|
Post by conz on Oct 21, 2008 19:34:49 GMT -6
Here's how the ancestors of the Native American Warriors did it...
Out of Warriors of the Steppe, by Erik Hildinger:
Rene Grousset in his monumental Empire of the Steppes states that Mongol horsemen could strike their targets at distances as great as four hundred yards. This cannot be true because that distance is much greater than a bow will commonly shoot...
When dealing with the bows actually used in battle we should consider the reports of such as the Frenchman Beauplan, who was attacked by Crimean Tatars while traveling across the Ukraine in the 1630s. He wrote that the Tatars could shoot accurately to sixty or a hundred paces, which is very good shooting...
"...after making numerous feints to attack us and trouble us with clouds of arrows on the head because they shot in arcade easily at twice the range of our weapons, they retired..." Shooting in arcade is to shoot at a steep angle of about forty-five degrees to achieve the greatest possible distance. This results in the arrows dropping almost vertically on the target. Though inaccurate, it could be effective against a massed enemy and is, in any case, the natural effect of shooting to the extreme limit of a bow's range.
Further, a sixteenth-century Arabic treatise on archery states that the extreme range for a bow, while shooting accurately, is forty-five bow lengths, or somewhat over eighty yards..."As a matter of fact, it is less than half the limit of possible effective range, although, according to the experts, no accuracy is sure beyond it."
A modern recurved hunting bow of wood and fiberglass will cast an arrow something over two hundred yards, but the range at which it may be shot accurately is much shorter.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by bc on Oct 21, 2008 20:10:00 GMT -6
Allright Clair, if we consider that the NAs couldn't see their targets because of being obscurred by smoke, then we have direct fire that could become indirect fire.
Regarding Custer's field of fire, I don't consider LSH and Calhoun Hill all that different than Reno Hill. In fact I think they were higher and more defensible. Only problem is that Custer's battalion was split even further and spread out too thin, and the NAs closed in on them before they had a chance to form a good defensive position to lay down good fields of fire.
Which may explain why they may have used arrows against Custer, they got close enough to do so. That said, I think the NA positions around Reno Hill were close enough to lob arrows into his position if they chose to and were actually using that tactic that day.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 21, 2008 22:45:22 GMT -6
Actually an arrow falling form the sky, depending on the angle could reached a velocity greater then that of the arrow when originally launched. The whole terminal velocity thing, the math of which I am not real sharp on. But would guess, and I stress guess would be 150 + feet per second. And an arrow at that speed will penetrate skin and bone.
sherppaSince gravity and drag have little effect on an arrow " when originally launched" I find it hard to believe an arrow "could reached a velocity greater then that of the arrow when originally launched" due to solely to the effects of gravity. The density of the atmosphere and the drag coefficient of the particular arrow would determine its terminal velocity. Once the drag force equals the weight of arrow terminal velocity is reached. AZ Ranger AZ, Gravity and drag affect the arrow the instant that it leaves the string. And it has a greater effect on arrows traveling a slower speeds, simply because of flight time. As for terminal velocity and arrow launched reaching a height of 300 ft will develop a velocity of roughly 125 fps. (forgive me if my math is off). Which is only 25 fps less then the 150 fps average arrow speed for bows of the era, more then enough speed to penetrate flesh. Especially with a steal broadhead attached to it. sherppa Wrong There is no downward vertical velocity vector when a arrow is initially launched unless the angle of release was below horizontal. In your example the initial upward velocity vector is 150 fps. Your statement "could reached a velocity greater then that of the arrow when originally launched" is not correct 125 is less than 150 by your own example. My calculation without a drag factor is approximately 138 fps for velocity from 300 ft. Depending upon drag it would be reduced. Since the only thing slowing down an arrow shot straight up is drag and gravity how could it ever have a higher velocity on the return to earth due to the effects of gravity alone. If the initial velocity is greater than the terminal velocity of a particular arrow than it will have a greater velocity than the falling arrow. You statement that gravity has a greater effect on a slower arrow is incorrect. Gravity is a constant and it effect relates to the maximum height above ground obtained by the arrow and not the speed. An arrow shot straight up at a slower velocity will hit the ground after an arrow shot at higher velocity with 0 degrees of elevation. Drag value is not a constant and varies among arrows with such things as shaft diameter, shaft length, size of fletching, type of fletching, total weight, and point profile. Varying any of the drag factors will affect the amount of drag. So without the actual arrow component factors you can not accurately estimate terminal velocity. Drag increases with velocity so when the drag equals the acceleration of gravity that is when the terminal velocity is reached. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 21, 2008 23:16:24 GMT -6
Shooting in arcade is to shoot at a steep angle of about forty-five degrees to achieve the greatest possible distance. This results in the arrows dropping almost vertically on the target. Though inaccurate, it could be effective against a massed enemy and is, in any case, the natural effect of shooting to the extreme limit of a bow's range.
