OT: Archery in combat

[PvK]

Yes, from a munchkin perspective, or from a "most effective unit type not considering how it comes into existence" perspective, lifelong-trained English longbows probably are a more effective unit type than typical musket infantry. "Lieutenant-Colonel Lee of the 44th Foot" had a good point. The rate of fire and accuracy was generally far superior.

From the perspective of what it takes to "get" lifelong-trained English longbows in one's army, though, it's not just a button the king clicks in Sid Meier's Civilization.

Those troops were exceptional, with specialized powerful bows, lifelong training including great skill and strength, bodkin arrowheads designed to pierce armor, etc. At Agincourt the battle conditions and French tactics from overconfidence were also large factors. It's interesting too that the English were almost as surprised as the French that these troops could defeat heavy cavalry. (Relevant to the "do you like to know the game values?" question. The French player probably got upset. )

Less spectacular archers in other circumstances were not so great against armor. Shields are also fairly effective countermeasures to arrows. Even if an arrow goes through a shield, a shield penetration won't be killing the target.

Most archers though were specialists, even back through ancient times. Bows are not as easy to become competent with, as guns or crossbows are. Training time is important to the overall cost and difficulty of fielding a troop type. Also, most people in a society, government, and even the military, are neither munchkin-minded nor do they understand tactical issues very well. Most people think "gun > bow". After all, look at the fire and smoke.

PvK

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

I would think that one sides artillery would make the other sides Longbow Archers hard to deploy If such a hypothetical use of archers was ever considered.
I saw something on History Channel that showed that the battle field in Agincourt was super muddy. The French bogged down and were then targeted at long range by the archers.
I should have bought stock in the History Channel!

Favorite SNL skit: What if Napoleon had a B-52, What if Sparticus had a Piper Cub.

Now when we talk Longbow, we're not talking about the Helicopter Gunship...right?

[PvK]

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro said:
I would think that one sides artillery would make the other sides Longbow Archers hard to deploy If such a hypothetical use of archers was ever considered.

Why? The effective range of longbows is as good as muskets, and the force with longbows would have its own cannon and cavalry.

I saw something on History Channel that showed that the battle field in Agincourt was super muddy. The French bogged down and were then targeted at long range by the archers.

Yes, General Mud was a big factor. Also, even if the ability of bodkin longbow arrows to go right through armor at long range were slightly exaggerated, horses were not very heavily armored and were larger targets than the knights, and when they fall and get run into from behind by other knights, it gets messy.

I should have bought stock in the History Channel!
...

I suppose. They're good at exposing the masses to something historical, though their authenticity and completeness is often pretty low.

PvK

[Puke]

PvK said:
Most people think "gun > bow". After all, look at the fire and smoke.

this feature alone goes a long way to making the gun superior to the bow. despite its poor reload time, accuracy, high manufacturing cost, and questionable reliability, the early musket proved to be the superior weapon of war.

more important than its actual efficiency, is the morale effects on the battlefield. the loud bang, bright flash, and smoke will shake most enemies. and being the cause of a loud bang will bolster the morale of those wielding firearms.

This is a particular good presentation on the evolution of weaponry:

http://www.killology.com/article_weaponry.htm

[dogscoff]

>>PVK: Most people think "gun > bow". After all, look at the
>>fire and smoke.

>Puke: this feature alone goes a long way to making the gun
>superior to the bow.

Schlock agrees with you:
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20001111.html
and
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20020902.html
and pretty much every other strip

[Puke]

but why isnt there going to be any 'blam' on this mission?

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Small forces of longbow archers would certainly be effective. Reloading a musket is terribly difficult (doing it properly is, at any rate) but any imbecile can put another arrow on a bowstring.

After the battle of Gettysburg, thousands of Confederate muskets were found to be poorly loaded. The Confederates used recruited civilians as the backbone of their army, and this resulted in a massive lack of quality in fighting skills. Thousands of muskets were found to have two balls in their barrels. About two thousand had three balls. Several hundred had more, several dozen were found with over ten balls. One musket was loaded with 24 balls! Had its owner fired, he would certainly have killed someone - himself. The gun would have exploded in his face!

Had they used longbows, this would (possibly) be different. You can't fire 24 arrows at once, even an Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron could have figured that out. (Well...) If longbows outrange muskets as well, then it would CERTAINLY be handy to use them; it would be like a Napoleonic assault rifle.

African Americans browsing this thread, you should be pretty glad longbows weren't used after the Middle Ages. If the Confederates had used longbows, there would be a good chance they would have won the Civil War, and then you would probably all be working on Texan sugar plantations now.

Just speculating... what if Napoleon had used one Longbow? Firing guns and anti-tank missiles from a kilometre away, he could have wiped out the combined British and Russian armies without them even knowing what was hitting them. (Bye bye 1812 Ouverture...) He would have conquered EVERYTHING between the East side of the international date line, and the West side of the international date line. (in order east to west) How would the world look like now if Napoleon had founded "La France de la Monde"?

[Rasorow]

Methinks thou doth switch from Longbowmen to Longbow helicopters........ :-)

Rasorow

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

This is getting OT:OT here. I agree it's an interesting discussion, but methinks ye should just revert back to Ye Olde Subject of this here Thread every Once in a While...

[Suicide Junkie]

StrategiaInUltima said:
Just speculating... what if Napoleon had used one Longbow? Firing guns and anti-tank missiles from a kilometre away, he could have wiped out the combined British and Russian armies without them even knowing what was hitting them...

One Longbow with infinite ammo and fuel?

I suppose he could drag it within range of one of the capitals, and use the rockets to blow up their seat of government.
It could turn the tide in one major battle, and instill fear in the entire army if you don't reveal the lack of supply, ordnance and spare parts. Not to mention capable pilots.