than French knights ever were and have holes shot in them. Or the samurai that met Korean composite infantry archers.
Draw weight on any composite bow can match or beat a self bow, since bone and horn beat wood. The bow part of a crossbow is composite after all.
, the maximum draw weight of an English longbow was significantly higher than a typical recurve bow, with the best longbows reaching draw weights between 150 and 180 pounds, while most high-quality recurves would max out around 60-70 pounds depending on the design and archer’s ability; essentially, a historical English longbow could reach considerably higher draw weights than a modern recurve bow. So while you can penetrate some armor while riding around on your pony an Englishman will just knock you off the horse your on from farther than your maximum range with his longbow.
It has nothing to do with modern recurve bows. There is no functional limitation to the draw weight of a composite bow. They had plenty of examples that could hit 70 kg. Composite bow archers can and did produce the same exact results as longbow archers. They often flat out exceeded them with inordinately high draw weight bows. And that makes intuitive sense. Look at a crossbow: a small composite bow with a draw weight so high that humans needed mechanical advantage just to draw them. If you think the English were somehow more professional as archers and stronger than everybody else, you’re vastly mistaken.
Look dude. I’m not trying to get overly analytical and in a life and death debate but no that’s factually incorrect.
The reason I said modern recurve was because if you try to put excess strain on traditional recurve bows most of them will shatter or delaminate as they are laminate technology.
Yes, both types of bow will fire the same types of arrow. The key difference is the English longbow Men can put a lot more oomph behind his shots than a recurve bow man. I am not saying that the English would draw to 180 ft lb for every pullback I am saying that their artillery pieces could do that.
To put it another way, the theoretical maximum range was much higher on a longbow than the theoretical max range on a recurve bow because you can use double or triple the maximum draw weight on the same arrow.