Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
2
Army Research / Re: Missile weapon ranges in WoR Terry Wise
« Last post by Erpingham on Today at 01:41:24 PM »
Quote
Where can I find out more about how Justin has been compiling his rules?


Search under "optio" from the forum home page (its the name of the rules).  Justin may pick this up anyway and he is always keen to talk about his rules and how they work.

3
Army Research / Re: Missile weapon ranges in WoR Terry Wise
« Last post by Paul_Glover on Today at 01:33:47 PM »
Anthony,

  Thank you, I will look at the medieval section.  Just finding my way around right now.  I have Phillip's book and have been enjoying it.

  Where can I find out more about how Justin has been compiling his rules?


Paul.
4
Army Research / Re: Missile weapon ranges in WoR Terry Wise
« Last post by Paul_Glover on Today at 01:30:25 PM »
Nicholas,

  You have found me being playful concerning a summary of what I believe I have seen from people rated as 'Grand Master Bowmen' in the modern age.  My purpose in stating the figures as I perceive them is to indicate that even for the very best archers then what we are really dealing with in the indirect mode is an area effect weapon, all be it with no more effect than the size of the 'arrow head' per individual shot; modified by the angle at which the arrows come in.  In other words a foot deep path in the last 6' to earth at the maximum range.

  Only if you believe the actual data to be better than the figures I suggest would there be any case to suggest that an indirect shot with a bow is anything other than a contribution to an area of effect.  I can see many reasons for suggesting or quoting worse figures but none for suggesting any that are better, unless you know differently.

  Concerning the Direct shot, yes, yet the certainty of it arriving at the target as intended is I feel higher than your reception grants to a shot against a target that pauses long enough for it to be stationary between time of release and time of arrival of the arrow at maximum range for a direct shot.  Here I find myself starting to get more confident in the efficacy of ambushes by the Welsh, in the Welsh wars set a 'good distance' about 100 yards from the roads they were interdicting.  The thing that kills accuracy in archery is uncertainty in the mind of the shooter, things that aid certainty greatly aid the effectiveness of a release.
5
Army Research / Re: Missile weapon ranges in WoR Terry Wise
« Last post by Erpingham on Today at 01:28:51 PM »
Quote
Do I in any way make attractive the possibility of a thematic analysis across a wider set of battles to derive a simple set of rules, looking into the detail sufficiently to avoid accidental generalisation from otherwise under-determined observations suggestive of correlation ... which is of course rather different from having the evidence to even tentatively assert causation?

You can try.  I believe this is a technique favoured by Phil Sabin and, indeed, by our esteemed editor, Justin in compiling his rules.

We do, by now, have a nice collection of primary accounts of battles in our period of interest as a research base in the Ancient & Medieval category of the forum.



7
Army Research / Re: Missile weapon ranges in WoR Terry Wise
« Last post by Erpingham on Today at 01:10:42 PM »
Quote
Anthony or Tony,

  I'm not sure how you prefer to be known.

Anthony (my father was called Tony, so if anyone mentions Tony Clipsom, I always think they are referring to him) :)

8
Army Research / Re: Missile weapon ranges in WoR Terry Wise
« Last post by Dangun on Today at 01:07:30 PM »
Thanks for the clarification. I think I've got it now...
So a direct shot is basically one in which the archer can see the target at the point of release.


With indirect shooting for the same practised bowman:

Type 1) At 240 yards 50% of their arrows within a 6' circle.
Type 2) At 240 yards 50% of their arrows within a 12' circle.
Type 3) This is really harassment fire and fairly easily countered by others who move quickly and know the ground, but it could serve to move the target on in the way intended.  Not to be engaged in without plentiful weapon stocks.


Interesting data, where does it come from?
9
Army Research / Re: Missile weapon ranges in WoR Terry Wise
« Last post by Paul_Glover on Today at 01:04:29 PM »
Anthony or Tony,

  I'm not sure how you prefer to be known.

  It is with some trepidation that I have approached joining the SOA forums, not wanting to be too forthright yet seeking to as you observe understand.  So thank you for your patience, kindness and understanding thus far.  For my part I will try not to over state my thoughts.

  I fully accept your view regarding blunt force trauma in relation to armour (I was careful to use the terms unarmoured and lightly armoured) because I could not perceive how such small margins of 'overmatch' could have so much effect.  As you note, well designed armour serves to further spread the load.  Guessing the source of the 80 KJ to have been from Strickland & Hardy's interaction with Shrivenham it is interesting to see a revised figure of 200KJ for a 90% probability of kill in the data that you reference.  Which takes me back to my 'mind model' concerning what makes arrows dangerous is their ability to cut things best left unbroken for the good health of the 'owner'.

  Do I in any way make attractive the possibility of a thematic analysis across a wider set of battles to derive a simple set of rules, looking into the detail sufficiently to avoid accidental generalisation from otherwise under-determined observations suggestive of correlation ... which is of course rather different from having the evidence to even tentatively assert causation?
10
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: Purple
« Last post by Anton on Today at 12:25:23 PM »
Clever lad.  I hope it makes him rich. The colours look great.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10