Sherppa In your experience do you believe that an arrow shot at a 45 degree angle drops almost vertically? For shooting long distant wouldn't you want the arrow to continue horizontally after reaching its maximum height achieved from the angle of the release?
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 22, 2008 1:35:56 GMT -6
Sherppa I'm not familiar with the"M97"it just comes up as a star cluster on Google.But are we not discussing an effective firing system and not pot shots and a prayer?Unless a weapon system has a stable mounting capable of accurate traversing it will be useless.I mean the keystone cops could be described as a police force.
Eagle A shower of arrows does not indicate fire control just lots of incoming.
An arrow lobbed at LSH had a chance of hitting one man one horse.An arrow fired horrizontaly was nearly gauranteed a hit one any of a dozen troopers and horses in its path.A Sioux could nearly hope to use the occasion to settle a score with a Cheyenne on the other side of the abattoir.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 22, 2008 2:23:36 GMT -6
Number one bow section 2 arrows bedding in--Fire. Up 2 degrees left 50 mills Number one bow on and ready to fire. 5 arrows rapid fire On ready Fire Arrows gone one. Number one bow on and ready to fire Chief
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 22, 2008 5:35:19 GMT -6
Sherppa I'm not familiar with the"M97"it just comes up as a star cluster on Google.But are we not discussing an effective firing system and not pot shots and a prayer?Unless a weapon system has a stable mounting capable of accurate traversing it will be useless.I mean the keystone cops could be described as a police force. Eagle A shower of arrows does not indicate fire control just lots of incoming. An arrow lobbed at LSH had a chance of hitting one man one horse.An arrow fired horrizontaly was nearly gauranteed a hit one any of a dozen troopers and horses in its path.A Sioux could nearly hope to use the occasion to settle a score with a Cheyenne on the other side of the abattoir. I believe Sherppa meant M79. The M203 was attached to the M16 or M4 and replaced the M79 grenade launcher it had it own sight system. I carried the M79 on a react platoon assignment. Sir The 40-mm Grenade Launcher M79 is a single shot, break-open, breech-loaded, shoulder-fired type weapon that is capable of launching 40-mm projectiles. We called it a blooper in Viet Nam. It was a direct fire weapon using adjustable sights for range. A Model 97 is a shotgun used in WWI. I own two of them. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Oct 22, 2008 6:40:13 GMT -6
"Wrong There is no downward vertical velocity vector when a arrow is initially launched unless the angle of release was below horizontal. In your example the initial upward velocity vector is 150 fps. Your statement "could reached a velocity greater then that of the arrow when originally launched" is not correct 125 is less than 150 by your own example. My calculation without a drag factor is approximately 138 fps for velocity from 300 ft. Depending upon drag it would be reduced. Since the only thing slowing down an arrow shot straight up is drag and gravity how could it ever have a higher velocity on the return to earth due to the effects of gravity alone. If the initial velocity is greater than the terminal velocity of a particular arrow than it will have a greater velocity than the falling arrow.
