"Henry V's archers vs Wellington's redcoats: Who would win?" Topic

And so it goes on & on.

Longbow was superior to Musket
Light infantry skirmishers were superior to massed musketry.

Yet – bows and guns existed side by side for over a hundred years with guns slowly replacing bows
Yet – massed musketry was a gradual development FROM skirmishers not the other way round.

So either the first statements above were not true in major battles given the technological and logistical restrictions of the times or the whole of Europe was stricken with a severe case of mass military stupidity for over 250 years making Nassau, Gustavus, Turenne, Marlborough, Frederick, and Napoleon all utter numbskulls.

I find it rather hard to believe the second possibility.

Jeff, this discussion has gone the rounds since "the first statements" made on this thread.

Main points, as to why the warbow was discarded and the gunne taken up in its place: first and foremost, gunnes are easy to shoot and train for, bows and arrows are NOT, ever. Gunnes got easier and more common and cheaper to make. Armies of gunners outnumbered archer armies right quickly, and it only got worse for the archer armies as time went on. The biggest army Henry V could raise was c. 15,000 men on a ratio of one man-at-arms to 5 or 6 longbowmen; and it wasn't because of money as much as limited effective troops. Never at any time was the same percentage of the male population in merry old England capable of shooting a "warbow" as could be trained to shoot a gun. Any weakling can shot a gun; and by arming those less physically strong (and untrained) you've multiplied the potential size of your army several times.

Archers could not penetrate armor like round balls do. So cap-a-pie armor rather rapidly went away. By the time anyone noticed how much more accurately an experienced archer could shoot his weapon, compared to a musketeer: and noticed too that a heavy arrow could mortally wound a horrendous number of unarmored or incompletely armored men, it was too late to change the momentum of military evolution: the gun has king of the battlefield. Archers were quaint, even if they were still impressive in their effects compared to guns of the day.

There had to be a reason why prominent people in govt, right up to Ben Franklin, suggested the value of returning to the warbow! You must think that they were the severely stupid ones.

to score at 200 yds the arrow has to be shot up in the air and comes down after around 6 sec of flight. In tactical combat 6 sec is like yesterday.
Even worse, the missile comes down nearly vertical, the beaten zone is perhaps 1 or 2 yards.
Thats tactically completely worthless unless archery is practiced by huge and deep formations.
With a 30 yds deep archery formation the beaten zone extends to 30 yds instead of 1 or 2yds.
The target zone then has horizontally the size of 7 story building.
In musketry, because of the windage,the target zone has vertically the size of a 4 story building at 300 yds, at 200 yards perhaps the size of a 2 story building.

How can anyone describe archery as more accurate?

A flat trajectory, which the bow doesn´t have, is indeed quintessential to hit something at larger distances.

The artillery style of shooting used in archery either requires a spotter and lots of ranging shots, which is impossible in tactical combat, notably against a moving target, or – thats how it was done – spraying a huge zone with projectiles.

There are huge static massed archer formations needed to practice this and equally huge static massed targets, against an opponent who is able and willing to maneuver and/or uses thin formations archery will already fail, no matter which weapons the opponent has.
The ability to outshoot aside, the redcoats would simply have been able to outmaneuver these clumsy static masses.

Hi

Iglo, you are repeating your pet myths again and ignoring those of us who actually shoot the weapons.

And you ignore the physics. And the practice.

I am not sure why you are obsessed with treating bows as merely guns shooting wooden bullets.

Jeff, read the rest of the discussion. No one claimed people were stupid, in fact those of us who have done the work repeatedly explain the advantages. You and Iglo seem to argue by starting with an extreme flawed premise that you assign to the bow, and the destroy the point that no one made!

Above, there are alot of very educational posts, and reducing your argument to "archers are stupid stupid stupid, and anyone who talks about them are stupid stupid stupid" doesn't promote much in the discussion.

R

Rocky
I don´t repeat pet myths.
The longbow does indeed have the kinetic energy of small caliber pistols.
The longbow does indeed have a velocity of just 45m/sec with grave consequences for external ballistics.

And I don´t ignore physics, the points above have all to do with physics, those who try to invent special longbow physics should just work a little harder, saying that a bow is not a gun is not enough, ballistics and energy formulas make no difference between arrows and bullets.

I do not ignore practice at all, but those who practice at or beyond the ballistic limits should actually be able and more than willing tell us how they did it.

As one of those who apparently practice 'at or beyond the ballistic limits' I am naturally overcome with curiosity as to how I achieve such miracles. Therefore the following article from the 'New Scientist' has done much to restore my feeling of being less than superhuman. Now I ain't much into ballistics or kinetic energy but when I read sources such as a highly respected scientific journal such as New Scientist quoting work done by Cavendish Labs, Imperial College and a clutch of physicists, professors and assorted scientists then I guess I am a little bit more inclined to accept their version than people who appear to be quoting nothing more than self generated conjecture.

link

And what is the final verdict of people who really should know what they are talking about??

" Against unarmoured men or horses the effect would be devastating." combined with " It does not take much imagination to visualise their terrifying effect."

Like Rocky I have enjoyed the various aspects of this thread and noted with interest the experiences of other contributors
which match closely my own as far as the longbow is concerned. What I do find a little sad are people who quote numbers and statistics in a dense screen of b******t and expect those of us with differing views to accept it as gospel. If we need an an example lets take the following extract from a recent post

" Even worse, the missile comes down nearly vertical, the beaten zone is perhaps 1 or 2 yards."

It was RR I believe, someone who knows far more about guns and ballistics than I do who stated quite recently that any projectile aimed at 43 degrees arrives in the target area at about 56 degrees. If we observe the scientific results from the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge we see 'about 50 degrees to the horizontal'. Seems RR's not too far out. But the point being that Rocky has been shooting for years and knows this as a fact. Same as I do with arrows having shot hundreds, maybe thousands for distance alone. But we are told that ' we must work harder on our longbow physics ' because
someone has decided that the ' missile comes down nearly vertical'. Somebody sure needs to work on their physics.

It is also a source of amusement how reams of calculations are produced to prove that the effect of an arrow at 200yds
is 'tactically completely worthless' when I seem to remember writing some time ago that arrows shot at that distance were
NEVER meant to be accurate just part of a barrage that " Would penetrate armour up to 1.5mm thick " (Peter Pratt, professor of crystal physics at Imperial College ).

Seems that the laws of physics can also be a weapon. A double edged one.

F5

F5
If the arrow arives at the target at 50 degrees the beaten zone to hit a 1,75 m large man sized target is indeed around 1,50 m as claimed.( I did write 1-2yards ), in comparision to a flat trajectory, 50 degrees, or at least its effect is indeed nearly vertical.
The author states that over distance the arrow was measured with 35 m/s, he does this under the line "swift as an arrow".
35m/sec is indeed 126 km/h which might be fast for medieval people, but actually it is not swift at all, ballistically its very slow with grave consequences.
The author claims the on target velocity is 30m/sec and he mentions heavy 60 gram war arrows.
30/m sec with a heavy 60 gram war arrow gives incredible 27 Joule of kinetic energy, thats indeed on the lowest possible KE level, about the level of a 22.cal short rimfire round, the weakest of the weakest pistol rounds on the market.

