Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 174

Thread: Archery

  1. #106

    another


  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    993
    The Battle of Agincourt was more than just the uses of archery. You have command and control, manuever, ability to sense the dynamics of the battlespace and change according to that 'strategy"etc as opposed to just the use of one weapon as the contributing factor in an outcome.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    Also, if you look at the old prints. Most of the bowmen were not holding 6foot bows. Now I know that is potentially historically inaccurate. They are also very close combat. Again, I can only suggest you grab 2 guys. One capable of these monster pulls. One with a 50-60 pound bow. Lets see who can sink more arrows into armour up close in one minutes. There are certain distances for each bow where penetration is effective. Kill shots. Both tend to be closer than people understand. A 6 foot bow to close is just the wrong weapon and a lighter bow with heavy arrows will penetrate with more than enough top do the job at a higher rate of fire.
    The issue is that on the battlefield, archers were NOT typically deployed as "machine guns" but, as I point out above, "artillery".
    Up close for archery on the battlefield meant time to drop the bow and grab the sword.
    Higher rate of fire was not THAT important on the battlefield where you had multiple archers.
    Mongols did the same thing, a group would ride in, shot a salvo of arrows and ride out while the next group did the same thing after them.
    Rate of fire was important for the whole unit not for the individual but even more important was coordinated fire.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  4. #109
    Yes, I understand this. That heavy bow had a very specific purpose. It was not the deciding weapon for almost all the battles over 115 years or whatever that conflict happened. Early success but once the French got schooled they fixed that problem. I personally believe the Pikeman who also kept those longbow man ALIVE were the most effective overall soldier/tactic.

    It certainly was not a pick your target and hit it bow. Hence, why I say that bow and tactic was not all that great. It expended huge amounts of cash . Think how many arrows missed before one worked. It got to the point the longbowman almost did nothing on the battlefields. Yet basically 2 **** battles and this myth sprung up about the superweapon/soldier. Not including Scotland prior. It was a great tactic for a short period of time. After which it was more ancillary in use if used. Yet they must be feed and all that. It had become a logistical/financial nightmare.

    It was not a superior weapon/tactic for very long. Yet, the legend supermen and great bows live on. When Id put my money on a short bowmen or short long bow man being the greater archers. These guys could shoot fast and accurately. They hit what they pointed at **** near always. Far more efficient and cost effective.

    Longbow vs shortbow -short bow wins out in my opinion.

    Now I am all for being wrong. I would rather have the truth. Would it be possible to have hundreds if not thousands of men capable of using such a heavy , draw?

    Professional soldiers, Id say okay you will get some like on the MaryRose. Most bowmen were common folk.

    But those 2 vids do offer the possibility then that provided one has the technique he could be brought up to those weights in well under a lifetime. As it is doubtful either men spent from 6 on using heavy bows gradually increasing over a 20 year period or whatever. Which a profession soldier may be able to do. Would a few months of condensed training bring a average guy who could handle say 50/60lbs into the 100+. Could we do it today? Lets assume England was not full of genetic freaks but maybe they were?

  5. #110
    The arrows weight does not really matter. If you shoot for distance lighter arrows will travel faster and thus ****her before they hit the ground. Momentum is what matters for fighting. That one is determined by the energy that you put into the bow alone. A small composite bow can store the same amount of energy as a big wooden bow, btw.

    The only thing modern materials can do to improve the efficiency of a bow is to reduce friction by reducing moving parts, but ancient composite bows were already highly optimized. I guess the main difference is price and durability.

  6. #111
    The light arrows will slow to much and have no real force behind them at distance. I am weary they would have enough weight to penetrate up close either. Against plate.

    Anyway, the debate goes round and round. Some believe some do not.

    I still do not believe we could train thousand men to all pull the same weight. Those MaryRose Pros were BIG MEN. Over 6 feet tall. The average height back then was 5'6- 5-8. Could there have been thousands of 6 feet tall people back then? But then again, I always believed that lifetime to be able to use was crap too. Who thought that up? First time doing battle and your disregard all previous ideas to train men as fast as possible? Which leads me to have to believe, there had to be great variance in actual longbow weights.

    Look how hard it must have been to get people to even use their bows. They had to make a law to practice every Sunday. Why? Because for regular people, their life did not revolve around using a bow. They worked fields. Or built whatever. That was life. Not living like Robin Hood and his merry band of crooks depending on ones point of view. I have problems believing one day a week of half hearted play is going to create super strong archers. Especially when we compare it to todays hunters. Guys that probably practice as much as possible. Yet almost none use super bows to hunt with. Im sure they would love to have 100lb killers out there but they cant use them overall.

    Heck, you could not even hunt for a time. What's the point in using the **** thing then? Burn it, Im cold ! Edit- Sorry I had to add: Son, get the warbow out, we need to getsome quail, LOL. Grab the heavy arrows, I want to gut this thing mid air so we have more time practice.

