"Longbow vs. Composite-Recurve ( Mongol) bow..." Topic

I've read on numerous different pages various arguments about the two bows, which is better and why etc etc.

Ultimately it seems to boil down to: Longbows are more durable, and have better penetrating power at short range, while Mongol bows are handier to use, have longer range, but need more protection from the elements.

The point that intrigues me is the idea that the longbow is more powerful up close. Many of the arguments say the longbow can shoot a heavier arrow and within that 60 foot kill zone it is lethal, even against plate armor.

So my question is….why can't the Mongol bow shoot equivalent arrows, and would they then do as much damage?
Discuss!

Maybe they had no need to?

The issue is much less about arrow weight than it is about draw strength. The longbow sends the arrow with much more energy. And killing = m*a. Bigger M helps, but the longbow gives you a lot more A. In this case it gives you more of both.

P.S. Ever try and ride a horse carrying a longbow?

There are examples of men on horseback using longbows in history, and in modern re-enactments. The reason the English did not develop horse archers had more to do with lack or horses and ability to train than the length of the bow.

The question isn't whether they needed to, but could. It has been demonstrated that the Mongol bow had a larger draw strength than the long bow. That's been discussed ad nauseam on many other pages. The point that I'm trying to discover is why you couldn't use the heavier arrow on a Mongol bow, all else being equal.

Perhaps the question is not "could" but "why would"?

I assume heavy armour plays far less of a role for steppe warriors, while range does. So these bows are optimized per warfare evolution for lighter arrows. Perhaps a heavier arrow needs more length to be usefull, which shorter bows cannot handle regardless of draw weight.

Just speculating, though.

I had a book that had a statistical chart of these 2 plus another type of bow, ranges and other stats (a real book not an rpg book) the chart may be online somewhere. Don't remember the name but it had archer or archery in the title it was thin less than 200 pages and soft cover

Don't remember the name but it had archer or archery in the title it was thin less than 200 pages and soft cover

The sort of book request that drives librarians mad…

What's worse is I was wrong. It's called 'making indian bows and arrows…the old way' by Douglas spotted eagle

Different weapons, can't be compared really.

No such thing as "one" Mongol bow.

Mongols carried 3 bows while on campaign, with varying draw weights. They could choose weight of bow based on need in the field. They also used aimed fire vs. area fire of longbows.

Heaviest composition war bows had ~200 lb draw weight. Men who could draw these formed the guard. The bows, were also lacquered, which gave a lot of protection against the elements.

Armors were different because of different combat requirements. Lamellar, leather, chain and silk worked fine on horseback. Plate was rarely, if ever encountered so we don't really know how effective (or not) comp bows would have performed.

Regarding campaigning, the Mongols ate meat and dairy as they brought their food "on the hoof", so they maintained muscle and bodyweight.

Europeans were always subsisting at near starvation levels on campaign, and could lose 25-30% of their bodyweight after a few months. This severely affected their combat effectiveness and strength to draw bows (another reason why firearms grew in popularity).

So which is better? Not the right question.

All of that is irrelevant to the question I posed.

.why can't the Mongol bow shoot equivalent arrows, and would they then do as much damage?

link

Kiefer,
not at all.

You conjecture that longbows fought at 60 feet, so it is better. They didn't fight at 60 feet, they fought at distance using I direct fire.

You also seem to think compound bows were somehow delicate, but miss my pointing out that compound bows could be lacquered.

You also missed my comment about differing armor types for different combat environments. Arrows designed against lamellar armors doesn't mean they are inferior just because they were never used against full plate.

Besides, both bows used different draws and different ways to hold the arrow, and the arrows were different lengths.

Your question is more like stating "my dad can beat up your dad…", to which the only correct answer is … "it depends."

The issue is much less about arrow weight than it is about draw strength. The longbow sends the arrow with much more energy. And killing = m*a. Bigger M helps, but the longbow gives you a lot more A. In this case it gives you more of both.

Force = mass x acceleration (Does Force really = killing?)
Kinetic Energy = half x Mass x Velocity squared
If energy is what you need, then the Velocity is much more important.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Druzhina, it's more about applying the most force over the least surface area. Kinetic energy is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. So therefore, this is not really relevant to this discussion.

And to respond to your question force = killing if it's applied to a minuscule surface area.

Well A. I'm not talking about compound bows at all. I'm talking about longbows and composite bows and B. The question had nothing to do with any of the factors you cited.

The point is, after reading numerous web pages on the topic, it seems that it is agreed upon that longbows did more direct damage up close, while composite recurves had further range and could be shot faster and from horseback. Other factors include durability and weather effects, ease of construction etc.

The question I asked is why would longbows be cited as being better at something when it seems to me the composite bow could shoot the same type of arrows as the composite recurve. And the answer is not you wouldn't or couldn't use those arrows with that kind of bow.

As to the killing =m*a answer, from reading some web pages a lower strength composite recurve could send out an arrow with as much force as a higher strength longbow. The evidence I have seen has to do with the types of arrows used, hence my question….would a composite recurve be as deadly up close as the longbow. Is it really just a matter of arrows used?

