People say longbows have a longer range because you can shoot an arrow into the sky and it will land 200 m away and muskets weren't effective against point targets at that distance, but that's a double standard; bullets fly much further and are much deadlier than arrows. Musket fire in the 100-200 m range was fairly common against formations, and was in any case much more effective than longbows at any distance.
Archers in the American Revolution
- Thread starter GameBawesome
- Start date
SwampTiger
Banned
I question the "much more effective at any range" statement. Archers in the 16th century are a dying breed. Archers fire shots per minute. Arquebusiers fire minutes per shot. However, you are comparing archers versus arquebusiers without the context of changes in warfare. Without bayonets, arquebusiers were tied to accompanying pikes, as are archers. Armor had increased for infantry. The issue of armor penetration had changed the playing field. Shot penetrated, or deeply dented, armor better than bolts or arrows. In any case, the real issue for any missile troops is determining range to target. Even the muskets of the 19th century had rather curved trajectories.
By 1772, armor had nearly vanished from the battlefield, as had pikes. The relative lack of cavalry in the ARW aids the use of even mediocre archers for light skirmishing, hit and run raids, ambushes and similar small scale warfare. I cannot see an establishment of line infantry archers from the military leaders. However, a regular regiment of archer skirmishers would have been an obstacle for any British force forming up near American lines. Plus, no obscuring smoke.
By 1772, armor had nearly vanished from the battlefield, as had pikes. The relative lack of cavalry in the ARW aids the use of even mediocre archers for light skirmishing, hit and run raids, ambushes and similar small scale warfare. I cannot see an establishment of line infantry archers from the military leaders. However, a regular regiment of archer skirmishers would have been an obstacle for any British force forming up near American lines. Plus, no obscuring smoke.
Riain
Banned
Longbows can conduct area denial, firing arrows into the air so nobody can come within 350 yards (not metres) without risking being hit any an arrow. Some personal arms can do harassing in in 1776, rifles can fire out to a similar distance.
However the longbow can also conduct rapid fire at shorter distances, both as barrage into massed formations and aimed fire at close ranges. The rifle which was good at long range harassment and skirmishing is no good at rapid fire into enemy formations, so the smoothbore musket was used instead.
However, all in all Ben Franklin (who was a smart cookie) was off the mark in this suggestion, the days of the longbow were over by the 1500s, even in the 1400s they were getting rarer.
Yeah, smoothbore muskets can do that too, and much better, since bullets will actually kill at that distance, unlike arrows. I think you're getting the 350 yards number from flight arrows; war arrows were significantly heavier, and as such few men could even make 200. By that distance, they got most of their force from gravity, and so did relatively little damage. This is the exact double standard I was talking about; musket balls do not stop at the distance where point shooting is no longer feasible, and if we applied the same standards to bows and guns alike, the advantage of the latter would be crystal clear. We know longbows were worse at distance than smoothbore muskets because of ample period testimony telling us exactly that.
Not compared to bows; muskets had a much longer 'point blank' range than any bow. Their advantage also wasn't just armor penetration, they also killed people more deader than arrows. The gun's superior range and killing power was what doomed the bow to practical extinction, simple as that.
Ball from heavy musket, if shot at 45 degrees angle, could achieve distance well over one kilometer (I've read about experiments with muskets from armory in Gratz, Austria, where ball from heaviest musket covered distance of 1279 meters).
Also, wound from arrow was not as deadly as that from musket ball. I've read, that studies from Papua about traditional local warfare showed, that only 1 in 100 wounds caused by arrows were lethal (and Papuan warriors were not wearing armor).
Also, wound from arrow was not as deadly as that from musket ball. I've read, that studies from Papua about traditional local warfare showed, that only 1 in 100 wounds caused by arrows were lethal (and Papuan warriors were not wearing armor).
They're a dying breed precisely because the arquebus was more effective.
And the fact that armies ended up adopting the firearm despite this disadvantage says a lot for its effectiveness.
Bows had fallen out of use a century or more before the bayonet first appeared on the battlefield, so whilst in retrospect this is an advantage of the firearm, it clearly wasn't the motivation behind their initial adoption.
Even in areas without heavy armour, like amongst the Native American tribes, people tended to prefer using firearms if they were available.
That was in a large part because of the new Minie ball they used; pre-19th century muskets used round shot with a flatter trajectory.
There was a regiment of Tartar horse archers in the Russian army at Leipzig during the Napoleonic Wars; their French opposites came away with a very low opinion of their effectiveness, since apparently their arrows were unable to penetrate even a woollen coat.
You know your weapon isn't all it's cracked up to be when your enemies nickname you 'cupids' and 'the world's least dangerous troops.'
