impressive

http://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk

wow .. impressive. This guy is a freak.

Show archery.   War archery was rather different.  Not all archers were trained to this sort of level nor were they expected to be.  Even in England where Archery was raised to a fetish, with State sponsorship and policies intended to foster the use of the Bow amongst the general population, the amount of training was extremely variable.   Mongols OTOH along with most other Steppe nomads were perhaps the closest to this ideal but then they depended on the Bow for their bread and butter.

One point that didn't come out from that video was that the higher the speed, the lower the penetration for any given arrow.  The Archer simply does not have the ability to draw far enough back on each successive shot to get the full power from the bow.  It's also interesting that most of his firing is with modern "gimmicky" bows.  He couldn't do these tricks with a full compound bow or an English long bow, drawing over 120+ lbs nor at the ranges most archers fired at on a battlefield.   Military archery relied primarily on mass, not accuracy for it's effect on the battlefield so most of his stuff is just tricks from that perspective.   He's akin the Wild West sharpshooter - incredibly accurate with loads of trick shots but useless outside of the arena.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 12:35pm:

Show archery.   War archery was rather different.  Not all archers were trained to this sort of level nor were they expected to be.  Even in England where Archery was raised to a fetish, with State sponsorship and policies intended to foster the use of the Bow amongst the general population, the amount of training was extremely variable.   Mongols OTOH along with most other Steppe nomads were perhaps the closest to this ideal but then they depended on the Bow for their bread and butter. One point that didn't come out from that video was that the higher the speed, the lower the penetration for any given arrow.  The Archer simply does not have the ability to draw far enough back on each successive shot to get the full power from the bow.  It's also interesting that most of his firing is with modern "gimmicky" bows.  He couldn't do these tricks with a full compound bow or an English long bow, drawing over 120+ lbs nor at the ranges most archers fired at on a battlefield.   Military archery relied primarily on mass, not accuracy for it's effect on the battlefield so most of his stuff is just tricks from that perspective.   He's akin the Wild West sharpshooter - incredibly accurate with loads of trick shots but useless outside of the arena.

Could they really pull a bow of 120 lbs?

Also the video briefly mentioned something about pulling with two hands... could they mean two people operating one bow perhaps? They didn't seem to elaborate on this point...

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 12:35pm: Show archery.   War archery was rather different.  Not all archers were trained to this sort of level nor were they expected to be.  Even in England where Archery was raised to a fetish, with State sponsorship and policies intended to foster the use of the Bow amongst the general population, the amount of training was extremely variable.   Mongols OTOH along with most other Steppe nomads were perhaps the closest to this ideal but then they depended on the Bow for their bread and butter. One point that didn't come out from that video was that the higher the speed, the lower the penetration for any given arrow.  The Archer simply does not have the ability to draw far enough back on each successive shot to get the full power from the bow.  It's also interesting that most of his firing is with modern "gimmicky" bows.  He couldn't do these tricks with a full compound bow or an English long bow, drawing over 120+ lbs nor at the ranges most archers fired at on a battlefield.   Military archery relied primarily on mass, not accuracy for it's effect on the battlefield so most of his stuff is just tricks from that perspective.   He's akin the Wild West sharpshooter - incredibly accurate with loads of trick shots but useless outside of the arena. Could they really pull a bow of 120 lbs?

English long bows have been recorded at 120+ lbs.  Mongol compound horse bows have been recorded at 150+ lbs draw. 


Quote:

Also the video briefly mentioned something about pulling with two hands... could they mean two people operating one bow perhaps? They didn't seem to elaborate on this point...

I suspect he's referring to a "foot bow", where you sit on your bum and use your feet to hold the bow and you pull back with both hands.   A stunt, not seriously used either in hunting or on the battlefield (for obvious reasons).   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 12:35pm:

One point that didn't come out from that video was that the higher the speed, the lower the penetration for any given arrow.  The Archer simply does not have the ability to draw far enough back on each successive shot to get the full power from the bow.

he was able to shoot of 3 arrows in quick time and penetrate the chain link armour that was used in those days.

They didn't need to penetrate steel plating.

John Smith wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 4:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 12:35pm: One point that didn't come out from that video was that the higher the speed, the lower the penetration for any given arrow.  The Archer simply does not have the ability to draw far enough back on each successive shot to get the full power from the bow. he was able to shoot of 3 arrows in quick time and penetrate the chain link armour that was used in those days. They didn't need to penetrate steel plating.

