"Bows (and other missile fire)" Topic

As these surfaces are what is in the high 80th percentile of available targeted surface, it follows that no less than 90% of the arrows which even strike the target are going to do nothing except make a great deal of noise and vibration. Some will snag by partially penetrating, creating further distraction…

Oh! that one, yeah, I can see how you might take that as "10% effective hits." but what I meant to convey was that fully 90% of the arrows which strike the target are utterly wasted by the plate armor's main, deflecting surfaces and resistance to penetration. Only c. 10% have any chance of making an effective hit at all. I didn't mean to imply that anything like 100% of that 10% were effective hits!

Just to establish an understanding, what is the pointblank range for a bow according to you?

Under 75 yards. A weaker bow would actually have a shorter pointblank range. But we are talking about longbows.

I'm not sure if by the the 1-2K 'effective hits' you mean the number of men actually removed from battle by way of arrow induced trauma or the number of arrow strikes which are effective but it's unclear how many French are struck down by them?

The number of men rendered incapacitated. Out of that number, I estimate c. 25% dead outright or mortally wounded and dead not long after getting shot. Another c. 25% seriously hurt but recovering later, barring any further difficulties (complications). You have to account for the less hardy, those more worried by getting wounded; some of them think they are more seriously hurt than they in fact are, and they bail out of the battle to get some attention. A smaller percentage of the "effective hits" would be battered about, even inhibited by the effects of the arrows upon their armor – e.g. a protruding arrowhead biting into a guy every time he tries to move his arm to attack, or keeping him from maneuvering because of the pain, etc. Some arrows would actually bust the armor where it struck, jamming it so that the wearer could no longer move effectively. Again, the actual dead or mortally wounded would be only about 500 out of those hypothetical 2,000. The rest of the guys removed from combat would be wounded and routing, and some with arrows sticking in them in such a way as to make their combat effectiveness seriously compromised.

Heck even by my numbers only real hardcore units go on fighting past 25-35% let alone 40% losses. Espcially if those losses are taken before contact.

I think by the way they are described, the French of the first infantry battle could be called pretty "hard core" warriors. Talk about insisting on getting to grips against insurmountable difficulties! The fact that it took a melee to complete the pressure and make them rout is indicative that the casualties from arrows were well under 25% up to the point that the melee started. That's how I see it. So I may be even more conservative than Curry :)

Hi

And we continue with communication problems.

You keep mentioning your training with an assault rifle. but don't want to talk about guns.

Consider the TARGET, for a moment. One man, 300 yards away scuttling from cover to cover versus 5000 men at arms sholder to sholder, butt to front in a tight mass trudging slowly towards the shooter. Which takes a higher percentage of hits?

For that matter, a single knight on foot "dodging" is how difficult a target?

Very different. As far as the penetration numbers, i took the energy described in Klopsteg's Physics book. And did tests on my own that seemed to confirm what he was doing.

Even so, I assumed that fewer than half the arrows launched at this target, a target closely packed some 12m thick, some, depending on how many people your source insists on, 350meters wide. Half the area saturated has a target, and then the numbers HG reports above. And 1% possible effective.

Now, the "15%" number. Again, I am unclear how you read my stuff. Jump to a phrase to react? Dunno. I said "ON AVERAGE" Some folks just run with no appreciable casualties at all, and some fight to the last(Thermopalye?). 15% AVERAGE. We both assumed that the French MAA were likely to be determined.

So, since I am seeing that you mostly will go with, say, a half percent or more effective hits, i can only conclude that you were jumping to the conclusion that we were saying 100% hits.

Frankly, if Gars trips over some guy who falls in the sticky mud, he might be out of the fight without being otherwise harmed.

Rocky

Consider that, historically, about 15% casualties cause a unit to fail morale. <i/>
Rocky's post of 08 Nov 2005 11:38 a.m. PST
I see no "on average" in that statement, just that accordign to history about 15% casulties will cause a unit to rout. Nothing about it being an average unit either in there. I then pointed out that I have extensive documentation of many units of varied origin that took that kind of losses and still fought on. Average units included.

The accuracy number I quoted was for a standign target, not dodging, moving towards the shooter at walking speed, i.e a head on shot. The kind of target you describe would take 5-10 shots on average to bring down. I was just usign it as an example of the problems with battlefield accuracy.

