Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

Thought I would have some fun with this one. . .

 

Weather is exactly the same and the British can form the same defensive line. The British numbers are unchanged as well. They have all the same problems that they did historically such as being ill, lack of supplies, and low moral.

 

The kicker is that their enemy is ~6000 Mongols archers including about ~1200 mounted archers.

 

Mongol general instead of French leaderships as well.

 

Who wins?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My money is on the Brits. Longbows had the range advantage and similar rate of fire. If they could take out plate armor at 20 to 30 yards, I can't see the Mongol cavalry force being of much use unless the Brits failed to react to encirclement. Did you have a particular Mongolian edge in mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd bet on the Mongols, as they wouldn't bother attacking for the sake of honour, but would keep the English contained and attrit with small attacks when the English have to move from their defensive position.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, a longbow was not as great against plate as has been claimed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My money is on the Brits. Longbows had the range advantage and similar rate of fire. If they could take out plate armor at 20 to 30 yards, I can't see the Mongol cavalry force being of much use unless the Brits failed to react to encirclement. Did you have a particular Mongolian edge in mind?

 

Interesting that this is actually not the case. According to what I have read, effective combat ranges of the Mongol Bow are in the 350 yard range compared to 250 yards for the long bow (For comparison persons I tend to consider them actually to have about the same range) and have similar draw (100 to 160 lbs I found for the Mongol bow)

 

From reading, it sounds like the French were really disorganized as far as the attack and that is something I doubt that the Mongols will be. I think moral will actually be the key to this battle with the English likely breaking with it not sounding like they are used to dealing with return arrow storms.

 

Edit: I have an Osprey Book on PDF about Agincourt and it sounds like Henry V was extremely concerned about the moral of his troops.

Edited by DesertFox
Link to post
Share on other sites

Their recurves were effective at 200 - 225 yds from what I recall, but they could shoot 350 - 400 to scare people. They also had a wide variety of warheads. The longbow was effective in its heyday at 250, and could also do like 400 max. I think the kinetic edge at lesser ranges - bodkins especially - would've been an English advantage. Again, depends on who you read.

 

Incoming accurate missiles may have leveled the playing field and spooked a weary army. The French were more a mob than disciplined, and had little command control. If they had coordinated, it might've been less of a rout.

 

If Medieval Warfare wasn't so biased against European soldiery, I'd say give it a whorl! Casualties would be gruesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some many factors which I don't think the software likely would take care of anyway. One problem I read in the Osprey book on Agincourt is that many of the Longbowmen had dysentery and were only wearing loincloths "down below" so the legs will be completely vulnerable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I would have some fun with this one. . .

 

Weather is exactly the same and the British can form the same defensive line. The British numbers are unchanged as well. They have all the same problems that they did historically such as being ill, lack of supplies, and low moral.

 

The kicker is that their enemy is ~6000 Mongols archers including about ~1200 mounted archers.

 

Mongol general instead of French leaderships as well.

 

Uh...all Mongol archers were mounted archers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming all else is the same, e.g. that the Mongols know what the French knew, I doubt the Mongols would have attacked.

 

The English have slightly greater numbers than the Mongols (see Ann Curry's analysis of the English army records, in which she tots up the number of men recruited & being paid, losses, & replacements), including at least as many archers, & are in a good defensive position. Very risky to attack. But they're cold, wet & hungry, in hostile territory, a couple of days march from Calais & safety, even without the Mongols being in the way. Let 'em sit & get colder, wetter & hungrier. They'll have to move or starve eventually. Then the Mongols can harry them, force them to keep stopping & forming up to repel attacks which don't come, stop 'em foraging, try to force them to march a long way round to Calais, until chilly autumn weather & hunger weaken 'em enough to be easy to take.

 

The Mongols might have gone for the baggage train.

 

There are some many factors which I don't think the software likely would take care of anyway. One problem I read in the Osprey book on Agincourt is that many of the Longbowmen had dysentery and were only wearing loincloths "down below" so the legs will be completely vulnerable.

