HYW - Longbows, etc.?

[Cubster]

But returning to the theme - yes I've played plenty of WoTR games with the Perrys and friends - the usual infantry units are households - or something like a herce - with a mix of longbows and billmen. We generally count these as heavy infantry (4+ morale save) with the shooting element integrated into the unit - 3 shots. With the longbowmen we tried various things - but in the end we found it works best with the marksmen rule - i.e. 1 re-roll. That is enough.

We also counted handguns as crossbows but made the enemy take a break test each time a casualty was inflicted as well as on the usual 6 rolls.

With the heaviest cavalry - we went to morale saves of 4+ with 1 re-roll (stubborn) - but might go to 3+ - though I'm a but wary of 3+ rolls as they can skew the game a bit.

Rick

Well I think that for WotR you have the last days of effectiveness for the longbow since armour had reached a stage of near inpenetrability.

[janner]

Well I think that for WotR you have the last days of effectiveness for the longbow since armour had reached a stage of near inpenetrability.

I have not seen penetration cited as a general issue during the fifteenth century, indeed a wishful view for a return to the longbow even appears in seventeenth century sources. The problem seems to be the availability of large number of men who had trained from early adolescence to use the size of bow required to penetrate full plate. The demise of the longbow in UK was arguably a social issue rather than one of military effectiveness.

As an aside, scientific tests on longbow penetration have neglected to consider other effects of arrow impact on the target, such as concussion and blunt trauma.

Regards,

[Cubster]

Well I think that for WotR you have the last days of effectiveness for the longbow since armour had reached a stage of near inpenetrability.

I have not seen penetration cited as a general issue during the fifteenth century, indeed a wishful view for a return to the longbow even appears in seventeenth century sources. The problem seems to be the availability of large number of men who had trained from early adolescence to use the size of bow required to penetrate full plate. The demise of the longbow in UK was arguably a social issue rather than one of military effectiveness.

Well armour began to decrease so the longbow probably would have been more effective in the seventeenth rather than the fifteenth century.

But perhaps another reason for the negation of the effectiveness of the longbow in the WotR was just that both sides had plenty of them and in battles it was common for an extended longbow duel to occur at extreme range between each side's bowmen until they ran out of arrows. You may be right about the demise of the bow as a common sport/skill (I have no idea either way), but they were still about in large numbers in the WotR, so maybe there's a lot of different reasons. Armour was certainly thicker and more effective than 50 years previously, so it's hard to see how that can't be a factor. Was it that the bows were also smaller at that time because the more powerful bows needed more specialised training?

Who knows or dares to dream.

As an aside, scientific tests on longbow penetration have neglected to consider other effects of arrow impact on the target, such as concussion and blunt trauma.
Regards,

Well I did mention that in passing a few posts back. If your armour isn't penetrated it's still possible to be knocked over, get a broken rib, fracture your skull etc.. from the sheer concussive force.

[janner]

Well I did mention that in passing a few posts back. If your armour isn't penetrated it's still possible to be knocked over, get a broken rib, fracture your skull etc.. from the sheer concussive force.

Sorry I missed that one earlier

[Cubster]

Sorry I missed that one earlier

No no, didn't mean to 'nah nah nah nah', just saying like. I love to have the thoughts racing round my head, chasing each other about. Did people stop practising the longbow so much because it was less effective on the battlefield, or was it less effective on the battlefield because people stopped practising so much? Both? Neither?

It's weird how it took centuries for firearms to catch up with the rate of fire, range or accuracy of the longbow, but other considerations gently retired it from warfare while we found other noisier ways of putting big holes in each other.

[BigMike]

I've often thought that too Cubster. i know every book everywhere tell us that one of the principle reasons for the rise of gunpowder technology was it was easier and faster to train a hand gunner than an archer (longbowman or self) but if the old training mechanisms had just been kept up with - no problems!

[janner]

Sorry I missed that one earlier

No no, didn't mean to 'nah nah nah nah', just saying like. I love to have the thoughts racing round my head, chasing each other about. Did people stop practising the longbow so much because it was less effective on the battlefield, or was it less effective on the battlefield because people stopped practising so much? Both? Neither?

It's weird how it took centuries for firearms to catch up with the rate of fire, range or accuracy of the longbow, but other considerations gently retired it from warfare while we found other noisier ways of putting big holes in each other.

sorry, no irony intended. I really meant that I'd missed it.

[grant]

I have not seen penetration cited as a general issue during the fifteenth century, indeed a wishful view for a return to the longbow even appears in seventeenth century sources. The problem seems to be the availability of large number of men who had trained from early adolescence to use the size of bow required to penetrate full plate. The demise of the longbow in UK was arguably a social issue rather than one of military effectiveness.

As an aside, scientific tests on longbow penetration have neglected to consider other effects of arrow impact on the target, such as concussion and blunt trauma.

Regards,

This idea sounds plausible to me. The change in the social atmosphere would make sense. I am sure I saw a show, it was a couple of guys who were reproduction arms experts or some such, and they did look at trauma not just from the hole the arrow would make, but also from the force of the blow. I think something hitting you at those speeds would be freaking scary, even if it didn't puncture.

I used to play goal in hockey, and played against guys in the summer who would be going professional eventually in summer leagues; I have had concussive symptoms from a puck hitting my helmet - ears ringing, disorientation, etc. That's modern, expensive protective gear. A puck to middle of the face, going at 80-100km/h, rattles one, not that I would ever let it show! The record for a puck snapshot is ~160km/h! So I could imagine the damage a sharp, pointed trauma could generate.

[Cubster]

sorry, no irony intended. I really meant that I'd missed it.

Stop that you crazy! I know you just missed it, I wasn't poking at you!

I know what you mean about the injury that could occur without it penetrating too Grant. I remember playing cricket one summer as wicket keeper. I had padded gloves, a face mask, leg pads and one time the bowler took out a bloody great longbow and shot me with it! Damn that smarted.

[grant]

sorry, no irony intended. I really meant that I'd missed it.

Stop that you crazy! I know you just missed it, I wasn't poking at you!

I know what you mean about the injury that could occur without it penetrating too Grant. I remember playing cricket one summer as wicket keeper. I had padded gloves, a face mask, leg pads and one time the bowler took out a bloody great longbow and shot me with it! Damn that smarted.

who knew cricket could be so dangerous!