FOC and Mary Rose/ Warbow arrows?

[Tommy D]

 I’ve been a big fan of Dr Ed Ashby’s research on arrows for a long time. I particularly enjoyed his paper on how the Papua New Guinean hunters have adopted a wider bow since really heavy metal points became available to them and his theory that this is because the weaken the arrow spine so much.

https://journalofmountainhunting.com/primitive-bowhunting-lessons-papua-new-guineas-png-bows-and-arrows/

I know that he specifically notes a big jump in penetration at 19% FOC and above.

I’ve always wondered - given that the purpose of “Warbow” arrows was to penetrate armour if anyone had measured the FOC of say the Mary Rose arrows?

[PatM]

Quite a bit of variation in head types so that  would vary.  Not sure how much basically mass produced arrows would be fine-tuned.

[Tommy D]

Sorry - firstly - I had actually meant to post this in the arrow section. I also see there is a warbow section. I am happy for this thread to be moved to a more appropriate place.

 I guess my comments about tuning a bow to the arrow may have been a bit misleading. Basically, I felt the gist of Ashby’s Papua New Guinea article was that Extreme FOC was so beneficial to the local hunters that they were happy to make sweeping changes to their bow design to take advantage of the EFOC that had not been available to them prior to steel points. Furthermore, that the hunters he spoke to consistently chose the arrows with the most EFOC. “Because they work best” - I believe was the response he got.

So my question was more about if these guys, and Ashby had come to the same conclusions that high FOC arrows are great for penetration - had the “designers” of English Warbow arrows come to the same conclusions? At least with arrows designed solely to penetrate. Or did the fact that they were trying to shoot at long distances discount using EFOC.

Forgive my lack of knowledge in the subject - but from what I have read I see that “warbow arrows” are often tapered?

When I look at the weights of modern bodkins on sale now they all seem rather light to confer EFOC - but of course the use of a “warbow” today is essentially in competition either for distance or accuracy in its category - and perhaps the onus on penetrating armour has been lost somewhat?!

Here is the full Ashby article ... https://www.grizzlystik.com/PR/Ashby_Papua_New_Guinea_Bows_and_Arrows.pdf

[Del the cat]

I think there is a lot of overthink here.
The real answer is no one knows exactly how the arrows evolved.
However, it is reasonable to assume it would rapidly become obvious what worked well for different purposes. They wouldn't have "measured" FOC*, but they would soon learn what went through mail, what was best against plate, what worked for hunting and what was most lethal against a unprotected animal or man.
I'm sure some arrowsmith would make a stupidly heavy head just for fun a joke and thus they would find out what worked and what didn't.
It doesn't need calculation, CAD or any fancy measurement, just a bit of trial and error and some common sense.
They would doubtless compete to see who could shoot the furthest and who could smash through the thicker boards.
In terms of military arrow heads they would be made in vast numbers and the usual constraints of speed of manufacture, use of material and suitability for purpose would soon result in a rough standardisation. I daresay if you produce a barrel load of arrow heads to the tower of London that were unsatisfactory you would receive a rather curt E-mail
Del
* I daresay people balanced arrows on their fingers but they wouldn't have put numbers to it... maybe they preferred one that balanced near the point for some uses and one than didn't maybe for flight shooting.... we'll never know.