Are the horsearcher draw weights based on examples of bows or any sources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
CBR
Printable View
Are the horsearcher draw weights based on examples of bows or any sources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
CBR
Im sure you must mean this But on his site there are some other articles where he states (after describing some tests he did) that KE and Momentum ".. do not correlate with penetration in real tissue" He even has two graphs which shows that higher momentum generally produces higher penetration and a graph with kinetic energy that produces a similar result!Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens
Heavy arrow weights means more kinetic energy not less. The difference in KE can be up to 30-40% more KE for the heavy arrow.
CBR
Off topic but your details are slightly wrong here. The 5.56 NATO round has a muzzle velocity slightly higher than 7.62 NATO, but not significantly so, and only out of a 20" or longer barrel. (Barrel length is tremendously important to small caliber assault rifle bullets remaining effective.) The muzzle energy though, is generally around half that of 7.62 NATO, that is the kinetic energy. The lower ballistic coefficient also means the 5.56mm sheds its energy into the air much faster, which is why it loses range. Ballistic coefficient is directly related to sectional density; the smaller bullet actually has more surface area per weight/inertia for the air to act upon compared the 7.62.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
The reason for the military changeover from 7.62 was the reduced recoil of the 5.56mm (again, less kinetic energy), making it easier for soldiers with less training to use accurately, and the lower weight, allowing more rounds to be carried. Along with a lighter weapon. The loss of range wasn't considered important because most infantry engagements happen within the shorter range of the smaller round. Also, platoon level mg's and sniper weapons were still maintained at 7.62 for better range and power. The hitting power against personnel at usual rifleman ranges with 5.56mm was found adequate though, but mostly due to a tendency for 5.56mm to break up due to thin jacketing and cannelure, Anti-material use was found wanting, and that's why the bullet weight went up from 55 grn to 64 grn and a steel penetrator was added under the tip. Cover penetration is still lacking though, because like air the 5.56mm sheds energy into surrounding material faster (good to go into your target, not good when it stays in the drywall between the two of you), hence things like 6.5 Grendel have some interest.
However, as compared with arrows, the mechanics of bullet terminal ballistics are quite different.
Also, a medieval person had to deal with penetration issues involving tissue, bone, mail, and plate pieces. Effectiveness at punching metal and at damaging whats behind it at the same time is a tradeoff, be it arrows or bullets. Modern tests against game do not reflect the realities of a medieval battlefield... a faster arrow against a soft tissue might penetrate deeper, but against metal would almost certainly be less effective than a heavier but slower arrow of the same energy. And, once arrows are fired parabolicly at longer range, the penetration issue changes to the terminal velocity of the arrow, not the initial velocity.
@JCoyote: i was saying the bullet stuff based on figures and claims in a book i've read. I don't have the book anymore as it was a libriary book. But the figurwes it claimed for unamed 5.56mm rounds and 7.76mm rounds where the following:
5.56mm 7 grams, 1400m/s velocity
7.76mm 10grams 1000m/s velocity
I don't know exactly what type of 7.76mm/5.56mm it was, it may not have been NATO rounds, but those where the figures. The 5.56mm does have better KE under those figures.
Thanks for clarification though.
But you still backed up my point that a heavy arrow would typiclly have hit harder and lost velocity slower. Even assuming the same coefficnt of drag to weight ratio it should still go furthar if i'm remebering my science classes correctly. Of course a heavier arrow does tend to have reduced velocity so...
Your point about parabolic fire is well made also. But in general the highier the arrow goes at the top of it's arc, the greater the range and the greater the terminal velocity. Depending on the coefficents yu mentioned this might be eithier a light or heavy arrow. A sufficently heavy arrow would produce a lower range and hitting power under parabolic conditions, but somwhere their should be a perfect weight that produces the best range. This probably wouldn't be a lightweight arrow IMO, but i'm sure Orda will tell us soon enough~;p.
Well they were probably comparing the AK's shorter 7.62x39 round, which is assault rifle class. But it's not really used in any honest machine gun, just a few SAWs. Compared to 5.56mm, it has generally lower accurate range, lower anti personnel ability (but mostly because it doesn't breakup), but better cover penetration. That's a bit generalized but... I'm not sure offhand how the sectional density compares, but I do know it maintains better energy at range, although as it starts out somewhat marginal for an FMJ to be fully effective thats a questionable advantage. (With hollow and softpoint though 7.62x39 is very effective, though outside military usage.)