Major B that link is one of the websites I've looked over and even that one doesn't have a definitive answer.

Found an answer from someone who seems competent. It as much later on the thread Major B linked to.

As a user of both weapons, both a similar poundage 60 and 62 I prefer my horse bow because of the thumb draw release I can send two or possibly three arrows down range at a target in the same time for one for my long bow.

As for weight I use similar weighted and matched arrows although my arrows are a little longer for my Mongolian they break less because they are released on the right side of the bow and do not suffer from arrow paradox.

When direct shooting at straw and cardboard targets my Mongolian penetrates better than the longbow, and both will penetrate car doors, as for plate, yet to shoot at tempered 14 or 12 gauge to see, but with the correct point on the arrow for penetrating plate metal, I think my 60 pound bows would not do the job.

A lot of variation in arrow heads, some for cutting and slicing and some for penetration, to much variance here without a side by side test.

As for killing, both would penetrate unarmoured flesh, hardened leather, and possibly make it through a gamberson and may split mail with the correct tip.

Both suffer from the rain, the string especially, both bows are waxed and my horse bow is also covered in leather and horsehair, definite that efficiency would suffer for both.

As for range the Mongolian has it over the longbow by 20 ft.

Cheers
Matt

Thank you Matt. As I said in my earlier post, one of the differences people list between ELB and MB is close range penetrating power.

I think what I am getting at is…..if it came down to it, could the Mongol bow do everything the ELB can do, and as well. The ELB can't do everything the MB can do, we know that. But if the Mongols had to fight English style, would the results be the same.

Your post was very helpful.

Pounds of draw being equal, the longbow (using "heart" and "sap" wood for the belly and back respectively), versus the steppes composite bow: the latter returns up to 88% efficiency; the longbow up to 63% efficiency. So go figure: the composite bow is going to produce greater impact energy and range. A shorter bow length doesn't change a thing vis-a-vis energy and range. The bottom line is always returned efficiency.

An arrow does not "care" what weapon it is discharged from! Energy is energy. Weight of missile is what it is. And an arrow requires a correct spine to avoid being either too stiff or too flexible. So a given drawn weight would shoot the same spine/weight of arrow. The head would vary according to the job being done: broadhead for lightly or unarmored targets; "flight" tip for long range; bodkin for up close, armor penetration. The arrows were enough alike the Old World over to be considered the same.

The reason why longbows do such efficient killing up close is because of the infantry application. Horsed archers do not mass in dense ranks to equal infantry bowmen. Density of shot, therefore, makes the difference.

There is nothing behind the assertion that a man on horseback cannot shoot the same draw weight that he does on foot. Steppes archers stood in the stirrups and twisted at the knees and waist to achieve almost 360 degree shooting. It was all a matter of training…

GWA interesting. Everything I've seen made it seem like the up close killing efficiency of the ELB was due to the bow, not due to the tactics. That is a significant piece of information, thank you.

dddd99,

Druzhina, it's more about applying the most force over the least surface area.

This is called pressure.

Kinetic energy is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity.

Work is not the same as energy. Please think before using scientific terms. Kinetic Energy is defined as half x Mass x Velocity squared.

And to respond to your question force = killing if it's applied to a minuscule surface area.

This is high pressure, for penetration – only relevant for armour.

Druzhina
15th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Bluewillow – very interesting; thanks for sharing. (But I'm still jealous of your Arnhem terrain).

I'm no mathematician. But I do know that "blunt force trauma" as usually used as a term does not refer to what arrows do. The actual blunt force is extremely small. And arrows do not knock men over. A simultaneous impact from several/many might accomplish that. But an arrow does not produce blunt force. It cuts. All of the energy is focused on the point of impact which is very small, being literally a point. Bullets, on the other hand, impact and deform as they force their way into a body. The energy is distributed over a widening area. Wearing armor deforms a bullet even more, worsening the effect of blunt force after penetration. Arrows/bolts that penetrate are still acutely pointed and cut their way in, producing very little trauma beyond the actual wound….

When you're talking about projectile weapons, Momentum (F=M*A) is just as important as Kinetic Energy. Momentum gives you penetration, which is the injury-causing portion of the attack.

YouTube link

Lion in the Stars,

When you're talking about projectile weapons, Momentum (F=M*A) is just as important as Kinetic Energy. Momentum gives you penetration, which is the injury-causing portion of the attack.

No, if it is applied to a large area it may cause "blunt force trauma". If it is applied to a small area it may give penetration. The area is important. Force per unit area (pressure).

Momentum = mass x velocity, it is not the same as force or kinetic energy. Please think before using scientific terms.
The principle of the conservation of momentum can be used to determine the recoil and how fast the target + lodged missile moves upon impact. If the shooter has the same mass as the target, these will be nearly the same but in opposite directions (assuming they are standing on a frictionless surface and there is no drag to slow the missile). The target will move a little slower as he now has the added mass of the missile.
Basically, the target isn't going to be pushed over unless the recoil is big enough that it could knock the shooter over.

Druzhina
14th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers