Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by mcv

Crossbows are easier to use than bows, but at battles like Crecy, they lost because the longbow had a far higher rate of fire.

No the French lost because they were overconfident and charged a prepared defensive position against the better judgement of the king.

Historically, longbows did very well against plate armour.

Both the primary sources and modern tests say otherwise. Here is the best test so far published:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=79261

[mcv]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Can a powerful longbow using a high-carbon steel arrowhead penetrate a flat plate of steel at point blank range? Sure.

Can a period longbow with a wrought iron arrowhead penetrate a breastplate that's neither flat nor stationary at typical battlefield ranges? Very rarely, if at all.

Ages ago, when I wrote a paper on Crecy, I read that there were reports of French plate-armoured knights being pinned to their horses by arrows through their legs. Didn't say anything about breastplates, and an arrow through your leg may not be lethal on its own, but it's still pretty good armour penetration for a bow.

Originally Posted by DanHoward

No the French lost because they were overconfident and charged a prepared defensive position against the better judgement of the king.

That's the main reason for the French defeat, of course, but if I recall correctly, the Genovese crossbowmen fighting on the French side did complain about the much higher rate of the English longbows. A factor 6 difference, I think it was.

[nik1979]

Originally Posted by mcv

Ages ago, when I wrote a paper on Crecy, I read that there were reports of French plate-armoured knights being pinned to their horses by arrows through their legs. Didn't say anything about breastplates, and an arrow through your leg may not be lethal on its own, but it's still pretty good armour penetration for a bow.


That's the main reason for the French defeat, of course, but if I recall correctly, the Genovese crossbowmen fighting on the French side did complain about the much higher rate of the English longbows. A factor 6 difference, I think it was.

I've read those same accounts. First before taking that claim at face value, consider the thickness of plate leggings being would not be 4mm and would be around 1mm (DR2). Also consider that it would certainly thinner near the fauld (or the groin GURPS hitlocation). Since it is a 13C battle, faulds weren't made yet of articulated plate, so your plate armored Knight will have a lot of mail on joints and the groin area. Also consider that even a FULLY armored person can only have at most 85% to 90% coverage (*I will create a 3d rendering of this to simulate this down the line). Simply nailing a knight to his horse, you may probably only need to penetrate light mail (which sucks againts pi and imp; DR 2-3) and a hands thickness of equestrian gear (probably DR 2 vs pi/imp).

the knight being nailed may be at a quadry given that the shock to himself and his horse if he pulls it out may kill them both (bleeding) or result to their death (if they didn't die the panic of the horse may result in their death).


In the couple of books I've read and I think there were some military history syllabus found over the net, is the lack of discipline and not the RoF of the Longbows.

I think you can try a simulation in Medieval Total War of that particular battle.

edit (although game simulations aren't the best to represent even the crowd dynamics of medieval combat because, in the first place after the initial order medieval armies are left to the devices of their commanding officers, unlike classical armies*).

* in the strategikon, within a century, 2 men are assigned as messengers for this purpose.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by mcv

Ages ago, when I wrote a paper on Crecy, I read that there were reports of French plate-armoured knights being pinned to their horses by arrows through their legs.

There was very little plate armour at Crecy. Solid breastplates were still half a century away. However, the arrow through the leg anecdote was written by Gerald of Wales one and a half centuries earlier when there definitely wasn't any plate armour. Assuming Gerald wasn't exaggerating, which he often did, it was the result of a Welsh ambush with bows being fired at very short ranges.

[JAW]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

From what I have gathered from mild net usage, the Composite bow is merely smaller and easier to use from hoseback than yew longbows. It was not heavier draw (the amazing mongol comosite bow with draw strength as high as 160lbs, which isn't much different than the 110-180lbs estimate than warbows from Europe), but was more size efficient.

Well - my hunch based on basic mechanics would be that longbows were easier to draw for their power. Simply because - well they were longer and likely used longer arrows.

Compound bows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_bow might be different allowing longer pull despite the bow itself not being longer, but a composite bow is simply a bow with different construction - mechanically it's the same as any bow of it's size. EDIT - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurve_bow#Recurve_bow -- or not the composite construction could allow recurve bows that would have somewhat longer pull for the lenght of the bow... But still one that could be easily used on horseback would not have as long pull as a real longbow.