The accuracy issue between the two is a point of contention... most AK type weapons aren't of terribly precise manufacture, and lack accuracy in general compared to 5.56mm weapons. So it's a bit hard to compare, but 7.62x39 can be pretty accurate, just most things that fire it aren't. (In fact, some of the most accurate cartridges in precision shooting are modifications of the 7.62x39 case, such as 6mm PPC and 6.5 Grendel.)
Though of course, increasing velocity increases total energy faster than increasing weight in any item. This is a bit more straightforward with a firearm though, in a mechanical spring tension apparatus, like maybe you know a bow, the relationship is less direct. Because there is a certain amount of energy transfered to anything shot from a bow. Increasing bullet weight in a firearm for a given charge intrinsically reduces velocity, but changing arrow weights in a bow, the effect is less profound. Then again, I've never had a bow blow up because it shot too heavy an arrow. :clown:
I keep thinking I misstated something here, but I'm too tired to figure out what it is. LOL
:focus:
I think most of us can agree that if there's something that should be modified it's the rate of fire, either an increase for archers or a decrease for most crossbowmen. Once that has been tested, I'd think that longbowmen would be as useful as most would like.
Except I thought someone on another thread pointed at with the animations (instead of just stats) the rate of fire of archers is much faster than xbows, so don't need fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyar
They are faster, but not fast enough. I admit to not having tested this extensively, but in my experience archers fire roughly twice as fast as crossbowmen. I'd much rather see that they are at least 3 or 4 times faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moah
Not sure about studies done for combat purposes. But in the olympic style archery, there has been extensive study on arrow weight versus speed. The conclusion matches with your prediction. The perfect arrow, if there is such a thing, is somewhere in the heavier range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
To give a little background, olympic style archery uses carbon arrow with sizes ranging from 1000 to 380(these are spine measurements, so the smaller number makes the arrow heavier). The perfect arrow doesn't have such a high initial velocity, but retains most of it downrange. It has been found by the Koreans that an arrow size of 450 shot from a 44-46 lb bow will give you this perfect combination.
The only issue with olympic style archery is that it is purely interested in precision. Material and tissue penetration are of no interest, nor are terminal ballistics.
And it is true, generally heavier projectiles are more accurate, with better ballistic coefficients they retain energy better and are less sensitive to wind drift and other environmental factors.
However, in the particulars of this game, we are talking about effects on skin, muscle, bone, leather, mail, and plate, in various combinations. Sending an arrow into a knight at 300 yards is all well and good, impresses your archery buddies, but if it bounces off his surcoat it didn't make any difference.
Thanks for that Sextus.
If people want to understand the science behind it, it's pretty simple.
1. a thicker shaft will likely increase mass significantly, however it will likely add much less to drag of the arrow. So you get a heavier arrow with only slightly more drag.
2. A heavy and a light arrow might have the same energy in them when they leave the bow. But because the Heavy Arrow is heavy, it takes a much longer time period before drag of a given value slows it down by the same amount as with a light arrow.
This means that whilst the light arrow starts with a high velocity, it doesn’t keep travelling at that high velocity very long. A Heavy arrow might start out at a medium velocity, but maintains that medium velocity for a fairly long time. As a result the Heavier arrow will at longer ranges have a higher velocity than the light arrow as it maintains it better.
3. The ultimate limit on max range is totally down to gravity. Gravity causes both heavy and light arrows to slow down in upwards flight by the same amount, (even an arrow travelling flat has an upwards velocity from a scientific point of view, hell, even one dropping towards the ground has an upwards velocity, it's just a negative velocity). Thus if the arrows velocity is too low it will hit the ground before it can take full advantage of it's extra velocity retention.
4. In general, against armour with modern bullets, (and a few other applications of similar nature too BTW), momentum means more than KE on impact. I imagine against medieval armour the same would still be true. Also, mass seems to matter more in the momentum calculation than velocity apparently. So heavier arrows with slightly lower momentum might have been as good at getting through armour as high velocity, light arrows with slightly higher momentum.
In other words a Longbow, (which could more easily accommodate a heavier arrow than a crossbow could a heavy bolt do to projectile length), could have easily matched the range, and penetrating power of a higher draw crossbow with a lighter round, even discounting draw length and draw power consistency over the whole draw. Their are limits of course, (a 2000LB crossbow would easily have outdone a 200LB Longbow of the same consistency and draw length, no matter what weight the arrows where).
