Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by nik1979

In regards with the Cercy. Although, I'm still looking for my friends references, it said that at 100lbs draw weight, the french would have been dead before they even been in melee range.

100 lbs was hardly an exceptional warbow draw-weight in any culture from the Middle East through to England. Fatalaties from arrows from any time period were always very low. Injuries could be fairly high but few were fatal.

Fief's 12C reference to the standard minimum equipment for a man-at-arms required by the king of france: haubergeon, cap, and shield were minimum defenses and these were probably the bulk of man at arms' had.

The French Wars occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries. How is a 12th C source relevant?

[nik1979]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

100 lbs was hardly an exceptional warbow draw-weight in any culture from the Middle East through to England. Fatalaties from arrows from any time period were always very low. Injuries could be fairly high but few were fatal.


The French Wars occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries. How is a 12th C source relevant?

Surviving gear usually come in the exceptional kind. Even if surviving examples that give draw weights from 110-190lbs would be the best way to determine the most common performance level. Especially when these artifacts are mostly found in tombs of exceptional persons. The common professional archer would have nothing of him remaining, unless some historian had something to say.

If I could use the strategikon to gauge the average 6th century byzantine archer, i'd peg him at around 70lbs. (from the factor of resources, how training is implemented, and who trained in bows). It can't exactly judge the difference between the Byzants and the English when it comes to archery but if we can deduce from their economic status they must have been pretty good since they had a land allowance, assigned servants and over their annual salary.


My mistake on the second part.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by JAW

Looking at the stats (3rd E) longbows already have better damage and range than shorter ones - so the draw lenght is probably taken into account in that. Composite bows have even better stats - but are actually heavier and much more expensive. So we can assume that GURPS composite bow is a recurve/reflex bow large enough that it has about the same draw lenght as a longbow. Recurve makes the initial draw stiffer compared to the last part of the draw (probably making it more even actually - as I reckon the draw becomes normally harder the longer you draw) so it would make sense that it accelerates the arrow a bit more in the last moment the arrow is touching the string.

Absolutely. I'm not saying that GURPS doesn't account for this. I'm justifying my decision to retain the GURPS damage numbers of bows, instead of making all bows, regardless of size, the same.

I just don't think a ST 15 hickory shortbow and a ST 15 yew longbow will achieve the same effect. The latter will be much more efficient than the former. The same goes for a long ST 15 composite recurve, which will be more efficient still.

Originally Posted by JAW

I've drawn (but newer shot with) a compound bow - it's quite uncanny how easy it is to hold drawn - probably less minimum strength - as being under min strenght penalizes to hit and it does not really need much strength to hold when aiming.. A really strong compound bow with min strength 11 could have even better range and damage - at least with high tech arrows. Assuming the compound system has the same effect as recurve - but more of it.

The effects of compound bows in GURPS are to allow an archer to shoot as if he had ST of 2 points higher.

High-Tech notes that it's impossible to apply the 'Compound' modifier to Composite Bows. I'm not sure I agree with that, as actual compound bows are made out of very light and stiff materials that allow it superior energy efficiency. I'd actuall say that compound bows were Composite Bows that gave the benefit of +2 ST.

Many compound bows let off up to 50% of the draw weight at full draw. This makes aiming much easier.

I wouldn't assess a seperate Acc increase for it. I'd just say it's a precondition of the attachment of sighting systems and aiming aids.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by nik1979

Surviving gear usually come in the exceptional kind. Even if surviving examples that give draw weights from 110-190lbs would be the best way to determine the most common performance level. Especially when these artifacts are mostly found in tombs of exceptional persons. The common professional archer would have nothing of him remaining, unless some historian had something to say.

The English soldiers who used the great warbow, however, weren't common archer. Most hunters would have used a lighter bow.

A man capable of using a warbow of that size would be a remarkable specialist, not a common soldier. All sources agree on the impossibility of training such men and the fact that few other countries were able to field so many of them.

It's not that the English bow was fundamentally different from other bows. It's rather that archery became a common pursuit and the strength to draw large bows was especially valued. The culture encouraged the development of a large pool of very accomplished archers that focused on heavier bows than cultures that did not have to face heavy armour on the battlefied.

The tactical realities dictated that a bow much under 100lb draw weight would not be useful at typical battlefield ranges. In order to have a chance to penetrate the padded jacks and maille of typical men-at-arms, warbows needed tremendous draw weight.

Originally Posted by nik1979

If I could use the strategikon to gauge the average 6th century byzantine archer, i'd peg him at around 70lbs. (from the factor of resources, how training is implemented, and who trained in bows). It can't exactly judge the difference between the Byzants and the English when it comes to archery but if we can deduce from their economic status they must have been pretty good since they had a land allowance, assigned servants and over their annual salary.

