[MA/LT/LTC2/TS] Battlefield Archery and Formations

Icelander · 12-05-2012, 05:30 AM

Does anyone have an idea, preferably backed up with historical sources of some sort, on the mechanics of employing missile weapons from behind your own formations?

Long-range archery involves some degree of arcing fire, of course, but I understand that it is far less dramatic than the layman might imagine at first guess. And in any case, the basic assumption of GURPS ranged combat rules is that the shooter can see his target, even when that target may be a section of the battlefield and not an individual enemy.

Obviously, without the benefit of standard drills and trained teamwork between the parties, anyone standing between the archer and his target will get in the way to some extent. On the other hand, some archers were historically trained to stand in more one file, which implies that keeping out of each other's way while is possible to some extent.

How many files of his own side can an archer reasonably shoot around without a penalty to hit? None? One? Two? More?

When his own side partially shields the enemy from an archer's view, what are the effects on his Perception and Bow skill? A flat penalty per extra file? A random penalty, in line with TS Time of Flight rules? A miss becomes a hit on an ally? A combination of the above? Something else?

Even a slight arc would mean that even if visual contact with the target was maintained through friendly formations, the flight of the arrow could be safely over the heads of the men in those files. If battlefield archery was ever used in such a seemingly risky manner, this would probably be the reason why.

Do any posters know of historical tactics that relied on archers shooting either while deployed in multiple files of their own or while stationed behind friendly units? Obviously, elevated ground would have enabled this, but did it ever happen on more-or-less level ground?

And what does the release angle look like when shooting 90-lb+ warbows at formation targets at 200-300 yds or so? Does it differ dramatically for 60-lb Hun horsebows or 130-lb reflex bows?

Even if the risk of hitting one's own men was slight, nevertheless, at some point, the dense files of his own men must become an insurmountable obstacle to vision, if nothing else.

At that point, indirect archery would have been possible, through the use of spotters or just pre-arranged drill to target an area. Do we have historical records of this ever happening?

What about plunging shots? Would societies that did not employ plunging shots in warfare also be unfamiliar with similarily indirect, if less pronounced parabolic shooting methods?

DanHoward · 12-05-2012, 05:35 AM

It doesn't seem to happen all that often. Usually archers are deployed on the wings or brought forward to shoot a few volleys before retreating back behind the other troops.

Icelander · 12-05-2012, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanHoward

It doesn't seem to happen all that often. Usually archers are deployed on the wings or brought forward to shoot a few volleys before retreating back behind the other troops.

So you reject, for example, reconstructions of battles involving Achaemenid armies with the archers deployed in very deep formations, behind their own infantry? And Gabriel and Metz, as well as Goldsworthy, when they attribute similar tactics to Roman armies?

Or do you merely consider such formations as cases where the archers are unable to affect the battle, with the generals either realising this and keeping them in reserve or being ignorant of it and believing them to be contributing in this way?

Edit: I think that the fact that archers were routinely exposed in the front line throughout history proves that indirect archery is nowhere near as effective as direct shooting, but that does not rule out the possibility of shooting from behind a screen of infantry, albeit at reduced efficiency.

DanHoward · 12-05-2012, 06:35 AM

I wouldn't pay any attention to Gabriel and Metz. What source does Goldsworthy cite?

Icelander · 12-05-2012, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I wouldn't pay any attention to Gabriel and Metz. What source does Goldsworthy cite?

Can't recall and don't have The Roman Army at War with me.

In any case, plenty of historians speculatively array ancient armies in ways that would place the archers behind a line of their own infantry or cavalry. I'm wondering if these are mistakes by men who haven't enough knowledge of archery or if this is a viable deployement strategy, if ultimately less useful than placing them forward or in the wings when one has steady archers who can be trusted to fall back without disorder.

Desthro · 12-05-2012, 08:44 AM

This is an interesting question and one that I would like to know about. I'd imagine that the "interference" of friendly troops is minimal with proper spacing and distancing between files, however much that is... And the distance to target would be a significant factor. I'm not an expert, but an arc of 15 degrees would allow for some significant distance while avoiding several of your friendlies' heads/bodies. Also, travel time of the projectile would make things difficult if you are shooting into a battle at a significant distance... maybe the 1/2d distance for any given bow forces that "you might hit a friend" bit. (I'd like that... stupid arrows...)

