wood arrows & compound bows

[Timelord]

Ok, thankyou for the sources (& info), pls pm those sources to me.
For our prep subject, the question of whether a wood arrow or a carbon/aluminium one would have more mass impact (which then expends into penetration hopefully), we would not need to get arrows exactly the same in weight/grains or design etc. The real world measurements is what matters. If a modern non-wood target arrow was put up against a wooden one of the same physical size, then which would have the greatest mass impact and also due to its own physics the greatest penetration ability through a variety of likely materials? That is the thrust of the question. This is where a difference might apply.

Often the recent data from target sports is used when really the historical data from real world combat should be preferred. I see this a lot with ranged and hand to hand martial arts when discussed generally. Folk get all excited and as discussion develops it gets ever focused on to the minutia specifications of the sport version. The hard won lessons from history are often completely bypassed and those same folk end up happy with modern target sport solutions which are not what is really needed..

I have seen that "Weapons of War" documentary before.
I agree with your interpretation of the effectiveness of the Indians projectiles against the Conquistadors. It makes sense to me as far as penetration is concerned. The mass of arrows the conquistadors must have faced in volleys will have caused a worrying rate of attrition as they found gaps in the armour protection. I believe that by the time the war out there was consolidated, the small expeditionary force of Spaniards had suffered well over half their number in casualties and many more were added to this total continually due to some limited gorilla actions by the natives. Not many came home from the original force, also aided by disease.

By the way, "Mike know Loads about everything", while being an excellent media historical re-interpreter, student of history etc etc, does not actually know everything about everything! lol. In fact some of his historical weapon firing against stationary target experiments have been flawed due to basic non scientific rigour and use of suitable materials. He is a Historian working in the commercial media world with researchers to look stuff up for him. Some good, some not so. Some of his stuff is good don't get me wrong.., like the archery fire directed at his back whilst riding away on horseback wearing a rear billowing silk Samurai cloak. Outstanding! "It is entertainment at the end of the day". (Jerry Springer)

Usually the basic mistake of most weapon firing against an armour recreations is they do not replicate the energy absorption of different materials or overall composites, like the human body for instance or even at different ranges.It is no use firing a longbow arrow with a bodkin head from a compressed air powered tube from 20 feet away at a 90 degree angle straight on with no usual high probability of glancing off, at a recently made un-tempered breastplate of 16 gauge steel that is rigidly fixed to a wooden post or backing without any padding or other layers or human torso behind. To the contrary, this test does NOT prove that the longbow was a battle winning "plate" armour piercer. While in this specific set of conditions it might penetrate the modern sheet of steel, the many historical narratives and paintings, line drawings etc etc depict a very different daily reality during the 15th Century when Plate Armour was widespread. Their use against "brigandines" is probably even less effective judging by the explosion of preference for that type of armour by the end of the 15th Century also when ball firing arquebus' (shotgun) were now much more common.

I seem to have gone off on a tangent (unlike the arrow)lol. apologies. TL.
(What I write is not all aimed at you Tartar Horde, as I know you will already be aware of many points I raise - it is debated for a wider audience also)