The Great Longbow Debate

[Kzach]

Finding accurate information on effective ranges and accuracy of longbows seems to be hit or miss. Various systems seem to assume various things and inevitably they all seem to be inaccurate on at least one particular aspect or another.

So I'd like to hear from people who (think) they know a bit about longbows. The key questions I'm trying to find answers for are:

1) What's the shortest range at which a longbow can be fired with enough force to kill a person?

2) Just how accurate are they at extreme ranges?

3) What differentiates a longbow from a shortbow (seems obvious but you'd be surprised)?

I'm sure there are other questions people have as well so feel free to chime in if you're curious.

 

[Morrus]

Is there a great longbow debate?

Depends on your goals, I guess. Are you attempting to devise a new game system and to have realistic longbows in it? Are you merely having a historical discussion on the capabilities of such weapons? Are you evaluating longbow rules from different systems?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

1) What's the shortest range at which a longbow can be fired with enough force to kill a person?

The shortest range? That's odd. Um, two inches?

2) Just how accurate are they at extreme ranges?

Depends on what you mean by "extreme." At my best -- over 25 years ago, as a junior state champ -- I could reliably hit a three-foot diameter target at about 70 yards with my friend's replica longbow. By comparison, I could hit the same target with a 40-pound recurve at 80 yards.

3) What differentiates a longbow from a shortbow (seems obvious but you'd be surprised)?

Yeah, I've heard many different metrics. The one that "feels" right to me -- hooray for truthiness! -- is that a longbow can't be shot level while kneeling. I've also heard reference made to whether it can be used on horseback, and of course reference to length (a longbow being three-quarters the height of the archer or more), length cross-referenced with draw length, and on and on.

I don't really know the answer, but in practice, nobody ever seemed to dispute whether a given bow was a longbow or not. You know it when you see it.

 

[Kzach]

Is there a great longbow debate?

Depends on your goals, I guess. Are you attempting to devise a new game system and to have realistic longbows in it? Are you merely having a historical discussion on the capabilities of such weapons? Are you evaluating longbow rules from different systems?

All of the above, really.

I say, 'Great Longbow Debate' because I've seen it happen a few times in threads not about the longbow, that people argue about the merits of it.

After trying to find this information on the net, I found conflicting reports. Some claiming poundages of around 80 and others up to 200. Some claiming longbowmen were effective even at close (literally up to ten feet away) range whilst others claimed longbows were only ever used for 'cloud of arrows' type attacks.

My personal interest is that I'm not very keen on allowing the Greatbow in my games. I'm not even all that keen on the longbow being 1d10. The majority of my gaming was in 2e where the longbow couldn't even be used at close ranges and only ever did 1d8.

So I'm curious to hear what people have to say and what their opinions are of the bow in various systems.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Extreme range could be upwards of 270 yards but such distances were not practical for single shots. At these ranges arrows were fired at masses of troops to be effective. 70-80 yards is about right for single shot accuracy.

Length? The English longbow ranged from about 4 to 6 feet in length with 5 feet or so being typical.

 

[Kzach]

The shortest range? That's odd. Um, two inches?

Again, it comes from my 2e days where you weren't allowed to use a longbow at close range at all.

I've seen arguments for and against that concept. Some say that all the stopping power of the arrow came from gravity. It was the downwards arc where the arrow gained the most velocity. And even then, normally only after having been fired pretty much straight up.

Others claim that the exit velocity from the kinetic energy delivered by the bow itself is more than enough to send an arrow through armour and out the other side at close ranges (think D&D average combat ranges, ie. within 100ft, usually even closer, within 10-20ft).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Some say that all the stopping power of the arrow came from gravity.

This is absolutely wrong. A powerful bow hits as hard as a biggish handgun at close ranges. Velocity at initial release is significantly higher than terminal velocity, and certainly higher than non-terminal velocity (and if you think about it, an arrow that is still arcing is, by definition almost, not at terminal velocity).

Others claim that the exit velocity from the kinetic energy delivered by the bow itself is more than enough to send an arrow through armour and out the other side at close ranges (think D&D average combat ranges, ie. within 100ft, usually even closer, within 10-20ft).

