[merged] Archery: the films have it wrong

[Hriston]

I don't understand. 1e used minute-long rounds. Every single archer from 3e on has had a better rate of fire, even without extra attacks.

The two shots per minute in 1e were just the ones that had a chance of hitting and doing some damage, just like the one melee attack per minute. I don't know about other editions, but unless I'm mistaken, in 5e you don't get twice the number of attacks when using a bow that you do with a sword. In 1e you did.

 

[Rune]

The two shots per minute in 1e were just the ones that had a chance of hitting and doing some damage, just like the one melee attack per minute. I don't know about other editions, but unless I'm mistaken, in 5e you don't get twice the number of attacks when using a bow that you do with a sword. In 1e you did.

Huh. We always played ranged attacks as shot-per-shot. Otherwise, how could you keep track of ammunition spent (or darts/daggers/knives thrown)?

Things kind of break down if you treat ranged combat like melee combat in 1e/2e.

 

[Ryujin]

We can't know what he's shooting at, but it really doesn't matter. Longbows with 110lb draws have been extensively tested against real armor. The basic result of that test is that an average longbow would have penetrated light armor well, but would have been largely stopped by heavier armor. Knowing that and mentally comparing the velocity on his shots to the sort of velocity you'd except from an arrow, it's pretty clear to me that there is no way he's going to penetrate realistic armor at any range to any significant degree. Getting 3/4" penetration on some non-fight quality twisted coat hangers and a thin unhardened leather cloth is pretty much meaningless. It's like kids that think "leather armor" means a kid skin jacket.

I'm not an experienced archer so I can't critique his technique. My knowledge is mostly "I'm a DM so I got to know this stuff", and "I've fired bows and crossbows a few times, and played lots of paintball (where velocities are comparable to archery)." He's at his best when he's saying things like, "Historical archers claimed they could do X, and they probably could." Had he stuck to a more academic discussion of his craft, I'd have nothing but good to say about him. Instead he has this whole crazy shtick. Byron Ferguson has a bit of a shtick too, but Ferguson has been doing this for decades and needs to self-promote because its what he does for a living. So far, this is just some guy on the internet.

Even a longbow arrow with a bodkin point, at significant range, might well get caught in the gambeson after penetrating the chain. There are so many stories from historical battles of chain armoured soldiers fighting on when they had so many arrows in them that they looked like hedgehogs, that they must be credited with at least some truthfulness. And it's not because the arrows found flesh, but because the points were stuck in heavily padded cloth.

The issue may not even be with claims made by the archer, himself, but may well just be overblown by whoever put together this series of videos. I agree that sticking to an academic discussion would have been the far better way to go. The parts that annoy me the greatest are the ones in which claims are made that he 'rediscovered' various 'ancient skills', that have never in fact been lost.

 

[Umbran]

Another perspective on this video:

http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/

 

[Hriston]

Huh. We always played ranged attacks as shot-per-shot. Otherwise, how could you keep track of ammunition spent (or darts/daggers/knives thrown)?

Things kind of break down if you treat ranged combat like melee combat in 1e/2e.

Good point. I guess I was just going off the fact that archers get twice the number of attacks.

 

[Ryujin]

Another perspective on this video:

http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/

That is a very complete and effective debunking of the video.

 

[Celebrim]

I won't be impressed until he runs up an elephant and kills it singlehandedly.

Howard Hill did exactly that, killing an elephant with a 175lb draw longbow.

 

[Celebrim]

That is a very complete and effective debunking of the video.

I found it a bit overly harsh in some areas (which is funny coming from me), but where the author debunks Lars's bad history and poor understanding of archery, I'm in full agreement with it.

 

[MarkB]

Coincidentally, I was catching up on my 80s nostalgia by watching some episodes of Mysterious Cities of Gold earlier today, and they featured South American natives firing arrows nocked on the right-hand side of the bow, and holding spare arrows in their bow hand. So, even kids' TV shows from 1982 managed to portray these 'lost' techniques.

 

[Ryujin]

I found it a bit overly harsh in some areas (which is funny coming from me), but where the author debunks Lars's bad history and poor understanding of archery, I'm in full agreement with it.

The more bombastic and unsupportable the claims, the less issue I have with harsh criticism

One simple point in the video, that annoyed me, was the comment about multiple moves being needed if you lay the arrow to the right of the bow. He takes the time to go around the outside of the string, change grip, then nock the arrow. I run the arrow between the string and the bow, then nock. Simple conservation of motion.