The author states that it "doesn´t need much imagination to visualize their devastating effect".

He was not there, his numbers do not justify his claims, they are by the way worse then the numbers used by me.

The whole article is not very well written,if the goal of the author was to reveal that the longbow did have a incredible low velocity resulting in miserable ballistic behavior(landing at an 50 degree angle already at 200 yards is disapointing) and that the on target energy of the missile was laughable by modern standards(27 Joule!!!),then he did indeed do his job, but his conclusions are completely contrary.

Its typical fanboy write up, there is a market for these kind of writings, its in no ways a serious weapon analysis.

falkonfive,
You are aware that the article
link

you are quoting is based on the very tests and calculations which Rocky labels "bowporn" when presented by Hardy&Strickland?

The Jones tests refered to by those by Peter Jones and which carried out at a range of 10 meters/33feet, not 200 yards. The material was iron, not steel, not padding was used and the strikes were basicly perfect 0 degree strikes.

35 kilogram = 77 lbs. The Mary Rose bow staves are UNFINISHED. The earlier assessments of "tuning" the arrow to the weight of the bow were accurate.

The rest, about the heavy arrow having a maximum range between 150 to 200 yards, is also correct. HOWEVER, they were not shot at those ranges! They were for in-close armor penetration. The longer shots were done with the capped "flight" arrow. When you make an arrow longer than needed to clear the bow hand, you increase its thickness, ergo, its total weight, to maintain the "tuning" of the arrow to the bow's draw weight. But the main increase in weight of the "sheaf" or war arrow was in the point. The bodkin and similar armor piercing points weighed far more than a flight arrow "cap". The long range shooting was reserved for unarmored targets, and to goad/harrass the enemy in any case.

IGLO, repeating yourself doesn't make your ignorance any less. CUTTING versus crushing on a wider impact surface does change the entire application of KE. You still deny this and yet have no practical experience with what you are talking about.

Hi

Gars, Hardy and strickland jaw on about several things that are wonderful to imagine. I accept there is bow porn. That simple.

but ignoring "physics of bow and arrow" and Saxton Pope and then repeating their tests to my satisfaction doesn't mean I am a bow fanboy. And I don't defend these things.

This is simple, the idea that a bodkin does terrible damage according to the ancients is something I repeated by making armor and shooting it.

I am also a life long gunman. On other boards, I get attacked as a gun loving american. But the other result is that I have done both sides of the argument.

Again 27joules over 10sq mm is not the same as 27 joules focused on .2sq mm and then opening the armor by shearing. I am aghast at how you seem to be unable to understand this.

I posted the idea of a feather pillow, and you correctly pointed out that no one accuses a pillow of penetration. But the illustraion was on POINT. The pillow at 27 joules will not penetrate, it won't do much of anything but pehaps block your vision. Ignoring the concept of area and time requires something very special.

Gars, you are correct, I haven't penetrated the 3mm thick peak of proper armor, sadly, no suit of armor can guarantee I only hit the thickest 3mm. Will I penetrate every time? If I have ten shots, might I hit you somewhere other than where you want?

I wish i had scanned the photos. You would be horrified seeing 1/16th bits curling INTO the manikin through the padding.

R

lol,,

you do keep repeating pet myths,,

" And I don´t ignore physics, the points above have all to do with physics, those who try to invent special longbow physics should just work a little harder, saying that a bow is not a gun is not enough, ballistics and energy formulas make no difference between arrows and bullets."

as long as you keep this belief,, you will be secure within your ignorance…

KE, btw is the energy of motion,, so in fact the KE by itself does not determine what happens when this energy is released upon striking something… when it strikes something other factors come into play for the release of this energy… shape,mass,density are just a few…when the bullet or arrow strikes an object,,then work is done,, this is where the difference happens. when work happens it involves a "tool,or a machine". In this case the Bullet is a tool,,a blunt tool ment for striking,, the arrow is a simple machine, in this case a wedge.. or better put, a 3 dimensional wedge. Now, instead of just blindly looking at what the articles on arrow ballistics is interested in,, again,, iglo,, you must look deeper,and not just use your incomplete knowledge of "The Laws of Physics" to remain in blissful ignorance. There is what is called the conservation of energy. this means when energy is converted to work,, the equation is balanced,,nothing is lost. some turns to heat,but the equations are balanced. Now when you do two different types of work, different physical things happen, but the equation still balances.

So keeping that in mind, lets do a very simple KE example. Let look at a bullet as a flat faced tool,, like a hammer, which it is,,as the first work done upon impact, is it flattens out. For our example lets keep KE and mass the same between the two objects,,arrow and bullet. lets say the bullet is 10 units X 10 units X 1unit thick,, a total of 100 cubic units. Lets say that when it strikes an object each unit does work that displaces the material by 1 unit… all hypothetical,,all just for an example.

So the work done is to move the flat object by 1 unit in the area where it was struck..

now the arrow,, same KE,same mass,,same number of units.. but they are arranged differently,, they are arranged like a wedge,, the tip of the wedge is only 1 unit. But behind it,all other 99 units are doing work which is transmitted foreward to the one at the tip,,, So we still have 100 units of work,,but now all are working on only 1 unit of the struck object. Remember the equation must balance between what happens to the bullet and the arrow.. Now what happens is the 1 unit in the struck object is displaced 100 units,, or the arrow moves 100 units distance.

So, all things being equal, the arrow will move thru the struck object by a known amount. Wnen we change the numbers,,KE,mass,etc, then the depth of penetration changes, but we can figure this out. this is why an arrow will pass thru its target, whilst a bullet has "stopping power".. shock vs pass thru.

so much for basic high school physics…

So again, iglo,,you are a hobbiest, using incomplete knowledge about a complex topic to prove yer point, and no hands on experience whatso ever.

Now lets review,, and be objective,,and not do the above..

you have shown yutube vids of an arrow bouncing off of a piece of armor,,done by a contempory armormaker who sells his work to the SCA.. not too many real facts here,,just a vid..

On our site we have two guys who have had some pretty incredible real world experiences..

falconfive,,as a very dedicated hobbiest,, actually working with archeologists and being able to have real hands on experiences with long bows and arrows from the Mary Rose. We have Rocky who has spent much of his life actually making period bows,muskets and the like,,and having equally incredible experiences doing these things. We have LLD,,who has way more than a passing interest in the period, and who has presented many sources on just what happened.