    Legend just does not add up when you consider all the other facts of life and believed statistics.
    Last edited by boxerbilly; 02-22-2016 at 01:29 PM.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Midgard
    Posts
    10,853
    Exhumed bodies of former English Longbow men showed distinct irregularities in each individuals skeletal structure due to the conditioning the training created. Only men who grew up through developmental stages while training the traditional Longview could effectively use them to their full potential. This is why the English pulled from every village when the French were smashing them repeatedly, then with this new fource the English were able to cut down heavy cavalry and knights (the French power houses on the field) by punching though full plate armor . The English tried to crate ranks of longbow men from enlisted but realized only those men trained since adolescence could effectively shoot the boss with accuracy full power and for hours at a time.

    Heavy bows are a specialized skill you don't generally pick up as an adult, but rather grow into.
    Last edited by Lucas; 02-24-2016 at 07:47 AM.
    For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Midgard
    Posts
    10,853
    Sorry all my typos I'm on a phone and I suck at texting
    For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.

  9. #114
    major problems faced by enemies of mongols were their arrows could not bring them down. mongol cavalry were reported to fight normally while being covered in 50+ arrows. the same problem was problem was faced by jin archer conscripts who could not penetrate the 4 inch thick tower shields of general yue feis army, and likewise chinese archers who could not penetrate double lamenar armor of jin iron tower cataphract and hammer cavalry. this was what pushed for the development of firearms
    Last edited by bawang; 02-24-2016 at 08:46 AM.

    25th generation inner door disciple of Chen Style Practical Wombat Method
    Officially certified by Ethiopian Orthodox patriarch Abune Mathias
    grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat™®LLC Practical Wombat Method. international academy retreat

  10. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by bawang View Post
    in ancient battlefields the longest range archers win. they will always be out of range of enemy archer. archers are light skirmishers and archers first engage other archers. they will also use focus fire, where multiple units of archers shoot at one unit.

    small cavalry groups can also enter the gaps between formations with a thin column called centipede or dragon formation and snipe the general. this is how japanese lost many of their samurai officers when ming army brought their elite cavalry units from liaodong

    major problems faced by enemies of mongols were their arrows could not bring them down. mongol cavalry were reported to fight normally while being covered in 50+ arrows. the same problem was problem was faced by jin archer conscripts who could not penetrate the 4 inch thick tower shields of general yue feis army, and likewise chinese archers who could not penetrate double lamenar armor of jin iron tower cataphract and hammer cavalry
    Bawang, please tell us more about Mongol battlefield tactics.

  11. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    Exactly. They are called WarBows for a reason. They were not used any where else ! There would not be a Englishman alive then tamping through the woods with sucha monster. 6feet plus.
    thats why only someone using a warbow skillfully deserves to be on tv. this is the whole point of why that norwegian guy is a pathetic failure. he is like one of those nerds on youtube always talking about european sword fighting pretending to be expert, because european martial arts is dead and there is no one to put them in their place.

    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    Bawang, please tell us more about Mongol battlefield tactics.
    i only know about chinese tactics

    25th generation inner door disciple of Chen Style Practical Wombat Method
    Officially certified by Ethiopian Orthodox patriarch Abune Mathias
    grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat™®LLC Practical Wombat Method. international academy retreat

  12. #117
    I disagree concerning Lars. He started late and is sort of old. I have no doubts we had fast, lighter bowmen on the battlefield. Horse Archers. When the horse goes down, now they are foot archers already closed.

    European Martial arts are not dead, they evolved like probably every country more or less. US Marines were still using swords in the late 1800s. European offshoots. Other countries the same. I guess you have issue with people trying to replicate how they believe a weapon was used. Fairly similar from country to country Id wager. So, how hard could it be to figure out usage if there is some country with a group of guys still training in some archaic weapon technique ? Clever people draw from all sources available to find answers.

    I think to discount Lar's ideas is wrong. In my opinion, The English heavypull longbow was not the ultimate battlefield weapon. It was an intrical part and the decisive weapon a couple of battles. I would rather have faster mobile bowman and let the pikeman worry about the Knights. Which I am sure later was a tactic used.

  13. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    I guess
    if
    I think
    I would
    can u go to a krate or samurai fetish forum for that kind of sh1t, for circlejerks where you refute historical fact with opinions

    25th generation inner door disciple of Chen Style Practical Wombat Method
    Officially certified by Ethiopian Orthodox patriarch Abune Mathias
    grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat™®LLC Practical Wombat Method. international academy retreat

  14. #119
    Oh we are going to use Historical Facts , because they are always correct and truthful to debate this. Okay. Then, the longbow was simply an impossible weapon to bring into combat for the simple matter that it took a lifetime to be able to use. That's your HISTORICAL FACT !

    Go ahead and circle jerk that around your crew, dude !

  15. #120
    It was also HISTORICAL FACT that is was NOT the BEST weapon on the battlefield. I guess you failed to read where I mentioned it was only really great in a couple of battles. It was rather quickly defeated as a battlefield tactic. At which point it was ancillary in use. Oh the English still spent a TON to have large hordes of useless bowmen showup. They chose to stick with a weapon of early success even though that success continued to dwindle. In the end, WRONG CHOICE !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •