Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?
WillS:
Well, I can safely say that's the first time I've read that it was already engaged. The staff of the Mary Rose Museum are pretty damn sure it wasn't even near enough to an enemy ship to fire at them. I think (and this is from memory I have to admit, but I remember hearing it from somewhere/somebody) that it was one of the last ships to leave the port, and the rest of the fleet were about to engage when the MR went down. Not sure on that though.
Another mystery haha!
WillS:
--- Quote from: Atlatlista --- It gets to the point where the best you can realistically do is cover an area, and that's okay, but it's a type of accuracy that's not going to lend itself to large amounts of casualties.
--- End quote ---
Ah, but multiply yourself by 7000 and suddenly there are a lot of casualties! Doesn't really matter if you're hitting "gold" or just hitting the edge of the target, that many arrows shot into a packed group of people will cause enough casualties to be effective.
WillS:
--- Quote from: llkinak ---Seems like a broadhead or type 16 might be the best option for shooting at unarmored sailors or soldiers.
--- End quote ---
Yeah possibly! Certainly would cause more problems than a Tudor bodkin!
WillS:
--- Quote from: Atlatlista ---
what kind of accuracy can be expected from ancient and medieval archers in a warfare context. I can currently, using historically correct bows of about 50-55 pounds draw weight, hit man-sized targets out to 80 yards a very high percentage of the time
--- End quote ---
The guy you wanna look at is Simon Stanley. He's probably the closest anybody could get to a medieval archer, having shot very heavy warbows/longbows since he was young. He still shoots and wins competitions with the FRAS using heavy bows.
Atlatlista:
--- Quote from: WillS on November 06, 2013, 07:45:48 pm ---
--- Quote from: Atlatlista --- It gets to the point where the best you can realistically do is cover an area, and that's okay, but it's a type of accuracy that's not going to lend itself to large amounts of casualties.
--- End quote ---
Ah, but multiply yourself by 7000 and suddenly there are a lot of casualties! Doesn't really matter if you're hitting "gold" or just hitting the edge of the target, that many arrows shot into a packed group of people will cause enough casualties to be effective.
--- End quote ---
Sort of. I ran a gap calculator out once, to figure out this kind of thing, and I found that when you use a warbow out to 150 yards (forget 240), an error in range estimation of 5 yards results in the arrows missing the target by about ten to fifteen feet. Compare that with shooting on the flat end of the trajectory, where if you aim for twenty instead of twenty-five you hit the guy in the belly instead of the chest. There is a risk, out to 240 yards of missing an entire formation, let alone an individual man.
Also, if you look at the sources and the battles themselves, the English were awfully careful to position their longbow archers where the enemy would not be able to close with them, but where the archers were still reasonably close to the action - herce formations, stakes, use of hedgerows and swamps, river crossings, etc. It seems like the archery was taking place at reasonably close range (by that I mean less than 100 yards).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version