I don't see how they could have any more utility as a guerrilla weapon than a musket or a rifle. The tribes of the northeast exchanged their bows for muskets whenever possible and they relied heavily on guerrilla tactics. There's basically nothing the bow offers as an advantage besides rate of fire and being easier for the natives to manufacture ammo, which isn't a concern for colonists. A gun can be used from cover more efficiently than a bow, shoots straighter for a longer distance, and there's even the side-benefit of the smoke obscuring your position from which you move after shooting.
I suppose, given that bows don't make any noise or smoke, they could be useful in situation where stealth is more important than killing power. But I think that such situations would be sufficiently rare that you'd be better off spending resources training extra musketeers instead of a specialised unit of archers.
Bows do make noise though. The release of the arrow isn't completely silent, but more to the point the sound the arrow makes as it impacts anything is going to make a lot of noise, especially if it hits a person as the impact will make noise and the victim will likely still be able to scream. Even if the archer tries to aim for the head or the lungs and succeeds, which isn't guaranteed since arrows don't fly perfectly straight and can be sent off course by a slight breeze, anyone within at least a hundred yards or so will hear something. Bows being a decent stealth weapon is one of those Hollywood/video game tropes that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
This. Instant death from arrow is very unlikely and if arrow wound was lethal it was usually due to infection.
See my earlier post as well as the post just above this one. That's not how bows really work. For one, accuracy isn't what movies or video games make it out to be, arrows wobble and bend in-flight even if you're not accounting for wind and while a good archer can hit a man-size target from a decent range, being as precise as hitting an eye from a distance requires luck. But also they're just not quiet. I've had people walking down the street far away come over to ask me what the noise was when I was just shooting my bow at a hay bale. They're not deafening like a gun, but they're noticeable and can be traced. And when you're shooting a bow you don't have a hidden sniper's position, you have to expose your entire body to plain view. The northeastern Indians such as the Iroquois and Huron preferred muskets for ambushes because you could hide behind a log or something, shoot before anyone could see you, and use the smoke to run away or find another position to shoot from.
Kaze
Banned
"I rather have my generals be lucky than good" - Napoleon Bonaparte.
War is a lot of luck and random chance.
Actually, you can fire a bow while prone - it was done in the by an archer from a Trench in World War Two - John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming Churchill. During the 1940 Battle of Dunkirk—in which 300,000 troops became stranded on beaches and had to be evacuated—Churchill was said to have struck down a German soldier with a well-placed arrow while firing while prone (you do not need to expose your whole body to fire a bow - that if only fire if at full-draw, but if you fire at half-draw - you can fire while prone or standing behind a tree / building etc). He was later seen chugging along on a motorcycle with his bow strapped to the side. A German officer’s cap was hanging on the headlight.
--
People often forget about the African campaign during the Great War, during which Lettow-Vorbecks fought with a highly mobile force that remained successful against the allies until the end of the war. His (and the Allied) native forces were issued rifles, some of the porters serving the German native "Askaris" carrying spears and bow & arrow carrying men as well.
Which is exactly why weapons that increase the randomness are a bad idea, especially when the hypothetical mission depends on a certain result. 'War is a lot of random chance' is a poor excuse when you miss the sentry and alert the enemy because you used an obsolete weapon.
I too read cracked.com in 2011. Nobody cares. Incidentally, Churchill's bows had already been destroyed before the alleged incident took place, so it doesn't even have the value of a curiosity.
If the infantry were just standing still exchanging fire with archers the latter might have a chance. But how the infantry actually worked was combine firepower with movement, pushing forward and turning the flank. The archers would have no choice but constantly retreat. Musket infantry can successfully stand against cavalry attack, archers cannot.
All of the native tribes switched to muskets as soon as they were available. Tecumseh’s men fought with British muskets not bows.
Horse archery may still have a role, but good luck training any decent number of men to do that.
All of the native tribes switched to muskets as soon as they were available. Tecumseh’s men fought with British muskets not bows.
Horse archery may still have a role, but good luck training any decent number of men to do that.
It seems to me that all this talk about the physics and martial attributes of various weapons may be less relevant than the undoubtedly severe blow to morale that would befall a colonial or European soldier being furnished with a bow in the late 18th century. Regardless of rate of fire, range, or any of that sort of thing, a bow was not seen as a modern weapon. It was a primitive instrument used only by savages. Bows are not what soldiers use; thus, anyone who is issued one is being told implicitly that they are not a soldier, and that their country either thinks too little of them to equip them like one, or is so impoverished that it is unable to do so. Neither is a very inspiring prospect. Like the British trying to issue pikes to the Home Guard in WW2, this ill-conceived plan is likely to be seen as an insult worse than simply being issued nothing at all.
Or like sending out men without any rifles and telling them to wait for their comrade to get shot and then take his weapon. On paper it's a great idea, because it allows underequipped armies to keep fighting at full efficiency even after taking casualties; in terms of morale, however...