You statement that gravity has a greater effect on a slower arrow is incorrect. Gravity is a constant and it effect relates to the maximum height above ground obtained by the arrow and not the speed. An arrow shot straight up at a slower velocity will hit the ground after an arrow shot at higher velocity with 0 degrees of elevation.
Drag value is not a constant and varies among arrows with such things as shaft diameter, shaft length, size of fletching, type of fletching, total weight, and point profile. Varying any of the drag factors will affect the amount of drag. So without the actual arrow component factors you can not accurately estimate terminal velocity. Drag increases with velocity so when the drag equals the acceleration of gravity that is when the terminal velocity is reached.
AZ Ranger"
HUH?
M
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 22, 2008 6:41:10 GMT -6
Regarding Custer's field of fire, I don't consider LSH and Calhoun Hill all that different than Reno Hill. In fact I think they were higher and more defensible. Only problem is that Custer's battalion was split even further and spread out too thin, and the NAs closed in on them before they had a chance to form a good defensive position to lay down good fields of fire. I agree, that the terrain around Custer would have allowed for just as good, or better, defense than Reno had, IF he had been able to lay out his lines properly. The evidence shows that he did not, and so his defensive posture was not good, and the Warriors infiltrated behind his fire zones and got into close combat with him. This they were not able to do against Reno's final position. What makes you think the Warriors were able to mass close enough to Reno's positions to use mass arrow fire? I don't see any evidence for this. The closest position the Warriors got, IIRC, was by low crawling and not in much mass...this was the force Benteen easily pushed away with a charge. That tells me that they could NOT get close enough to saturate Reno's position with arrows. If they could have, they would have, don't you think? Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 22, 2008 7:19:53 GMT -6
"Wrong There is no downward vertical velocity vector when a arrow is initially launched unless the angle of release was below horizontal. In your example the initial upward velocity vector is 150 fps. Your statement "could reached a velocity greater then that of the arrow when originally launched" is not correct 125 is less than 150 by your own example. My calculation without a drag factor is approximately 138 fps for velocity from 300 ft. Depending upon drag it would be reduced. Since the only thing slowing down an arrow shot straight up is drag and gravity how could it ever have a higher velocity on the return to earth due to the effects of gravity alone. If the initial velocity is greater than the terminal velocity of a particular arrow than it will have a greater velocity than the falling arrow.
You statement that gravity has a greater effect on a slower arrow is incorrect. Gravity is a constant and it effect relates to the maximum height above ground obtained by the arrow and not the speed. An arrow shot straight up at a slower velocity will hit the ground after an arrow shot at higher velocity with 0 degrees of elevation.
Drag value is not a constant and varies among arrows with such things as shaft diameter, shaft length, size of fletching, type of fletching, total weight, and point profile. Varying any of the drag factors will affect the amount of drag. So without the actual arrow component factors you can not accurately estimate terminal velocity. Drag increases with velocity so when the drag equals the acceleration of gravity that is when the terminal velocity is reached.
AZ Ranger"HUH? M I know. (Sorry) Physics is that way. Bottom line is I believe you can't get more velocity on the return to earth by shooting something straight up. The higher something goes the more likely it will reach terminal velocity and quit accelerating. A common example in physics of terminal velocity is dropping a penny off the Empire State building. Good thing it works for parachutes also. Does that help. I don't think so. I think we reached the peak of usefulness when Jody introduced the term plunging fire and Wild defined indirect fire as how the weapon is sighted. Changing direct fire to indirect fire because of smoke makes no sense to me. So if I shoot my shotgun at the ground under a vehicle is that indirect fire since it bounces off something first. Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Oct 22, 2008 7:56:57 GMT -6
AZ - "...Does that help. I don't think so. I think we reached the peak of usefulness when Jody introduced the term plunging fire and Wild defined indirect fire as how the weapon is sighted. Changing direct fire to indirect fire because of smoke makes no sense to me. So if I shoot my shotgun at the ground under a vehicle is that indirect fire since it bounces off something first."
