Test on a replica of a Tang era Ming Guang ......plate armor

Joined Dec 2011
3,492 Posts | 30+
Mountains and Jungles of Southern China
Just found this interesting video on Youtube. A group of Chinese artists and designers in Shanghai have reconstructed the Ming Guang ......plate armor used during the Sui and Tang periods, and they are testing it against a 60-pound composite bow. It seems that the arrow couldn't penetrate the ......plates and it was deflected by the armor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8PvrrfyNzc
 
Joined Aug 2013
4,140 Posts | 337+
a world, dead and gray
Last edited:
A 60-pound is quite weak in composite bow standards. Composite bows in East Asia usually go well over a hundred.

True. But most archery business would be done at a longer range, right?

But yeah, I see why one would be skeptical.
 
Joined Aug 2013
1,415 Posts | 8+
South Korea
True. But most archery business would be done at a longer range, right?

But yeah, I see why one would be skeptical.

Yes, the typical range in battle for Korean bows is usually 90~145m(I've seen Qing era records that Qing bows were only able to shoot half the distance of their Korean counterparts, though), but this is still not accurate.

The Mingguang ......plate is a cavalryman's gear, thus one has to put in calculation the impact of the arrow when the cavalryman is advancing towards the archer.
 
Joined Dec 2011
3,492 Posts | 30+
Mountains and Jungles of Southern China
Last edited:
Yes, the typical range in battle for Korean bows is usually 90~145m(I've seen Qing era records that Qing bows were only able to shoot half the distance of their Korean counterparts, though), but this is still not accurate.

The Mingguang ......plate is a cavalryman's gear, thus one has to put in calculation the impact of the arrow when the cavalryman is advancing towards the archer.

What Qing records? Could you show me the source please? Wasn't the Manchurian Qing Dynasty good at archery?

The Mingguang ......plates could be used both by cavalry and by infantry, according to Sui and Tang figurines. I've seen Sui era figurines of infantry shield-bearers wearing this type of armor.

Sui infantryman wearing Mingguang ......plates

127706892428281250.jpg
 
Joined Feb 2011
10,185 Posts | 3,825+
The first test is very unfair to the armor, as it does not model the impact of an arrow on the human body. Neverthess the result favoring the armor makes the following point moot: The armor should be placed over a 150 lb sandbang hanging pell. That way, when the arrow strikes it, the sandbag would move back a little like how a human body would when struck by a projectile, thus dissipating some of the force.

Yes, the typical range in battle for Korean bows is usually 90~145m(I've seen Qing era records that Qing bows were only able to shoot half the distance of their Korean counterparts, though), but this is still not accurate.

If bows can only shoot half the distance (45 meters - 72.5 meters), then that should be relegated to a cavalry bow. Infantry bows definitely have shooting ranges well above this, otherwise such a low shooting range would make it near useless on the battlefield, unless if said range was used for shooting very heavy arrows designed for armor penetration, rather than maximum range.
 
Joined Feb 2011
10,185 Posts | 3,825+
Last edited:
^To add to my above post, the last test in which the bow was tested against a dummy would be heavily in favor of the armor involved, as I highly doubt the dummy weighs 150 lbs (around the weight of a human body of ancient times). This means the dummy is giving too much way when the projectile hits it.

Also the armor looks like something made for a badly written soap opera. I mean, do we even have detailed info about mingguang armor? Ie, its general thickness and element ratio? The plate in the reproductive armor looks like it could be replaced from one of the plates in my pantry and do just as well.

Of course, a mere 60 lb bow would have no chance against high quality armor, that should be taken for granted without need of reproduction tests. Song dynasty manuals say that when shooting against armored opponents, one should use 160 lb bows to shoot once the enemy comes within 90 meters.
 
Joined Aug 2013
1,415 Posts | 8+
South Korea
Last edited:
What Qing records? Could you show me the source please? Wasn't the Manchurian Qing Dynasty good at archery?


