"Recurve composite horse-bow vs longbow?" Topic

"Your questions go on and on, and even when answered you ignore them. You asked and it was answered how I arrived at probability of hit and probability of penetration at least twice."

You may have answered HOW you arrived at the probability, but you have STILL not answered WHAT the probabilities are that you have assumed.

"There are already tools in place for calculating hits on a target for descending missiles. I mentioned this above. Known information. How much of the target area are actual people, also doable. How much of the target is vulnerable, also doable."

But you have not yet said what probability of a hit you assumed in your calculations.

"Not sure why you don't understand the concepts."

Sure I understand the concepts. That's why I can't understand why you cannot give a straight answer to a straight question!

"Because some of you out there believe that all armor is perfect, I did a simple aspect."

Not me!

"I simply decided to treat all the spine and thicker than 1mm as impenetrable except where the energy in the armor piercing point had enough to cleanly penetrate."

OK, so what proportion of the target did you consider to be impenetrable?

"All of this is clear and simple."

So why can't you answer the siumple questions?

"And irrelevent! I understand that your skepticism."

Not irrelevant at all. This thread is about the comparative effectiveness of the composite hose-bow vs the longbow. So far you have done nothing but spout over and over how wonderfully accurate your calculations are, without actually saying what results you arrived at.

" The thing is supplying 300pages of results is also not practical."

Not asking for 300 pages of data (although if we were I'm sure you could publish on a web site somewhere). All we want are simple answers to simple questions.

Why so reluctant?

Rocky,

I'm sorry, but you just have nothing to share of any value here. You evade the questions or answer questions with questions, answer with personal attacks stating that we should already know this, and simply refuse to provide any documentation to support what you are saying. You don't quote source material, and then when someone else quotes source material you then mention that you used it. You have absolutely no credibility in your statements.

You make broad, unfounded statements with absolutely no documentation, other than what I feel at this point is nothing more than your personal opinion. That's fine, we are all entitled to an opinion, but don't go try and passing yourself off as some type of authority on this topic, because very simply put, you are not.

With regards to my father; if there is one thing my father never did, was to "miss the point". He had more knowledge of ballistics, calculus, and mathematics in general in his little finger than you have ever dreamed of or seen, and I resent your implication otherwise.

All I have seen you provide here is what some people might define as you being a dillettante.

Good day sir! You are wasting everyone's time.

- Greg Pitts

STOP IT!!!

This is starting to sound like a post war on the Napoleonics Boards!!!!

Hi

Connard, the bow is important for deciding how much energy is avalible for the missile. ONCE the missle has left the bow, it doesnt matter, then it is a matter of exterior ballistics.

Thus, bows and crossbows differ in how much energy produced by the shooter is returned to the missile. there isn't a fixed number here. For instance, in general, at 70# a proper longbow returns from 35% of the imput energy to 55%. This variabled is based on several concepts including one called "virtual mass". Notice how, in the past, I wrote about 10 column inches of basic "how bow returns energy" and mike and greg keep insisting I didn't answer the question!

The answer isn't "A" number, it is usually expressed as a parabolic curve over time and distance. Now, toss in running the information based first on Klopsteg et all for several hundred bows, then projections for those at other stated draw weights…. and the answers become a small boook for just the longbow.

Similarly, mike wants "A probablilty" of kill. There is no "A probabilty" but a range of overlapping probabilites. A field of missile of known ammount decending on a target is just the first set. In essence, one can get a decent number that on a column of 300 horse at Agincourt, ALL missiles will be on the area at, say 100 yards. Then there is the calculation of how much of the target area is actually human or horse target. Then there is a range of how much of the target is vulnerable to the energy of the missile. then there is the concern of how much it takes to take someone out of a fight and what constitutes a kill, and then there is the idea of multiple hits. Not A number assumed.

And all of the above are standard tools.

An example that Mike referred to is alluded to above. He mentions seeing on TV people doing a study of crowd dynamics as the french dismounted crowd INTO the British MAA. He accepts that they used standard crowd dynamics tools, but doesnt accept that I used the same tools.

Thus, the concept is that there is NOT a single number. The best I could come up with was a random table at range of probabilities that would produce the proper results. This isn't a "100 bow at 100yards kills 10 men" situation.

This is more "if, then, else" situation with a range of probability.

And mike is correct, I am piling on probabilty with probabilty and don't know anything for sure, just the likelyhood based on the modeling used by the goverment to predict what will happen in a battle.

Notice how greg says "no documentation". I quoted my sources, and synthesized from the approaches. What sort of documentation would one supply? Oh, got it, "well I read in "Numbers, Predictions and War" that…..

You are correct, Doc, in nappy, one can "prove" any point by quoting an agreeable source. And the fights are endless. In this case I stated an opinion based on research, testing and synthesis. Versus "comparing the sources". Which, appearantly is "nothing" or a diletante, meaning "dabbler". I would guess that making the weapons and testing the math after doing the research doesn't qualify.

"silly archer points" I keep telling you Mike, remember the post about "half drawing"?

R

Greg said:
"I'm sorry, but you just have nothing to share of any value here. You evade the questions or answer questions with questions, answer with personal attacks stating that we should already know this, and simply refuse to provide any documentation to support what you are saying."

As far as I can see that is still true:

"The answer isn't "A" number, it is usually expressed as a parabolic curve over time and distance."

I assume you mean the energy is usually expressed as a parabolic curve over time and distance. That wasn't one of the questions I asked.

"Similarly, mike wants "A probablity" of kill. There is no "A probabilty" but a range of overlapping probabilities."

Of course there isn't. Why did you not say so before, instead of blustering on in your standard style?

"one can get a decent number that on a column of 300 horse at Agincourt, ALL missiles will be on the area at, say 100 yards."

Assumptions piled on assumptions. What is your "decent number"? I presume this is a single number since you say "a decent number" rather than "decent numbers".

"Then there is the calculation of how much of the target area is actually human or horse target."

That's one number. What did you assume for it?

"Then there is a range of how much of the target is vulnerable to the energy of the missile."

Assumed numbers please?

"then there is the concern of how much it takes to take someone out of a fight and what constitutes a kill"

OK, how much does it take, by your reckoning?

"An example that Mike referred to is alluded to above. He mentions seeing on TV people doing a study of crowd dynamics as the french dismounted crowd INTO the British MAA. He accepts that they used standard crowd dynamics tools, but doesnt accept that I used the same tools."

NO I DIDN'T. Somebody else in these threads may have done, but it wasn't me!!

"The best I could come up with was a random table at range of probabilities that would produce the proper results."

Let's see your table then!

"This isn't a "100 bow at 100yards kills 10 men" situation."

But a statement such as "on average, 100 bow at 100yards kills 10 men" IS quite legitimate. After all that's how Reisswitiz designed the original Kriegsspiel …

"And mike is correct, I am piling on probability with probability and don't know anything for sure, just the likelihood based on the modelling used by the government to predict what will happen in a battle."

This clearly indicates that you do not understand probability and statistics. If you did, you would not resort to defending your position with "well if it's good enough for the government it's good enough for me". I have a friend, a serving office in the British Army, who is involved in similar work. He has been instrumental in using recreational wargames as military training aids on the grounds that they are probably more accurate than the very expensive battlefield simulators they used in the past, and a LOT cheaper!

""silly archer points" I keep telling you Mike, remember the post about "half drawing"? "

As I recall the actual words were:
"Also, being short bows, a "full draw" was not back to the ear."

It was your friend Doug who first mentioned anything about "half draw":
"Shooting is the same for any bow: full draw and release: there is no half-draw technique, ever, period."

Incidentally, I agree that there is no "half draw", but I believe I am also correct that some bows are not drawn to the ear – Olympic competition bows are a good example.

Hi

I apologize. I see this as representing a decade of complex geeky work with all the variables you allude to. I didn't realize you would be sanquine with some results.

You can see all the tables in our rules.

The short version, just for the discussion HERE is that the bow I think was at agincourt would have a maximum effective range against an unarmored close order target of 250yds using a light cap flight arrow. Against the optimum armor that Rich talks about this range, depnding on coverage, is between 100 and 125 yard depnding on values using "bodkin" points. In both cases, the effective hits would be .9% per volley.

By contrast, a similar draw weight turkish composite bow unarmored flight arrow effective is 300yds, and against heavily armored targets 150/200yds with heavy armor piercing points. Again, both cases are .9% per volley.

Both cases, if my sums are right, meaning 3 volleys a turn produce a kill on roll of 12 on 2d6.

In the vein of crossbows in the other points made here, the Gascon crossbow has a maximum against unarmored at 250yds as well, the italian comp bow crossbows as used by, say, the Balestari d'San Marino from 980, 300yd against unarmored.

R

Hi

I forgot, the crossbow effective is 1.4% at that range.

R

"I didn't realize you would be sanquine with some results."

Sanguine? Sorry, I do not understand what you are implying. I am perhaps cheerful about your results?

"Against the optimum armor that Rich talks about this range, depending on coverage, is between 100 and 125 yard depending on values using "bodkin" points."

This is presumably using 70lb bows? What do you mean by "coverage"?

"Both cases, if my sums are right, meaning 3 volleys a turn produce a kill on roll of 12 on 2d6."

3 volleys at 0.9% would be a total probability of 2.7%. A score of 12 on 2D6 has a probability of 2.77%. Near enough, I think. I presume by "kill" you are meaning "hors de combat" (not necessarily death).

Of course you have not explained HOW you arrived at your figure of 0.9%.

And 3 volleys a turn would imply a turn length of 15 seconds?

"I forgot, the crossbow effective is 1.4% at that range."

But of course with a much slower rate of fire.

Oh, and you STILL haven't answered my previous questions. If it helps, just pick a single example rather than giving the whole set of probabilities over all ranges.

Back now. Wow! what a thread!

Mike, Greg, what exactly is it that you are objecting to? That Rocky won't come forth with copies of his calculations for you to scrutinize? He's presented a lot of hard numbers throughout this lengthy exchange. E.g. "12%" vulnerable areas on the best plate. That seems to have passed right under your combined radar, you two. That's a hard number regarding "effective" for calculating the chances to hit when designing a wargames hit table, seems to me.

Art of War turns are 30 seconds; a volley of arrows takes ten seconds, i.e. three per turn. Hand-spanned crossbows standing still can get off a shot every 15 seconds: Rocky and I have both done this. But that's the limit: an archer, by contrast, when not limited to volleying, can get off a shot every four to five seconds: but that doesn't show up on the battlefield except at pointblank range when volley fire is dispensed with and "shoot at will" is taken up. So no, battlefield crossbows do not have a "much slower rate of fire" than bows do when they start shooting at each other.

