Archery

[Justin Swanton]

We've had a look at extreme range shooting here and in the Adjusting Archery rules thread. Check post #67 in this thread on extreme range. Paradoxically, extreme range is more likely to be accurate than mid-distance shooting. Contemporary Clout shooters, who hit targets at 180m, would have no difficulty hitting an 8-yard-deep target at that range. Mediaeval longbowmen would be better.

[Nick Harbud]

This is something I feel many rules get wrong. In DBMM, frex, English longbowmen rarely if ever bring, much less plant, their stakes, being justifiably confident in their ability to repel all and any mounted by archery alone.

In DBM (I am not sure if this is the same for DBMM) Bw(S) are assumed to include stakes or pottes to their front.  In one of those curious stretchings of wargames timescale, emplacing the stakes or digging the pottes has no effect on their speed of manoeuvre.  Not only that, but the Bw(S) still get any bonuses for being behind a fortification, defending a river bank, etc, in addition to their inherent bonus of being behind their stakes or pottes. 

[Justin Swanton]

I shouldn't be blowing this horn again, but heck it's relevant. In Optio stakes are separate entities from archers. An archer can move two squares per movement phase. If however he moves more than one square he becomes disordered and it's not that easy to remove disorder. Planting stakes takes one square of movement. Pulling up stakes also takes a square of movement. So archers who wish to advance but keep their stakes handy against any nearby cavalry, and who do not wish to become disordered, need to uproot the stakes in one phase without advancing, then advance one square per phase after that without replanting them, then replant them in another phase without moving. Whilst they are advancing with their stakes over their shoulders they are of course vulnerable to cavalry charges. So rapid redeployment with stakes on the field of battle is not a good option for archers unless the enemy are clearly losing.

[Nick Harbud]

I expect this is old news (haven't read the whole of the thread) but a thought on range and accuracy is that lateral (left-right) accuracy is of little concern and that the main cause of missing when shooting at a body of men would be shooting over or under (too short or too long). At point blank range or below (ie the range at which an arrow shot horizontally would still hit the target) aiming is easy - just shoot level and aim in roughly the right direction. Beyond this range it becomes necessary to a) estimate the range correctly and b) apply the correct elevation (which in the days before sights were used would be some rule of thmb like aligning knuckles or a mark on the bow). Any error in either of these steps will make the arrow fall short or go long and of course the higher the elevation the less the chance of an incorrectly judged arrow hitting the target anyway (in that a slightly long shot at low elevation is still likely to hit as it drops below head height). A body of men eight deep might present a horizontal target of only eight yards (by two yards vertically). At long range with high elevation, dropping an arrow onto an eight yard deep target would be exceedingly difficult. When shooting en masse I expect an experienced captain could call out the estimated range, but even so there would be a lot of variation in range accuracy of arrows shot (and needless to say, the better trained the archers, the smaller the variation would be). This is why the accuracy curve drops off dramatically as it gets beyond about 50 yards (and also one reason why more powerful bows are more effective - the more powerful the bow the longer its point blank range and the further it can shoot at low elevation). High elevation shots are also largely falling under gravity and will have little penetrative power. This is the same general principle as applies to long range fire in later eras too of course - muskets too are most effective when all you need to do is 'level your piece' and fire, and the greatest cause of musketry inaccuracy was shooting over the target, rather than lateral (left-right) misses.

So far as wargames go I've no opinion on whether current rules are 'right' or not. Depending on level of abstraction range is already irrelevant in some rules (DBx, Lost Battles). This is surely a case where design for effect is better than design for cause - if the ranges in existing low abstraction rules are changed then the effectiveness of archers will be altered unless loads of other parts of the rules are also rejigged, so if the overall effectiveness of archers in the given rules seems right, then leave ranges alone. Don't know if it does though. One problem with archery (or any missile/skirmishing combat) is that it is largely attritional, and current rules don't do attritional effects well in general (because of the avoidance of bookkeeping). Another way to represent long range fire is to give low quality troops a much greater reduction in effectiveness at long range than high quality troops (or depending on how you like to do things, make max range dependent on troop quality not weapon type).

Cranking the ballistics maths, one gets the following ranges and maximum heights for different elevations with initial velocity, arrow weight, etc, being kept constant.