"Allow me to inform Your Majesty of the ways of reforming our bows. According to those who are seasoned and have experienced battle, it is commonly said our bows mainly made of horn are infeior to the barbarians(the Manchus)' wooden ones. Our bows are famed under the heavens, and a powerful shot penetrates armor, and flings the arrow to a distance that the barbarians can never equal. However, as the bow gets old the strong turn into the weak, and humidity weakens the bowstring and adhesive, and this may be the disadvantages of our bows. Furthurmore, the quality bows that we field are not much in numbers, and the ones in the weapons storage are useless; for they are only of artistic value.The ones in current military usage have been in constant service, thus rendering them full of damaged parts. The wooden bows of the barbarians, on the other hand, do not get weakened upon constant usage or wet conditions, and despite their short range, packs quite some power while in range.Also, our bows of horn are shot from afar, due to their range capabilities, but are not accurate when done so, whereas their wooden bows are accurate when shot from close distances, which is what they do.This is why our bows are inferior to theirs in yerms of practical use; albeit the fame of our bows. What largely matters in the battlefield is the weapons, but the reputation and usefulness of our bows are yet to correspond to each other. This must be changed. As your humble servant hears, the people of the mountains hunt with wooden bows, and the citizen armies have killed many Japanese brigands in the past war. I too have seen a wooden bow in my childhood. To make them a whole branch must be cut on either end, with twice the length of a bow made of horn, and the bowstrings are of sinew or plant fiber, able to be lacquered if more strength is desired. This bow can be easily manufactured, with strong bowstrings and resistance to humidity, and has no fundamental difference from the barbarians.Therefore, it is my humble opinion that this bow be manufactured in large quantities, but the quality biws of our warriors should not be replaced. Now, when the useless bows are replaced with wooden ones and wooden bows are used in conjuction with the quality bows of horn, the strong conventional bows will enable us to use our superior archery capabilities, and the wooden bows to exploit the advantages of the barbarians. In conclusion, convenience and usefulness will benefit Your Majesty's army greatly."
Jo Ik, "On His Majesty's Request of advice on the usage of bows", around the year 1600

"The bows of the Qing are too large, cumbersome, and simple. The range is only 70~80 paces. They are all wooden, however, thus firm and not susceptible to wet conditions. We the Joseonese shoot well, able to hit a target 200 paces away, but problems spawn when there is the slightest mishandling of the bows. What is more, our bows cannot be used on rainy days. There is no chance the enemy are going to attack only on dry days, is there?"
Park Jega, Inner Book of「 北學議」, 18th century

This isn't a Qing record but it IS a Qing-era record. :D
 
Joined Feb 2011
10,185 Posts | 3,825+
I'm not familiar with Korean units, but shouldn't a pace be greater than a meter? For ancient China this is usually around 1.5 meters. How did you get 90-145 m from 200 paces, unless I'm guessing you are using another source?
 
Joined Aug 2013
4,140 Posts | 337+
a world, dead and gray
Last edited:
The Korean pace, or bo, would be about 1.1-1.2 m during the 18th century. This is my calculation, however, since I couldn't find a place that actually provided the value, but it seems to be fairly accurate nonetheless.
 
Joined Aug 2013
1,415 Posts | 8+
South Korea
Last edited:
I'm not familiar with Korean units, but shouldn't a pace be greater than a meter? For ancient China this is usually around 1.5 meters. How did you get 90-145 m from 200 paces, unless I'm guessing you are using another source?

I think what Park Jega indicated by 200 paces is the typical maximum range of Korean bows, while usual battle& practice range is 90~145m.
 
Joined Feb 2011
10,185 Posts | 3,825+
Yes, it makes sense that battlefield range should be half the maximum targeting range, and I recall general Qi Jiguang saying something similar to this as well. May I ask if you have the source and quote for the Korean battlefield range on bows?
 
Joined Aug 2013
1,415 Posts | 8+
South Korea
Yes, it makes sense that battlefield range should be half the maximum targeting range, and I recall general Qi Jiguang saying something similar to this as well. May I ask if you have the source and quote for the Korean battlefield range on bows?

The battlefield range comes from the modern Korean practice range, which derives from the mid~late Joseon Dynasty test range of 120 paces, with arrows of 28g. The source is the 續大典, a law book written in 1746(the 22nd year of King Yeongjo's reign). Unfortunately, I do not have the original quote.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top