This is true about our interest in precision, but precision also comes with a more energetic arrow down range. If your arrow has lost most of its energy by the time it gets downrange, then it'll be thrown around by the wind. So anyway, point is, a heavier arrow will retain its energy better.
Not sure about what you meant earlier by changing the arrow weight wouldn't make a major impact on speed though. When I changed my arrows from one model to another, a difference of 40 grains roughly, my speed drops about 15fps. That's a 7% drop roughly.
Crossbows should realisticly fire 1-5 bolts per minute depending on the type of crossbow (small crossbows could prob fire about 5 and arbalst only 1).Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyar
An english/welsh longbowmen could fire 10-20 arrows per minute.
But there is one concern about lowering the crossbowmens rate of fire as the time it takes for an enemy to reach your front lines is considerably less then it would have been in reallife so your now slower firing crossbowmen would be able to fire even fewer volleys before the enemy closes in.
So potentional modders should be careful not to lower the rate of fire too much. But i still agree that there should be a bigger rate of fire difference between longbows and crossbows, twice as fast simply isnt good enough.
I'd say upping Archer fire rate is best as Crossbows are allready limited to 2/3 volleys at approching units as it is. Any less and they'd be pointless. Lonbows currently manage 6-7.
Increasing archer fire rate might look better (although personally it doesn't bother me that much), but it would be unbalancing. If you double the fire rate, you're sending twice as many arrows into the enemy and causing twice as much damage. It would be like doubling the number of archer units you have on the field, with the vanilla fire rate.
So unless you really want them to be uber death machines, you'd have to decrease arrow damage by an equivalent amount. And this would require follow-on rebalancing of armor etc., so the reduced arrow damage wouldn't fall underneath the point where you're causing no kills at all, or too few kills. It ain't as easy as just increasing the fire rate for visual effect.
I'll explain that a bit more. You see, in a firearm, when I increase bullet mass by a similar percent, I'll see a larger percentage drop in velocity. With a bow, there are mechanical issues like bowstring acceleration, etc, that are to a certain degree (more) static with regard to the arrows. Hence, compared to developing loads for a rifle, with a bow arrow weights will fall within a narrower percentage change in velocity compared to altering firearm cartridges. Basically, if I took a cartridge and changed the bullet weight by a similar percentage to what you did with your arrow while keeping the powder the same, I'd pretty likely see a larger drop in velocity.Quote:
Originally Posted by SextusTheLewd
Anyway, the issue is, the medieval bows were weapons of war. Usually in projectiles it seems that lighter and faster projectiles do more tissue damage, while heavier but slower projectiles often penetrate harder materials like wood and metal better. However, as I've said in another forum, if the tissue damage drop isn't that great, I'll lean more towards better material penetration. That was applied to the contemporary battlefield with increasing usage of body armor from all corners; but given the increasing prevalence of armor on the medieval battlefield it was likely equally valid then as well. Because if it doesn't go through the armor at all, it doesn't matter how much or little damage it can do to tissue.
Estimates based on the materials found, especially the earlier horse archers like Huns, Avars, Magyars, where evidence was more fragmentary. Some later examples have survived quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
www.atarn.org has some very interesting features on archaeological finds.
Basically, the English saw the potential of the longbow as a very effective weapon during their campaign in Wales. Welsh bowmen featured alongside English bowmen and it would be wrong to suggest that either was better, that would depend entirely on the individual. By the time of the 100 year war, bowmen were all elite; maybe not by merit of birth but they plied their trade for a wage and many enjoyed 'freeman' statusQuote:
Ive been wondering about the difference between english and welsh archers, how big was the difference? Was the difference minimized as time by? Or was the welsh archers the elite archers of their time? As far as i know they both used yew bows, but did the bow types differ?
........Orda
That would be a function of the tip though wouldn't it? A bodkin will pierce armor much better but won't do much to the flesh, while a broadhead would bleed the target to death but would have no luck against armor.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
I also say, with regards to the game, that longbowmen should be made to shoot a bit faster.
@Carl
I think you mean 7.62 mm rounds, and what you forget in that regard is the powder charge is bigger, that is why the 7.62 mm round goes farther than 5.56 mm
But onto other things. The Horn bow existed and was used in the Icelandic climate, and that is a fact.
The Icelandic Parliment which started around 930 A.D had a law that no one was allowed to bring a bow within a 500 yards (or 480 meters to be exact) of the Parliment (which was held outdoors) because that was the range of the horn bow.