We have Rocky and ff indicating that by there experiments arrows will pass thru plate,, Other sources have shown this to be true as well…They both have also shown by personal experience,,and sources,,that an English Longbowman, with practice, can hit the bull at 300 yds with more than reasonable accuracy… now you have a choice,,you can believe these guys,,or not,,for all that the "not" implies,, fabricators of facts for their own benefits etc,,,,or the yutube vid is the only experiment worth dealing with,,,

Or,, considering your hands on experience is nill,,and we have already shown you have a propensity for putting forth incomplete data,,data taken out of context, etc to prove yer point,, you can look at these differing results in an objective manner…

arrows can both penetrate and not penetrate,, depending on many factors.

and…

Its not the KE that matters,,its the work done(and type of work) that matters in any given situation,,

What have I learned,,or had reaffermed? Armor of the time of the 100 years war was mostly wrought iron,,the softest,most maleable of all types of iron, most "steel" armor was actually carburized or case hardened armor( a process whereby carbon is bonded to wrought iron on the survace,,microns thick) and the rarest,,or even most possibly, true "steel" armor was not used during this time,,or perhaps very rarely at best.

why don't we have more examples of pierced armor? because then,,as now,,but way moreso then, all iron products were massivly recycled or repaired,,and a competant smith could repair a hole and it would not be seen other than by high tech analisys,, especially wrought iron based products… But we do,,and have shown pics of armor that has been pierced…

more summerizing…

can a longbowman aim and be accurate out to 300 yds?

Rocky,FF,and sources they presented affirm this,, you guys have only given your "intuitive" belief that this it is impossible to aim at a mounted knight or foot knight,moving at a relatively constant speed,and in a relativly constantly straight line.

effective range of a brownbess type musket?

you guys have stated 1000 yds with 20% chance of hit,, one source, a poor translation of a french doc.. closer look indicates that theoretically this is max range of a brownbess type weapon,, but,, the chances of being hit are like winning the lottery,,,and,, even in this article, it appears that he indicates this is theoretical,,not actual…

max effective range is, and has been shown in sources,,including those you presented as less than 200 yds for a musketeer,,and less than 400 yds for a light infantryman. actual effective range for a musketeer is closer to 100 yds. actual chance of hit in a full engagement is around 5%. This is due to inaccuracy of weapon, lack of training for aimed fire,,and most importantly,,smoke,,which is not a problem with a longbow. This is docterine,, not theoreticl,,but what was actually practiced with these weapons at this time.

Musketeer training,, its been shown that musketeers were not trained to aim,,but lights were. However,,even lights in close order,aimed fire would be impossible after a volley or two due to smoke,,, again,, this is not a problem for longbowmen. Lights make up 10% or less of armies of this time(thru the 1820"s or so).

If I were judging this as a debate, I would have to say that you guys have failed to present any conclusive proof on all points,other than by personal conjecture,and the other side has either shown well documented proof,,and\or conclusive physical evidence to at least give credence to the idea that the longbow is capable of aimed fire at these ranges,and can pierce 2-3mm metal of one sort or another…Much less the support of what historically happened longbowmen vs Knights during the 100 years war.

link

link

alas,, there are too many years for me between studying the formulas in a physics class,,and actually practicing it under many different real world applications to add more than the above… perhaps it will be a clue for you to pursue,,

And that having been said,, I will continue to follow this post,but don't think i will make any more contributions.. thanks to one and all for the learning it has brought me…

anvil

Hi

Anvil, to make a minor correction. I cannot hit a bull at 300yds with a longbow with a typical drawweight of #70. Perhaps 220 with a "flight arrow". I can do 300 yds with a steppes type composite bow of that draweight(more mechanical efficiency of the bow). And I have done 330 with a medium crossbow(175#).

Actually hitting something with a charlville I wouldn't try beyone 60. A "long rifle", 300. A ACW rifled musket 500, and my buffalo rifles 1300. But there you go.

(I stupidly traded away my french trade musket…snif)

Rocky

So a few questions for the experts.
At 200 yds the longbow arrow hits the target at an 50 degree angle.
at 199 yds it undershoots.
if the target is man sized it overshoots already at 201,5 yds.
So how is it done under combat conditions.
no drilled in 200yds target routine (the target might actually be 205 yds away), no ranging shots, no spotter (lets just assume this doesn´t work in combat).
How about uneven ground, if the ground rises just slightly for two yds on 200 you might barely see this, still you will undershoot if you hit exactly at 200.
How about wind influence, there should be a lot in 6 seconds of flight time.
Those who can do it should tell us how.
whats the hit rate, are the preparation shots needed for ranging (which is as said not doable in combat),do there exist videos of such a practice?.
how is it practiced against moving targets?, even a slow old man will be in and out of the target zone within 2 seconds, flight time to 200yds is 6 seconds.

I'm enjoying this thread, I've never witnessed such perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds

So a few questions for the experts.
At 200 yds the longbow arrow hits the target at an 50 degree angle.
at 199 yds it undershoots.
if the target is man sized it overshoots already at 201,5 yds.
So how is it done under combat conditions.
no drilled in 200yds target routine (the target might actually be 205 yds away), no ranging shots, no spotter (lets just assume this doesn´t work in combat).
How about uneven ground, if the ground rises just slightly for two yds on 200 you might barely see this, still you will undershoot if you hit exactly at 200.
How about wind influence, there should be a lot in 6 seconds of flight time.
Those who can do it should tell us how.
whats the hit rate, are the preparation shots needed for ranging (which is as said not doable in combat),do there exist videos of such a practice?.
how is it practiced against moving targets?, even a slow old man will be in and out of the target zone within 2 seconds, flight time to 200yds is 6 seconds.

Perhaps someone could explain to our resident expert IGLO the difference between sniping and shooting at a massed body, because I think he's a little confused about the nature of later medieval warfare

Anvil,

Nobody has stated that musketry had a 20% chance of hitting at 1000 yards, merely that experts of the period thought that a ball could carry that far, and still had a chance of killing or maiming its target, if it was lucky enough to hit someone. You have also been shown figures for the accuracy of muskets at 320 yards against a company sized target, not conjecture, but fact. We have seen nothing similar for the longbow relating to mass fire, but have such statements that it is possible to kill a Grizzly Bear at 120 yards, and a heavy arrow might travel 200 yards.

While the musketry data is derided, it is interesting that a heavy arrow with a maximum range of 150-200 yards, is considered by some such as yourself to have had an effective range of the same distance, or even further according to your last post. No weapon has a maximum and effective range of the same distance. The musket, on the other hand, which was considered by Napoleonic writers to have had a horizontal range of 360 yards, is seen as having an effective range of 60-100 yards. We have also heard that 100% of arrows would strike an Agincourt like target at 100 yards or less, even in battle conditions, which is pure conjecture.

This thread has been very interesting, but just as you are not convinced by facts on musketry, I am not convinced in the least that there was the slightest advantage in using longbows from a military perspective.

Connard Sage,
my posting was adressed at the two posters before me who did indeed state (at least as far as I did understand it) "that the longbow was capable of aimed fire at these ranges" or that "the longbow archer could hit the bull with reasonable accuracy at 300 yds", or at least at "220 yds with a flight arrow".

I know quite well how longbow archery was practiced in the field,shooting clouds of arrows in huge blocks has indeed nothing to do with accuracy or aimed fire.