"Mike, Greg, what exactly is it that you are objecting to?"

I can't speak for Greg, but what I am objecting to is the continuing attitude that says "we have proved our rules are accurate because we have replicated medieval conditions and weapons and thus proved exactly how effective those weapons are in battle conditions".

I disagree.

"That Rocky won't come forth with copies of his calculations for you to scrutinize? "

Yes. He needs to "put his money where his mouth is".

"He's presented a lot of hard numbers throughout this lengthy exchange."

He has not answered the simple questions he was asked.

"E.g. "12%" vulnerable areas on the best plate."

What he actually said was:
"in this case the area taken by a man, and the area of the exposed vulnerable areas available, with no armor all the body, with perfect plate, ca 12%"

Note "perfect plate" (whatever that is, another assumption), "ca 12%" – i.e. about 12%. What is the margin of error?

"Art of War turns are 30 seconds; a volley of arrows takes ten seconds, i.e. three per turn. Hand-spanned crossbows standing still can get off a shot every 15 seconds:"

OK, taking those figures then, that's 2 shots per turn for crossbows, not 3. As I said, a much slower rate of fire.

I also take issue with the assumption of 6 shots a minute for longbows. I have watched re-enactors shooting and they can achieve far higher rates than that. The accepted rate of fire is 10 – 12 aimed shots per minute. As you said yourself:
"An expert archer shooting quickly and aiming can get off 12 arrows per minute:"

42356

That's a hard number, but don't ask me how I got it.

This thread is hilarious

Hi

"proved"….is backwards. Going back to sources where people actually discuss bow and bow physics…the testing was to reinforce the information we had.

It does no good for me to look at the bow described by someone else, chart the energy and just say "well klopsteg and all….." I had to actually shoot. Take bows, use the physics to predict the performance, then go shoot to verify the math works.

"proved to our satisfaction" is more correct. Too many of your questions are like asking "how fast is a red car".

"coverage"…how much of the target is covered by armor, how much isn't, how much is optimum. Same approah for evaluating a tank. See the thread on the T34.

Most of your other questions get regularly answered and you dont seem to understand. "close order", movement by crowd analysis, saturation of target based on how much is actually people. All of these are stated.

Lets take one example. a 6' man at 100yds being shot at by a smoothbore musket clamped in a vice standing perfectly still has a 40% chance of being hit. If we change this to a man in armor and the weapon is a crossbow of 200#draw weight with a composite bow, the man is still 40% of the target area (actually, in this case hand held, in a vice the grouping would be tighter). IF the man is in perfect armor, this is mild sarcasim some of the other posters explain that some suits are…well you get the idea, 12% of the man is still vulnerable thorugh slits, joints, lips and so on. All of this is mentioned above.

10/12 rounds a minute…Yup, I can do this. But that isn't the issue, this is referring to the condition YOU brought up of 16 ranks of longbow volleying. Imagine that most of the shooters cannot see the target. This means that the captian first calls the range, the target and all fit, draw and loose in unison. this WILL be slower.

Again, I can load and shoot my smoothbore musket every 10 seconds when showing off. Sadly, in the real world a volley of 3 ranks of prussians was remarkable for doing a volley every 20 seconds and they could ALL see the target.

I believe you are being willfully obtuse. I keep explaining how we got the to the numbers. You beleive there is no way to have any conclusion except looking and guessing. Thus, even when I answer, you pretend I didn't.

To repeat. Physics can predict performance. Some examples of this prediction were tested with actual shooting against actual targets to check the numbers. As a follow on, the militaries of the world since the napoloenic era had, due to their tests, developed mathmatical systems to predict how many hits on target one gets from various types of mass missile incoming. I used these well tested tools. Similarly, there are,as mentioned above, tools for predicting movements of masses of people, both mobs and trained troops. I used those tools as well to produce a solution on hits on target of medieval units. Modified this on how much of the target is actual people. And used further modifications on the target based on how much was exposed to injury or protected by armor. And how much actual protection the armor provided.

This results in the above .9percent number.

Assumptions? Sure, but tested at each step.

If you can come up with a more scientific approach, please explain YOURS. If you believe that all is unknown, roll a 6 kill a frenchman, fine. I "BELIEVE" that the systems apporach used by various militaries on the subject over the last 250 years is valid and prefer THAT.

Or as my Buddy Bangorstu likes to say "Go Read a Book". I would recommend starting with "Numbers, Predictions and War" by Dupuy. Or for fun the "Harper Encyclopedia of Military History" also by Dupuy. Not for the history, but for the mechanisitic approach to combat.

R

""proved"….is backwards."

Er … no. This is what your friend Doug said:
"if the bows at Agincourt were 100 lbs draw weight, the French men at arms don't have enough men left standing to make a fight when they reach the English line: I know this because I have played out Agincourt both ways, with the heavier bows and with the 70 lb bows (this according to the physics studies Rocky Russo has indicated, crunched into our two longbow tables: "Bow 3" and "Bow 4", 70 lb and 100 lb bows respectively). The amount of time to shoot and the effectiveness of 70 lb bows matches the original source descriptions of a stiff fight remaining after the French advanced to melee. If we use 100 lb bows, the French are too shot up to melee as described."

Sure sounds like you're using your rules to prove history to me.

"Too many of your questions are like asking "how fast is a red car"."

Which of these questions (none of which you have answered yet) are like that?
What did you assume for:
probability of a hit
probability of penetration provided one hits
probability of inflicting lethal damage if one penetrates.
average angle of impact

"Most of your other questions get regularly answered and you don't seem to understand. "close order", movement by crowd analysis, saturation of target based on how much is actually people. All of these are stated."

I haven't asked questions about any of those!

"10/12 rounds a minute…Yup, I can do this. But that isn't the issue, this is referring to the condition YOU brought up of 16 ranks of longbow volleying. Imagine that most of the shooters cannot see the target. This means that the captain first calls the range, the target and all fit, draw and loose in unison. this WILL be slower."

I NEVER said anything about the archers being 16 ranks deep! It was DOUG who said:
"Obviously, longbowmen arranged 8 to 16 ranks deep"

According to my calculations they only needed to be 6 ranks deep at Agincourt.

And I do not agree that volley fire would necessarily be that much slower.

"I believe you are being willfully obtuse."

I could say the same about you.

"I keep explaining how we got the to the numbers."

Yes, but I'm interested in the actual numbers you made assumptions about, not how you got there.

"You believe there is no way to have any conclusion except looking and guessing."

No. Although I have not spelled it out before, I think there is a role for properly configured tests using accurate reproductions of period pieces, as was done by the MR researchers.

I have said before that you appear to have no understanding of the process of historical analysis.

"To repeat. Physics can predict performance."

Of course it can. PROVIDED the experiments accurately assess the physical characteristics of the weapons/armour under consideration.

You have used modern weapons shooting against modern steel plate. How can that correlate to 15th century weapons and armour?

"Assumptions? Sure, but tested at each step."

No, you haven't tested the assumptions.

"If you can come up with a more scientific approach, please explain YOURS."

The scientific testing of the accurate reproductions of the MR bows is fully documented in Hardy & Strickland's book.

"Or as my Buddy Bangorstu likes to say "Go Read a Book". I would recommend starting with "Numbers, Predictions and War" by Dupuy."

I am familiar with the works of Dupuy.

OK, taking those figures then, that's 2 shots per turn for crossbows, not 3. As I said, a much slower rate of fire.

With each bolt hitting at 1.4 compared to .9 for arrows, the two bolts to three arrows works out to c. the same chance to hit effectively.

But by your other assertions, you have the idea that bowmen are shooting "aimed" shots at c. 12 per minute.

Even six ranks deep is too deep to allow them all to do that: volleying is necessary, and we are being generous to assume that all the archers in only four ranks could see well enough to "aim" 12 shots per minute. Once volley drill is necessary, it can work for deeper than four.

Agincourt is the test battle for thinnest to maximum depth: since sixteen ranks is the upper limit, our rules allow English archers to shoot two figures deep in close order: if we find another case where other nations' archers could have shot more than a single figure (eight ranks) deep, we would change the rules to allow them: but so far, only the English.

Outta popcorn here…emergency popcorn request!

"So no, battlefield crossbows do not have a "much slower rate of fire" than bows do when they start shooting at each other."
"With each bolt hitting at 1.4 compared to .9 for arrows, the two bolts to three arrows works out to c. the same chance to hit effectively."

So you now agree that crossbows have a slower rate of fire. Thanks for conceding that point!

"But by your other assertions, you have the idea that bowmen are shooting "aimed" shots at c. 12 per minute."

Yes, everyone seems to agree that 10 – 12 per minute was the rate, even you:
"An expert archer shooting quickly and aiming can get off 12 arrows per minute:"

but see below re. aiming.

"Even six ranks deep is too deep to allow them all to do that: volleying is necessary,"

Why?

"and we are being generous to assume that all the archers in only four ranks could see well enough to "aim" 12 shots per minute."

It is not necessary to "aim" as such. By adopting the same angle of fire the arrows will all drop in a similar "kill zone".

"Once volley drill is necessary, it can work for deeper than four."

I'm sure it can, but the mathematics demonstrate that 6 ranks is sufficient depth for Agincourt.

Of course, your "6 volleys a minute" is yet another unsubstantiated assumption.

….
What did you assume for:
probability of a hit
probability of penetration provided one hits
probability of inflicting lethal damage if one penetrates.
average angle of impact

Though addressed to Rocky, I will respond with what little I think I know of his thought process, so that perhaps he might elucidate and correct, for both of us:

Probability of a hit: is a combination, as he has rehearsed above, of the size of a man/horse, his unprotected parts, the impacted area of a "column" of men (and horses), i.e. the percentage of the area occupied by protected and unprotected flesh.

Probability of penetration provided one hits: this would be a function of energy which is a combination of initial pounds of thrust behind the missile of a given weight, adjusted for efficiency: e.g. 100 lbs behind an arrow is not equal, since a 100 lb composite bow, crossbow or longbow all possess differing efficiency ratings. That's why the bow/crossbow tables contain assumed weapons that differ: e.g. "Bow 3" includes a 50 lb composite bow, a 70 lb longbow or a 100 lb shortbow, or hypothetically inferior grade longbow of 100 lbs. It is assumed that if the arrow gets "in" it will almost certainly render that man ineffective in combat. I don't know what small percentage would be able to still fight effectively, but it couldn't be very many. Even an arrow through your sword hand would make you pretty useless for the rest of this fight.

