/QTDDTOT/ Thread /his/ edition What are the benefits of volley

>>2204573

Very generally, (but I want to stress that this has huge variations even in western Europe), archery fire on the field of battle wasn't to cause a lot of direct loss, but to disrupt formation cohesiveness, absorb momentum; they were a support weapon most of the time.

Even if you get a few lucky shots and kill an enemy or two, that's almost certainly going to be less than the impact on enemy morale and cohesion when a section of their line suddenly gets arrows all over the place and pounding into people. Remember, those effects are temporary; while they might grow ragged and maybe even balk or break, given enough time, they'll recover and reform their lines, rally.

If you start having a few arrows, especially at extreme range, two problems result. Firstly, you give the enemy more time to recover, maybe even pull back out of range and re-form again. Secondly, you really want that volley to be timed with some sharper push, either of horse or of foot, in melee. Disrupt them with arrows, send in your own (better formed higher morale) infantry, break them, win the battle. But that requires a bit of coordination, which is never easy on a medieval or earlier battlefield, and gets worse if every archer is doing whatever he wants.

>>2204600
Damn, great explanation. Thanks anon, I do remember hearing longbow men would fire volleys into where an enemy would go to stop them going there and make them go the way you want them to. Guess films have ruined me making me they went for high k/d ratios as opposed to support.

Another related question why I have you and hear me out as it's the best way I can explain. On battlefields did they ever have a single great archer mixed in with infantry like a legolas character for taking out high ranking officers, engineers, etc?

>>2204613
>On battlefields did they ever have a single great archer mixed in with infantry like a legolas character for taking out high ranking officers, engineers, etc?


I've never heard of such. Doesn't mean it didn't happen somewhere, but it certainly wasn't a common thing.

>>2204573
It's much more demoralising and confusing for a formation to be hit by thousands of arrows simultaneously, than thousands of arrows intermittently.

>>2204573
>/QTDDTOT/ Thread /his/ edition

Goodbye to 90% of all threads on /his/.

>>2204664

kek

>>2204573
If I only have a few sharpshooters then I would use them as "skirmishers",tell them to target the enemy commanders and let them do their own thing while having the rest of the archers volley fire at the enemies archers with the aim of keeping them from returning fire as I run at them bollock naked,painted blue with my big broadsword swinging.

>>2204613
>>2204626
I imagine it wouldn't be practical, since bows had limited accuracy, and it took some work to "arm" them right before you could fire, it would be awkward to draw a bow when people are swordfighting just two feet away. Crossbows might be more practical in that role, since they can "hold" shots until you're ready to fire.