Horn bow ( Horn bogi in icelandic) is what the vikings called the composite bow. As to where the vikings got the composite bow? Probably from Byzantium, as many vikings went there to trade or became Væringjar (varangians)
So there we have a source that states that a composite bow had a range of aprox. 480 meters. Of course there is not a chance in hell that anyone could hit at that range
Yeah the tip is the other part of the equation, but not all of it. Tissue damage is closely related to velocity, because it's a fluid medium. That's the kicker, a modern competition arrow has to deal with gaseous medium and then stick, a hunting arrow has to deal with a gaseous medium and then a fluid medium, but a medieval war arrow had to deal with a gaseous medium followed by a solid followed by a fluid... it's really hard to get ideal balance when that's going on. However, the real magic number in velocity for tissue damage is about 1200 fps; once a projectile passes this threshold there is a geometric increase in damage. I don't think any bows can do that, but there might be some crossbows that could. At any rate, 1200 fps probably wasn't reached by any medieval weapon of any type.Quote:
Originally Posted by SextusTheLewd
Agreed. More professional archery units should have a speed advantage over peasant/militia archers as well as in accuracy. The same goes for more professional gunpowder versus conscripts. With those era of missile weapons, well trained soldiers made significant difference in firing speed. It's too bad we can't mod missile firing speed to be dependent on experience level; that would be perfect. Have it so every level the unit goes up, their time between volleys drops by 5% or something. It would give you a good reason for wanting to develop your missile teams. But I wouldn't make levels absolute; for example, I would have it arranged so a top level militia archer team could outpace entry level longbowmen by just a little bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by SextusTheLewd
1200 fps would make it super sonic, the fastest crossbow today can barely reach 350fps. Perhaps a tad higher with super light arrows.
Well I didn't mean in anything usable in the field, but I know experimenters that have gone well above that with test models. They were very long draw and not shoulder fired though... things mounted on tables. Very long, slim prods. The "fastest crossbow" you are referring to involves production hunting bows, a field where you don't get many people willing to work a winch to ready their bow.Quote:
Originally Posted by SextusTheLewd
But truth be told, at bow levels I'm not sure if velocity gains would make that much difference. It's a big deal with bullets, but "energy wounding" doesn't seem to be in much effect with most bow driven weapons.
I don't recall ever seeing or reading about a supersonic crossbow or bow, which is what Sextus is getting at here. Are you suggesting that modern hunting bows today are for wusses, and that REAL MEN who used windlasses to span their Medieval arbalests could produce supersonic shots? Or is this something that only modern materials and extremely specialized design can accomplish?
Please, this 20 shots per minute claim really needs to be supported by more evidence, it's really stretching things a little. A magazine-fed bolt action rifle handled by expert, professional troops during the First World War from the comparative safety and stability of a trench line managed 15 aimed shots per minute, max. The effect was to force everyone to adopt trench warfare, because the weight of firepower was rapidly becoming suicidal to anyone in the open. If this impressive firepower is 25% less than that of the almighty longbow, which, it is claimed, pierced all armor, shot out beyond 200 yards, and was deadly accurate, then people who faced it must have been really brainless not to start digging trenches themselves. Oh, but I forget, those opponents were knights, and French, so they were pretty brainless by definition.
So, unless we have conclusive proof that trench warfare was indeed invented in 1415, or that the IQ of the average French noble was around the single digits, I would suggest that either:
1. The longbow's rate of fire under battlefield conditions, firing in timed volleys to maximise overall effect, has been vastly exaggerated.
OR
2. The longbow's ability to hit individual targets and penetrate the armor of the day at long range has been vastly exaggerated.
The happy and comforting idea that longbowmen were few in number and hard to train also doesn't work. 7000 longbowmen at Agincourt accompanied 1000 dismounted knights and men-at-arms. Few in number? Compared to what, knights?
And even if the number of longbowmen declined drastically because the REAL MEN were replaced by wusses who 'cheated' by using firearms, you would expect to see at least a few specialist, sharpshooter longbow regiments serving alongside the musketeers if the longbow was really the Medieval machinegun it is claimed to be. This didn't happen. I wonder why. Maybe the average IQ of the Englishman post-gunpowder was also in the single digits, to completely abandon such an effective weapon for noisy, inaccurate bangsticks that took 150 seconds to reload?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
http://www.historicalweapons.com/bowandarrow.html
http://www.pomian.demon.co.uk/longbow.htm
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...TheLongbow.htm
That's from a two minute web search.