It was done at close range and with a fancy gimmicky bow, not a proper recurve or compound bow, nor was the target attempting to defend itself with a shield.   Try it at battle ranges of over 50 metres and see what happens, as he's charging in, with the enemy's own archers firing at the same time.

Its stunt archery, not real archery.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 4:50pm:

It was done at close range and with a fancy gimmicky bow, not a proper recurve or compound bow ...

The bows he is using are both a recurve and a shortened long bow.

Compound bows are recent innovations.

The traditional bow in medieval times was a long-bow, although the re-curve bow had been used from about 600bc.
It was used as a cavalry bow by the Mongols, among others.

Archer ranks are probably the weapon, in a sense, that changed the face of warfare in the old days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

They had been successfully used in a number battles prior to Agincourt, but they were always a danger in warfare.

They could perhaps be likened, in old battles, to machine-gun corps - an enemy of the infantry corps.

Like snipers!  8-)

Not sure archers play a huge part in modern warfare, so talk of it not being 'real archery' is not here nor there.  I suppose haters gon' hate.

I can see the point about draw force when shooting from a distance - so why not make greater use of leg bows when used as archers are traditionally depicted?

The video appears to suggest that archers would also be of great use on the fringes of the battle where they can still move around easily, and in amongst the battle as it thins out a bit. And in irregular warfare. Not being weighed down with a sword, shield and armour, but still being able to kill at a rapid rate from just outside of hand to hand combat range would be very useful.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 4:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 4:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 12:35pm: One point that didn't come out from that video was that the higher the speed, the lower the penetration for any given arrow.  The Archer simply does not have the ability to draw far enough back on each successive shot to get the full power from the bow. he was able to shoot of 3 arrows in quick time and penetrate the chain link armour that was used in those days. They didn't need to penetrate steel plating. It was done at close range and with a fancy gimmicky bow, not a proper recurve or compound bow, nor was the target attempting to defend itself with a shield.   Try it at battle ranges of over 50 metres and see what happens, as he's charging in, with the enemy's own archers firing at the same time. Its stunt archery, not real archery.    ::)

over longer distances he has no need for that sort of speed. I think the whole point was to show that archery wasn't just used over longer distances, but in close quarter combat as well.

John Smith wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 4:50pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 4:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 12:35pm: One point that didn't come out from that video was that the higher the speed, the lower the penetration for any given arrow.  The Archer simply does not have the ability to draw far enough back on each successive shot to get the full power from the bow. he was able to shoot of 3 arrows in quick time and penetrate the chain link armour that was used in those days. They didn't need to penetrate steel plating. It was done at close range and with a fancy gimmicky bow, not a proper recurve or compound bow, nor was the target attempting to defend itself with a shield.   Try it at battle ranges of over 50 metres and see what happens, as he's charging in, with the enemy's own archers firing at the same time. Its stunt archery, not real archery.    ::) over longer distances he has no need for that sort of speed. I think the whole point was to show that archery wasn't just used over longer distances, but in close quarter combat as well.

He's been watching too much Legolas.   I'll put money on a well-armoured infantry soldier with a modicum of training over an archer in close quarter combat any day of the week.  As I keep pointing out, a shield would render his bow impotent and once his arrows are used up, he has to fall back on what ever his secondary weapon is (dagger/sword/mace/etc.)   

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:

I can see the point about draw force when shooting from a distance - so why not make greater use of leg bows when used as archers are traditionally depicted? The video appears to suggest that archers would also be of great use on the fringes of the battle where they can still move around easily, and in amongst the battle as it thins out a bit. And in irregular warfare. Not being weighed down with a sword, shield and armour, but still being able to kill at a rapid rate from just outside of hand to hand combat range would be very useful.

Yet it was the armoured infantry man or cavalry man which dominated the battlefield for thousands of years, FD.

As I keep pointing out, battlefield archery relied on mass firepower, not individual accuracy.  A rain of arrows is impossible to defend against and you don't need to be overly accurate in that situation, you just have to get it downrange and in the general vicinity of the target mass.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 4:50pm: It was done at close range and with a fancy gimmicky bow, not a proper recurve or compound bow ... The bows he is using are both a recurve and a shortened long bow. Compound bows are recent innovations.

Modern ones are, Lionel.  Traditional compound bows which are composite bows usually made up of a laminate usually of wood and horn, have been around for thousands of years.


Quote:

The traditional bow in medieval times was a long-bow, although the re-curve bow had been used from about 600bc.

Yes.  Recurve bows can be simple or complex, Lionel.  The "traditional bow" in Medieval Europe was the Long-bow but that was only in Europe.  Composite recurves were in use across Asia and the New World at the same period.