The musket at these distances was capable to produce aimed fire, uneffective aimed fire by modern or sport shooters standards, but nontheless aimed fire, in case of skirmisher shooting quite effective, in case of volleys effective enough to make 300 paces a regulated musketry distance in regulations and tactical writings from experienced people.

As stated before, what people often do in these comparisions is indeed to compare the sniper range of the musket with the ballistic range of the longbow, its these methods which make the longbow "more accurate".

At 200 yds the longbow arrow hits the target at an 50 degree angle.
at 199 yds it undershoots.
if the target is man sized it overshoots already at 201,5 yds.

Connard has the right of it: you are assuming single arrows and aimed fire in the way you word that question. You only do massed, volley shooting in lots of thousands at those kinds of ranges, relying solely upon increased hits because of saturation. Also, as I said already, the heavy armor piercing arrow heads are not shot at those ranges simply because by dropping at such angles they are wasted; also, the capped, or "flight" arrow was the arrow for long range volley shooting. At 200 yards the light tip of the "flight" arrow does not drag it down to 50 degrees; the impact angle with the ground is a lot closer to horizontal. At maximum range for a 70# longbow, which is 250 yards or better, the arrow usually impacts with the ground at 45 degrees or less, because there is no weight at the tip to pull it down stepper than that: and at the peak of the arrow's flight arc, it goes "over the top" point high. I have picked up my maximum range arrows sticking in the ground at barely past horizontal, and at 45 degrees: the difference is often wind related.

So how is it done under combat conditions.
no drilled in 200yds target routine (the target might actually be 205 yds away), no ranging shots, no spotter (lets just assume this doesn´t work in combat).

Why assume any such thing? Assuming that is based on nothing. But the historical accounts talk often of long range shooting: it is how the longbows goaded the French cavalry into charging at Agincourt. "Ranging shots" are established by the most experienced "marksmen" in each company. The lesser shooters simply copycat the angle and trajectory. (do I hear an echo in hear?)

Those who can do it should tell us how.

Those who can do it have been dead for 400 years! Please read for retention: once the WotR was done, most of England's veteran pool of longbowmen were dead. All such battlefield expertise would have to be learned from scratch. Falkonfive, et al. reenactors, can mass together in a "wedge" and shoot for volley effect, but to expect them to be able to range to a moving target, and accurately estimate windage, elevation differences in the ground, etc., is asking too much. I too, would be gratified by such experiments as you seek. But how to shoot REAL arrows into REAL moving targets? And Into massed targets with massed vollies? Aint going to happen short of warfare with the weapons, again….

We have also heard that 100% of arrows would strike an Agincourt like target at 100 yards or less, even in battle conditions, which is pure conjecture.

Well I have done that, repeatedly. I could do it NOW, even being out of practice. You say "battle" conditions, but if the archer isn't being attacked, as at Agincourt, and feels perfectly safe while shooting, as at Agincourt, then 100% hits at 60 yards is easy, nothing easier. Bear in mind, as I said before (here comes the echo again), "hits" isn't casualties. The outer ranks are going to get "porcupined", and have to get out of the way by falling in order for the inner ranks to be seriously shot up. That takes time, because death from arrows is almost entirely by blood loss alone; they don't have knockdown power, as IGLO has pointed out. We do have morale failure taking wounded men out of the fight, most of whom (if not cut down by gleeful yeomen) are going to survive the battle, but are out of it NOW when wounded and frightened.

Just to concur with Rocky R. An aimed shoot at 300 yds at an individual which results in a hit is probably a case of divine intervention. To go back to my earlier statement I'd be disappointed not to put 5/6 out of an aimed dozen in a man sized target at around 100 yds. Put him on horseback and that increases my chances drastically. I'll be quite content to hit the horse, that's enough to achieve the object. Given a dense mass target then 200-240 yds is where casualties would occur in numbers from 'dropping shots'. Connard and I share the same bewilderment as far as Iglo's scenario is concerned. Apparently the air at Agincourt was thick with cries of frustration from English archers…………..

" Bl**dy hell!! I don't believe it!! Thats the 3rd time I've missed that one with the bend sinister on his shield!! First shot I was at least 8 yds out and hit the Duke of Orleans, second time it drifted and I took out the Constable of France and to cap it all the last time he bl**dy well moved and I hit the bloke behind. S*d it! Only 200 paces too. Think I'll retire'"

With apologies but more and more humour seems to be creeping into this thread particularly with remarks like

" are preparation shots needed for ranging?"

" The target might be 205 yards away not 200 "

" How about wind influence?" ( The temptation to answer this one explicitly is overwhelming )

But the statement I really enjoy is this one:

" I know quite well how longbow archery was practiced in the field,shooting clouds of arrows in huge blocks has indeed nothing to do with accuracy or aimed fire. "

So apparently we have no archers actually taking aimed shots,
no marksmen in the front ranks and elsewhere selecting targets as they emerged from the 'arrow storm'. The compulsory ( and legally required ) practice at the butts was all done at 200 yds plus with arrows aimed at 45 degrees. The common practice of archers aboard ships employed to sweep the enemy decks could only be undertaken if the ships were 200 yds away, etc etc etc.

Let me put it as simply as possible Captn Iglo. You and I will stand 100 yds or even 200yds apart. You with your Charleville or Brown Bess me with my bow. We will shoot the first shot together. You may take my head off with your first shot. In that case all you have to worry about is avoiding my arrow. If you don't hit me however I will have at least 4 more shots at you while you are reloading.( I say at least because I will be taking my time, aiming, oddly enough).

While you are inserting your powder and ball and ramming it down you may find it a little distracting knowing that a few more ridiculously low KE and ballisticaly inferior shafts are on their way to kill or seriously injure you. ( Like musket balls, there are no such things as superficial wounds with clothyards). I'll even make it easier for you. Although I can move about with no discernible effect on my rate of fire and you can't I'll stand still.

Gentlemen, place your bets……….

Connard Sage,
my posting was adressed at the two posters before me who did indeed state (at least as far as I did understand it) "that the longbow was capable of aimed fire at these ranges" or that "the longbow archer could hit the bull with reasonable accuracy at 300 yds", or at least at "220 yds with a flight arrow"….I know quite well how longbow archery was practiced in the field,shooting clouds of arrows in huge blocks has indeed nothing to do with accuracy or aimed fire.

bzzzzzzzzzztt wrong. Read what you typed again

So how is it done under combat conditions.
no drilled in 200yds target routine (the target might actually be 205 yds away), no ranging shots, no spotter (lets just assume this doesn´t work in combat).
How about uneven ground, if the ground rises just slightly for two yds on 200 you might barely see this, still you will undershoot if you hit exactly at 200.
How about wind influence, there should be a lot in 6 seconds of flight time.
Those who can do it should tell us how.
whats the hit rate, are the preparation shots needed for ranging (which is as said not doable in combat),do there exist videos of such a practice?.
how is it practiced against moving targets?, even a slow old man will be in and out of the target zone within 2 seconds, flight time to 200yds is 6 seconds.

You specifically mention 'combat conditions' and 'moving targets'. I've bolded them in your quote, aren't I helpful?