Longer bow allows more muscles to be used and more acceleration time for the arrow so it does not have to be as stiff to get the same speed to the arrow. Training might be needed to get the full benefit from the longer draw though. A perk/technique to get +1 effective strenght usable only for longbows (not shortbows) could be in order.

Alternatively allow one to use heavier bows for full damage but with penalty to hit and extra fatigue. That can be compensated with skill - and the upper limit for this would be higher with longbows. Shorter stiffer bow could become simply impossible to use if you lack more than 2 point of it's ST but longer bow could be used by drawing it partially (but not with full damage) and it could be near fully drawn with extra effort - but that would give to hit penalties... Vut that would mean that "standard" ST 14 longbows are usable by ST 10 people, just less powerful and/or harder and more fatiguing to use - while ST 14 composite bow would be pretty much useless to ST 10 person. Meaning that composite bows would have to be custom made or if standardised to lover strenght less powerfull for talented fully trained individuals. And one could train longer with same longbow - while with composite ones one would have to start with weaker bow and swithc to stiffer ones when the arm lifitng strenght developes.

Buy strongbow perk +1 strenght for bows, buy longbow perk, additional +1 strenght for longbows only. Allow extra strenght through extra effort for +1 for medium sized bows and +2 for longbows - with -1 to hit for each extra point.

Long bows of course pay the price for there advantages by being less compact and useless from horseback - expect for Japanese asymmetrical longbows that were usable from horseback despite being long as most of their length was in upper portion of the bow.

Edit..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow
For most practical non-mounted archery purposes, composite construction offers no advantage; "the initial velocity is about the same for all types of bow... within certain limits, the design parameters... appear to be less important than is often claimed." However, they are superior for horsemen and in the specialized art of flight archery: "A combination of many technical factors made the composite flight bow better for flight shooting."[1]
....
A reflex bow is a bow that has curved or curled arms that turn away from the archer throughout their length. When unstrung, the entire length of the bow curves forward from the belly (away from the archer), resembling a "C"; this differentiates a reflex bow from a recurve bow in which only the outer parts of the limbs turn away from the archer. The curves put the materials of the bow under greater stress, allowing a fairly short bow to have a high draw weight and a long draw length. The materials and workmanship must be of high quality. Highly-reflexed bows are more difficult to string and may reverse themselves suddenly; they have seldom been used for hunting or for war.

Yup - the compostie construction does not really offer any special advantages on it's own . Recurve giwes more stiffnes to the initial draw compared to the so it would give part of the benefit of the compound bow. Basicly making it easier to keep aimed compared to the total power - better ACC.. Reflex bow might have the same advnatages - but more so, but be more fragile/requiring better materials. SO basicly longbow and composite bows would be pretty much equal in effectiveness - but composite ones could be made more compact - at the cost of durability and/or weigh and expense.

[SimonAce]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

There was very little plate armour at Crecy. Solid breastplates were still half a century away. However, the arrow through the leg anecdote was written by Gerald of Wales one and a half centuries earlier when there definitely wasn't any plate armour. Assuming Gerald wasn't exaggerating, which he often did, it was the result of a Welsh ambush with bows being fired at very short ranges.

Also in GURPS terms if you'll except my apology with all those arrows fired there bound to be a few "crits" --lucky shots tend to get written down simply because they are so unusual.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by JAW

Well - my hunch based on basic mechanics would be that longbows were easier to draw for their power. Simply because - well they were longer and likely used longer arrows.

Of course they used longer arrows. Draw length for a longbow is 30"+ (to the ear).

And remember that the energy stored in the bow is a function of both draw weight and draw length. A shorter bow of the same nominal draw weight will not store as much energy as one with a longer draw.

Originally Posted by JAW

but a composite bow is simply a bow with different construction - mechanically it's the same as any bow of it's size.

EDIT - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurve_bow#Recurve_bow -- or not the composite construction could allow recurve bows that would have somewhat longer pull for the lenght of the bow... But still one that could be easily used on horseback would not have as long pull as a real longbow.

Longer bow allows more muscles to be used and more acceleration time for the arrow so it does not have to be as stiff to get the same speed to the arrow. Training might be needed to get the full benefit from the longer draw though. A perk/technique to get +1 effective strenght usable only for longbows (not shortbows) could be in order.