Quote:

It was used as a cavalry bow by the Mongols, among others.

Yes.  Mongols were amongst the best bowmen in the world and had some of the heaviest draw bows ever made.


Quote:

Archer ranks are probably the weapon, in a sense, that changed the face of warfare in the old days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow They had been successfully used in a number battles prior to Agincourt, but they were always a danger in warfare. They could perhaps be likened, in old battles, to machine-gun corps - an enemy of the infantry corps. Like snipers!  8-)

No, not really.  Snipers rely on single, aimed shots to be effective.  Archery relies on mass firepower and so yes, your likening it to the modern Machine Gun Corps is a good approximation. 

I'd recommend any of Robert Hardy's excellent books on Toxophilia if anybody is interested in serious study of bows.   All are worth reading and as he is one of the world's acknowledged experts on the topic, he seems to know his stuff, particularly WRT to the English and the Long-bow.

Quote:

Yet it was the armoured infantry man or cavalry man which dominated the battlefield for thousands of years, FD.

Hence my comment about it being useful on the fringes of the battle. I am not suggesting they would have replaced infantry with heavier weapons. But getting shot with several arrows while trying to engage in a swordfight would be a bit of a disadvantage. His style of archery would allow someone to rapidly move around the battlefield to where they would be most useful.


Quote:

As I keep pointing out, battlefield archery relied on mass firepower, not individual accuracy.  A rain of arrows is impossible to defend against and you don't need to be overly accurate in that situation, you just have to get it downrange and in the general vicinity of the target mass.

That is the recieved wisdom. He is challenging that view. He hints that competition archery may be partly to blame for the misrepresentation, as there is nothing that reflects close quarters combat.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:

I can see the point about draw force when shooting from a distance - so why not make greater use of leg bows when used as archers are traditionally depicted? The video appears to suggest that archers would also be of great use on the fringes of the battle where they can still move around easily, and in amongst the battle as it thins out a bit. And in irregular warfare. Not being weighed down with a sword, shield and armour, but still being able to kill at a rapid rate from just outside of hand to hand combat range would be very useful.

The Battle of Agincourt was won in this way.

During the days before the battle it rained torrentially so the ground turned into sticky mud on the battlefield.

The English archers had a turkey-shoot when the battle began. The French were on horses whose hooves sucked mud and slowed them down while the archers rained arrows upon them.

It's said the mud won the battle for the British by immobilising the French in a mud-bath that kept them within range of the arrows long enough to decimate them.

The French would cut off the string fingers of English archers.

On investigation you will find many special forces still today use the bow in warfare. Silent and deadly. They have special applications so they are out there.

nasus wrote on Jan 27^th, 2015 at 2:55pm:

On investigation you will find many special forces still today use the bow in warfare. Silent and deadly. They have special applications so they are out there.

I once used an original cross-bow from the Middle Ages with a 'bolt' fitted in the launching groove.

I was amazed at the power. It had a kick-back like the Enfield .303 that we used in the army cadets.

The modern speargun is also a similar concept - very useful device.

freediver wrote on Jan 27^th, 2015 at 10:13pm:

The modern speargun is also a similar concept - very useful device.

Powered by a bungee-cord instead of a .303 cartridge. Not very reassuring.

Unfortunately you only get one shot off, and if it misses your target, then the shark that's been coming at you has his dinner assured.

Incidentally, premier Baird of NSW said he is planning to install 'new technology' to keep sharks off Sydney's beaches.

I wonder what that will be.   

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 7:43am:

freediver wrote on Jan 27th, 2015 at 10:13pm: The modern speargun is also a similar concept - very useful device. Powered by a bungee-cord instead of a .303 cartridge. Not very reassuring. Unfortunately you only get one shot off, and if it misses your target, then the shark that's been coming at you has his dinner assured. Incidentally, premier Baird of NSW said he is planning to install 'new technology' to keep sharks off Sydney's beaches. I wonder what that will be.

Well in answer to one of your thoughts, possibly we could use one of the forum members as a token gesture.
Secondly your post shows you know nothing of diving. Once the speargun is fired, and a person was to miss, the cord easily retrieves the spear. Or, no-one with half a brain would fire a spear at a shark without certainty. I preferred to poke and this forced the shark to remain at length. Then if possible to the ocean floor and head for beach. If at depth, coming to the surface exposes the diver to "a free lunch", still that's why a person would not fire but poke if possible, better that being lunch.

nasus wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 6:51pm:

Well in answer to one of your thoughts, possibly we could use one of the forum members as a token gesture. Secondly your post shows you know nothing of diving. Once the speargun is fired, and a person was to miss, the cord easily retrieves the spear. Or, no-one with half a brain would fire a spear at a shark without certainty. I preferred to poke and this forced the shark to remain at length. Then if possible to the ocean floor and head for beach. If at depth, coming to the surface exposes the diver to "a free lunch", still that's why a person would not fire but poke if possible, better that being lunch.

