Missile Weapons

[Carl]

Thats actually been proved false by historical quotes from the era. they could do that in practise on a training feild. But in battle it was typicly double that due to terrain, enemy movment, and the need to conserve energy and ammunittion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thats actually been proved false by historical quotes from the era. they could do that in practise on a training feild. But in battle it was typicly double that due to terrain, enemy movment, and the need to conserve energy and ammunittion.

Guessing by the timing of the above two posts, that statement was about the Longbowmen I suppose?

[Carl]

Yes, sorry.

[dopp]

Would you happen to know which quotes in particular? My source gives 10 volleys per minute, which is still much faster than any other missile weapon until the introduction of the bolt-action rifle (12-15 aimed shots per minute). Except maybe the repeating crossbow (10-15 unaimed shots per minute), a weapon much inferior in both range and power to the longbow.

[Lord_hazard]

A Welsh or English military archer during the 14th and 15th Century was expected to shoot at least ten 'aimed shots' per minute. An experienced military longbowman was expected to shoot twenty aimed shots per minute. A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle, which would last the archer from three to six minutes, at full rate of fire.

[dopp]

Erm, actual sources please. One aimed volley every 3 seconds defies belief, I'm afraid. The poor fellow who shouts the order to draw and loose strings; I can only imagine the agony he must go through. Especially since it is claimed that the individual archers also aimed at their targets. At 300 yards, no less. Moving targets on horseback too. You can't achieve those results with modern weapons, but you can with the English yeoman and his longbow, who is obviously the supreme example of the fighting soldier. Ever. And they were REAL MEN back then, not the weedy excuses for soldiers we get today.

I fail to see the difference between a military 'archer' and a military 'longbowman'. 24 arrows seems to have been the normal arrow supply, especially considering that they stuck them in the ground at their feet. Imagine sticking 72 arrows in the ground... the first hour of the battle must be spent arranging them nicely in a spiral pattern, I guess. Carrying them around must have been an even greater burden. Reloads from wagons in the rear would make sense, but only during infrequent pauses in the action.

I'm sorry, but those statistics really defy probability unless some further evidence can be produced. If the longbowmen were really that good, then I also want my Norman knights to breach huge stone walls on the charge, because that's what Anna said they could do, and she would know, having seen them in action.

[Lord_hazard]

The english longbowmen did not fire aimed shots an individual targets 300 meters away, they fired aimed shots into an area. And there wasnt a head archer who said ready, aim, fire all of the time, these men have been training their butts of since childhood and they were able to fire in unison without someone barking orders. They DID have 60-70 arrows, but not all at the same time, there were some boys who would run around a give them more when needed. The longbow was the machinegun of its time, BUT it simply wasnt cost effective enough compared to the crossbow and gunpowder, which is prob why only the english used them in any large scale as the other countries didnt want to invest in the massive training these men needed to be able to fire the longbow as they did.
There is one thing that bothers me in the game, only sherwood archers have longbows made out of yew...almost every single english longbow was of yew.
All the english longbowmen should have bows made out of yew, but they should have as high a missile dmg as the sherwood archer has, which is just way too powerfull.