Yes, 20 is an extreme case. My understanding was that to sign up you had to hit a man sized target with 12 shots in a minute (can't remember the range, don't think it was too far). The reason for the test - longbowmen were paid TWICE the salary of other infantry. Therefore you had to prove you were worth the cash.
That's 12 shots/min MINIMUM. Presumably the better archers could manage more (which is why estimates are 12-20). I've seen this at a re-enactment. Five guys (well 4 guys and 1 girl, with a lighter bow) were timed by the crowd. All but 1 loosed off 12 (they only got 11 and would have been sacked!) and the head guy managed 17! Although NOT all of them hit the target. Now his life wasn't on the line and it was only a hobby, not his livelihood...
However in battlefield conditions you would expect slightly fewer, which seems to be 8 according to the consensus in sites above. 5,000 archers. 8each/min. 40,000 arrows a minute. Hell, who needs to aim....
No I was not disparaging modern hunters, the point was that modern hunting crossbows are NOT designed with absolute maximum possible velocity in mind. There's no need for it. Just like not everyone who uses an assault rifle over a battle round is a wuss; some people just don't NEED the extra power. But with increased draw weight that would require mechanical assistance, higher velocity than 350 could obviously be achieved IF you think about it. I never said supersonic either, I was establishing that the greatest gain in velocity increase when it comes to damage is around 1200 fps, something I DOUBTED any crossbows could do outside some possible impractical lab models. Hence driving for extra velocity in a crossbow is less useful. I just said over 350 is something I know has been broken, but I don't have the reference so I can't say by exactly how much. I want to say 700, but that's probably wrong. Simply put though, hunting crossbows are not the measure by which you can tell the absolute limits of possibility, just like hunting rifles don't tell you that for firearms. They are compromises made for marketability.Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
And 15 shots a minute from a bolt action maximum? Even considering that's 2 reloads on a 5 round gun, and still taking 2-3 seconds a shot, that's a bit slow. And you've obviously never seen anyone decent with an Enfield, with mine I could shake your belief structure introducing you to australian bolt technique. The one that convinced the Turkish with Mausers that the Australian had machineguns (which they didn't). I'm not the best, but even I can make people think I'm tapping off a semi-auto by firing like the ANZAC.
And for the record, machine guns and breechloading artillery forced trench warfare, bolt action rifles were a small part of the adoption of trenches, if they had been the only change it's likely they would have still had field battles.
Also, having a little experience in archery, I have no doubt the best longbowmen could have made 20 a minutes. That wouldn't be precisely aimed shots, but instead bracketed parabolic fire at long range... which is aimed, but not in the way a point target is.
@dopp Regarding the rapid fire longbow shots, 20 per minute is extreme I can see an individual doing it but I doubt you can gather 5000 men and have em do it all at once. But I can see it get close to that number, the reason people don't develop trench warfare back then is a question of lethality.
Arrows shot from longbows at a target 200m away is really meant more to cause panic and injuries rather than outright kill. Wounded soldiers are as good as dead anyway. Imagine 5000 men firing arrows at say a 5 second interval. That's a lot of arrows, some will hit unprotected areas. You got an arrow stuck through your wrist or your foot and you won't be able to fight as well. By the time the two sides engage in melee the side with arrows stuck in them will be easily defeated.
All the tests I've seen of longbows vs armor were conducted at very close ranges(20m), granted these are only 80lbs bows. But even doubling the poundage won't help to increase that lethal distance 10 fold.
Also keep in mind longbowmen don't really "aim" the way riflemen do. Specially when making the longshots. They already know how it feels to make their max distance. So the only delay in the shot really comes from nocking the arrow. Once the arrow is nocked it only takes a second to raise the bow and shoot. Maybe an extra second to synchronize with your buddies. This is very similar to clout shoots nowadays. Clouts are shot at a distance of about 185yards. Most participants have to raise their bows at a 45 degree angle. At that angle you can't really see what you're shooting at.
I'm of course referring to the professional BEF in the First World War. I think they would qualify as pretty decent shots. 12-15 shots per minute with bolt-action carbines, aimed (as opposed to getting the maximum rate of fire on a peaceful practice range), is the official record. And how much faster do you think you could shoot than that, given battlefield conditions? Even at 20 rounds per minute, you have only just equalled the supposed 'average' performance of a longbowman. 30 rounds per minute maybe? 45 rounds per minute?