Correct!

You stay away from the surface because most of the dangerous shark species are ambush predators that rocket up from the depth to hit their prey like Great Whites do with seals.

Same thing with crocodiles. Stay on the bottom and they won't touch you.

Quote:

Correct! You stay away from the surface

Thanks for the advice.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 8:39pm:

Quote: Correct! You stay away from the surface Thanks for the advice.

I'm NOT saying be a bottom-feeder ...  (lord knows gregg has enough of them hanging around his arse) ... but make like a crab or lobster and crawl back to shore on the sandy bottom for safety.

Good idea. But what if I run out of breath?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2015 at 8:30am:

Good idea. But what if I run out of breath?

Get a longer snorkel. Lol. I know, just being funny.

nasus wrote on Jan 31^st, 2015 at 8:40am:

freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2015 at 8:30am: Good idea. But what if I run out of breath? Get a longer snorkel. Lol. I know, just being funny.

It's a bonza idea.

Bunnings has lots of PVC tubing of different diameters and lengths. I'm sure FD will take up this idea and will shortly be seen on Fraser Island walking down the beach and into the surf with a 20 foot pole held vertically from a DIY attachment to his mouth.

This might scare the local dingoes (who regularly eat small children during the height of the tourist season) ~ but bugger them.

Once submerged, this 20 foot pole will weigh nothing.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 10:08am:

freediver wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 9:30pm: I can see the point about draw force when shooting from a distance - so why not make greater use of leg bows when used as archers are traditionally depicted? The video appears to suggest that archers would also be of great use on the fringes of the battle where they can still move around easily, and in amongst the battle as it thins out a bit. And in irregular warfare. Not being weighed down with a sword, shield and armour, but still being able to kill at a rapid rate from just outside of hand to hand combat range would be very useful. The Battle of Agincourt was won in this way. During the days before the battle it rained torrentially so the ground turned into sticky mud on the battlefield. The English archers had a turkey-shoot when the battle began. The French were on horses whose hooves sucked mud and slowed them down while the archers rained arrows upon them. It's said the mud won the battle for the British by immobilising the French in a mud-bath that kept them within range of the arrows long enough to decimate them. The French would cut off the string fingers of English archers.

Battles are won, Herbie, invariably by the side that makes the least mistakes.  The French were essentially high-born and in-bred idiots.  Instead of attacking on a broad front, they attacked on a narrow frontage, in a single long, column, this meant that each succeeding Knight and his squire(s) was following into increasing churned up ground.  By the time the leading rank came anywhere near the English line, the rear ranks were trying to advance through what was essentially a swamp.   If, instead, they had attacked on a broad frontage, it would have made them both a smaller target, which was in the beaten zone of the archers for less time and ensured better footing for them and their horses.

Because the French chose to join battle in a field which was converging on the English line, they couldn't agree as to who should be left out of the initial charge, so adopted the already mentioned disastrous narrow frontage column attack formation, to allow all the French nobles to take part.

The French had archers, IIRC a company of Burgundian crossbow men but because of the way their crossbows were constructed, they were unable to undock their bow strings, whereas the English with their Longbows were, so because of their exposure overnight to the wet, their crossbows were rendered useless, whereas the English were able to restring their bows just before the battle commenced, therefore making them still useless.  If the French had instead had normal bows, they would have had the fire support necessary to allow them to cross the danger zone and engage the English line, which was made up primarily of lightly equipped and unarmed archers.

It is a myth that the French removed the bow fingers of captured archers.  There is no historical evidence to support this claim.  The claim that this resulted in the use of two upraised fingers as an English insult is also a myth.

While the Longbow is the most renowned weapon from the 100 years war, the war was actually won in the end through the use of cannon, not bows.  Cannons had by 1453 essentially rendered the Medieval castle and walled town obsolete and without those bases, the entire medieval system started to break down.  It was also the French who were declared the winners in 1453, the English may have won many of the battles but it was the French who emerged the victors from the conflict and the financial and social costs are considered to be a prime motivator in the English civil war, the so-called "War of the Roses".