Probability of inflicting lethal damage if one penetrates: This doesn't matter in a battle, since total ineffectives is the real factor, not how many are killed outright, or especially, how many are going to bleed out or die later of infection/complications.

Average angle of impact: Rocky already clearly said that this is altered by the bodkin, which tends to "straighten" the arrow to a shallower impact angle than the actual descending angle of the arrow. It seems that even the long range of 150 plus yards, which would result in a c. 56 degree impact angle (though elevated initially at c. 43 degrees), straightens out to 35 to 40 degrees: pointblank shooting would result in virtually no initial impact angle, but strikes into perpendicular surfaces would result in hard impact angles, while glancing (going away) surfaces would result in accute impact angles: this would return to a combined factors probability: of initial angle/range, and percentage of presented surface armor being inimical to a direct hit (plate being very good for this: but mail, flesh and soft armor being actually attractive to all but the most glancing strikes).

"Even six ranks deep is too deep to allow them all to do that: volleying is necessary,"

Why?

Because back rankers can't SEE what they are supposed to be shooting at. A ranging command and established "loose" command must be used to get the archers to drop their arrows at the same time where they can't see.

It is not necessary to "aim" as such. By adopting the same angle of fire the arrows will all drop in a similar "kill zone".

Of course, your "6 volleys a minute" is yet another unsubstantiated assumption.

And a consensus of seminal writers admits that volley shooting (at the clout) was used; that means that a unit sent all its arrows at once, and they arrived at once: that takes time to carry off. You don't have a scad of archers all mimicking the angle and trajectory and shooting at will. Even if you did, would that substantially alter the probabilities of the number of arrows to be effective hits?

I don't think that anything beyond annecdotal descriptions of clout practice is available to us to arrive at the conclusion of "volley" shooting. We have "arrow storm", like "rain" or "hail": which could easily be achieved by each man dropping his shots according to the angle and trajectory of the ranks in front of him, at will, at 12 to 15 shafts per minute: this would seriously alter Rocky's effectiveness-per-round calculation/assumption: but it wouldn't change the way the game works: it would only mean that many more arrows were shot to achieve the known results. (what that would mean about how Rocky came up with the missile tables' chances for hits, I am not prepared to say)

…the mathematics demonstrate that 6 ranks is sufficient depth for Agincourt.

Only if we have c. 5,000 archers on a field c. 900 yards wide. Otherwise, there isn't room for 7,000 archers in only six ranks. Curry goes with c. 7,000, a substantially larger number than the normally accepted 5,000. And we already discussed how the trees today do not follow the 15th century extent of the woods: which could have easily been much closer to each other, further requiring a very deep English formation of archers (the four ranks for the men at arms is not disputed, being too clearly established in the narratives).

"Probability of a hit: is a combination of the size of a man/horse, his unprotected parts, the impacted area of a "column" of men (and horses), i.e. the percentage of the area occupied by protected and unprotected flesh."

That does not take into account the accuracy of shooting and includes (errorneously) the protected/unprotected factor (which is part of the probability of penetration). No matter. You still haven't answered the question:

What VALUE did you assume for the probability of a hit on the target area? (By all means just give a single example) as I'm sure you will agree that this probability will avry with range.

"Probability of penetration provided one hits: this would be a function of energy which is a combination of initial pounds of thrust behind the missile of a given weight, adjusted for efficiency:"

Should include the protected/unprotected factor as mentioned above. Again, please continue with a single example and quote:
the VALUE assumed for the proportion of a target that is protected
the VALUE for the probability of penetration when a hit is taken on the protected area. (It is of course assumed that a hit on the unprotected area will penetrate!!)

"Average angle of impact:"

Same point again. You persist is describing HOW you calculate the probabilities without actually quoting the VALUES you used. Again, I accept that angle of impact varies with range, so pick a single example and QUOTE THAT VALUE.

"Because back rankers can't SEE what they are supposed to be shooting at. A ranging command and established "loose" command must be used to get the archers to drop their arrows at the same time where they can't see."

You misunderstand me (how often have I said that?). Why is is necessary for the archers to drop their arrows at the same time?

"And a consensus of seminal writers admits that volley shooting (at the clout) was used; that means that a unit sent all its arrows at once, and they arrived at once: that takes time to carry off."

Why does it take time to carry off? The captain issues orders: "Range 200 paces, nock, draw, loose!". That is not going to take 10 seconds, particularly as aiming is not necessary – it is sufficient to drop the arrows at or near the specified range.

"You don't have a scad of archers all mimicking the angle and trajectory and shooting at will. Even if you did, would that substantially alter the probabilities of the number of arrows to be effective hits?"

No, I don't think it would substantially alter the probabilities.

"Only if we have c. 5,000 archers on a field c. 900 yards wide."

No, my calculations were based on 6,000 men on a frontage of 950 yds. That's 6,000 men for the TOTAL force (archers AND men-at-arms). Taking your figure from Curry of 7,000 archers plus 1,000 men-at-arms on a 950yd frontage still only gives a figure of 8.4 men per yard, so that would be about 8 ranks then.

Hi

And sight. Mike, I think you have a short term memory problem.

Your unanswered questions were ALL answered variously above.

Which of these questions (none of which you have answered yet) are like that?
What did you assume for:
"probability of a hit"

Size of target, density of actual people in the area, standard statisitical analysis in use since napoleonic times, outlined in Dupuy and Hughes which you keep insisting you know. If you want the actual numbers, I don't have them at hand, part of using sources like this is that when I need it I go look.

"probability of penetration provided one hits" the energy available at the impact point versus the amount of the target. Again standard.

"probability of inflicting lethal damage if one penetrates.
average angle of impact" Leatal isn't the issue. Again, this is derived from published work about hits/casualties(not lethal), plus people removed from effectivness and so on.

You continue:"No, you haven't tested the assumptions" bald assertian without foundation, rules of logic assure that I can refer in kind …..YES I DID. You are now being rude. I described every approach at every step over a ten year period.

respond to my asking for "better" with "The scientific testing of the accurate reproductions of the MR bows is fully documented in Hardy & Strickland's book."

Yet you dispute Pope who did the same and more! And ignore Klopstegs physics. AND somehow decided all the bows were 100 plus. And you ignore MY building bows. And you ignore that your local archery range will put you in touch with longbows.

But lets just assume that Hardy and strickland are the ne plus ultra on the subject, sit down, plot the curve, do the sums. Since I did those as well. Your basic assumption is that 130 bows from the 16th century proves that 120,000 archers in england inthe 14th and 15th were ALL 100plus draw weight.

And here is where we get to another "short term memory" issue. You asked for a table, doug posted, you complained that you had no idea of scale and couldn't evaluate, the following posts have explanations of scale. And then, later, you complain you want a table for ONE bow. But we already did give you ONE.

The point of "proving history". You missunderstood what doug was saying. Doug thinks about like you, he was working on apporaching rules based on the top down model you claim. I am a mechanic and scientist by trainging and experience. I wasn't really interested in gaming rules. What I was interested in was the weaponology as outlined in Pope about how bows differered in performance. With a large body of work out of love of the subject and curiosity, doug asked me to approach weapons in what he was thinking. I derived the tables from the work.

Not bottom up, just my interest in the subject. DOUG was satisfied that I had got my sums right by refighting the battle using the table supplied. Which is the reverse of the way you were thinking.

Now, to you new point about 6 deep. You still miss the point that there is no psychic connection in these guys. Thus, they cannot both look AT the front row angle of shot AND be drawing and shooting at the same time in the back row.

If you insist that all the bows were heavy and killing people at 400 or even 300 yards and punching all armor, then you have, indeed become an archer fanboy. And Rich Knapton will be all over you.

So, repeatedly answered you questions and explained the results. If you are unsatisfied, I cannot think what more I can do here. I am very old school as a gamer, dating back to the scruby era. Then and now, I believe if you don't like our results do your own. I have no problem with the very early statement you made about "I don't buy it". You KNEW from the beginning that you didn't belive we know anything which I believe is a closed mind.

I have opinions based on work. accept or not, or do your own. Free world gamers, us.

R
R

"If you want the actual numbers, I don't have them at hand, part of using sources like this is that when I need it I go look."
"probability of penetration provided one hits … Again standard."
"probability of inflicting lethal damage if one penetrates … Again, this is derived from published work about hits/casualties(not lethal), plus people removed from effectiveness and so on."

Once again you evade the question, even though I have tried to make it simple for you by only asking for ONE example.

Since you persist in not answering the questions, you make it impossible for me or anyone else to validate your thinking in any way. We are left with the simple alternative, "take it or leave it".

"You continue:"No, you haven't tested the assumptions" bald assertian without foundation, rules of logic assure that I can refer in kind …..YES I DID. You are now being rude. I described every approach at every step over a ten year period."

Since you have not demonstrated how you verified your assumptions, we are left with no choice but to regard them as guesses, like everyone else's. Did nobody teach you scientific and mathematical methods during your education?

"Yet you dispute Pope who did the same and more!"

No, he didn't as I have demonstrated in the other thread.

"And ignore Klopstegs physics."

No, I accept Kooi's physics, who refined and updated Klopsteg's work.

"AND somehow decided all the bows were 100 plus."

See below.

"And you ignore MY building bows."

Yes, because (by your own admission) your bows will be no more accurate than Pope's were.

"Your basic assumption is that 130 bows from the 16th century proves that 120,000 archers in England in the 14th and 15th were ALL 100plus draw weight."

No, I have never said it PROVES it. What I have said (and you continue to deny) is that the available evidence makes that view more likely than your conflicting view that the average bow was 70lbs.

"You asked for a table, doug posted, you complained that you had no idea of scale and couldn't evaluate, the following posts have explanations of scale. And then, later, you complain you want a table for ONE bow. But we already did give you ONE."

The table referred to in the playsheet from your rules only gives the FINAL result of your calculations. It does not answer the questions that you have continually refused to answer about the ASSUMPTIONS you made in order to derive that table.

"What I was interested in was the weaponology as outlined in Pope about how bows differed in performance. With a large body of work out of love of the subject and curiosity, doug asked me to approach weapons in what he was thinking. I derived the tables from the work."

Precisely. Bottom up design. Fatally flawed.

"DOUG was satisfied that I had got my sums right by refighting the battle using the table supplied. Which is the reverse of the way you were thinking."