Most my my knowledge is from reading historical fictions, but usually the authors give some penchant towards a sliver of accuracy.

12-05-2012, 05:30 AM	#1
Icelander Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Iceland*	[MA/LT/LTC2/TS] Battlefield Archery and Formations Does anyone have an idea, preferably backed up with historical sources of some sort, on the mechanics of employing missile weapons from behind your own formations? Long-range archery involves some degree of arcing fire, of course, but I understand that it is far less dramatic than the layman might imagine at first guess. And in any case, the basic assumption of GURPS ranged combat rules is that the shooter can see his target, even when that target may be a section of the battlefield and not an individual enemy. Obviously, without the benefit of standard drills and trained teamwork between the parties, anyone standing between the archer and his target will get in the way to some extent. On the other hand, some archers were historically trained to stand in more one file, which implies that keeping out of each other's way while is possible to some extent. How many files of his own side can an archer reasonably shoot around without a penalty to hit? None? One? Two? More? When his own side partially shields the enemy from an archer's view, what are the effects on his Perception and Bow skill? A flat penalty per extra file? A random penalty, in line with TS Time of Flight rules? A miss becomes a hit on an ally? A combination of the above? Something else? Even a slight arc would mean that even if visual contact with the target was maintained through friendly formations, the flight of the arrow could be safely over the heads of the men in those files. If battlefield archery was ever used in such a seemingly risky manner, this would probably be the reason why. Do any posters know of historical tactics that relied on archers shooting either while deployed in multiple files of their own or while stationed behind friendly units? Obviously, elevated ground would have enabled this, but did it ever happen on more-or-less level ground? And what does the release angle look like when shooting 90-lb+ warbows at formation targets at 200-300 yds or so? Does it differ dramatically for 60-lb Hun horsebows or 130-lb reflex bows? Even if the risk of hitting one's own men was slight, nevertheless, at some point, the dense files of his own men must become an insurmountable obstacle to vision, if nothing else. At that point, indirect archery would have been possible, through the use of spotters or just pre-arranged drill to target an area. Do we have historical records of this ever happening? What about plunging shots? Would societies that did not employ plunging shots in warfare also be unfamiliar with similarily indirect, if less pronounced parabolic shooting methods? __________________ Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

12-05-2012, 05:35 AM	#2
DanHoward Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia	Re: [MA/LT/LTC2/TS] Battlefield Archery and Formations It doesn't seem to happen all that often. Usually archers are deployed on the wings or brought forward to shoot a few volleys before retreating back behind the other troops. __________________ Compact Castles gives the gamer an instant portfolio of genuine, real-world castle floorplans to use in any historical, low-tech, or fantasy game setting.

12-05-2012, 06:35 AM	#4
DanHoward Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia	Re: [MA/LT/LTC2/TS] Battlefield Archery and Formations I wouldn't pay any attention to Gabriel and Metz. What source does Goldsworthy cite? __________________ Compact Castles gives the gamer an instant portfolio of genuine, real-world castle floorplans to use in any historical, low-tech, or fantasy game setting.

12-05-2012, 08:44 AM	#6
Desthro Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Albuquerque	Re: [MA/LT/LTC2/TS] Battlefield Archery and Formations This is an interesting question and one that I would like to know about. I'd imagine that the "interference" of friendly troops is minimal with proper spacing and distancing between files, however much that is... And the distance to target would be a significant factor. I'm not an expert, but an arc of 15 degrees would allow for some significant distance while avoiding several of your friendlies' heads/bodies. Also, travel time of the projectile would make things difficult if you are shooting into a battle at a significant distance... maybe the 1/2d distance for any given bow forces that "you might hit a friend" bit. (I'd like that... stupid arrows...) Most my my knowledge is from reading historical fictions, but usually the authors give some penchant towards a sliver of accuracy.