1920 arrows striking home effectively I can agree on, 1920 men rendered out of action (killed, wounded, shirking, run off) I can not. That kind of losses would have decimated the French to a point were they would simply have been overrun upon arrival at the English line. (3000 French MAA vs 8600 English) It would not have taken the time reported to defeat them. 0.5-1.5% effective hit arrow hits I can agree with but as stated I don't buy each arrow resulting in a casulty each. If that was the case the battle would not have developed as it did. OTOH I'll say that there is no way 192.000 arrows will fail throughly disorder and disrupt just about any formation crossing the 'beaten zone' of such a barrage.

Since Klopsteg's Archery: the Technical Side doesn't exist in any Swedish library I can't check his numbers or how he arrived at them, which actual pieces of armour he examined and tested to arrive at them and so on. Perhaps you can provide this information or was his numbers purely based on theoretical calucaltions and assumptions on the nature of medieval armour? If Klopsteg didn't get the numbers for the armour right his conclusions will be invalid. As would your tests be if the plates you used did have the same resistance performance as actual medieval armour.

Ok, I messed up up the HTML tags, again… Will I never learn…

In my own rules an archer has a 3% to take a man in full harness out of action at normal ranges. This assumes about 4 arrows. So with 24 arrows, and a slow mud bound target, there is an 18% chance each archer will get a good hit.

This is probaly too high, but usually the archers have other and better targets. Most men-at-arms end up being taken out in melee or trying to get away during a rout.

In wargaming it comes down to what chance does each archer figure have of taking out a M-A-A figure per turn, at a given range. Also, what disorder effect will the arrows have. The chance for a moral failure is almost non-existent, but the chance to provoke a hesitant enemy to attack is almost certain.

Ok, I messed up up the HTML tags, again… Will I never learn…

Yeah, but this time you got italics at least :)

The opening HTML tag has brackets only <.i.>, and the closing tag has a forward slash in front of the letter, thus, <./.i.> (again, leave out the periods and no spaces).

In wargaming it comes down to what chance does each archer figure have of taking out a M-A-A figure per turn, at a given range.

Simple to tell: in Art of War, at 100 yards, a 70# longbow figure needs to roll a 12 with 2d6 to get a hit and remove as many enemies in "plate" armor (the heaviest armored category in our rules) as the shooter is in number; e.g. a 20mm by 20mm based archer is "60" men, and each one which rolls a 12 removes 60 enemy from the battle. At 50 yards the 70# longbow needs 11 or 12 with 2d6 to remove the same number of enemies. By contrast, a 100# longbow needs a 12 at 150 yards; 11 or 12 at 100 yards, and at 50 yards a 10, 11 or 12. So you can see that our rules don't even worry about the disruptive effects outside those ranges, yet the men at arms would first come under fire at c. 250 yards. Our rules are simple, dealing only with the demonstrable major effects.

The disruption considered by some is probably exaggerated, because so many people wonder if bow fire actually killed anyone in significant numbers at all. We believe that it did, and it is casualties in our rules which cause morale checks, not exhaustion or disruption (whatever that is held to be). The moral class of the target unit is the key factor in how disruption, exhaustion and casualties would affect them. You can consider disruption and exhaustion from a variety of causes to always be present. If the moral is shakey, mounting casualties on top of the ubiquitous disruption is what will make the unit likely rout away.

ok, from this thread how many french where at the battle and how many english and what was the causities to both

thanks

Lord Ghee

[ok, from this thread how many french where at the battle and how many english and what was the causities to both]

What! You can't figure that out from reading it on your own!?!?

(just joking)

Actually, the discussion has been interesting to follow. I thank the gentlemen (and yes you too Rocky) for an interesting read. I am searching for the sources referenced above.

Cheers,

John

ok, from this thread how many french where at the battle and how many english and what was the causities to both

According to Anne Curry who has done the latest and most extensive work on the armies at Agincourt the French army had some 8000 men-at-arms and 4000 crossbowmen/archers. The Enlgihs army had 7000-7600 Archers and 1600-1800 men-at-arms. You might want to deduct 1-10% from the English force to take into account 'wastage' during the march prior to the battle. Not counted on either side is the 'varlets' i.e servants who at times be armed (gros varlets) and could be used for certain tasks on the battlefield. There were also a number of French lords (Duke of Brittany and so on) on their way to the army who either arrive in the closing stages of the battle or not at all who had several thousands of additional troops under their command.