No. You labelled a particular bow in your game as "Bow 3" a 70lb bow. I am seeking to suggest that your calculations for the effectiveness of this bow (and the others, come to that) were based on so many assumptions that the cumulative error would render your calculations as worthless. By saying "The game doesn't work with Bow 4 (100lb bows) but does work with Bow 3 (70lb bows)" simply demonstrates that you are attempting to prove history from a set of rules.

Since you cannot conclusively prove that Bow 4 is an ACCURATE representation in game terms of a 100lb bow, your game proves nothing.

"Thus, they cannot both look AT the front row angle of shot AND be drawing and shooting at the same time in the back row."

They don't need to. Training will have given them the knowledge that to hit at a particular range requires a particular angle of launch.

"If you insist that all the bows were heavy and killing people at 400 or even 300 yards and punching all armor, then you have, indeed become an archer fanboy. And Rich Knapton will be all over you."

Sigh. Do you actually read anything I write? I have NEVER insisted on an effective range of 300 or more yards. I have ALWAYS maintained that the effective range (IMHO) is ~250 yds, a figure you have agreed with. Go on, read the threads if you don't believe me …

Likewise, I have never maintained that even 100lb bows can penetrate all armour. Far from it. But as you and Doug have both indicated, the target has an appreciable amount of less well protected area (more so in the earlier part of the period). And as you have also said, you don't need to kill to take him out of combat.

"I am very old school as a gamer, dating back to the scruby era."

Me too.

"Then and now, I believe if you don't like our results do your own."

I have. Although I would have liked to compare my assumptions with yours to see if there is any correlation.

"I have no problem with the very early statement you made about "I don't buy it". You KNEW from the beginning that you didn't believe we know anything which I believe is a closed mind."

I am prepared to open my mind to your assertions if you give me some data to work on. Since you have consistently refused to do so indicates that either you are unsure of your own methods or you are not prepared for what ever reason to share them (I mean as a worked example, not the interminable theory with no supporting data).

Either way, you leave me no choice but to consider your rules flawed for the reasons stated before. Where I come from, we enjoy not only playing wargames, but discussing the mathematical and statistical theory behind them (such as the work of Dupuy). Clearly you do not believe in sharing your work in this way. That is a shame.

Did nobody teach you scientific and mathematical methods during your education?

That's not fair, imho. Neither of you is being lucid by rendering the other deficient in mental powers or training.

Mike, you seem far more educated in physics than I am: I have only gleaned some logical approachs in thinking, and possess NO formulaic skills.

But you say things which make me wonder how much of your better education you actually understand: like claiming that archer accuracy is a factor, then saying that aiming is not necessary because a given range would be known to require a given angle to the bow, yet the guys in the back cannot SEE the range because they cannot SEE the target, ergo, they can only KNOW by looking at the physical attitude of those in front who can see.

All of this translates into volley shooting, which affects the physics of massed missiles as they arrive. There wouldn't likely be a difference in the total hits if each archer was shooting on his own, but the impact of a sudden, massed volley would be horribly disrupting, whereas a more or less constant "shower" of randomly arriving missiles would lack such a disruptive impact.

How do you visualize many ranks deep (such that the back rankers cannot SEE) actually putting down an "artillery" barrage in a precise beaten zone, without volley fire on command? And why would you deny the understanding of many seminal writers who do accept some kind of volley fire on command implicitly, though they admit that they don't know how it was carried off? And volley fire would be slower than shooting at will, plain and simple.

Since you cannot conclusively prove that Bow 4 is an ACCURATE representation in game terms of a 100lb bow, your game proves nothing.

As said already, Bow 4 slaughters French men at arms too easily. Calling it "100 lbs" is moot to a refight of Agincourt: Bow 3 works, Bow 4 does not. How Rocky arrived at the hit values is his balliwick, but the finished product works.

I am prepared to open my mind to your assertions if you give me some data to work on. Since you have consistently refused to do so indicates that either you are unsure of your own methods or you are not prepared for what ever reason to share them (I mean as a worked example, not the interminable theory with no supporting data).

You are prepared to "work on" Rocky's data? I doubt that! You ask for data to study, but to falsify Rocky's data you would have to approach it the same way, i.e. build and shoot and provide field corroboration of the maths at every step: even for ONE missile table -- and Rocky made nine, not counting gunnes and hand thrown missiles.

I think, Mike, that what you are doing here is a form of "put up or shut up", expecting in the end of this exchange to show Rocky as some kind of empty pontificator of no substance, i.e. someone who makes claims without physical proof that he has done what he says he has.

I can tell you, that back in the 70's when he was engaged in this project, and I was individually coming up with my own rules, I saw his notebook(s) once or twice (we lived in different States at the time) but never "went there." His hand writing is almost illegible to my eye, and his notes to himself are equally so.

What do you expect Rocky to do, find his notes that went into say "Bow 3", scan them and give you links to the pages? Or do you expect him to get his material into some cogent, published form, then come back here and alert you so that you can see that he actually did the work once upon a time?

Even if he were to take the hours to go back and find stuff he did over thirty years ago, are you some kind of peer reviewer? This is TMP, and we learn from each other about what goes into our games. This is not a forum for scientific review and provenance: we are not peers!

You are evidently offended by Rocky's claim that our rules are a "simulation" of medieval warfare which can produce historically accurate outcomes for known battles: you describe your own rules as only a game and no simulation. (The Dupuy approach I know nothing of. At the time, Rocky did not share any of that with anyone I have heard of. I only saw his combat results tables for our game when he was "through." As we have said, that was over thirty years ago.)

What you ask for would be very, very difficult at best, I am guessing, for Rocky to comply with. And once in your possession, you could not do anything in your situation to show or falsify the methods and results that Rocky used to get his data.

"hat's not fair, imho. Neither of you is being lucid by rendering the other deficient in mental powers or training."

My comments are based on the fact that Rocky, when asked to show his working, consistently fails to do so.

"like claiming that archer accuracy is a factor, then saying that aiming is not necessary because a given range would be known to require a given angle to the bow,"

Archer accuracy is a factor, because an inaccurate archer couldn't hit the side of a barn (so to speak). When I say archer accuracy, I am looking for the percentage of arrows that fall within the defined target area. That may be 100% with a body of well trained archers. Of course it also begs the question about how you define the target area in relation to the humans and horses you are trying to hit … more assumptions.

"yet the guys in the back cannot SEE the range because they cannot SEE the target, ergo, they can only KNOW by looking at the physical attitude of those in front who can see."

No. If you read what I said, I imagine (although I cannot prove it) that an archer would instinctively know what angle of launch is required to drop his arrow at the required range. He doesn't need to look at anyone else.

"All of this translates into volley shooting, which affects the physics of massed missiles as they arrive."

Why? Rocky has said that an arrow is not aware of the bow that launched it.

"There wouldn't likely be a difference in the total hits if each archer was shooting on his own, but the impact of a sudden, massed volley would be horribly disrupting,"

That's a morale effect, which Rocky's weapon effectiveness tables do not take into account.

"whereas a more or less constant "shower" of randomly arriving missiles would lack such a disruptive impact."

Again why? If you are subject to a volley of arrows every 10 seconds then that means you have several seconds in between each volley to react to it (back off, hide behind a tree, whatever). With a continuous rain of arrows, or shower (interesting, those are words used by the chroniclers) there is no such opportunity.

"How do you visualize many ranks deep (such that the back rankers cannot SEE) actually putting down an "artillery" barrage in a precise beaten zone, without volley fire on command?"

I did not say volley fire was not used. Go on, READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN! What I did say was that I take issue with your view that they could only achieve 6 shots a minute when volleying.

"As said already, Bow 4 slaughters French men at arms too easily. Calling it "100 lbs" is moot to a refight of Agincourt: Bow 3 works, Bow 4 does not."

Which proves nothing about the historical weapons.

"You are prepared to "work on" Rocky's data? I doubt that! You ask for data to study, but to falsify Rocky's data you would have to approach it the same way, i.e. build and shoot and provide field corroboration of the maths at every step: even for ONE missile table -- and Rocky made nine, not counting gunnes and hand thrown missiles.

Once again, you misunderstand me. I am not looking to "falsify" (as you put it) Rocky's data. I am seeking to understand the mathematics behind it. I do not need to build and shoot replicas (which may or may not be accurate representations of historical weapons) in order to understand the maths involved. Unfortunately, due to Rocky's intransigence in failing to provide any hard data, this appears to be impossible.

"what you are doing here is a form of "put up or shut up", expecting in the end of this exchange to show Rocky as some kind of empty pontificator of no substance, i.e. someone who makes claims without physical proof that he has done what he says he has."

Well, so far when pushed on the subject, he has singularly failed to provide any hard evidence to support his claims. Whether he is an "empty pontificator" or not, I cannot judge.

"I saw his notebook(s) … His hand writing is almost illegible to my eye, and his notes to himself are equally so."

Hmm … so it would be difficult for anyone to corroborate his findings?

"What do you expect Rocky to do"

Simply answer the specific questions he has been asked. Surely not too difficult?

"This is TMP, and we learn from each other about what goes into our games. This is not a forum for scientific review and provenance: we are not peers!"

Well, in the sense that we are engaged in the same process, to wit, designing wargames that (we hope) reflect reality to a lesser or greater extent, then yes, we are peers. And yes, learning from each other about what goes into our games is exactly what I'm trying to do, but Rocky is apparently not prepared to cooperate.

"You are evidently offended by Rocky's claim that our rules are a "simulation" of medieval warfare which can produce historically accurate outcomes for known battles:"

Yes, because so far, neither you nor he has provided any real evidence to back up that claim.

"you describe your own rules as only a game and no simulation."

At least I'm honest. Personally, I do not believe a wargame can ever be described as a simulation. Years ago, we used to kid ourselves that that was the case, but not any more.

"At the time, Rocky did not share any of that with anyone I have heard of. I only saw his combat results tables for our game when he was "through.""

Curious …

link

link

I think that most rules are still stuck with the idea of "kills" rather than the disruptive effects of combat – and that's especially true of missile fire.

As far as I'm concerned, except at point-blank range (or against completely unarmored targets), bowfire is area fire that cause disruption rather than kills (interdiction and harassment).

But you also can't ignore prevailing attitudes about warfare. Even if the longbow was incredibly effective – say in the Wars of the Roses – it would not have been acceptable for the nobles to be secondary to the missile troops. In the same way, the arguments about the effectiveness of bows at Agincourt are really arguments about differing styles of warfare (with Agincourt due to circumstances being a limit case at that).