Archers wouldn't have had leg armour anyway.

Edited by swerve
Link to post
Share on other sites

So? It makes no difference to what I said.

 

The Mongols could sting 'em with arrows while they were marching forward & unable to respond effectively, harass them while they were establishing their new position, then withdraw out of bowshot. Repeat as required.

 

Dammit, the French could have slaughtered the English army, with better leadership. All they had to do was refuse battle in that narrow, muddy (recently ploughed, with very heavy soil, after heavy rain - a quagmire) field, & force the English to resume their march. Or stay there (withdrawing to keep out of bowshot if needed), & send a good sized force to seize the English baggage train.

Edited by swerve
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd bet on the Mongols, as they wouldn't bother attacking for the sake of honour, but would keep the English contained and attrit with small attacks when the English have to move from their defensive position.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, a longbow was not as great against plate as has been claimed.

 

 

Here's a bit of qualitative testing of armor and arrow types using NIJ standards to estimate wounding and fatality rates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aevans

I more or less agree with you on leadership. The problem is that you have knights and they seemed bound and determined to fight for "honour"

 

Looked at that way, the English did the French a service at Agincourt by killing off many of the more hot-headed ones. The French subsequently adopted a more Fabian strategy and eventually won the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How effective do you think that the Mongol armor would be at long range?

I think it is fairly obvious that at close range it would be fairly vulnerable but I think that would be a situation effecting both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aevans

How effective do you think that the Mongol armor would be at long range?

I think it is fairly obvious that at close range it would be fairly vulnerable but I think that would be a situation effecting both sides.

 

At long range the armor on the man isn't the issue. You're trying to scare and hurt the horses, causing them to go out of control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At long range the armor on the man isn't the issue. You're trying to scare and hurt the horses, causing them to go out of control.

 

Sounds like your thoughts are that it should give at least reasonable protection then. Obviously, a man in no armor is in trouble if a horse is.

Edited by DesertFox
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aevans

Sounds like your thoughts are that it should give at least reasonable protection then. Obviously, a man in new armor is in trouble if a horse is.

 

What does the relative age of the armor have to do with it? Any armor puts one in better shape than an unarmored horse. And even an unarmored man can use a shield to at least partially protect himself against missiles he can see coming at him. A horse can't. Also, a man has reason, or at least fear of the consequences of showing cowardice, to help him maintain discipline. All a horse knows is that pointy things are falling out of the sky, and he wants to get away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 years later...

Longbow, hard and soft arrowheads. Jupon would do a great service to the neighbouring knights.

 

 

 

Longbow
160lbs (73Kg) mountain yew English Longbow based on those found on The Mary Rose (sank 1545). Bow was shooting 80g (2.8oz) arrows at 55ms (180fps) at 10m, giving 123J and 52ms (170fps) 109J at 25m

Distance 10m 25m
11yds 27yds

Speed 55ms 52ms
181fps 170fps

Energy 123J 109J
91ftlbs 80ftlbs

Arrows
The first arrow type we used was MR80A764/158. The diameter at the shoulder was 12.7mm (1/2”) tapering to a nock of 8.5mm. Total length was 30.5”

The second arrow type was MR82A1892/9. The diameter at the shoulder was 12.9mm (1/2”) and the nock was 7.5mm. Same total length.

The shafts were black poplar (Populus Nigra) and ash (Fraxinus Excelsior).
Fletchings were swan, bound with silk into a beeswax, kidney fat and copper verdigris compound.

Heads were wrought iron, copied from MoL Type 9 7568

Arrows weighed 80g (2.8oz)

Breastplate
Based on the Churburg 14 piece. The reproduction is made from 0.5% carbon steel and air cooled and is of variable thickness. The front and centre is 2.5mm (3/32”) thick and it tapers down to 1.5mm (1/16”) at the sides and edges.