Depending on the armor, and of course the bow, I think this is possible. I've never seen it demonstrated, except by Hawkeye in the Avengers.

"Effective range" in actual battlefield conditions is going to be much different than "effective range" when you're talking about the physics. I was a pretty good archer in my day, but I wouldn't want to have to rely on a longbow in a close-quarters battle (like almost all D&D battles). Too slow, too unwieldy.

 

[Ainamacar]

I've seen arguments for and against that concept. Some say that all the stopping power of the arrow came from gravity. It was the downwards arc where the arrow gained the most velocity. And even then, normally only after having been fired pretty much straight up.

Others claim that the exit velocity from the kinetic energy delivered by the bow itself is more than enough to send an arrow through armour and out the other side at close ranges (think D&D average combat ranges, ie. within 100ft, usually even closer, within 10-20ft).

I don't know anything specific about archery, but the arrow will have its maximum kinetic energy at release unless the arrow falls below the firing height at some point. Barring some sort of helpful wind, after release energy is only converted between kinetic/potential energy or dissipated by air resistance.

 

[Kzach]

I don't know anything specific about archery, but the arrow will have its maximum kinetic energy at release unless the arrow falls below the firing height at some point. Barring some sort of helpful wind, after release energy is only converted between kinetic/potential energy or dissipated by air resistance.

Sorry, I'm probably mixing all the terms up and getting them all wrong.

I don't suppose anyone could fire a longbow at a target from 5, 10, 15, 20-ft. and give us penetration measurements?

 

[El Mahdi]

...After trying to find this information on the net, I found conflicting reports. Some claiming poundages of around 80 and others up to 200. Some claiming longbowmen were effective even at close (literally up to ten feet away) range whilst others claimed longbows were only ever used for 'cloud of arrows' type attacks.

My personal interest is that I'm not very keen on allowing the Greatbow in my games. I'm not even all that keen on the longbow being 1d10. The majority of my gaming was in 2e where the longbow couldn't even be used at close ranges and only ever did 1d8.

So I'm curious to hear what people have to say and what their opinions are of the bow in various systems.

Pulls of 80 lbs. and pulls of 200 lbs. are both correct. All longbows are not created equal. Cheap mass produced longbows, ones made without necessarily using wood that's properly seasoned, or even the right type of wood, would have significantly lower pulls (and therefore less damage upon striking). A carefully and perfectly crafted longbow, one maximizing every possible factor (Masterwork) could have a pull as high as 200 lbs. So both are correct. IMO, the stats of a regular longbow in D&D equate to an average longbow.

As far as damage, I'm okay with 1d10 for an average longbow. Even at extreme range (although not really able to aimed) the longbow could still kill. There is a historical acount (although I don't remember the reference right now) of a longbow passing through the leg of an armored night and into the heart of his horse (killing it outright). That takes a considerable amount of energy for that kind of penetration. But, to put in perspective, even the most powerful bows are significantly less powerful than a firearm. Even the most powerful bow might barely edge into small caliber range (.22 caliber) in the amount of energy expended.

As far as using a bow at close range, I'd say that's highly conditional on the circumstances at the time. To put in perspective, there is such a thing as a kill zone that modern police pay attention to. The idea being that if an attacker armed with a knife is within 25 ft. of you, they are more likely to close and stab you before you can draw a weapon and shoot. There are actually some studies that say that zone should be increased to 40 or 50 feet. Police are trained that if an attacker is coming at you, and enters that kill zone, you shoot. Period. If you don't, they can kill you first.

The reason is that it takes, on average, 1.5 to 3 seconds to draw and fire a modern firearm. When someone is rushing at you with the intent of killing you. 1.5 to 3 seconds is a very, very, long time.

Personally, I'd think it would be significantly easier and quicker to draw and fire a modern firearm, than to draw, knock, aim, and fire, a bow.

Now, if the archer already had an arrow knocked and drawn, that's another story entirely. I'd say the advantage would go to the archer. And considering it's point blank range, I'd doubt they'd miss.

Bottom line though, a longbow in the hands of a trained archer, shooting between 10 and 80 yards, is very accurate and effective. Beyond that, it's only effective as a massed weapon. Call it medieval short range artillery.