Rules that perfectly replicate real-world physics – don't necessarily replicate real-world uses and results.

Archer accuracy is a factor, because an inaccurate archer couldn't hit the side of a barn (so to speak). When I say archer accuracy, I am looking for the percentage of arrows that fall within the defined target area. That may be 100% with a body of well trained archers. Of course it also begs the question about how you define the target area in relation to the humans and horses you are trying to hit … more assumptions.

This would be what Rocky referred to above as targetting a column; all medieval close order units stack deep enough to be defined as columns in later periods when this sort of analysis started: that would be one of the hard numbers you want, I imagine: what percentage of a close order column will be hit within an area where "shrapnel" is thrown out: because Rocky also said that the effects as per hits with a volley of arrows in a given area (how big I don't know) is close enough to the effects of shrapnel to be the same for game design purposes.

Archers are accurate by the time they get to a battlefield, that can be trusted. And as earlier threads on this subject have already repeatedly pointed out, archers are far more accurate individually all the way out to their maximum range than any musketeers ever were or are, ergo a body of archers would volley with a higher percentage of hits into the beaten zone than any early firearms would get. I assume that we can consider almost 100% hits in the beaten zone and immediate surrounding area. Then the percentage of that zone occupied by bodies is taken, then the percentage of exposed areas on those bodies. These are hard numbers, and I hope Rocky can get them for us, because I find this very interesting.

…I imagine (although I cannot prove it) that an archer would instinctively know what angle of launch is required to drop his arrow at the required range. He doesn't need to look at anyone else.

How do you imagine that the archers in the back are informed what the range is? They cannot see the target. Somehow the information on range and angle is transmitted quickly for each volley from the front to the rearmost men. Our perspective is shared by many: some kind of ranging command was given, then the entire unit was holding that angle for just so long as it took for the command to "loose!" Without this kind of cohesion, you would have to imagine bows being popped up at will all up and down the unit and from front to rear: the rear rankers would be relying on a constantly fluctuating flurry of bows being held aloft, and quickly as possible deciding if the upper bow limbs visible toward the front are dropping, raising or holding: that would be most inefficient and inaccurate!

"All of this translates into volley shooting, which affects the physics of massed missiles as they arrive."

Why? Rocky has said that an arrow is not aware of the bow that launched it.

I was referring to what follows next: the impact of a volley versus individually arriving arrows at random.

"There wouldn't likely be a difference in the total hits if each archer was shooting on his own, but the impact of a sudden, massed volley would be horribly disrupting,"

That's a morale effect, which Rocky's weapon effectiveness tables do not take into account.

I don't know that. It could be that letting archers shoot individually would result in such a reduced rate of fire from the back ranks (or wasted/untaken shots due to inaccurate estimation of the range) that the total effect would be less than from a volley: and then again the disrupting effects of a volley are a given, since Rocky and I don't believe in the picture that you are arguing for, vis-a-vis individuals in any depth shooting c. 12 arrows per minute. To factor for no volley disruption would be something that Rocky probably hasn't done, because it didn't work that way.

If you are subject to a volley of arrows every 10 seconds then that means you have several seconds in between each volley to react to it (back off, hide behind a tree, whatever). With a continuous rain of arrows, or shower (interesting, those are words used by the chroniclers) there is no such opportunity.

How can a massed unit of thousands in advancing close order do anything to react to a volley other than grit their teeth and await the next one? On the open field there is nowhere to hide, and entire units do not hide! "Backing off" turns into a rout. The reaction you are describing is what individuals could attempt, but then, a unit of archers would not use volley fire into individuals, but only units big enough to receive the clout shooting.

I did not say volley fire was not used. Go on, READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN! What I did say was that I take issue with your view that they could only achieve 6 shots a minute when volleying.

THEN WHY DID YOU BRING UP NON VOLLEY FIRE?

We did not propose six arrows per minute first. Iirc, Keegan did that. But field testing indicates that it is a doable number: it could be more or less for particular units, but I am confident that six shots per man per minute for volley fire is a good average around which to build a game.

I do not need to build and shoot replicas (which may or may not be accurate representations of historical weapons) in order to understand the maths involved. Unfortunately, due to Rocky's intransigence in failing to provide any hard data, this appears to be impossible.

I can accept that: all you are interested in is the mathematical component by which Rocky arrived at the values in our hit tables. Since I don't know how many sheets of paper such calculations would occupy for even one of the weapon types in one of the bow tables, I can't answer to the practicality of that request: but I suspect what I already said is true, that to distil to publishable form the amount of data you want for even one start-to-finish physics study of one weapon would be a lot of work for him. And to what end? I am dubious (less than he is, I bet) that you would be satisfied. But maybe you would be: since a complete process would show you the same mathematical approach used on all the weapons.

…so it would be difficult for anyone to corroborate his findings?

Not if you had the math data and processes he used. But the difficulty is Rocky's, as I surmise, in getting the data from notebook form to an examinable state (and it is also possible that 30 years and half a dozen moves later he can't locate his notes now).

"You are evidently offended by Rocky's claim that our rules are a "simulation" of medieval warfare which can produce historically accurate outcomes for known battles:"

Yes, because so far, neither you nor he has provided any real evidence to back up that claim.

We keep telling you that we get historical results for known historical battles, without having to tweak the rules to make them work for each battle. You could always buy them and try them out and then critique the results :)

"you describe your own rules as only a game and no simulation."

At least I'm honest. Personally, I do not believe a wargame can ever be described as a simulation. Years ago, we used to kid ourselves that that was the case, but not any more.

We surely would not want to accuse the military of being honest, would we? I suggest that you are the one out of step with commonly accepted procedure vis-a-vis wargaming as a simulation to help prepare for battle and to understand earlier periods and their tactical components.

"At the time, Rocky did not share any of that with anyone I have heard of. I only saw his combat results tables for our game when he was "through.""

Curious …

And there we have it folks: an accusation of dishonesty, followed by an implied disingenuousness.

At the time (Rocky tells it now), he was even investigated and confronted by the FBI, for producing "unknown" data on various then-contemporary aircraft, which was supposed to be classified information: he arrived at the performance data via his physics analyses method (which, as he has also said, is far more complex for aircraft analysis than the bow physics is: and the aircraft performance specs he predicted have held up in the ensuing years, so why wouldn't the same approach to bow physics also?). Working for the Govt "think tank" (Dupuy) would not be something you could brandish about, at the time, I should think. (But you can assume something else is going on if you prefer….)

Hi

I explained, i read the same sources, then TESTED them. Found that klopstags work was repeatable. But no Hardy.

Did you test anyone you believed by actually doing ANYTHING?

You keep asking for assumptions, but I am not sure that the word means what you think it means. I didn't start with assumptions. I was reading, had a friend who was a son of Pope's friend and shooting buddy and was curious. Which led to my testing stuff.

That simple. I wasn't out to assume anything or prove anything, but accept plausability.

So, I guess we are at loggerheads here. Supply YOUR test results on one bow.

Whatever that means.

The original question was "turkish comp bow compared to english longbow". I responded with efficiencies at draweight. Which part wasn't good enough? What I felt I needed then was to understand the data. And trust that the math would project with some accuracy in the real world. You feel because of Hardy et al that you KNOW the longbow is a 250yard weapon without discussing arrow or draw weight or any other aspect. I had to know that I could project bow performance with any bow and arrow combo which was suggested by Klosteg and all was possible. And I was satisfied I could do so. Wrote a couple articles.

Oh, and add in the crossbow question. Answer please, mike.

My assumption was that with all this data, I could then improve Dougs game by having correct missile effect ranges. And working for the Dupuy group on analysis, took the position that one CAN produce simulations.

You claim otherwise. It might amuse you that your government believes that one can do this.

Now, I said that the bow table we gave you uses as its core a 70-75# longbow, and a 50# compposite turkish bow 48" length is close enough to use the same thing.

Reaching that conclusion would be a book of its own.

In my mind, you asked how, I told you how, and you keep claiming I am not answering. For instance, I referred to artillery tables available in both Greeners book and Hughes Firepower book. Should I cut and paste THAT, or given Your claims expect you to look at the work yourself?

Though I admit that I am faking it…as the kill zone ellipse tables were supplied to me by a friend in the Pentagon who is an arty expert, I just realized they were outlined in various available books.

You explain that you see multiple assumptions that add up into "meaningless". Yet each time you assert what these assumptions might be, I counter, and while you demand some number from ME you don't explain how wrong my assumption is WITH a number. So, tell me with a real number, such as a percentage, what the margin of error is in my assumptions cuumulatively.

As an example where you asserted that the drag might differ between arrowheads, and I explained that the drag value differences didn't add up to a meaninful number, you accepted it. One "assumption" down, you assumed I didn't understand drag. A quibble you made.

You explain, Mike, that Doug didn't read you correctly, but it seems, again, you accuse him of your own sins.

R

Number6 23 Aug 2008 6:22 a.m. PST

….

I think that most rules are still stuck with the idea of "kills" rather than the disruptive effects of combat – and that's especially true of missile fire.

I have seen those videos you linked to before.

The lab tests are flawed for a couple of reasons: they assume impact onto the thickest parts of the armor only and do not take into account the "12%" of exposed areas where the armor is not covering or is a joint or the armor is much thinner. I seem to recall a criticism before, of the arrow heads employed as well: simple "bog iron" points are not what the English were using: elsewhere (go find it, I don't have it on hand at the moment) evidence indicates that the best armor piercing points were actually good steel on the cutting edges.

The rate of fire is annecdotal only, and would have to be substantiated by numerous tests with numerous shooters to arrive at a "hard" estimate for masses of men.

Our rules do not count only "kills", but "eliminations" defined as all combat effectiveness eliminated.

As far as I'm concerned, except at point-blank range (or against completely unarmored targets), bowfire is area fire that cause disruption rather than kills (interdiction and harassment).

Back again to "disruption". What does that mean to you especially in gaming terms? I present for your consideration, that any of that "12%" in your harness that takes a clothyard shaft or bolt is going to ruin your day: and that when you are one of 400 to 500 men in the outer ranks facing c. 1,500 arrows every 5 to 6 seconds for the last 80 yards that you close, that your vulnerable spots are likely to take one or more missiles.

Rules that perfectly replicate real-world physics – don't necessarily replicate real-world uses and results.

Since the English nobility and the crown in the 15th century recruited archers to men at arms on the order of a five or six to one ratio, I wonder what that says about your observation here?