Elevation (Deg)	Range (m)	Max Height (m)
3	40	0.55
5	60	1.5
9	100	4.5
14	150	10
17	170	14
22	203	23
45	270	75
60	218	110
65	190	120
70	165	130

Regarding the margin by which the archers might shoot over their target:

At 22 degrees, the arrow is 1m off the deck at 200m and grounds at 203m
At 25 degrees, the arrow is 9.5m off the deck at 200m and grounds at 218m

At 63 degrees, the arrow is 8.6m off the deck at 200m and grounds at 204m
At 60 degrees, the arrow is 37m off the deck at 200m and grounds at 218m

As noted in other threads (and in the article) the higher angle shots achieve the same range but tend to take twice as long to get there.   This leads to further problems including judging the movement of the target.  the attached sketches give some idea of what can happen.

[Erpingham]

One thing that Nick's tables and diagrams bring out is the difficulty of hitting a moving target at a distance.  Longbowmen didn't practice on moving targets, or in large groups, so this was probably a skill which separated the veterans from the novices.

[Mark G]

Someone told me the practice butts were 50 m .

If true, that has a relevance too

[Patrick Waterson]

One thing that Nick's tables and diagrams bring out is the difficulty of hitting a moving target at a distance.  Longbowmen didn't practice on moving targets, or in large groups, so this was probably a skill which separated the veterans from the novices.

But one which seems to have nevertheless been picked up surprisingly quickly and well.  Perhaps it depended more on the judgement of those calling the shots.

I am a bit wary of making too much of a small difference in elevation producing a large spread on landing.  The whole point of practising massed shooting together is to get a feel for the matter and incidentally find out if anyone is landing their shots long or short - and correcting it.  Practised archers shoot with the cerebellum, not the cerebrum: getting the right range is second nature to them.  (Actually they shoot with the bow, but you know what I mean ... )

[Patrick Waterson]

Someone told me the practice butts were 50 m .

If true, that has a relevance too

It means people want to avoid walking more than 100m to collect their arrows and return.

Actually, modern infantrymen in many armies are trained to shoot (directly) at two ranges: 50m and 200m.  Indirect shooting is left to the artillery.  Back in the 14th-15th centuries AD, the archers mainly shot indirectly and the artillery directly.  Methods change ...

[Mark G]

Doesn't really answer my question, pat.

If this thread is all about long range drop shot accuracy, you need to practice that.
The slingshot article suggested actually the effective range was much closer, at a level shot, and hence my question,at what range was the famous practicing done?

[aligern]

I think the modern ranges are based on doctrine, at 50 yards you were shooting to kill, at 200 yards all but the best shots are shooting to keep heads down.
Roy

[Erpingham]

Doesn't really answer my question, pat.

If this thread is all about long range drop shot accuracy, you need to practice that.
The slingshot article suggested actually the effective range was much closer, at a level shot, and hence my question,at what range was the famous practicing done?

Mark shooting (shooting at a vertical post) was practiced at a variety of distances.  The Finsbury marks varied between 130 - 345 yds.  http://www.bowyers.com/bowyery_finsburyMarks.php

I've not been able to find anything on the range at the butts, which may have varied considerably.

Additional edit : I found this from an English heritage report http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/butts3.htm

It implies butts were usually about 100m apart, perhaps shooting at one, then turning back to shoot at the other.  But Mark's 50m could be done if archers congregated in the middle and shot in both directions (nobody then shooting towards others).

[Andreas Johansson]

In DBM (I am not sure if this is the same for DBMM) Bw(S) are assumed to include stakes or pottes to their front.

It changed: in DBMM stakes or their functional equivalent are additional pieces that have to be paid for and which it takes time to emplace. But the intrinsic toughness of Bw (S) is such that players rarely if ever feel the need for them.

[Mark G]

It is interesting that practice is mandatory, but the range seems to be voluntary, then.

[Erpingham]

It is interesting that practice is mandatory, but the range seems to be voluntary, then.

Largely, yes.  However, the laws mention the need to exercise at the butts  and pricks (posts), as well as mentioning rovers (where targets are chosen from the spot you finish at).  So a range of exercises (and ranges)  was envisaged.

There is a well known law (33 Henry VIII 1542) that says adults can't shoot at targets with a prick shaft (a distance shooting arrow) under 11 score yards, except at rovers.  So, in the mid sixteenth century heavy arrows had to be practiced with up to 220yds at least but, contrary to what you sometimes read, this wasn't the minimum practice distance .

[Jim Webster]

There's something we have to note here

The English kept fielding archers, and made a big effort to get them, so you'd assume that they were considered worth the effort. It wasn't as if they were an easily acquired troop type, cheap and ubiquitous.

So the people on the ground assumed they were worth the effort.
Our rules really ought to keep this in mind

Jim