The Great Longbow Debate

[El Mahdi]

Penetration isn't everything.

There are several different things that all contribute to how damaging a weapon is to the body - penetration, energy transfer, momentum transfer, how quickly and well the resulting wound stops bleeding, and so on.

Aren't "momentum" and "energy" the same. Essentially it's just kinetic energy, isn't it?

Energy is never in Newtons. Newtons are a unit of force, not energy.

Your are correct. I mispoke. I believe we were talking about how hard an arrow hits, and it was said that a longbow arrow would be equivalent to high caliber bullets. That's simply not true. Not even close.

He talked about how "hard" it hit. We could debate what that really means, but I think for most intents and purposes, how "hard" a hit is isn't about energy, it is about momentum transfer. And on that score, the arrow and the bullet are on more even terms. The bullet is faster, but you aren't squaring velocity, and the arrow is much heavier than the bullet.

Plus, arrows almost never pass all the way through the target, while bullets sometimes do.

The last part of that isn't true. I've seen arrows go clean through a deer. It's not super common, but it definitely happens enough to not be in the "almost never" category. It happens a lot more than you may think. And those are simply modern coumpound bows*. Even a modern compound bow doesn't have the impact of a 200 lb. pull longbow with a heavy war arrow. Even the most powerful compound bows only have pulls in the low to mid 100's. It's because of the geometry of the arrow head. That's why if you took a hollow point round and a steel jacketed round of the exact same caliber, weight, and load - the steel jacketed round would cut through like butter while the hollow point round would expand and not penetrate as easy (however, it will transfer more energy to the surrounding tissue).

How hard it hits is about energy. Or more specifically, about the energy of the projectile, the weight of the projectile, and the shape of the projectile. (So it is about energy, just not only about energy.)




*For those who don't know, and because this subject always seems to wander in this direction...

Compound Bows are no more powerful than a similiar strength short bow, long bow, or if you want - a recurve bow.

A 100 lb. pull compound bow would have virtually the same force as a 100 lb. pull recurve bow. The only real difference is a compound bow is easier to hold a draw than a recurve bow. A 100 lb. pull recurve bow means you would be holding 100 lbs. with it drawn. A 100 lb. pull compound bow would only take about 75 lbs. to hold (however, you would initially still pull the entire 100 lbs.).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Sorry, I'm probably mixing all the terms up and getting them all wrong.

I don't suppose anyone could fire a longbow at a target from 5, 10, 15, 20-ft. and give us penetration measurements?

Hi Kzach,

This is going to be really vague but there's a show on foxtel (discovery channel I think) that did exactly this. One episode was comparing full plate to brigadine armor, another the spiked hammer to a flail and another was the longbow versus a crossbow. You have one guy (an ex SAS guy) choose one weapon and the other guy (a bald rough and tumble history lecturer) choose the other. They then try to work out which is the best for the similar purpose they were meant for.

From memory, the longbow won because of it's superior rate of fire but I could be wrong here. What was really obvious was that unless you were well trained in their use, most "novices" would struggle to hit a target at 20 foot let alone anything beyond that. I can remember though that they looked at the maximum range and it was pretty long (something that I think the 3.x rules mirrored pretty well). I know that the horse speeds matched up pretty well with actual horse speeds in the 3.x rules so I'm pretty sure they would have had someone verify the 3.x ranges too... maybe.

For the life of me, I can't remember the name of the show, but naked weapon rings a bell. When I google this though, it comes up with Chinese porn so go figure. Anyone else know the show I'm talking about? I'll check my guide when I get home.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I'd think it would be significantly easier and quicker to draw and fire a modern firearm, than to draw, knock, aim, and fire, a bow.

Ohhhhhhhhh yeah, most definitely.

I've seen highly-trained archers empty a quiver in 20 seconds or so...with accuracy.

But in contrast, I've also seen a speed-shooter with a 6-shot revolver draw, empty his gun into the target, reload and empty his gun into the target in 2.99 seconds.