No, no, the record says something quite different. Machineguns and shrapnel definitely added to the firepower in the Great War, but the move towards static warfare starts in the American Civil War, where both weapons were still in their infancy. The mass adoption of breech-loading and lever-action rifled weapons, still relatively slow-firing, already sees everybody using cover and skirmish tactics already, even digging trenches and barricades to fight behind. The longbow fires more than twice as fast, is just as lethal and nobody thinks to duck? Not likely. Machineguns were rated at around the firepower of 40 riflemen. You would get only a few machineguns in a battalion of 800 riflemen. What are all those riflemen doing, soaking up bullets for the machinegun crew? 800hp Maxim machinegun, sounds like a game of WH40k to me. I think you will find that riflemen were contributing quite a bit more firepower to the storm that was sweeping the WWI battlefield clear than you give them credit for.
Incidentally, the 7,000 or so longbows at Agincourt firing at just half the touted 20 shots per minute would be putting 70,000 arrows into the air in the first minute alone. If you count the French at 25,000, that's 3 arrows per man. They should all have been dead at that point, yet all the accounts of the battle are clear that they reached the English line in such numbers that they couldn't even use their weapons properly due to the press. And that was just the first line, there were two others following it, so it's not likely that all 25,000 French were attacking together. More like 10,000 in the first line, so 7 arrows per man. Not a very impressive display of the longbow's killing prowess against armored men. If they were shooting at 20 rounds per minute, it gets even worse with 140,000 arrows failing to stop around 10,000 men in the first wave. That's 14 arrows per target. The results need explaining. Maybe half the longbowmen all picked the same target and he got like 2,000 arrows in the first volley? And let's not forget the cavalry charge at the beginning of the battle, where around 1,000 mounted knights charged 7,000 longbowmen, made it into contact with the stakes, and then survived long enough to wheel around and retreat. If they were 4 times faster than the infantry, that's still around 34 arrows per man before they charged home.
My points are really simple, actually:
1. If the longbow was truly the 'machinegun of the Medieval age', then we should expect to see the results of so much firepower; ie trench warfare. The historical record suggests otherwise.
2. If the longbow was truly the 'machinegun of the Medieval age', then nothing should have survived their arrow storm in the opening minute alone. The historical record suggests otherwise.
3. If you wish the devs to change the game and use history to support your points, then I will question some of your claims. If you wish the devs to change the game because you want more coolness factor from using your longbows, then present it in those terms. If you want to mod the game to suit your preferences, then I have no quarrel with you at all really.
What's overlooked is that in many crossbow corps only a small portion of the men were involved in firing while the rest reloaded the crossbows. This gave a group of crossbowmen a much better rate of fire.
@ dopp : I think you are confusing yourself between maximum rates of fire and sustained rates of fire. Trained British soldiers could hit around 30 a minute maximum, but ammunition supply and fatigue, etc, generally demands a lower rate. Official reports usually involve numbers useful to a higher level; ie, "We can expect our troops to fire an average of 15 rounds a minute if they move on us, general". Which, for the calculations at that level, is appropriate. But at the trench level, a force might make fire on the enemy at anywhere from a couple shots a minute to 15 under normal circumstances, but a german platoon could expect the British rate of fire to climb to around 30 per minute once they hit close range. Also, in some cases there is confusing between the rate of fire of emptying a magazine, or the rate total including changes. 30 can be done with changes. A great example of the speed achievable in just emptying a magazine was Applegate, he could hit 600 rpm with a double action revolver... that's 0.6 seconds for those keeping score, but naturally at pistol range into human size target with point shooting.
That's also an issue, at what range are we talking about? 30 a minute with normal cycling is not at all unusual with an Enfield, in trained hands, and close enemies so the shooter just goes from target to target without site adjustment. A quite different matter than a longbowman who isn't focusing on individuals but on a formation. In a lot of ways, a longbowman's longer range shooting style is much more comparable to a mortar team than any rifle. There, you basically held your bow at angle, found the right draw length for the range, and the kept drawing arrows against your bow. This did work better from prepped positions, so the longbow arrow quivers could be placed off the shooter and on the ground. 20 is optimal, it means a properly prepared firing position and an enemy conveniently hanging around waiting for you to see how many he can absorb. Most don't do that. I sincerely doubt they were hitting 20 but at particular moments.
Just like a machinegun... many can fire at 600-1200 rpm, but never fire that much in an actual minute; even with a belt feed you need to conserve ammo and avoid barrel wear. The same applies to these cases; the highest rate of fire is only going to be used for brief periods of opportunity or desperation.
(Oh, and, carbines with the BEF in WWI...?)