Hi

Klopstag was writing about the pure numbers not medieval harness. And had systems in place that could allow one to graph out the energy of any arrow from any bow if you knew the performance of a single arrow from that bow.

If you say that the arrow cannot penetrate any part of the MAA ever at any range, then we will not agree. If you will agree that standing there and taking hits will result in random weakspots gaps and so on, then we are quibbleing over number where neither of us have appropriate numbers.

The numbers are in english measure. Not metric.

Hmmm
the term "about" doesn't mean the same as "precisely", thus saying "about 15%" is approximate.

And I don't understand your numbers. Are you saying that there were 5000 french and not 20k to 25K? That the french started the attack outnumbered? Is this just the FIRST battle, or the main body of the first battle or the TOTAL. or just the Total in first class armor?

R

I'm saying as before that there were around 12K French at the battle, not 20-25K
The numbers for the 'Vanguard' which was 5000 or perhaps even 6000 men-at-arms strong, the next battle, the 'Main' had some 3000 men-at-arms. The 3rd 'battle' seen late in the action was probably not a real battle at all but a mixture of the 4000 missile troops (gens de trait), the gros varlets together late arriving contigents and rallying remnants of the Van and Main. Certainly enough to look like an army to the English and a major reson for the massacre of the PoWs
In all the French numbered some 8000 men-at-arms and 4000 missile troops at the start plus the uncounted gros varlets and late arrivals. Give or take 10% or so. The first summons called for a paid army of 9000 men to be assembled against the English, 6000 men-at-arms, 3000 missile troops. Later on this number was increased but several important Nobles were not called out or arrived late to the battle. (Dukes of Brittany, Burgundy and Brabant. Nrabant got to the field and died there since he had ridden ahead but most of his troops saw no action.)
Lack of numbers was a constant problem for the French durign the campaign, that is why the surviving battle plan known as the 'Somme plan' called for the use of the gros varlets to reinforce the mounted men-at-arms on each wing.

Ok, I may be daft but knowing the energy of the arrow alone will not let you know if the arrow will penetrate. One has to also establish the resistance of the target. The obvious choice would be to combine Klopstag's work with Williams, Klopsteg appears to have the bow & arrow numbers down while Williams provide the details for the armour.

As can be seen in numrous post of mine I'v never said that the MAA were invulnerable, I've repeatedly stated that strikes in the weak spots only covered by mail and/or padding as well as close range strikes on the weaker areas on the plates will produce 'effective' penetrations of one kind of another resultign in injury or death. I just don't buy the concept of the 70 pound bow achiving such results vs_steel_armour of decent to superior quality. The inferior stuff isn't much better than the iron armour in previous use and a 70 pounder will penetrate the thinner sections of iron armour (below 2mm thickness) at close range as was shown by Jones test and confirmed by Blackburn & co as well as Williams. Vs steel armour the number of actual penetrations of the plates by bows wether 70 pounders or 150 pounders will be lower, obviously the weaker 70 pound bow will be the one affected most.

The fact that the French, especially the lords and other high ranker massed in the Vanguard were well protected is atested by the sources (Le Fevre, quoted above by me) The effect of that protection was also noted (Des Ursins)
"the French were scarecely harmed by the arrow fire (ie shooting, translators error) of the English beacuse they were well armed"

Cap'n, that was a good post. I think I see where you are coming from. And it seems we are effectively in agreement. We both know that the arrow storm seriously affected the French first battle, and that actual death by arrow was not overwhelming. Also, that 70# bows will not effectively penetrate steel or even iron plate at a distance beyond "very close." And that the weak spots account for virtually all of the mortal and serious injuries from arrows. The same can be said for ALL the injuries to the plate armed men.

I put the following into a fresh thread, TMP link so that we can get to it more easily, and maybe attract "fresh blood" into the conversation as well.

===========================

Okay, I thought a "fresh" thread (for anyone interested in continuing this discussion) might be welcome. I have written up my version of where I (and I assume Rocky) am coming from:

(I am quoting from the chart based on William A. "The Knight and the Blast Furnace", provided by Cap'n Gars in one of his links in the other thread TMP link ).

