When to fire Low-Tech ranged weapons?

[Imperial]

Hi guys, I'm trying to figure out a couple of things, any help is much appreciated.

At what range would a unit armed with bows begin firing, in a battlefield?
Crossbows , Guns ?
I'm guessing when the weapon would do Full damage, can any-one confirm if this would be historically accurate ? Like ST 10 guys armed with Regular Bows would begin shooting at 150yards or at 65yard if armed with an Arquebuses ?

And how many ranks would be able to fire? With weapons that shoot in a straight line like Crossbows and Guns, I guess in would be 2 lines, the first on a knee ,the second standing, maybe even 3 if they are well trained?
And what about Bows, since they shoot in an arc, more ranks should be able to shoot, right?

[the_matrix_walker]

I think this is tactical decision with heavy situational variability.

The higher the cost and lower the availability of Ammo/Arrows the larger the imperative to conserve your ammunition until your optimal accuracy comes into play.

If you've got effectively infinite ammo, you might hear "If anything moves, shoot it!" and if you're counting how many rounds you've got per soldier, you might hear "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!"

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Imperial

Hi guys, I'm trying to figure out a couple of things, any help is much appreciated.

At what range would a unit armed with bows begin firing, in a battlefield?
Crossbows , Guns ?
I'm guessing when the weapon would do Full damage, can any-one confirm if this would be historically accurate ? Like ST 10 guys armed with Regular Bows would begin shooting at 150yards or at 65yard if armed with an Arquebuses ?

That depends entirely on doctrine, and two units with arquebuses or bows can have completely different doctrine. For example, some horse archers preferred to dash into throwing distance and shoot where their arrows would have most effect, while others hovered at a distance and relied on sheer volume for their effect.

Originally Posted by Imperial

And what about Bows, since they shoot in an arc, more ranks should be able to shoot, right?

Nobody knows; the very few people with the luxury to research combat mechanics for a good part of the week focus on hand -to-hand combat in a handful of places and times. A handful of groups have experimented with half a dozen archers, but none has documented what they did well enough to learn about and decide whether to accept their results.

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by Imperial

At what range would a unit armed with bows begin firing, in a battlefield?
Crossbows , Guns ?
I'm guessing when the weapon would do Full damage, can any-one confirm if this would be historically accurate ? Like ST 10 guys armed with Regular Bows would begin shooting at 150yards or at 65yard if armed with an Arquebuses ?

Generally, with arquebuses, you want to trade off between getting as close as possible (within 40-60 yards) and being the first to fire if at all possible.

And how many ranks would be able to fire? With weapons that shoot in a straight line like Crossbows and Guns, I guess in would be 2 lines, the first on a knee ,the second standing, maybe even 3 if they are well trained?

2-3 ranks firing is possible, but at least with arquebuses, they were more likely to have the front rank fire and then move to the back to reload, while the next rank moved up and fired. Pike and shot formations could be very deep (upwards of 30 ranks) so that the entire unit could fire off a rolling volley and have the first rank reloaded at the end of it.

[TallIan]

It very much depends on the type of firing unit and the target.

English longbows, were not used as a direct fire range weapon, but rather medium range artillery. There is no reason not to start firing as soon as the enemy are in range (300-400 yards), as most of the energy in the arrow lost going up is reclaimed going down. They tended to stand in fairly deep formations that facilitated better control, allowing volleys to be shot better, as the high trajectory allowed archers to shoot over one another. Shooting at armoured or unarmoured targets would only really affect choice of arrow.

Crossbows, with a flatter trajectory, are more reliant on the force produced in the bow itself and the further away the target, the less penetration. So they would have been in longer, thinner lines. Crossbows suitable for war, were also too heavy to be reloaded by muscle strength alone and need levers of winches, so the usually had large, static shields to hide behind, spreading the line out. Shooting at armoured targets would require waiting for them to close. Shooting at unarmoured targets you could start shooting when they are further away.

Firearms also have a flat trajectory and loose power at longer range. Additionally unriffled firearms get REALLY inaccurate at longer ranges. Assuming your enemy also has firearms, any defense other than a trench or stone wall will not provide sufficient protection to bother with, so formations tend to be tighter to improve the effectiveness of volleys.

Of coarse that is all assuming a western European army.

Tall

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by TallIan

Crossbows, with a flatter trajectory

Far as I know there wasn't a large difference in projectile velocity, so trajectory should be similar.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Far as I know there wasn't a large difference in projectile velocity, so trajectory should be similar.

Are crossbow bolts lighter, and therefore would regain less of the energy they spent on the way up as they come back down?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

That depends entirely on doctrine, and two units with arquebuses or bows can have completely different doctrine.

An important is that most missile troops aren't actually aiming at anything. The goal is much more artillery-like, put enough stuff into the air in the general vicinity of a big target, and some of it will hit something.

So the effect of range is just in that lost energy, and while GURPS models that with 1/2D range, in the real world it's a *continuous* function of range (as is accuracy loss). There's nothing that is going to impose the kind of hard range breakpoints you get in game rules on the real world.

One real world factor that can apply is that you'd like to fire a last volley just before an opponent can close to melee range, on the assumption closer is better. So if you figure he can charge across your entire useful range before you can reload, you save the shot. If you can reload once but not twice, you save the first shot until he is however far away he can cover the gap in one reloading time, reload and fire your second volley point blank, and so on.

[Flyndaran]

That sounds like having a group of mounted "sprinters" just to break up archers early would work wonderfully.
I know very little about historical specifics. Was that a valid tactic.

[Anthony]

I think we'd need some historical examples to say exactly. My understanding is that they were relatively short and thick compared to arrows, which might make a difference in terminal velocity, but in the end all bow type weapons at long ranges will have high arcs.