When archers used to be present in the field of battle, did they really aim for targets among the enemy ranks? Or just got the range right and just let the arrows fall upon the enemy's blob of men?
Seems nigh impossible to achieve long range accuracy with these fucking things.
Other urls found in this thread:
Both.
I mean, shit, Archers were often posted for skirmishing duties and they first met the enemy before the rest of the army did. This meant that they fought small battles versus looser formations.
No, they wouldn't aim for individual targets. Massed archers were used as artillery, blanketing a whole area of the battlefield. Careful aiming would take too long, and it's nearly impossible to hit a specific moving target at long range anyway.
Well, hunters did not just got the range right, but aimed for accuracy to, least they spook the quarry. But difference is they are really close to their target and had all the time in the world.
Pic unrelated,
>and had all the time in the world.
at least it's clear that you haven't been on a hunt even once in your life
Yeah bro, that deer is totally a man with his own bow shooting back at you/a formation of armored assholes eager to mow you and your buds down.
That's what I meant.
I imagine it would be like musketry, they aimed at a general body of men.
deer were usually hunted with spear. main bow-game was birds and hares and with them the situation lasts literally less than a second.
>Seems nigh impossible to achieve long range accuracy with these fucking things.
You should learn to fucking use a bow in m&b.
I can hit a cavalry man across the battlefield in multiplayer.
If they got close they might try it, when they are further away they wouldn't.
Range. A 20-yard target for MODERN bows (not compound) is larger than a fat mans torso.
Modern bows are more accurate, and more consistent, than older bows. Same for the arrows.
You're not achieving precise shots outside of 20 meters, and at that range, you get run the fuck over by everyone who doesn't die to the arrows.
>archery shitter
>telling someone to git gud
it's almost harvesting season
Well modern long and recurve bows for target shooting and hunting have super low poundage. Poundage is the amount of force it takes to fully pull the bow back.
Modern bows have like 15-50 pound draw weights, 60-80 is for hunting. Actual warbows could be up to like 140 pounds. They shot much thicker arrows too, so they didnt flop around in the air too much.
That made them shoot really far, and they stayed pretty accurate. At the same time, a lot of the archers of medieval and ancient times spent their whole lives training and practicing. I'm sure the level of accuracy that some of them had over a long distance would be pretty outstanding.
>60-80 is for hunting.
40-50 is strong enough for anything smaller than a reindeer
Please stop. You don't understand what you're talking about, and it's obvious.
>Poundage is the amount of force it takes to fully pull the bow back.
And it isn't what goes into the arrow. Bows are inefficient by nature, and modern bows are MUCH more efficient than older designs- and by "modern" I mean "too young to drink." There have been considerable gains in efficiency just in the last few decades.
>They shot much thicker arrows too, so they didnt flop around in the air too much.
If you actually knew shit about archery, you'd know that arrow thickness is determined by poundage, and that a stiffer spine does not universally improve performance. You'd also understand that these arrows were, by nature, less consistent than modern arrows, with all the issues that entails.
>i'm sure
That's nice. Meanwhile, we have a multi-millennia stretch with only a HANDFUL of truly impressive archers named. Impressive shots get mention in virtually every history, but not the archer, because they were not making those shots consistently.
>a lot of the archers of medieval and ancient times spent their whole lives training and practicing.
No they didn't. Not anymore than a dedicated hobbyist does now.
English longbowmen were trained to hit ranges, not targets, so one would imagine that's what they did on the battlefield too.
>You're not achieving precise shots outside of 20 meters
my step father can achieve a two inch group at 30 yds with a 70 lbs compound so I am inclined to doubt your expert opinion.
>40-50 is strong enough for anything smaller than a reindeer
If you're trying to take whitetail with a 40 lbs draw you need to have your head examined.
That's inhumane.
>No they didn't.
English had to train every sunday.
Jesus fuck, he specified (not compound) and the first thing you say is how it's easy to use one of those modern traps full of stabilizers, counterweights, and shit?
Srlsy m80, he said not compound and the first thing you bring upp is a compound bow
I'm not disputing that compounds are easier than recurve or straight bows cause they are, but to say that you can't achieve even limited precision outside a measly 21 yds is simply false.
it's more about arrow anyway. a good big cutter flies straight through it.
srsly tho I've made my own fucking survival bows before and can achieve basic target consistency at ranges over 21 yds.
hope you don't glance off the shoulder blade or use superlite shafts man.