A composite bow can have a draw length equal to a selfbow. Let's imaigne two bows of equal draw weight and equal length. One is hickory and the other is of composite construction. In that case, given that the material of the compositie bowstave is stronger for its weight than a single stave of wood, less energy is spent on accelerating the bowlimbs and more on the arrow.

Ergo, more initial velocity (GURPS range and damage) for the same work (GURPS ST).

Originally Posted by JAW

Alternatively allow one to use heavier bows for full damage but with penalty to hit and extra fatigue. That can be compensated with skill - and the upper limit for this would be higher with longbows. Shorter stiffer bow could become simply impossible to use if you lack more than 2 point of it's ST but longer bow could be used by drawing it partially (but not with full damage) and it could be near fully drawn with extra effort - but that would give to hit penalties... Vut that would mean that "standard" ST 14 longbows are usable by ST 10 people, just less powerful and/or harder and more fatiguing to use - while ST 14 composite bow would be pretty much useless to ST 10 person. Meaning that composite bows would have to be custom made or if standardised to lover strenght less powerfull for talented fully trained individuals. And one could train longer with same longbow - while with composite ones one would have to start with weaker bow and swithc to stiffer ones when the arm lifitng strenght developes.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a longbow proposed by some historians is the way it is drawn. If it is not drawn to the fullest extent possibly for the archer, it is, in the opinion of these esteemed men, not a longbow at all.

There is no mechanical difference between a longbow and a shorter, more traditional 4' bow. It's just that one is designed to be long enough in relation to the archer to enable a longer draw and the other is not.

Originally Posted by JAW

Buy strongbow perk +1 strenght for bows, buy longbow perk, additional +1 strenght for longbows only. Allow extra strenght through extra effort for +1 for medium sized bows and +2 for longbows - with -1 to hit for each extra point.

A function of familitarity in GURPS, I'd guess.

I'm not sure about the extra effort. A longbow is drawn to the maximum draw length as standard method of shooting. A shortbow is not, however, and there is nothing stopping you from drawing to the ear. Except, possibly, the material limitations of the weapon. Few bows would be so overengineered that they were much stronger than they needed to be for the typical draw. After all, that would result in a less efficient bow.

Originally Posted by JAW

Edit..
Yup - the compostie construction does not really offer any special advantages on it's own . Recurve giwes more stiffnes to the initial draw compared to the so it would give part of the benefit of the compound bow. Basicly making it easier to keep aimed compared to the total power - better ACC.. Reflex bow might have the same advnatages - but more so, but be more fragile/requiring better materials. SO basicly longbow and composite bows would be pretty much equal in effectiveness - but composite ones could be made more compact - at the cost of durability and/or weigh and expense.

The recurve and reflex bows also allow a longer draw length relative to bow length. Draw length is a key component of the total stored energy of the bow and it also affects how long the arrow can be accelerated.

A draw length (or power stroke in crossbow terms) that is too short for the total amount of energy stored means that much less is transfered to the arrow.

[JAW]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The recurve and reflex bows also allow a longer draw length relative to bow length. Draw length is a key component of the total stored energy of the bow and it also affects how long the arrow can be accelerated.

A draw length (or power stroke in crossbow terms) that is too short for the total amount of energy stored means that much less is transfered to the arrow.

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.

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.

[nik1979]

On the question of Draw weights and damage.

Well the thing about the Mary Rose Longbows, is that they could be artifacts of Elite Royal Guard Archers. They could possibly be the top handful in a huge population of professional archers.

Edit> Given the diet, health, and even genetic disposition of the time, they were HIGHLY probable. Expecting that performance from the average professional archer would be too optimistic.


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. Looking at the training needed to reach that level of performance, we could surmise that it is just a small percentage of the archer force. The more common value would reasonably be 70%-80% (instead of half) having 20-30% be the difference of the average professional and the top professional is fairly reasonable (but I admit is just an educated guess).

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.

Edit> despite the edict's minimum requirements, a cavalier is still expected to come with his own baggage (I won't go into detail of what is usually part of that). But as I emphasize, that's a lot of money spent on Spare equipment and supplies. This would make a very large majority of these knights were composed of these lower overhead and lesser armored (when compared to a typical gamers' expectations) cavaliers.

[DanHoward]

DOUBLE POST