Likewise, black powder squirrel hunters will aim at the limb under the squirrel and let the 'shrapnel' from the splintered wood take the squirrel out. Otherwise, there may not be much left for dinner. Indirect fire? Billiards offers some good examples as well.
"...Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens..."
Yup. That's the bottom line.
M
|
|
|
Post by bc on Oct 22, 2008 8:51:34 GMT -6
Clair said: "What makes you think the Warriors were able to mass close enough to Reno's positions to use mass arrow fire? I don't see any evidence for this. The closest position the Warriors got, IIRC, was by low crawling and not in much mass...this was the force Benteen easily pushed away with a charge. That tells me that they could NOT get close enough to saturate Reno's position with arrows. If they could have, they would have, don't you think?
Clair"
Precisely, there is no evidence they used mass arrow fire against Reno/Benteen. It appears from the maps they may have been close enough depending upon the range of a bow. Guess we'll have to bring one to LBH next summer. If you stand on LSH and Reno Hill and look around, I think the NAs had much less cover at LSH to be out there using massed arrow indirect fire. At Reno hill I believe the NAs had closer positions to remain behind cover. If they were using massed arrow fire, I believe Reno hill afforded them the better opportunity subject to me walking the terrain again to look at your theory. Like we both agree, Custer never had much of a chance to set up a defensive position. To me that is further evidence that Custer must have been on the move prior to LSH but I haven't decided which direction yet. I think the NAs were already so close to him that they didn't need to or actually use any indirect fire. It was all direct. If the NA accounts of crawling or moving slowly up deep ravine are accurate, then that suggests that Custer did have some time to set up a defensive position, except due to being surrounded by superior forces, he was just overwhelmed.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 22, 2008 11:34:04 GMT -6
Precisely, there is no evidence they used mass arrow fire against Reno/Benteen. Right...since the men survived, they would have reported often that they had been made into pin cushions had such occurred. <g> Would be a good study, but I suspect that you are wrong here. I think the ravines around LSH enabled the Warriors to take up covered positions much closer to it than you could get to Reno's perimeter. But I could be wrong...it should be looked into on site. Turn this around, and say that since there was no massed arrow fire against Reno, it PROVES that they couldn't get close in mass. <g> It's a good question...if there was a long period of sniping against Custer before the coup d'etat of close combat that quickly finished his elements, how did he not have time to set up? This conundrum must be accounted for in models. First, I contend that you can't dispute a relatively "long" period of time where little heavy fighting occurred against Custer, and both sides maneuvered for position. This should be part of your model. Some model's do NOT include this, like I think wild's here does not, and perhaps the infamous Fox's does not. Second, contend that once close combat was effected, the end came relatively quickly for the various elements. Of course, your model doesn't have to have all this happen at once, together...you can divide up the components of Custer's command and have slow and quick episodes for each, so to speak. So how did Custer not get set into a good defense like Reno did? One explanation is his foray to a ford downstream of MTC. That broke his unit up into smaller parts, unable to form a strong perimeter like Reno's consolidated force did. Another is evidence for Keogh ordering C Co down off his perimeter on Battle Ridge/Calhoun Hill to Greasy Grass ridge, again, splitting his force and losing his tight perimeter. Both these events could explain how the Warriors "suddenly" were able to get around fields of fire and how Custer's elements were unable to then form a cohesive defense with unbroken fields of fire all around them, like Reno did. Clair
|
|
|
Post by bc on Oct 22, 2008 13:05:04 GMT -6