"How do you imagine that the archers in the back are informed what the range is? They cannot see the target. Somehow the information on range and angle is transmitted quickly for each volley from the front to the rearmost men. Our perspective is shared by many: some kind of ranging command was given, then the entire unit was holding that angle for just so long as it took for the command to "loose!"

READ WHAT I WROTE BEFORE REPLYING:
"The captain issues orders: "Range 200 paces, nock, draw, loose!" "

"I was referring to what follows next: the impact of a volley versus individually arriving arrows at random."

That still doesn't affect the physics.

"We did not propose six arrows per minute first. Iirc, Keegan did that. But field testing indicates that it is a doable number: it could be more or less for particular units, but I am confident that six shots per man per minute for volley fire is a good average around which to build a game."

Of course 6 shots a minute is doable, the question is why do you not consider 10 shots a minute doable? If a trained archer can loose 19 unaimed shots a minute I would have thought 10 a minute was easy.

"We keep telling you that we get historical results for known historical battles, without having to tweak the rules to make them work for each battle."

I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is your further claim that this therefore PROVES 70lb bows not 100lb.

"I suggest that you are the one out of step with commonly accepted procedure vis-a-vis wargaming as a simulation to help prepare for battle and to understand earlier periods and their tactical components."

I think not. I am a member of an international wargame development group who pretty much dismissed that view many years ago. It is you who appears to be out of step with modern wargames theory and practice. (After all, you do say your rules were written 30 years ago)

"At the time (Rocky tells it now), he was even investigated and confronted by the FBI,"

Oh come on, we are talking about designing recreational wargames, not military weapons systems!!

"But no Hardy."

Eh? Please explain. I thought you hadn't read H&S's book.

"You keep asking for assumptions, but I am not sure that the word means what you think it means. I didn't start with assumptions."

So if you didn't ASSUME values for the probabilities we have been discussing you must have calculated them. How?

"The original question was "turkish comp bow compared to english longbow". I responded with efficiencies at draweight. Which part wasn't good enough?"

Neither. Because efficiencies at draw weight do not tell us how effective the archery was. The physics can tell us the amount of energy delivered to a target by a particular missile, but what is the effect of that in real terms, not only in physical, but morale effect?

In order to produce wargame rules that reflect what we know of history we must determine what effect massed archery had on the target. Physics can help, but is only part of the story.

"You feel because of Hardy et al that you KNOW the longbow is a 250yard weapon without discussing arrow or draw weight or any other aspect."

No. I do not KNOW the longbow is a 250yard weapon. The evidence available from many sources (even including you!) indicates that the effective range of a longbow was 250yds. But I do not KNOW it as an indisputable fact. Anyway, I thought we had agreed on this point long ago?

"Wrote a couple articles."

Citations, perhaps?

"Oh, and add in the crossbow question. Answer please, mike."

I have no specific interest in crossbows at the moment.

"And working for the Dupuy group on analysis, took the position that one CAN produce simulations."

Old thinking, as I've said before. The consensus (at least among the wargame designers that I work with) is that detailed simulations do not always work and that often an apparently crude method can produce equally historical outcomes.

"You claim otherwise. It might amuse you that your government believes that one can do this."

No, my government doesn't. I quote my previous post:
"I have a friend, a serving office in the British Army, who is involved in similar work. He has been instrumental in using recreational wargames as military training aids on the grounds that they are probably more accurate than the very expensive battlefield simulators they used in the past, and a LOT cheaper!"

"In my mind, you asked how, I told you how, and you keep claiming I am not answering."

Because I didn't ask how, I simply asked what your underlying assumptions were. Suggested what those assumptions might be and asked for the numbers.

"For instance, I referred to artillery tables available in both Greeners book and Hughes Firepower book."

There's another assumption – that archery performs the same as gunpowder artillery.

"The kill zone ellipse tables were supplied to me by a friend in the Pentagon who is an arty expert,"

So modern artillery kill zones are the same as medieval archery kill zones?

"You explain that you see multiple assumptions that add up into "meaningless". Yet each time you assert what these assumptions might be, I counter, and while you demand some number from ME you don't explain how wrong my assumption is WITH a number."

I am unable to determine the validity of your assumptions until you tell us what they are with specific probabilities. I am not trying to prove you wrong, but to understand how you arrived at the figure of 0.9% per volley. As it is that is just an unsupported statement, that you claim to be accurate (with what margin of error?). To tell you the truth, if you hadn't waded into all the theory, I might have been happy to accept that figure without further justification. However, you said you had done all this analysis that enabled you to eventually arrive at this value. Is it unsurprising that when you make such comments others want to know more detail?

"So, tell me with a real number, such as a percentage, what the margin of error is in my assumptions cumulatively."

Since I do not know the values and the margin of error on each, I cannot calculate the total margin of error. The onus is on you to show that the total margin of error is small enough to have no material significance. Otherwise your rules are not as accurate as you claim them to be. I would have thought the above was obvious to a mathematician.

Hi

Mike…lets be friends here. It seems that you agree and disagree and most of your disagreements are based on different prejudices.

As an enlightened brit, your lot have decided that as sims dont always work, that means "never". And that as just guessing works sometimes, that means either always or good enough.

When all this started, I wasn't really interested in the gaming aspects. I was gaming all over the country with various sets of rules with various sets of odd rules. Just a game.

I wanted to understand the physics and actually understand why my archery shooting (and crossbow) as a hobby didn't accord with what I was seeing in some sources..back then including Featherstone's longbowmen.

Last night a friend visiting from out of state had, as a gamer, hear about our discussion and asked a couple questions. As his background and employ was in science and engineering, I stated most of the stuff above, and he said "obvious".

So, first principles. A missile of known mass that goes, say 300yards from 45 degrees to implact explains how much the start energy is. It doesnt matter to the missile what launches it. So, Klopsteg and all suggests that if you know the initial velocity OR the range of a given arrow, you can calculate the same bows performance with any arrow at any other draw weight.

Which I tested both with replica bow and modern. Within a margin of a percent or so, it works. (Just as earlier I explained about the Drag part). And that is easily explained by the limits of a test rig.

Arrows. I have examined literally thousands of arrows in universities around our country. During the bronze age, there is ONE arrow, in essence. A broadhead. Broadheads are high drag impliments, not in the "aerodynaic" sense(their C/D isn't appreciably differnt than any other), but in material they have more "drag" inflesh. This causes more sanquination to produce death. But it doesn't work well against shield or any sort of armor. I am sure you have read about them shattering. Ca 700 BC. skythians start producing a point that can only be described as "reinforced" broadhead. This evolves into 3 sorts of arrowheads. A light long range arrow that has little chance of killing, a short range armor piercing round and a reinforced broadhead for unarmored and lightly armored.

My first assumption: People are people. This means that I dont believe english are supermen, or french knights or any other. I don't believe that a hun as a life long archer who lives by his bow is inferior to an english yeoman.

Now, the "beaten zone" part that you don't seem to get. It is like this. remember the bit about margin of arrow with an arrow? Well, one test I did was I wanted to know how this was affected by our putative captain yelling "100 yards, left 20, armor, nock, draw/loose!" how that affected my accuracy. After a bit of sample shooting, and deriving a function, I started plotting where the arrow randomly falls in the zone. And it produced an ellipse shape that looked like a shrapnel ellipse at that range.

My assumption:men are men, a column in close order in 1812 isn't appreciably different than a column in 1415. There is a lot of information about how many people are likely to be hit with a given saturation on the ellipse. And as there is no 15th century information on hit rate, I ASSUMED that the percentage would be the same.

Looking at the actual shape of the target and deriving a percentage exposure….modified the hits. Thus, pleasing Rich in the future, if the energy wasn't there to penetrate, it didn't. Notice, this is modified by the availablity of a proper armor piercing point.

Now, going back to the first, Using sources like Popes survey of bows and others, I did sums on every bow I could find and where they would place the arrow and the available energy.

And decided that, for gaming purposes, I could group bow into five catagories.

And I am not wedded to the 70# number. It is backwards in your mind. Looking at Guesta and others, where they identify where the famous were, and the field and the instance where the French would not advance until the brits advanced beyond the stakes and fired long range to harass them into charging…….

One more assumption. As the reloads were, as you pointed out, bought in bulk and supplied in bulk during the fight, that the "spine" had to be about the same for the logistics. Which suggested 75.

If it were 100, the field gets longer. If it were a mix of 75/100/125/150, then my beaten zone gets a LOT bigger, with a lot lower density. But still, as with your 150 table you derived from somewere, 150s would be killing at 350/400 yards meaning that the initial deployment is a KM of openspace ….

If the harassment range is 220-250, the space need only be 600/700 yards. if the harassment range(100#) is 300 or so, the space needs 3/4 klick.

I think you see where this is going.

Thus, when the thread starter asks about comp versus longbow, I can comfortably assert that I know what the difference was!

Now, as to gaming. That is very different. You and I are old school. I assume you have rules in print as do I and as does doug. Initially, I resisted publishing rules because, in the scruby/featherstone/grant tradtion, I believe you need to either write rules or modify existing rules to satify your prejudices.

I am very mechanistic, so I want to know that the mechanisms are plausable. That I feel it results in our being able to trust the rules to do a good sim is just a bonus. My curiosity trumps my gaming needs.

". Because efficiencies at draw weight do not tell us how effective the archery was." But the energy does tell the tale unless you assume that englismen are superior to turks or by some mystical fashion different.

R

"We keep telling you that we get historical results for known historical battles, without having to tweak the rules to make them work for each battle."

I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is your further claim that this therefore PROVES 70lb bows not 100lb.

In Rocky's lengthy responses above, he's still not provided any actual mathematical values for you to "test." I am guessing that the project of finding notes, refreshing his memory from notes, figuring out how to distill notes into publishable format, etc., is too daunting for the "return": which would in all likelihood be just more cavilling from you (which obviously includes a claim that Rocky's full analysis methods are not necessary, only the maths).

If Rocky's analyses are in the "ballpark" of simulating reality, then the "warbow" at Agincourt was 70 to 80 lbs (or a rather poor quality 100 lbs, implying better "elite" recruiting methods in England than typically elsewhere); and the game as a simulation would be proof of that fact, inasmuch as the game does return a historical simulation of Agincourt.

"Mike…lets be friends here."

Rocky, I'd like to say how much I have enjoyed our conversations over the last few weeks. We have our differences, but I feel we have been able to discuss them honestly and openly without losing our cool. Which is probably why these threads have got so long!

"As an enlightened brit, your lot have decided that as sims dont always work, that means "never". And that as just guessing works sometimes, that means either always or good enough."