If their typical enemies did not wear as much armour as the French in the 14th century, they would have had no reason to focus on heavier bows. The energy needed to kill an unarmoured man is much less and it's possible to shoot the lighter draw bows with more accuracy and while suffering less fatigue.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by nik1979

Surviving gear usually come in the exceptional kind. Even if surviving examples that give draw weights from 110-190lbs would be the best way to determine the most common performance level. Especially when these artifacts are mostly found in tombs of exceptional persons. The common professional archer would have nothing of him remaining, unless some historian had something to say.

If I could use the strategikon to gauge the average 6th century byzantine archer, i'd peg him at around 70lbs. (from the factor of resources, how training is implemented, and who trained in bows). It can't exactly judge the difference between the Byzants and the English when it comes to archery but if we can deduce from their economic status they must have been pretty good since they had a land allowance, assigned servants and over their annual salary.


My mistake on the second part.

Well, the Mary Rose bows are nothing exceptional: many of them were spares in storage. I don't think there was anything special about the archers onboard. And the 16th century was a declining age of archery. A few decades later someone complained that not enough archers could shoot a quarter-pound arrow any more, which is just right to get maximum energy from a 150 lb bow.

I agree that most horse archers used bows well under 100 lbs draw. In GURPS terms, you can buy Fast Draw, Bow skill, and techniques instead of ST to be a different kind of elite archer.

[DanHoward]

Surviving Scandinavian longbows are virtually indistinguishable from later English ones. Strickland argues that any self bow that was intended to be used on the battlefield averaged 100+ lbs regardless of the culture that deployed it. Only civilian bows were lighter. The weapon has seen constant use with minor changes since the Neolithic period. The only real difference is the way the English deployed it on the battlefield. It was the tactics, not the technology, that gave them the advantage.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

the result of a Welsh ambush with bows being fired at very short ranges.

I find your suggestion that the Welsh might behave in a less than perfectly chivalrous fashion insulting.

;P

[nik1979]

An interesting in the strategikon is the mention of using lighter bows to practice accuracy, heavier bows to train strength, and always choosing the bow well suited for the archer's accuracy in battle.

Originally Posted by Icelander

The English soldiers who used the great warbow, however, weren't common archer.

I remember hearing about the difference in archer quality between the 100 years war and the war of the roses.



On my proposition for the common professional archer,

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Strickland argues that any self bow that was intended to be used on the battlefield averaged 100+ lbs regardless of the culture that deployed it.

Well, the Mary Rose bows are nothing exceptional: many of them were spares in storage. I don't think there was anything special about the archers onboard. And the 16th century was a declining age of archery. A few decades later someone complained that not enough archers could shoot a quarter-pound arrow any more, which is just right to get maximum energy from a 150 lb bow.

In these two points, I'm not aware of or have consider thoroughly. I'm in the POV to use the most conservative estimations, and by your arguments a I'm a bit too conservative.

If 100-150lbs War Bow draw is expected from good quality troops, what would that be in Gurps ST? (I've not made the stat conversion of late).

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by nik1979

In these two points, I'm not aware of or have consider thoroughly. I'm in the POV to use the most conservative estimations, and by your arguments a I'm a bit too conservative.

If 100-150lbs War Bow draw is expected from good quality troops, what would that be in Gurps ST? (I've not made the stat conversion of late).

ST 14-15 for those bows. That's generally ST 11-13, with Strongbow allowing the higher levels.

[JAW]

Originally Posted by nik1979

If 100-150lbs War Bow draw is expected from good quality troops, what would that be in Gurps ST? (I've not made the stat conversion of late).

Well - one handed lift of a thing from goround to over ones head in two seconds is 2*BL. Drawing a bow is shorter than from ground to over ones head. It's effectively one handed though it's not easier to draw a bow with two hand than would be drawing it one handed if the other part was fixed..

but 2* BL gives only 40 LBS for average guy..
8*BL - two handed lift could be closer.
If a standard (min strenght 11) longbow is 100LBS an average guy could barely draw it fully - giving -1 to hit. ST 11 is enough for 150LBS bows with no problem then..

However GURPS bows hit max damage only at thrust+4 so the upper tolerance for longbow would be strenght 17 and for composite bow strength 15..

15 is BL 45lbs - so let's say pulling a bow to absolute maximum is BL*4 - while the min strenght is BL*8 - so 100 to 150 LBS bows would be usable fors trenght 10 to 14 for composite bows and 10 to 17 for longbows - anyone ower ST 14 is going to need a special (over 150lbs) bow to get full use off strenght with composite bows and for longbows - likely just longer arrows - well ST 18 archer would need special longbow..

So the tolerance of longbows would be pretty big - different arrows could compensate for different users.For quality troops I'd expect ST 13 to 15 with all the bonuses from perks arms strenght lifting strength etc.. Base ST 11 to begin with should not be hard to come by by just selecting big guys, two to 4 points of arm/lifting ST should be trainable pretty easily. (HPs and striking strength part would be much harder to train..)

http://www.mrfizzix.com/archery/bow.html
Yup - the draw force needed to draw a non compound bow increases the longer the bow is drawn - so people with lover strength simply draw the bows a bit less. For recurve bows the draw curve is mentioned to be pretty much straight - so for straight bows it's upward rising curve.