It's a good question...if there was a long period of sniping against Custer before the coup d'etat of close combat that quickly finished his elements, how did he not have time to set up? This conundrum must be accounted for in models. First, I contend that you can't dispute a relatively "long" period of time where little heavy fighting occurred against Custer, and both sides maneuvered for position. This should be part of your model. Some model's do NOT include this, like I think wild's here does not, and perhaps the infamous Fox's does not. Second, contend that once close combat was effected, the end came relatively quickly for the various elements. Of course, your model doesn't have to have all this happen at once, together...you can divide up the components of Custer's command and have slow and quick episodes for each, so to speak. So how did Custer not get set into a good defense like Reno did? One explanation is his foray to a ford downstream of MTC. That broke his unit up into smaller parts, unable to form a strong perimeter like Reno's consolidated force did. Another is evidence for Keogh ordering C Co down off his perimeter on Battle Ridge/Calhoun Hill to Greasy Grass ridge, again, splitting his force and losing his tight perimeter. Both these events could explain how the Warriors "suddenly" were able to get around fields of fire and how Custer's elements were unable to then form a cohesive defense with unbroken fields of fire all around them, like Reno did. Clair This is a partial model I can buy into and without any indirect arrow fire which this thread is based on. I have about 3 hours on the Custer battle field for various movements, defenses, and distant sniping but once the NAs broke through the FPL at LSH, then it was over in less than a half hour. Sniping for a long time probably occured more with Keogh at Calhoun hill I'm aware of NA accounts on the western slopes but I looking for more info on the NAs that rolled up the Calhoun Hill position from the south and east and then held the south and east sides of LSH. Still need more info on where the NAs to the north of LSH came from, either from the west and around, from the south and east and around, or a direct pursuit from the ford D area. At what range would you place the final protective line at in those days which would cause a commander to make counter charges and stop rifle/volley fire and pull pistols? I'd guess 50 feet or 50 yards. But then maybe you would use the countercharge at the secondary line of defense and pull pistols at the FPL which would be no more than the effective range of a pistol. Then with 40 plus soldiers firing from a small area at LSH, they were probably enclosed in such a shroud of smoke that they couldn't see 50 feet or yards away and vice versa for the NAs who swooped in with the smoke screen.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 22, 2008 14:05:07 GMT -6
I'm aware of NA accounts on the western slopes but I looking for more info on the NAs that rolled up the Calhoun Hill position from the south and east and then held the south and east sides of LSH. Still need more info on where the NAs to the north of LSH came from, either from the west and around, from the south and east and around, or a direct pursuit from the ford D area. That is very hard to pin down...you try to piece together Warrior and other Native accounts to see who was where, and with whom. Michno makes a fine effort at this...a good place to start, anyway. Final Protective Line (FPL), and its associated Final Protective Fire (FPF) is not a bad concept, but perhaps doesn't accurately portray what we are trying to determine here. In any case, some guys around here are sensitive to using technical terms the wrong way, so let's stay away from those terms. <g> The crux of the matter is how close a mass of Warriors can get before your fire zone fails its mission to stop the enemy's advance on you. I think I've said somewhere around here that you fire your carbine until you perceive that the time it would take a charging opponent to reach you is shorter than the time it takes for you to put another round in the chamber and get it off at him. That's probably about 50 yards for a carbine...then you pull your pistol. It is probably about 3 yards for a revolver if you still have rounds left...at this point you drop it and use the bayonet/knife you already have in your left hand...switch hands if you are a righty. <g> Now what it takes for a mass of an attacking force to get through any defensive fires is entirely dependent upon willpower, at least in those days. Only recently (i.e., machine gun days) has it been possible to literally kill every living thing before it can touch you, terrain and conditions permitting. The Warriors at any time could overrun any cavalry formation, including Reno's, had they the will to do so. But never in the history of the Indian Wars have I found Natives willing to do this...and very rarely did Americans do this in the Civil War, either. The chances of any Warrior mass getting within 50 yards of any cavalry skirmish line, terrain and conditions favorable to the defense, are nearly impossible. Clair
|
|