Not quite, but I won't argue the point any further.

"… didn't accord with what I was seeing in some sources..back then including Featherstone's longbowmen."

Agreed, Featherstone (albeit he is the "grandfather" of modern wargaming) is not renowned for his historical accuracy!

"and he said "obvious"."

So if it is obvious, why is it so difficult for you to answer simple questions?

"you can calculate the same bows performance with any arrow at any other draw weight."

I thought we were agreed that the medieval longbow was always drawn to the ear, but no matter.

"Arrows. I have examined literally thousands of arrows in universities around our country."

Really? There are that many available for analysis?

There is only one known medieval arrow in existence in England that may date from the early 15th century (apart from the MR arrows dating some 130 years later), the so called "Westminster Abbey" arrow. Unfortunately, the Abbey authorities have prevented researchers from dating it accurately, but it's spine suggests it would be best shot from a 150lb bow.

"I dont believe english are supermen, or french knights or any other. I don't believe that a hun as a life long archer who lives by his bow is inferior to an english yeoman."

I don't believe the English are supermen either (even though I am one!). However, I also believe it doesn't take a superman to wield a 100lb bow effectively given sufficient training and the appropriate lifestyle.

"Now, the "beaten zone" part that you don't seem to get … And it produced an ellipse shape that looked like a shrapnel ellipse at that range."

Of course you will get an ellipse, that's straightforward physics. However, to say it "looked like" a shrapnel ellipse is not very scientific. Ellipses (as I'm sure you know) can be almost circular (with the loci close together) or long and thin (with the loci some distance apart). What correlation did you perform on the two ellipses to demonstrate that they were of similar eccentricity?

"My assumption:men are men, a column in close order in 1812 isn't appreciably different than a column in 1415."

That's reasonable. However, I don't know about you but I have no experience of what a column in 1812 would have looked like any more than a column in 1415. We make assumptions about frontage per file and distance between ranks, but they are only assumptions (and can never be anything else).

"And as there is no 15th century information on hit rate, I ASSUMED that the percentage would be the same."

The same as what? What percentage hit rate did you assume?

"Looking at the actual shape of the target and deriving a percentage exposure….modified the hits."

Ok, so what percentage exposure did you derive?

"And I am not wedded to the 70# number."

So why do you defend it so strongly?

"One more assumption. As the reloads were, as you pointed out, bought in bulk and supplied in bulk during the fight, that the "spine" had to be about the same for the logistics. Which suggested 75."

Why does it suggest 75?

"But still, as with your 150 table you derived from somewhere, 150s would be killing at 350/400 yards meaning that the initial deployment is a KM of openspace"

The table I quoted showed ranges of over 300 yds being achieved with flight arrows not sheaf arrows. The heavier sheaf arrows only achieved up to 260yds.

As I understand it, beyond 250yds the accuracy drops off significantly, so even though it is possible for a heavy bow to shoot that far there is no military advantage in doing so. This is one of the reasons why I have always held to the 250yds engagement range.

"But the energy does tell the tale unless you assume that englismen are superior to turks or by some mystical fashion different."

The energy tells us the probability of penetration (provided we make certain assumptions about the quality, shape and hardness of the armour). It alone does not tell us how effective the archery was.

Perhaps I should clarify. When I talk about effectiveness, I do not mean, "x arrows kill (or incapacitate) y men at z range". I mean something like "x archers shooting effectively at y men over a given period of time will cause them to take z casualties with this probability of the target's morale being adversely affected."

"If Rocky's analyses are in the "ballpark" of simulating reality, then the "warbow" at Agincourt was 70 to 80 lbs (or a rather poor quality 100 lbs, implying better "elite" recruiting methods in England than typically elsewhere); and the game as a simulation would be proof of that fact, inasmuch as the game does return a historical simulation of Agincourt."

And therein lies the problem. What I have been trying to establish (so far unsuccessfully) is whether Rocky's analysis is in the "ballpark" with an acceptable margin of error.

Your statement above would only be true if the rules accurately represent the battle effectiveness of the 70lb bow. I am of the opinion that the battle effectiveness of a weapon is more than just physics (see my response to Rocky above).

"Yawn"….

Still nothing of any value ….

Excuse me while I go take a nap.

- Greg

Are we there yet?

Now, to you new point about 6 deep. You still miss the point that there is no psychic connection in these guys. Thus, they cannot both look AT the front row angle of shot AND be drawing and shooting at the same time in the back row.

They don't – they look at the rank in front of them and elevate to approximately the same degree.

The funniest thing about this thread is that it assumes that the bows were actually relevant at Agincourt at all…..:D:D:D

I am of the opinion that the battle effectiveness of a weapon is more than just physics (see my response to Rocky above).

Of course. But where have we been arguing that the kill rates in the combat results tables are a function of only draw weight and weight of missile?

They don't – they look at the rank in front of them and elevate to approximately the same degree.

And the rank in front is doing likewise, all the way to the point where the archers can see, c. the first two ranks and partially the third and maybe the fourth. All that coordination is what slows down the rate of fire, that Mike and I were talking about. How much it slows it down is the arguable part: but my limited experience and the assumptions of scholars leads me to accept Rocky's "six rounds per minute" for vollies.

The funniest thing about this thread is that it assumes that the bows were actually relevant at Agincourt at all…..:D:D:D

No, the funniest thing is repeating such an extreme canard. Of course the bows were relevant. How relevant is the arguable part.

note to self…stop opening this post

"But where have we been arguing that the kill rates in the combat results tables are a function of only draw weight and weight of missile?"

You haven't. I never said you had. Once again you miss the point.

"And the rank in front is doing likewise, all the way to the point where the archers can see, c. the first two ranks and partially the third and maybe the fourth. All that coordination is what slows down the rate of fire"

Yes, the question is by how much? However, it also raises the interesting thought that a shallower formation would perforce be able to shoot faster, there being less coordination needed.

Hi

And my problem is that you ask what you think is ONE question, but it isn't. And, as in another post where I descibe, in general, how the design affects efficiency, the concept is that there is a principle. Not a "number". And I am suggesting that before I can do numbers, you need to understand the principle.

Thus, the thread starter wanted to know if one bow beats another. Well, the answer is "depends". IF the bows are of the same drawweight, one can describe how they relate to each other in efficiency. But unless you know that "all things are equal…". A forinstance is that italian militia before they went to crossbow and gun LOOK like their standard draw weight bow was 50 not 75 or more. Simple reason that the civic milita were NOT the picked men of a "Hawkwood". Thus, a "Hawkwood" select man shooting perhaps a 100# bow would beat a 50# turkish composite bow in an italian militaman…but as they didn't, the brit was probably 70-75 due to observed performance. But the issue is that the longbow, less efficient, weilded by a full time pro performs at range like a 50# comp bow.

Drawn to the ear? This sort of gets to the idea of missing the bow issue, again. The note on the english drawing to the ear was in refrence to the more common peasant short hunting bow which at draweights of 50 and above will break if drawn that way. This is an issue of construction. Wood only bends so far before it starts failing internally and eventially externally. The long bow construction is ONE compromise to effect a full natural draw at heavy draweights. But it pays for it by increasing losses in energy because of the energy spent moving the bow.

Oh, flight range is important to the story due to the STORY of the harassing fire.

Arrows, of course few arrows survive they are expendable. HOWEVER, arrow heads do. The Russians have done internatioanl tours with their steppes collections. And the point I was tryng to make is that the flight tips, broadheads and armor piercing tips look like everyone elses. I have seen people assert that Agincourt was decided by a "secret" weapon of the "bodkin" point versus the world.

Now, hit probability. How I got the number mentioned above. The "answer" is a complex interaction. First, by napoleonic standards ALL ancient formations we describe are columns. In the 18th century a "line" was 2 or 3 ranks deep. The problem with a line is that it is difficult to get people to move at the same time this way. It might seem as simple as just looking at the guy next to you and following. But in fact, the reason the military even today spends a great deal of time drilling, is that advancing in a line is difficult. Too easy to be FIRST to reach the enemy. Easier is to move in a column 8 or more deep, faster and easier to control. For targeting purposes our french at agincourt are a column. Why is this important to ME? Well, as you say, there is zero information from 1415. HOWEVER, from the nappy period we have a set of important studies (besides how fast a column moves on a muddy field!). One of them is that if you have folling missile on an area, how many of them will actually hit someone, reduced by the chance of multiples. Realizing the ellipse produced by the random fall within the MOA of the weapon LOOKED like that of shrapnel let me steal the work of others. Random hits on an area. Lets suppose a french attack 8 deep, 20 wide, at 200yds with flight arrows, the ellipse is only covered by 40% of the falling shot. I pull out my matrix from these studies and discover what number of men will on average be taken. Modified by the armor class and thus how vulnerable the actual troops are. Or, as the number mentioned above.

Al the Gaul, the bow matters HERE, a stronger bow does these hits further out, and penetrates thicker armor further out.

Or, if you are wedded to the idea that bows only "disrupt"(never knew what that really ment), it will disrupt people FURTHER out.

Bringing me back to the first point of the isntance of "advancing beyond the stakes". If the bows were 150, then the distance between the deploments would be a klick or more. If a 100-120 as Hardy and, oddly, Featherstone agree, then the initial deployment is 750m.

And I don't think the battlefield is deep enough.

And interlacing the hits at range described above, then with the heavier bow, the french spend too much time in the "beaten" zone to be likely to close to sword strokes.

Applied, again, to "Roses" where the bow is less effective and engagment regularly starts under 200yards, then the bows are lighter, and time spent in the beaten zone by the attack is less which explains "coming to sword strokes" with yeomen.

It isn't not having the numbers, but asking too many questions at the same time.

Volley speed. This is actually related to the idea of drill. Drilled troops move at the speed of the LAST guy. However you have your missile drilled, you drill at one speed for the army that the slowest guy does.

Or as the example I used previously about Muskets. I can WAY beat the volley rate of the Prussians under Frederick the pretty Nifty(one of my long time friends holds him as at the left hand of the lord), but the volley rate in peace was the marvel of the times. The drill is by slowest guy and it doesn't change things if they are one rank or not. The drill has everyone move in step even when shooting.

So, my assumption is that the guys behind the first two ranks of the english longbow in any fight are firing on a fixed drill. This is due to their stated professionalism. OTHERWISE, the guys in back are useless. Further, in various fights the english are described as up to 16 deep(this is a wonder, I don't know of any other missile units in the dark ages or medieval making the same assertian).