Your attempts at obfuscation aren't working chap.

So what is wrong exactly ?

Hi

Well, I suspect that english isn't the first language here. Often I am trying to puzzle out what is ment.

So, I will retry a couple points. I have owned and shot both, and taught others.

The accuracy problem isn't what you think as a non user. The suggestion about ballistic versus…. is in the reverse.

The best shot in the world, the gun locked in a fixed vice cannot place a ball with accuracy at 300 yards. That simple. All you have is that at 300yards the ball will randomly fall somewhere in a circle 18feet in radius around the aimpoint. Assuming you are shooting at a company front, assuming they are holding still, assuming your aim is vice like, assuming the company is 100 men arranged in 3 ranks, each file with a 2' frontage, your target being 66 feet across and 6' high with hats: you have the idea that randomly 80% will miss the fence entirely. A real company consists of men who are not uniformly 6'x2', meaning the company front is only about 50% actual people, meaning your 20% becomes 10% hits in an optimum condition.

Now, the reverse. Hitting the target area isn't an issue with bow from basic innacuracy. While the moa (minutes of angle) optimally for a smoothbor is 36 minutes of angle, the bow can be expected to do 5 minutes of angle.

This means, simply that the maximum range (which I always refer to as the maximum effective range, not the theoretical) is, indeed, 220 yards in the situation above for the longbow.

But at agincourt, the hit rate was actually quite small because of the mass saturation of volley fire, but in general higher than a musket unit could even think of at those ranges.

I am not comparing sniping to volley, but volley to volley.

R

I can't believe I have just spent an hour and a half of my short life reading this thread…fascinated in the same way a we are when looking at a car crash on the other side of the motorway…We all know we should look ahead and put our foot down but we just have to look….I'm going to have a bath

Well that's because the car crash involves a vintage car and a horse and cart. And the cart driver reckons he was overtaking the car at the time.

He vehemently declares the horse and cart would win any race with any vintage car. It just that there's so many of these dang mechanical thingys these days driven by unlearnd peasants.

New discussion- would the finest chariot be faster than a pre 19thC car- are we talking cross country or road etc?- before we know it the, car lobby will be saying that as the combustion engine leed to formula 1- they must be faster in 1899! – lol

The article F5 presented was interesting but besides the point. Armor penetration is not relevant to this question. This is why I stopped discussing Agincourt. Neither side would be expected to wear armor. The real issue as I said before is one of range. The first one within range wins.

To establish effective range (good chance of wounding the opponent) you need to look at how the weapons were fired. On the battlefield, the sources indicate longbows shot ranging fire. That is they targeted for range not for individuals. What counted was to have a density of arrows within a particular area. What they probably did was have one or two archers fire at a spot on the battlefield (while the field was still empty) that would be the best place to engage the enemy. When the enemy reached that spot all the archers would fire for that general area. This would work whether the target was infantry or cavalry. In this case, this would be close to maximum range. In the sources for Agincourt, maximum range was estimated to be around 300 paces. To reach that kind of range they would be firing arching fire. I'm sure the archers would know that to reach a certain range they would have to apply x amount of pull to the longbow and angle the arrow at x amount of angle.

Musketeers, on the other hand, would have no idea how to angle their musket fire to reach a particular range. In all probability, their maximum range would be 200 paces or less. This has little to do with the maximum ranges of each weapon but rather how the shooters were accustomed to fire. Longbowmen would be experienced at ranging fire and the musketeers not. Under the circumstances I give the nod to the longbowmen.

Rich

Rich is right, that archers in the middle ages did maximum range shooting by saturating the area with volley shooting.

And the rounds per minute goes entirely to the longbow, at a much longer range than was effective for muskets. An early, pre gunpowder example of what happened to missile troops advancing in line to engage longbows is Crecy, where the Genoese crossbows never even got into effective range before the vollies of arrows broke them up with heavy casualties. The very same thing would happen to any hypothetical musketeers advancing to shoot it out with longbows: that's why a skirmish line protecting a column advancing at the double would be the only way to deploy masses of muskets at their optimum range; whereas longbows have an optimum range against unarmored targets at over 200 yards. The hypothetical skirmishers would be a forlorn hope, but it would have a good chance of working.

I like falkonfive's "challenge", because it clearly indicates the confidence that an archer has at 200 yards. I do not hear any "musketeers" weighing in to accept! Could it be that they do not have the same confidence that falkonfive does? I know which weapon I would choose, and it isn't because I dislike guns!

Here's the deal, you could do this side by side: set up a "man" at 200 yards and start shooting until a "kill" is made. The archer has six shots or more to the muzzle loader's one shot. And the archer has the affinity with his weapon, whereas the muzzle loader lacks this because of the uncorrectable inaccuracy of a smoothbore, round shot weapon.

Earlier objections on the point of relative accuracy seem to deny that there is any effective difference in the weapons as accurate (that is controllable) at 200 yards or more. But I am experienced enough with the bow to back up what falkonfive has said; that in the hands of a "marksman" level archer a bow wastes any musket ever made in the maximum range accuracy department.

The main advantage of the fire weapon is its flat trajectory.
With the point blank adjusted at around 120 m like with the Charleville musket the ball would ballistically at a distance of 220 m never rise above the head of a standing man and not drop below foot level when aimed at the center of a man sized target.
This did ease aiming considerably in comparison to a bow.
Even the built in inaccuracy because of windage and lack of rifling did not only have negative effects, it was calculable and could be compensated with rate of fire, every round would have a chance to hit, and minor errors of aiming would actually be compensated.
For example by aiming at the belt buckle the ball would ballistically hit randomly at the foot of the target, but because of the built in inaccuracy there was indeed still the chance to hit the head.
As long as the weapon was pointed at the center of the man there was a calculable hit rate up to 300 paces.
This is actually a sound military concept which naturally has nothing to do with hunting or sports shooting.

Archery in practice was not so much different .
throughout the ages foot archery was practiced by all armies as shooting in huge deep blocks.
If a block of archers was 30yds deep, the target zone was 30yds deep too and there were a lot of archers needed to saturate the target zone because the beaten zone of every arrow,coming down from above, was so small.
To hit a target at 200 yds there were 15 men per yard of frontage used, standing 30 yds deep and trying to bring down as many arrows as possible in a zone say from 185 to 215 yards.
This was a sound military concept too, no doubt about this, but it has nothing to do with accuracy, the bow was not used as an accurate weapon.
And there were actually much more men needed to saturate an actually quite huge target zone with projectiles, which were much weaker than a musket ball.

a unprotected line of musketeers engaging the english archers at Agincourt in a static firefight at effective archery range might indeed have lost like the enfield snider and Martini Henry armed redcoats did loose at Islwandlwana, this doesn´t mean much, just lousy tactics on the side of the fire weapons user.

The main advantage of the fire weapon is its flat trajectory.
With the point blank adjusted at around 120 m like with the Charleville musket the ball would ballistically at a distance of 220 m never rise above the head of a standing man and not drop below foot level when aimed at the center of a man sized target.