At a c. 30 degree impact angle, an arrow from a 100# bow would require 230 Joules (J) (280 if padded) to defeat steel armor with 0.5% Carbon content, aircooled in the heat treating process. The chart shows that an axe or sword generates 60-130 J. An arrow generates only 80 J. A crossbow bolt 100-200 J. An early 14th century handgun generates 250 J. Mid 15th century handguns 500-1000 J. An Arquebus (1475+) generates 1300 J. And a Musket (1525+)generates 2300 J.

Okay, now, we know that knights died in battle, slugging it out with each other. Yet the research shows that for all their banging away with sword or axe, no hits were effective, being only capable of c. 60-130 J, yet the armor requiring a minimum of 230 J to be overcome. So how are they being killed? Obviously by attacking the weak spots in the defenses and avoiding hitting the plate itself as much as possible. It wouldn't matter if the armor were made of titanium, it would still have the same number of weak spots because of the need for joints and the need of the wearer to breathe. This is where the arrows that are effective are striking.

A suit of plate has a high 80th percentile of glancing surfaces presented to the archer. This means that fully 90% plus of the arrows which strike the man at arms are going to glance off wasted. So far so good. The one in ten (or less) are going to strike an area which is weak. But the vast majority of these also are going to cause no appreciable damage, because of the interferring padding,
mail and plates positioned to deflect arrows away from the joints. (And any warrior who goes into battle against an anticipated arrow storm without his visor is just asking to get an arrow in the face – yet the evidence indicates that a number of knights always took their visors off, to increase their ability to see and breathe easily: we assume such men at arms advanced toward the longbowmen with their faces kept down.) But a percentage of those hits into the weak spots – and into the flanks and rear where the armor plate is thinnest – will get through.

Also, the quoted test results replicated a 30 degree impact angle. This is deemed to be an average impact angle. Actually, from experience, a 30 degree impact angle against a vertical surface must be well outside of 100 yards for a 100# bow, because my c. 55# bow would enter a vertical surface at virtually no impact angle all the way out to 50 yards, and up to 100 yards the impact angle was well under 30 degrees. So these tests are replicating long to middle range shooting, not pointblank. The greatest damage would have come at pointblank range, or c. 70 yards with a 70# bow, further out for a 100# bow.

It took the French men at arms c. 5 minutes to close the distance of 300 yards to the English army (at Agincourt). They had to traverse a muddy plowed field, otherwise it would have taken c. three minutes. If we only allow the earlier estimation of 5,000 archers (but the latest research shows 7,000 to 8,000), shooting six rounds each (in volley) every minute, this is 150K arrows into c. 8,000 men at arms, at decreasing range, until the last shots are into their flanks at pointblank range as they finally close with the English men at arms for melee.

If only 2,000 of those 150K struck effectively we would produce 25% casualties before the melee even began. 2,000 out of 150K is only .013 effective hits, or 1% of the total volume actually striking into the weak spots effectively.

If you consider that half of the arrow volley misses altogether (the result of trajectory shooting), then we are anticipating c. 75K of the total arrows landing where they can possibly hit the men at arms. 90% of these are wasted on the armor's glancing surfaces, leaving 7,500 arrows which hit weak, exposed spots. That is just about one effective hit per man at arms in the French first battle, during the entire advance.

Now, did all of those hits on weak spots do mortal injury? No. In fact, a rough (perhaps generous) estimate would be c. 10% mortal injuries (no vital organs are being pierced, and face hits would only account for a quarter or less of the total hits into exposed/weak areas of the defense), 25% serious, incapacitating injuries, 55% slight injuries, an unknowable percentage of which cause the faint-hearted to panic and bail out of the fight (i.e. rout), and finally 10% anomalies: arrows protruding far enough into the armor to "bite" the wearer each time he tries to use his weapon, or maneuver, thus rendering him useless in the hand to hand combat. In this hypothetical breakdown, we are considering c. one quarter of the effective hits as positively out of the battle, thus leaving the rest to reach the English men at arms for melee with having suffered c. 23% casualties. The seriously wounded and routed and ruined would still largely be there as the French rolled up to the English line.