Jupon
The paper by Tasha Male on the Jupon can be found here
http://cottesimple.com/wp/wp-content/...

 

 

Dr Tobias Capwell - Arms and Armour Curator, The Wallace Collection
Joe Gibbs - Archer and bowyer
Will Sherman - Fletcher – http://www.medievalarrows.co.uk
Kevin Legg - Armourer - http://www.plessisarmouries.co.uk
Chrissi Carnie - Fabric armour – http://www.thesempster.co.uk
Tod Todeschini - Host - http://www.todsworkshop.com
http://www.todcutler.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, but its an effect in isolation. Imagine being in an arrow storm and being hit by 3 or more of those in close succession. If it doesnt knock you off the horse, its going to scare your horse shitless. And what affect does that have on the French charge? Nothing good.

 

Its also worth remembering, those are static targets. What effect does another 30mph of the armour approaching the firer going to have? Is it going to be just enough to create a breakthrough of the armour? Im surprised nobody has ever tried testing this.

 

 

What I would like to do, is take a company of infantry, train them up to use Longbows, and try and get them to create an arrowstorm. If you measured that, I think the effects would be surprising, less in the effect on armour, than in the effect on morale and the effect on the animals. Difficult to measure, but I think a few video camera's down range is going to give at least an impression of what the French saw and felt.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, but its an effect in isolation. Imagine being in an arrow storm and being hit by 3 or more of those in close succession. If it doesnt knock you off the horse, its going to scare your horse shitless. And what affect does that have on the French charge? Nothing good.

 

Its also worth remembering, those are static targets. What effect does another 30mph of the armour approaching the firer going to have? Is it going to be just enough to create a breakthrough of the armour? Im surprised nobody has ever tried testing this.

 

 

What I would like to do, is take a company of infantry, train them up to use Longbows, and try and get them to create an arrowstorm. If you measured that, I think the effects would be surprising, less in the effect on armour, than in the effect on morale and the effect on the animals. Difficult to measure, but I think a few video camera's down range is going to give at least an impression of what the French saw and felt.

 

 

Training a company of infantry to use longbows at the same efficiency as English Agincourt archers would take years. You would be better off borrowing the forward packs of every national team at the Rugby World Cup and using them (They may at least have the basic strength for a few salvos of arrows). Accuracy would not matter and only a small number of volleys would be needed.

 

Have them fire on a track mounted armoured target, say 20 meters wide, traveling at that 30mph / 50kph, up to say from 200m to 30 metres from the aforesaid Rugby forwards, then have each Rugby forward attack the target with sharpened digging picks and see in what condition the target is after 5 minutes.

 

Cameras could be mounted on the moving target. They probably would not survive but may give at least a useful feed until destroyed. You may even be able to get a 'tough' camera manufacturer to sponsor the exercise.

 

Of course you would have to stop the All Blacks from doing the haka because that would just let the target get closer.

Edited by DougRichards
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, the All Blacks is an unfair test, it would just bounce off their bicep's.

 

You misunderstand: have the All Blacks as part of the mob loosing the arrows at the target.

 

You could of course mix it up with the fast bowlers of the test playing national cricket teams bowling bouncers at the target at a range of 20 metres. Even a helmet would not stop concussion from a face on hit from a cricket ball at 150k/hr, deafness from the clang would at least be assured. You could then get fully padded up batsmen take to the target with cricket bats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With or without sandpaper?

 

Ok, that was mean. Feel free to use me as the longbow target. :)

 

Perfectly valid criticism of unsportsmanlike conduct, your comment was not mean. The action was unnecessary and vile.

 

However punishment has been delivered and examples made, so we can all get on with life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Doug. If its worth anything they seem to play a lot better when they dont resort to such methods, they are running the England team ragged last I heard.

 

As for Longbows, I recommend anyone interested in the subject getting the late Thomas Hardy's book on the subject. He wasnt just a great actor, he really pushed the boat out as a historian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...