Iglo, IGLO, IGLO! You keep saying this (among other silly claims), and it just isn't true. The lobbed shooting an archer does is AIMED, just estimated aiming. An experienced archer can put his arrows down inside a very small area at maximum range. The same is not true of a musketeer at the same range.

It doesn't help if aiming a firearm is easier, if the danged thing sprays balls all over the landscape by comparison.

This, incidentally, is also somewhat true of the crossbow. It aims like a gun, but lobs rounds like a bow. You have to aim with both eyes open, and sight "through" the stock with your off-eye. I made a long range sliding sight once out of brass, and I got accurate enough to lay down bolts at maximum range consistently within a six-foot circle: nowhere near as accurate as a "marksman" level archer could achieve, but right in line with a musketeer shooting at c. 250 yards.

Archery in practice was not so much different .
throughout the ages foot archery was practiced by all armies as shooting in huge deep blocks.

"All armies", not by a long shot (hehe). Many, sometimes even most, but never "all." In the middle ages, England surpassed ALL other archer armies in volley shooting effectiveness. But Scotland managed to develop a rudimentary volley shooting by the late middle ages. France's "yeomen" never did. Crossbowmen typically shot only in thin lines, but when trained to shoot from behind a line of spearmen they could shoot in deeper villies. There is no evidence to support deep vollies in the Muslim armies of the Middle East. I have my doubts about Spain as well.

To hit a target at 200 yds there were 15 men per yard of frontage used, standing 30 yds deep and trying to bring down as many arrows as possible in a zone say from 185 to 215 yards.
This was a sound military concept too, no doubt about this, but it has nothing to do with accuracy, the bow was not used as an accurate weapon.

Almost there: you need to remember that the arrow impacts with the ground a lot closer to the horizontal when it is only capped or with a light weight broadhead, so the "beaten zone" is larger.

Also, the longbow was used as an accurate, aimed weapon when within pointblank range, starting at c. 75 yards.

And there were actually much more men needed to saturate an actually quite huge target zone with projectiles, which were much weaker than a musket ball.

Oh no, Iglo: you were starting to do so well there.

Unarmored targets don't care about KE either way. One missile crushes with impact, the other cuts its way in; lots of blood loss either way, and far more arrows flying than round balls! Inefficient, I allow, but effective.

a unprotected line of musketeers engaging the english archers at Agincourt in a static firefight at effective archery range might indeed have lost like the enfield snider and Martini Henry armed redcoats did loose at [Isandlwana], this doesn´t mean much, just lousy tactics on the side of the fire weapons user.

You're right! Lousy tactics. Density of fire is everything!

Did ANY of you lurkers and participants on this fun thread ever read Rocky's thread on the experiment? TMP link Nobody but nobody said a danged thing. I am puzzled….

RK.

'On the battlefield, the sources indicate longbows shot ranging fire. That is they targeted for range not for individuals. What counted was to have a density of arrows within a particular area. What they probably did was have one or two archers fire at a spot on the battlefield (while the field was still empty) that would be the best place to engage the enemy. When the enemy reached that spot all the archers would fire for that general area. This would work whether the target was infantry or cavalry. In this case, this would be close to maximum range.'

Interesting thought but no need for ranging shots. The medieval archer would know without question that his best distance would be much the same as the archer next to him. i.e around 220/240 yds on a normal day. Thus the man in charge just gives the command to shoot when he judges the enemy within range and bet your life he would be on the button if he's a veteran ( which he would be ). No point at all in wasting firepower by not opening up at max range.

Your right about the angle aspect but not about the 'amount of pull'. Theres only one way to shoot a bow and its common to every archer. Thats at full draw. That way you 'lock' the body for the split second it takes to get the angle right, then release. Try pulling back a heavy bow three quarter draw and holding it steady. Can't be done. Range can only be adjusted by the angle of the bow, not the drawlength.

F5

F5, I forget to mention the full draw thing, good call.

However, spectators of a reenactment event might see archers pulling to the chest or even less, in order to peg a taget at close range directly, and avoid hitting too hard! I wore a bruise on my brisket for two or three days from a c. 40 lb bow being drawn back less than full draw, thank goodness.

Here´s a link explaining in a few short words and a graph the key problem of the bow besides KE, and thats the ballistic trajectory as a result of minimal velocity. The graph shows a significantly faster bow than the longbow and conditions get much worse after the first second of flight because gravity is an acceleration process.

Ballistic drop of a longbow missile at 200 yds is around 150 yds by the way!!!

As the site states exact yardage estimation is essential for archery.

link

Its a pity that the experts in this discussion more or less ignore the problem, notably when long range shooting is discussed.

I´m still waiting for an explanation how this can be done outside the shooting range, where an archer has enough time to establish a target routine against a static target at a known distance, no interference by other shooters, a lot of time and no combat stress at all.

My impression is that period tacticians came to the conclusion that the problem could not be solved at all and did therefore opt for massed shooting into huge target zones which was projectile for projectile less accurate than musketry, just because the target zones were larger than the hitting radius of a musket.

Well done Iglo. I thought from this discusson that arrows travelled horizontally for 100 yards in medieval times. Perhaps their bows were magic?

Its a pity that the experts in this discussion more or less ignore the problem, notably when long range shooting is discussed.

Could it be, that the experienced archers in this discussion know more about shooting at long range than a stupid graph does? I have admitted that the main mass of longbowmen were not "marksmen", but copycat shooters. What part of that do you not understand?

Well done Iglo. I thought from this discusson that arrows travelled horizontally for 100 yards in medieval times. Perhaps their bows were magic?

Effectively, the arrows do travel a horizontal mean, because they start out point high, and begin their descent point high, and impact at c. 100 yards at almost horizontal, i.e. a very shallow impact angle against a vertical plane.

My observations in short.

In the book Firepower ( a primer for anyone studying this subject) on a good day in an encounter, a hit rate of 3% is a standard expection and proven by examples in the book.

At Agincourt the English of appox 6000 archers fired from 120,000 arrows to 240,00 arrows. The casualties was listed at 4000 to 8000 French,

Both weapons appear to be about the same effectiveness and this shows true for other battles.

So if the Musket out ranges the bow ( in 1450 this is why armies started using them especially against Cav)
Has more hitting power (which would you rather get hit with an arrow or a musket ball)
Was generally considered cheaper and easier to train up on.
And a soldier could carry more ammo (30 arrow vs 30 shot and powder any way)

Then not using it would not be very smart.