But 23% casualties is enough to cause a unit to rout. Statistically, on the average (according to John Keegan, The Face of Battle) military units will rout (if they are going to) at c. 15% casualties. The French surely suffered at least that much – counting all the men at arms shot out of the battle from mortal to incapacitating wounds – before they got to the English lines. The melee against overwhelming odds pushed them finally to the breaking point: the combination of demoralizing and punishing arrow storm during the advance, their own exhaustion, and the English archers nimbly knocking them down into the mud in increasing numbers with their axes and mauls, finally made the first battle break.

Total French dead at Agincourt are estimated at 4K to 8K. Most of these happened as the killing of the prisoners and mercy killings the next morning. But we can see that statistically it is likely that anywhere from 500 to over 1,000 men at arms had been mortally wounded during that first advance. And out of a total volume of 75K "hits" into the target zone, that is only 1% effective hits causing death, or only about one in every 100 arrows that hits a given man at arms: his armor deflects away 90 plus percent of them, the rest which hit his weak/exposed spots are also not effective enough to kill, although his injuries suffered will likely put him effectively out of the battle c. 2.5% to 5% of the time. And if he is fainthearted, any "bite" through his armor will make him rout.

So from the above, you can gather I do consider the arrows the single most effective element of the English victory. But the mud, and resulting French exhaustion (in which the arrows also played a large part), contributed in allowing the English to win the melee.

Hi

But that post above shows the problem we are having with communicating. You were clear in your mind and I was clear in my mind, but you assumed things I didn't say and viceaversa.

The above is the first I saw where you stated that they were NOT invlunerable that I saw.

I don't think we are in such disagreement as you seem to think.

As for the 70 versus 150. Actually bow efficiency degrades with the wood getting stiffer and thicker past the 70# point. Increase in velocity goes up as the square root of the increased draw weight. Besides the internal losses of the wood, the mass of the senew reinforcment goes up greatly without adding to the spring, the mass of the bow goes up(which eats energy by being moved), the weight of the arrow goes up as the spine stiffens and so on. thus, 150 is not Twice as good as a 70, but on the order of producing 8% improvement in velocity.

sorry, got sidetracked.

Notice, I have been agreeing with you mostly. I am assuming merely 1% effective hits on a massed target that cannot be effectively missed,with a single quiver of 24 arrows in 5 minutes.

I wonder at the French attacking in the open against a much larger force at a walk, however.

Looking at the first rank….
Most sources have 2400 cav and 8000 MAA in the van though I remember, not sure where, someone offering two groups of 300 cav. And they agree they were shot down.

Agree or not?

8000 MAA or 6000MAA. With or without the included cav?

Second battle? I am still unclear.

Rocky

"Just to establish an understanding, what is the pointblank range for a bow according to you?

Under 75 yards. A weaker bow would actually have a shorter pointblank range. But we are talking about longbows."

Just so you gentlemen know, "point blank" range is defined as a range where the projectile has no drop from the point of discharge or release to the target.

Within the earth's atmosphere, no such point exists, even with modern day firearms. The point is quite simply absurd.

- Greg

Rocky,

The above is the first I saw where you stated that they were NOT invlunerable that I saw
Post in which I say the MAA were not invulnerable:

28 Oct 2005 11:40 p.m. PST
Can arrows kill a man in steel plate? Yes and I've said so in other postings but they will not be an highly effective means of doing so. Strikes in the few vulnerable areas such as the aventail, visor, armpit & elbow openings and apparently at Azincourt the helmet sides wil produce wounds, even fatal wounds. Given that the French effectively advance into the medieval version of a "fire sack" the outflankign English archers will also have goten of shots at the weaker sides of the limb armour which might very possibly have resulted in additional penetraions which caused wounds, not fatal ones but the man might very well have been "killed" since he was rendered unable to fight

30 Oct 2005 10:58 a.m. PST
I've repeatedly said that men were killed by arrows at Azincourt as the range closed and arrows struck the fewweak spots in the armour. Just not a lot of them and it would take big bows in the 100-150 pound range to do that damage.
I've never denied that arrows killed men at Azincourt, just that they were killed by arrows shot by 70 pound bows and that significant numbers were killed prior to close combat.
Two entirely diffrent things which I hope this post makes clear for the 3rd or 4th time