That "training" consisted of shooting at range markers in a field after church.
Area fire. Not related to precision shots at any range. I shot as much when I was a child.
That's nice. And if you ask him, I have little doubt that he'll tell you that shooting a non-compound bow is an entirely different skillset.
Compound shooters have it easy. They know this. I know this. The guys running archery shops know this. Everyone but you knows this.
Find a hunter who will take shots on a living target outside of 20 yards.
>basic target consistency
Post your targets so I can point out why you're a retard.
hunting is not warfare.
you are autistic.
Correct. Hunting requires precise shots.
Warfare did not.
I think it is similar to air forces carpet bombing during ww2, they bombed whole cities in the hopes of hitting one factory. Likewise, I think groups of archers would have aimed in a general direction of some peacock and would have hit him or the men around him. Either way, a win for the archers.
Are boars bigger than reindeers where you live? Because 40-50 is pretty damn low for those assholes.
It depends on the range the fighting takes place.
It stands to reason that at the range battlefield skirmishes took place in a man could conceivably aim for a specific individual within a loose formation.
>That "training" consisted of shooting at range markers in a field after church.
Yes, the sort of training you'll need in war. They didn't use precision shots, they used massed volleys.
your probably right in that, there aren't any boars here so didn't count them at all
>there aren't any boars here
What luck to be a farmer over there.
Here we've got to slaughter them year round, they breed like fucking rabbits.
Hell nevermind farmers, they get into my fucking backyard all the time too.
Nice find. I want to add that typically a group of archers would all aim at the same angle. You wouldnt really need to be great at archery, or pick your target, or get headshots or bs. You would simply aim at the same angle as the guy next to you. The battalion leader would get orders to aim for a certain area or enemy battle group, and he would pick the angle of trajectory whilst everyone else copies.
Haha dude come on.
Yes, more force in the bow means more force in the arrow. Thats how physics works you moron.
Modern bows are no more efficient, unless you're talking about compound bows. The only difference is the fact that a compound bow has a pulley system that makes it easier to hold, and puts more force in the arrow.
A stiffer spine means that the arrow doesnt curve around the bow as much and flies straighter in the air. That means its more accurate. Just because there was slight inconsistency in production, doesnt mean that much of a differencw you goof.
Bows arent a "warrior" weapon. Thats pretty culturally understood. Swords and spears are seen as more of a soldiers weapon because you actually have to fight someone with it. They werent mentioned because they were usually a low status weapon.
You say that they didnt train much, what makes you say that? It depends on the fucking culture. Some native american cultures (aztecs, maya, totonac) were renowned as archers and could even shoot multiple at once. I use that as an example because I study them. Other cultures did it too.
You speak with such determination, but you obviously didnt think about any of this before you posted it you fucking silly sausage.
Holy shit, an actual summerfag.
>Modern bows are no more efficient,
Modern bows are often made with composite materials that allow greater efficiency.
There's a REASON that a "cheap" bow at an archery shop is literally five fucking times the cost of a bow of the same poundage at dicks or cabellas.
>A stiffer spine means that the arrow doesnt curve around the bow as much and flies straighter in the air. That means its more accurate
OVER SPINED ARROWS ARE A THING YOU FUCKING FAGGOT.
>Just because there was slight inconsistency in production, doesnt mean that much of a differencw you goof.
>hand produced with hand made scales, mediocre systems of measurment, all organic materials
>compared to modern, factor produced arrows
The difference is more than slight.
>shoot multiple at once
Fuck off lars.
Alright thats fair, I stand corrected in terms of modern bows.
Overspined arrows are a thing, but that doesnt change the fact that warbow arrows were thicker and heavier than reproduction hunting arrows and modern arrows. You cant shoot a modern arrow and say that whatever results you get are the same thing as a with war arrow.
Craftsmen literally spent their entire lives (sort of like a lot of archers) learning how to do one thing: make shit. They would have pretty good consistency and the difference, in a lot of cases, would be slight.
Lars can fuck off, but that doesnt change the fact that some cultures were well known for their skills in archery.
You're talking about this as though every culture and civilization that used archers followed the same rules, and thats not true.
youtube.com
Why were the Japanese such great film-makers?