Lord Ghee

Here is a passage written by a Napoleonic cavalry officer describing what it was like for unarmoured men to be under a hail of arrows. It is especially interesting because earlier in this thread the archery of similar barbarians was described as causing heavy losses to and defeating Russian musketiers, although no historical reference was given to back this up:

"With much shouting, the barbarians rapidly surrounded our squadrons, against which they launched thousands of arrows, which did very little damage because the Baskirs….shoot their arrows into the air to describe an arc which allows them to descend on the enemy. But as this system does not allow any accurate aim nine-tenths of the arrows miss their target, and those that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries. In fact the Baskirs, having no other arms, are undoubtably the world's least dangerous troops. The huge amount of arrows which they discharged into the air of necessity caused a few dangerous wounds. Thus one of my finest NCOs had his body pierced by an arrow which entered his chest and emerged at his back. The brave fellow, taking 2 hands, broke the arrow and pulled out the remaining part, but this did not save him, for he died a few moments later. This is the only example which I can remember of death being caused by a Baskir arrow, but I had several men and horses hit, and was wounded myself by this ridiculous weapon."

Below´s a link to something very sharp, a BALLISTIC CALCULATOR !!

lmariana.com/traj.htm

Longbow initial velocity is around 150 ft/sec, the article from the science mag gives the longbow arrow a travelling speed of 35m/sec on 200yds, thats significantly lower than 150ft/sec, but lets stick with 150ft/sec.

At 50 yds the missile has already dropped 193 inches, thats more than twice the height of a man, the beaten zone in which a man sized target gets hit is just around 10 yds already at this distance.

At 100 yds drop is 772 inches , ten times man height.
The beaten zone gets reduced to 5yds.

At 200 yds drop is 3091 inches or around 80yds, beaten zone is less than 2yds.

The musket ball did have a muzzle velocity of over 400m/sec, I did calculate with an average 300m/sec to reflect the loss of velocity during flight.

At 50yds the ball drops 5 inches, at 100yds 21 inches, at 200yds 85 inches.
Up to 200 yds a man sized target is in the beaten zone(point blank adujsted at 100 yds).
The longbow missile drops the height of a standing man already over 32 yds.

So how can archers practice target shooting up to 100yds with these depressing ballistic numbers and even hit something with accuracy?

The trick is AIMING POINTS .

If an aiming point is applied to a bow the archer just has to "freeze" his body in the right position, angle the bow to bring the aiming point on target and on flat ground with no significant wind influence he will hit with remarkable precision.
If the aiming point is set at 100 yds he will under these conditions have a good chance to hit a target exactly hundred yds away.

Thats doable in sports target shooting where the target is indeed exactly 100 yds away.
In military shooting something like this cannot be done obviously.
If the man sized target is 97,5 yds away the archer overshoots, if the target stands at 102,5 yds he undershoots. If the target moves it will be in and out of the beaten zone within 3 seconds.

In my opinion aimed shooting under field conditions with a longbow is unpracticable beyond 30 yds.

From an accuracy standpoint the bow is a low velocity, high trajectory short range weapon.

The recommended distance for bow hunting is 20yds, even with modern much faster recurve bows.

And with those low energy projectiles the archer cannot afford to calculate on the effect of random hits.

The Bashkirs might have been barbarians, but like all asian steppe tribes they did use actually quite sophisticated and powereful composite recurve bows, the Bashkir bow had nothing on the longbow.
The Napoleonic soldier, steeled by the benefits of modern military drill and discipline might have reacted differently than the more emotional and undisciplined medieval people. At Hastings archery seems to have provoced the Saxon army into a desastrous counterattack, something similar seems to have happened at Agincourt.
A steady advance and wearing their greatcoats as protective gear would very likely have brought the redcoats into deadly effective close musket range with an acceptable casualty rate, then the bone crushing capabilities of the powerful musket ball would have become apparent.

Snort: You will notice, however, that in spite of his claim that the arrows lost their impetus by being shot at a high trajectory, that one pierced entirely through the chest cavity of a clothed man! How is this "ineffective"? Clearly, he does not understand, that an arrow arcing over the top does not lose even half of its forward momentum, but rather, is reacting to gravity the same way a bullet does, i.e. the forward impetus is in no way reduced by gravity but only by air resistance: which, in the case of the arrow, is more than the drag on a bullet, but not significantly different from the drag on a round ball. Thus we have the descending arrow actually increasing its speed due to gravity, which in some measure restores the speed lost due to drag (but not all of it) So this witness, claiming that the arrow only arrives with the energy of the arrow's weight, is completely mistaken!

The lack of penetration is due to the kind of arrow used at extreme range: a "flight" arrow with a cap or very tiny "broadhead". If in fact the arrows employed were the heavier piercing kind, the maximum range would be seriously cut down, and the impact angle of the arriving arrows would be nearer vertical to the ground. That would imply a lack of proper armament of these "late" Turks, which segues to my next point:

The ineffectiveness that this eyewitness is describing is something other than weapon physics: he is describing a well demonstrated phenomenon of irregular troops who are under gunfire: they become unsettled, even break up and flee or go to ground, etc. The Turks by this period were well familiar with receiving gunfire and what they could do, and reacted much like Amerindians in constantly shifting/fleeing the vollies. They also were not at the same level of training in masses themselves that they had been in earlier periods, e.g. the Mongols utilizing Turkish tribesmen in their armies. Also, it is well known even from earlier Crusader descriptions, that "Turkish" shooting from extreme range was always in loose order, a skirmishing, harrassing kind of missile fire. This cannot be compared to the dense saturation of massed longbowmen.

Rocky's annecdote, of a "Turkish" army destroying a musket-armed force outside of effective musket range, is a rare case of the horsearchers "standing" firm under gunfire and achieving effective saturation with the "arrow storm". To accomplish this, they would have had to be a large enough force compared to their enemies, and be of sufficient training and equipment to finish the job. Obviously, your "eyewitness" is describing the norm: where "Turks" were in smaller numbers, lacked the resolve to mass effectively, and perhaps even lacked sufficient training and proper arms (i.e. the right kind of missiles for the extreme range shooting that they were engaged in).

Iglo, So how can archers practice target shooting up to 100yds with these depressing ballistic numbers and even hit something with accuracy?

I don't know if anyone else with archery experience on this thread has finally lost patience with this continual feckless round of exchanges, but I have: this is my last address to IGLO over his predilection for believing lab numbers, tests, statistics, in preference for first-person experience spanning many years and thousands of shot arrows. The archer does not need "aiming points." If he's any good with his weapon, he is an instinctive shooter who can look and make an instantaneous judgment to the target, including ground and windage factors. There is nothing inherently innacurate about a perfectly matched bow and arrow: the same can never be said for early smooth bore muskets and round ball! When your archer "marksmen" are establishing the range, the copycat masses behind have merely to know how to release consistently to create the arrow storm in the "beaten zone".

…the long bowman was a limited commodity, the Napoleonic British infantrymen could be replaced by "sweeping the prisons". Just as improved productivity methods in manufacturing and agriculture allowed for larger scale production, so were similar methods being introduced to produce equip and maintain large scale armies…

The real edge comes not from the the British Napoleonic army but rather the "shopkeepers" whose economic power allowed them to raise, equip, and maintain an army and navy and eventually a large portion of the land mass of the earth over the next 100 years. Henry the V was always at risk of running out of funds and could only support his army through the ransoms collected on captured notables…or is that nobles…

F5 "Interesting thought but no need for ranging shots. The medieval archer would know without question that his best distance would be much the same as the archer next to him. i.e around 220/240 yds on a normal day. Thus the man in charge just gives the command to shoot when he judges the enemy within range and bet your life he would be on the button if he's a veteran ( which he would be ). No point at all in wasting firepower by not opening up at max range."