Morale. You are right about the morale effect, mike. In THIS case, again, complex. The 18th and 19th century the studies about taking missile accorded actual "taken from combat" as in dead, injured, tending to a buddy, having someone trip or fall on you and on…..and guys playind dead or walking away. But on a UNIT level I think it was Keagen who observed that when and how a unit fails is variable. For most this is about 15% of the above as "losses" though 75% aren't truly lost. But there are instances where just being advanced on got people running and people who stood and died. But that is another long story. But we followed keegan with our morale and performance systems.

Again, not a single number.

Now, you can do some of this, rough and ready, your self. Take your favorite bow test. Draw a arc starting at 45degrees and impacting at 56. Note where the angle is ca 35 degrees, this is the optimum effective range for your arrow. Follow with target aspect, exposure and so on and you end up with a series of numbers based on "no armor" through "armor fan boy level".

R

"And the rank in front is doing likewise, all the way to the point where the archers can see, c. the first two ranks and partially the third and maybe the fourth. All that coordination is what slows down the rate of fire"

Yes, the question is by how much? However, it also raises the interesting thought that a shallower formation would perforce be able to shoot faster, there being less coordination needed.

Exactly. And if you read or recall, I made that point on the "Ineffective" archery debate thread: that once at pointblank range, Rocky's probability includes the front half of a unit shooting as fast as possible, even dispensing with volley fire altogether, in order to TARGET the vulnerable spots individually, and getting off twice the rate of rounds per man using direct, aimed fire; any shooting done by the back rankers would have to be at a steeper angle with arrows dropping more vertically as the enemy target gets closer; volley fire would of course be maintained by the back rankers at all times, and the slower rate of fire it requires.

"And I am suggesting that before I can do numbers, you need to understand the principle."

OK, so now I understand the principle, do the numbers.

"I have seen people assert that Agincourt was decided by a "secret" weapon of the "bodkin" point versus the world."

Not my view by any means.

"Realizing the ellipse produced by the random fall within the MOA of the weapon LOOKED like that of shrapnel let me steal the work of others."

It's still only an approximation.

"Random hits on an area. Lets suppose a french attack 8 deep, 20 wide, at 200yds with flight arrows, the ellipse is only covered by 40% of the falling shot."

Eh? I thought the ellipse defines the fall of ALL shot?

"Bringing me back to the first point of the isntance of "advancing beyond the stakes". If the bows were 150, then the distance between the deploments would be a klick or more. If a 100-120 as Hardy and, oddly, Featherstone agree, then the initial deployment is 750m.

And I don't think the battlefield is deep enough."

If you take a look at the map of the battlefield, the distance between Agincourt and Tramecourt is about 1.3km (although you need to allow for the woods). Then if you drop a line from a line linking Agincourt and Tramecourt, to just north of Maisoncelles, you get a distance of about 1.2km. Seems like plenty of room to me.

"Applied, again, to "Roses" where the bow is less effective and engagment regularly starts under 200yards, then the bows are lighter, and time spent in the beaten zone by the attack is less which explains "coming to sword strokes" with yeomen."

I do not see why the reduced engagement range demands a lighter bow. You are implying that there is a minimum range for a given weight of bow!

"It isn't not having the numbers, but asking too many questions at the same time."

Would you prefer it if I asked them one at a time?

"So, my assumption is that the guys behind the first two ranks of the english longbow in any fight are firing on a fixed drill. This is due to their stated professionalism. OTHERWISE, the guys in back are useless."

Agreed. Where we differ is the assumed rate of shooting.

"Further, in various fights the English are described as up to 16 deep"

Please provide references for this assertion.

"But on a UNIT level I think it was Keegan who observed that when and how a unit fails is variable. For most this is about 15% of the above as "losses" though 75% aren't truly lost."

Um, 15 + 75 does not equal 100, or did you mean something different?

"But we followed Keegan with our morale and performance systems."

Interesting. I assume you are referring to "The Face of Battle". How did you turn that text into morale rules?

"any shooting done by the back rankers would have to be at a steeper angle with arrows dropping more vertically as the enemy target gets closer; volley fire would of course be maintained by the back rankers at all times, and the slower rate of fire it requires."

Of course, that illustrates why the quincunx formation makes sense, since it allows at least the first 2 ranks to shoot direct and possibly even the third rank.

"But on a UNIT level I think it was Keegan who observed that when and how a unit fails is variable. For most this is about 15% of the above as "losses" though 75% aren't truly lost."

Um, 15 + 75 does not equal 100, or did you mean something different?

He meant that 100% of the 15% "losses" affect the morale of the unit, even though only c. 25% of the losses are actually wounded to the point of being permanent losses; on the battlefield anyone not fighting anymore, and no longer with the unit, are losses to the unit for morale purposes.

…quincunx formation…

It's the only way a close order unit of archers or crossbowmen could operate.

"He meant that 100% of the 15% "losses" affect the morale of the unit, even though only c. 25% of the losses are actually wounded to the point of being permanent losses; on the battlefield anyone not fighting any more, and no longer with the unit, are losses to the unit for morale purposes."

Er … right. So given 15% losses to the unit, 3.75% are permanent losses, the other 11.25% are not permanent and thus only affect morale.

The funniest thing about this thread is that it assumes that the bows were actually relevant at Agincourt at all…..:D:D:D

No, the funniest thing is repeating such an extreme canard. Of course the bows were relevant. How relevant is the arguable part.

"Not at all" is a legitimate answer to "How relevant were bows to how Agincourt happened?".

Agincourt happened because of crowd dynamics. The Men at arms crowded together to avoid bad going and so made themselves helpless to being massacred by lightly armed soldiers.

Such crowd pressures have happened to other soldiers throughout history for various reasons – usually enemy pressure (eg the Roman infantry at Cannae), but we know enough about how crowds do it to themselves without enemy present at all to be able ot ercognise it happened here too.

Except for those who want to keep arguing about the mythical effectiveness of English/Welsh longbows.

Even the defeat of the 2 flank cavalry attacks doesn't actually REQUIRE bows – they would have been crushed by decent infantry armed only with close combat weapons too, since they were made by only small numbers of knights and were never goign to achieve anything over the stakes.

Agincourt happened because of crowd dynamics. The Men at arms crowded together to avoid bad going and so made themselves helpless to being massacred by lightly armed soldiers.

Crowd dynamics was a factor, no doubt of it. But to place emphasis on the French crowding in the middle to keep from "sliding" off on the flanks, is just ludicrous, and denies the ground to the English just as well.

And I grow weary of repeating this, but the main mass of English archers would be standing around with nothing to do but watch the battle, if the English men at arms were in one mass in the center. You can work this out easily enough for yourself: measure on a map how much of the archer wings are within 150 yards of the French, if they are massed in a column down the high "ridge" center of the field. All the archers outside of 150 yards would have had zero effect on the French, and c. half of them would never have even been within range of flight arrow harrassment of the EDGES of the French column. The upshot is that recent "scholars" have gone with the new "insight" of crowd dynamics and decided the English men at arms must have been all in the center, despite clear eyewitness description to the contrary: the only practical way for archers to work with the men at arms is to put them on the flanks of smaller groups of men at arms well within effective range: otherwise too many archers are simply occupying ground and their bows are useless, being too far away.

Even the defeat of the 2 flank cavalry attacks doesn't actually REQUIRE bows –

Of course the cavalry could have been defeated in other ways: Courtrai comes immediately to mind, as do several Swiss battles.

But Agincourt was won with a preponderance of archers, with arrows, then hand weapons, backed up by men at arms: not the other way around (despite how the original chroniclers make it sound to please their noble patrons).

Hi

Errr. ya. 1.3km…until you deploy troops and baggage for both sides. remember the other part of this thread where Rich is arguing about where the churchmen were?

Ellipses: I wasn't clear enough. The ellipse is big enough(and I am not looking at my notes which are in storage, but off the top of my head) that the 8 deep unit is only 40% of the beaten area. That is what I am talking about.

As for the rate of fire, as I said, the limit is the drill. I have taugh drill, including ancient roman drill (I was going to screw with the SCA but….)

How we did it…arbitrary game choices here. We GUESS!

It is like this, look at a period/army at how they perform. Set up a range based on professionalism, drill and so on. And THEN, the player rolls for a range. Examples: Crusader states in the Levant in the 12th century:

Up to 10% of the infantry in Heavy armored shielded spear and sword infantry 00-29=D, 30-79=C, 80-99=B.

While back home, peasant milita might be 00-79=D, 80-99 C

This is given as a number to beat during a morale check. D works on a 9 or better, C on 7 or better, B on 6 or better, and A on 5 or better (some of Swiss and classic romans)

Which means that in the hundred years war, charged pesants seeing the knights coming most likely run well before the cav arrives, the pros are most likely to stand(and thus the knights might pull up short).

The things Keegan talks about that would cause failure in other situations accorded to other information we had all over the place about things like seeing folks run, being caught in the flank, persuit range and so on.

The idea, again as a pure game mechanism, was that as commander, you THINK you know how good the troops are, but they might surprise you on the table.

Rocky

Hi

Al..really! The bow were useless, somewhat useless? what?

Light armed troops, why bring the bow when the bill and a shield would have worked better and cheaper? Why pay them so much? Stupid English?

"bad going" means WHAT?

"Crowd dynamics at Roman…etc". Actually in each of these cases, the crowding "such that no man could raise his arms" resulted from COMBAT. When VAlens died, it was Goth Cavalry charging into them and crushing them by weight AFTER running OVER other units. Your "other infantry versus cav" would suggest you know that the charging french stopped and then were flanked or something. And a further suggestion is that heavy infantry, Romans at Adrianople, say, are useless against cavalry, but unarmored englishmen with a dagger and a hammer (and wagons with 300,000 reloads) worked.

Sorry, you need to make a better case.

Now, as for "myth". You dont seem to get that my whole purpose was to do "mythbusting". I made the armor, and the arrows and tested same. Frankly, the best anti arrow armor I discovered by test was oriental "lameller" armor not plate.

As both Mike and I have indicated to you, we are both familiar with the crowd dynamics point. Just as some overstate the "mythical longbow killer" you are overstating the opposing position. I might be more towards your position{ who doesn't like armor?) if I had not SEEN my bodkin points pop through 4mm of steel at 100 yards on a 30degree slope. Even worse. What I SAW was the tip pealing 4 1.5" strips as a sort of flower around the four faces of the arrow INTO the target…essentially "stapling" the armor to the "body".

So, saying ONLY crowd dynamics mattered doesn't work. The funneling requires that they be afraid of something.

R