31 Oct 2005 11:45 a.m. PST
If you read my posts I'll find that I've repeatedly acknowledged that the archer could kill/inflict a fatal wound a men-at-arms either by a an arrow striking weak spots in the harness. Just that it would not be a very common event versus men-at-arms clad in steel harness and not too common against the earlier iron harnesses which began to develop to full harness in the 1360's.
Non-fatal wounds are another matter as iron limb armour could be penetrated at closer range but steel armour would have resisted even close range shots well. Of course areas only protected by mail and/or padding would be much more vulnerable

08 Nov 2005 2:19 a.m. PST
All armour has weak spots even stell plate armour, not to mention that steel plate only became common in the post 1440 period. Prior to that we have a mix of iron and steel defences not to mention a mixture of full and partial plate harness. Which is why I've never supported the "men-at-arms were invulnerable at Azincourt theory". They could be killed or harmed, just not easily in great numbers.

As you can see I've repeatedly acknowledged the vulnerability of the MAA such as it was.

Looking at the first rank….
Most sources have 2400 cav and 8000 MAA in the van though I remember, not sure where, someone offering two groups of 300 cav. And they agree they were shot down.

Agree or not?

8000 MAA or 6000MAA. With or without the included cav?

The two cav. groups were supposed to number 800 and 1600 mounted MAA respectively according to some sources but those numbers were never assembled, the cavalry groups at best had a total of 460 mounted MAA. Nowhere near the 1200 MAA of the 'Somme Plan' or the 2400 mentioned by the 3 Burgundian chroniclers.
I didn't include two mounted wings in The Vanguard as they were separate commands. The mounted 'wings' got shot to pieces, the men might have been well protected but the horses sure took a beating and only a few MAA go to hand strokes were they were promptly killed off, the rest either lost their horse, were killed/injured and/or routed back thorugh their own dismounted troops.

The second battle only had some 3000 men-at-arms plus an unknown number of late arrivals hurling themselves into battle.

Just so you gentlemen know, "point blank" range is defined as a range where the projectile has no drop from the point of discharge or release to the target.

Within the earth's atmosphere, no such point exists, even with modern day firearms. The point is quite simply absurd.

Just so you know, "pointblank" has its etymology in bows and arrows, not guns. A pointblank shot is one closer than the range where your raised arrow "blanks" the target with the point, i.e. a short enough range where you can see the target over your bow fist. Arrows impacting within this range are virtually straight on with no impact angle at all. More powerful bows have a longer pointblank range.

Point Blank Range

"THE derivation of the expression "Point-Blank Range" is a moot question. An old Webster's ascribes it to the white or "blank" aiming point on a target (which may have been common in the past), and thus it refers to a range short enough that one may ignore gravity 's pull on the projectile and hold exactly on the mark…"

"…The term originated from a precise, but slightly different, meaning in the 18th Century. The carriage of a cannon was normally constructed so that the muzzle was elevated slightly even when the carriage was on a horizontal surface and the elevation screw turned fully down. When it was fired, the ball would travel in a parabola, initially rising above the line of sight connecting the end of the barrel with the target. The point where it rose above the line – immediately in front of the muzzle – was called the first point blank primitive. The point where it fell below it, or sometimes where it struck the ground and bounced, was the second point blank primitive. Point blank range was the distance out to the second point blank primitive…"

So, if you wish to use the term of "point blank range", there you have it. I was taught that for all practical applications, the range simply does not exist. My experience with bows and firearms over the past 40 years has done nothing but to confirm this conviction.

- Greg

So, if you wish to use the term of "point blank range", there you have it.

So let's come up with another term to describe bows and arrows shooting inside the range where the archers have to estimate trajectory. That is all I was using the term for. As it predates guns, afaik, I was using it in a fashion that fellow archers should understand.

"Pointblank" is where the target has entered a range that prohibits the archers in the ranks behind (who cannot see the target) from volleying over the heads of the ranks in front, and dropping their arrows together in the killing zone. When the target gets that close (c. 70 yards or more for longbows), then the archers in front begin shooting by direct aiming; they don't have to estimate trajectory. Their percentage of hits is many times greater than that of muskets who are still firing in volley inside 70 yards. The whole reason for mentioning the difference between pointblank and volley, is to identify these two kinds of bow shooting. The individual archers shooting inside pointblank range theoretically equal the same killing power of the entire unit when volleying, because their shots are aimed, and they shoot twice as fast when they don't have to volley.