That is pure guess work. Of course to be fair my example is guess work also. We have no idea how the archers were organized nor how they were commanded. But is it very doubtful that there was a single commander giving the command to fire. If the archers were in two groups you had 3,000 archers on each side of the battlefield. I doubt that very many of the archers on both side of the battlefield would be able to hear a single voice much less a single voice over the din of hundreds of armored men on armored horses thundering towards them. The trick then is to find a way to get the archers to fire all at the same time when they won't be able to hear each other. The only way I know is to mark the a spot on the field so when the enemy reaches that spot this would trigger the archers to fire at the same time. So these one or two arrows would be from a single archer and would not be from all the archers finding the range as your comment suggests.

By the way, thanks for the tip on the pull.

Rich

Hi

I am amazed, I go on a road trip to california and come back here to all sorts of nonsense. Sigh.

I love the way iglo keeps telling me things when I have owned and shot both, and he conclusively "proves" that half my experience doesn't exist.

shooting at range. A bow will do with 5moa. that is basic. Further, the elevated angle doesn't work the way you think, but the TARGETING is really wrong. If you will not believe the shooters, go read a book. Saxton Pope's "Ishi" book is excellent as an obsrvation on a primaitive.

One of the things you don't get is the instant feedback on a shot. If one is at the range, unless you are superman, you don't SEE the bullet hit. The military has someone hold a bright point over the hit so you can see it. If you aren't at a formal military shot, you need to stop and look thorugh the spotting scope, then fiddile with your sights to correct for the aimpoint. And that doesn't even work with a musket.

With bowfire, you see where it goes instantly, and "up a little, left a little" is the next arrow.

You have to remember that during the middle ages, renaissance and more modern times, hunters take birds on the wing with arrow, but guns need "shotguns" rather than single shot. Estimating range is part of the bow.

Your understanding of roundball ballistics is faulty as well. A bow does a parabola that is fairly uniform until the end. A round ball degrades on a different arc. It might only drop, theoretically, x feet at 100 yards, not including the basic inaccuracy, but it sheds speed more quickly having a C/D of 1 versus an aerodynamic arrow.

As the ball slows down, the drop becomes suddenly and unpredictable making the innaccuracy worse.

I think the basic problem here is that we have some of you who are extremists about one side or another on the weapons myths, and the extremists cannot accept that my background is in science and engineering and I ain't interested in promoting the agenda.

My longbow wouldn't do 300yards, and my musket was hopeless beyond 100. I am not sure why I keep getting accused of taking a side.

R

Cptn Iglo, there is nothing wrong with you information. However, it does not seem that it is relevant to the question under discussion. Your information seems to be directed toward hunting (hunter aiming at a target like a deer). Forget about "aiming" it's not relevant! The goal of the archers is to place their arrows into the same space occupied by the Napoleonic musketeers. They are doing this by high-angle fire. They are not aiming at the Napoleonic musketeers. The idea being that anyone in that space will get hurt. So forget about archers and aiming.

Musketeers were never trained to aim. So far as I know there are no aiming sights on a smooth-bore musket. What they did was point their muskets in the direction of the enemy and fire. The idea here is that someone in front of them is likely to get hurt. So information about aiming doesn't apply to this question.

Now if this isn't clear, I can send you Rocky's email address and you two can continue this discussion there. [Just kidding Rocky!]

Rich

Wow, this has been going on a long time with far more rancor than it deserves. 'Cause it is complete fantasy.

That said this would not be decided by either range or accuracy. I would be decided by tactics and willingness to fight and win. In almost all cases the the most important weapon is the warrior. Both armies were very solid troops, led by good leaders for their time.

I was a little disapointed in Martin Archery's page (link provided by IGLO) because it says 'Kinetic energy plays a major role in penetration'. This is not true; we have discussed all this before in a long post last year. To quote one of my entries relevant to penetration:

"If I hit somebody in the chest with my fist (say 10 joules of Kinetic energy) they will go Ow! If I have a 6inch nail in my hand they will die. Kinetic played virtually no part in this scenario.
Further, Kintec energy has no part to play in the penetration of hard targets (as opposed to damage). The primary factors are momentum (Mass x Velocity) and the pointiness of the projectile. The more momentum the less pointy the projectile has to be. A blunt musket ball will still penetrate a cuirass cos its going a lot faster than an arrow, its got nothing to do with the stored energy within the ball.
The penetration capabilities of projectiles whether arrows, bullets or indeed bananas is decided by the laws of Physics not our opinions about what may or may not have happened in the past"

Note particularly that in penetration the mass has equal importance to velocity (it is not squared like in Energy). Arrows may deliver the same KE as a .22 but if 8" of shaft has just torn into your flesh it sure makes your eyes water more.

Hi

Actually, Rich, I use my own name and have no problem with people having my email address.

Ager, spent time as a kid in the barrio and in my first gang fight with knives and chains and guns, I was surprised by how little damage people would take to take themselves out of the fight! I saw guys PRETEND to trip so they could be "hurt". Minor cuts would have some sit down and feel sorry for themselves. Having the bullet miss often resulted in people "going to ground".

Later the "official" version involved stalwart warriors driving all before them.

In later years, I took most manly reports with a grain of salt.

R

"Actually, Rich, I use my own name and have no problem with people having my email address."

True but I would get your approval first.

Rich

I just wanted to be the 400th post.

However, I will say to topic that I think the longbowmen would kick the musketeers butt, but, the musket is a better strategic arm which is why of course it became the missile weapon for large national armies.

Still, an unusual discussion I never would have thought to last this long.

'Erb

Given the length of this discussion, has anyone considered referring this point (pun not intended) to a physics prof and having it properly analyzed?

I think we've seen enough mathematics here to create another Manhattan Project. It is truly amazing the amount of comment and debate this has generated. In the end the question of who would come off best is probably never gonna be answered to everyones satisfaction. All ya can do is make an educated guess. Mathematics really wont help you. There are a couple of basic factors which are set in stone. Range and rate of fire. As a longbow archer I'm expected to be biased. Maybe I am but only because I know I can get a lot more shots at the enemy than he can get at me. Accuracy aint that important when were talking muskets and bows, at least not until you get into a range at which the average musketeer and the average archer stand a half decent chance of hitting anything and I think were talking no more than 70/80 yds. There are people here who have shot both weapons. They are the ones who are best qualified to deliver a verdict. People who haven't shot either are really just guessing. I've probably shot longbow more than most but have practically no experience of live firing a musket. I've studied, played and been a fan of Napoleonics for a couple of decades and know a bit about musketry. I'd be the first to say that when the muskets graduated to rifles the longbow was history, no question. But I'll still take the side of the longbow in this contest because it will shoot faster, almost certainly outrange the Napoleonic musket and IMHO thats what would count.

F5