He also did it blindfolded...with a similar time and accuracy.

Using an automatic with one hand simply gripping and stabilizing the gun with the second hand operating the trigger, he achieved the same rate of fire as a machine gun.

(This was all on that Extreme Marksmen show on the History channel: Extreme Marksmen)

 

[El Mahdi]

Ohhhhhhhhh yeah, most definitely.

I've seen highly-trained archers empty a quiver in 20 seconds or so...with accuracy.

But in contrast, I've also seen a speed-shooter with a 6-shot revolver draw, empty his gun into the target, reload and empty his gun into the target in 2.99 seconds.

He also did it blindfolded...with a similar time and accuracy.

Using an automatic with one hand simply gripping and stabilizing the gun with the second hand operating the trigger, he achieved the same rate of fire as a machine gun.

(This was all on that Extreme Marksmen show on the History channel: Extreme Marksmen)

Also, if the shooter is practiced in point shooting*, the amount of time needed to aim is significantly reduced.

Of course, that still doesn't eliminate the 25' zone. But it may increase your odds a bit.



*In Point Shooting, the trigger is operated by the middle finger, instead of the index finger. The index finger is held straight against the receiver (but below the action or slide, since that could hurt a bit). You aim simply by pointing, just like when you played cops and robbers as a kid. It works on the principal that, at least at short ranges, your finger's position is hardwired to your brain. At short ranges it's surprisingly accurate (I tried it out at 25' once and only decreased my accuracy by an extra 5 or 6 hits out of 50).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

When guns first appeared, they were less effective than bows. Less accurate and a slower rate of fire. What made armies switch to guns was the lack of training and upkeep necessary for an effective gunner compared to an effective bowman. Effective archers were well trained professionals. Any moron with two weeks of practice can be dangerous with a gun.

You're missing the point.

D&D freely bends the laws of reality for bows. They should bend those laws for every ranged weapon.

 

[Kzach]

So an arrow fired from a bow would only really need three or so feet from the point it left the string to be powerful enough to kill someone, right?

That should equate to 5-ft. around the attacker. In other words, someone directly in melee with you probably prevents you not only from drawing and aiming but from also effectively firing the arrow.

But anything out to about a hundred feet say is pretty much fair game for the archer, yeah?

Another interesting thing I read about the Mary Rose was that the skeletons of seasoned veteran longbowmen were DEFORMED! It showed not only abnormal muscle development in the shoulders and arms of the drawing arm, but bony growths and deformed fingers.

Freaky.

 

[Sandain]

From a show called Samurai Bow;

Japanese Longbows can be fired from a sitting or riding position. Also because they dont touch the bow when shot the arrow leaves the bow in a straight line, so is accurate at short range. A european arrow is unstable in the air for the first 10 feet or so before it straightens up.

In the Doco I saw both types of bow struggled to penetrate chainmail closer than 20 feet

 

[S'mon]

The highest draw weight estimate for a medieval longbow I've seen was 135 lbs for the 16th century bows recovered from the Mary Rose. 200lb doesn't sound right to me.

 

[S'mon]

One difference between arrows & bullets is that arrows are much slower, and this makes it much harder to hit an individual moving target at range. Ca 100' range seems reasonable, but not 3e's 1100'+ (more with Far Shot).

 

[Hussar]

Pulls of 80 lbs. and pulls of 200 lbs. are both correct. All longbows are not created equal. Cheap mass produced longbows, ones made without necessarily using wood that's properly seasoned, or even the right type of wood, would have significantly lower pulls (and therefore less damage upon striking). A carefully and perfectly crafted longbow, one maximizing every possible factor (Masterwork) could have a pull as high as 200 lbs. So both are correct. IMO, the stats of a regular longbow in D&D equate to an average longbow.

I gotta go with S'mon with this. How would you even be able to draw, much less fire a 200 pound draw weight bow? You'd have to be huge to pull that thing. Heck, most compound bows top out at around 100 pounds.

I think you're a bit high on the draw weights.