The Problem With Combat Archery 

as a hema student, i really liked sword fight on kingdom come deliverance, but archery was really really frustrating btw, waiting for the next chapter :)

God lord ignorant people are ruining everything..

true dat.. i doubt that japanese or english with their longbows would be doing flips in small quotars.. same as claimimg that best way for snipers to fight is close range.. each has its own purpose and anyo e with little bit of common sense has to admit that if you have 1000 people that can demolish enemy forces before they even get to your walls you will fricking have them stand in line and point in the same direction to maximise their effectivnes.. also sure speed shootimg is nice but if are on battlefield sourounded by enemies id gues that your first weapon of choise will be shield and sword as it is more effective

I had a blast with Kingdom Come Deliverance. It drives me crazy that more people didn't play it. Looking forward to a sequel wink wink.

Kingdom come 👌👌👌👌

Rebrand it garden arrow

It is so much fun, catching them and firing them back at someone is way too fun... Very hard but fun 😂

I would say "Lets Go" but some idiot might bring broad heads to the games.

I used to have a little 10-15lb bow that I'd shoot up in the air and try to catch it on the way back down.

If you end with 3 people around you harmed, then yes, you should.

@Duck Soup Put a green pen in the mix and call it 'camo'

YES!

Yes!!!

well said

Thank you😂

How to train for combat without setting. Up a zone similar to combat and use style that best pertains to it? Two words are not singularly define when put togethwr

Tout à fait.

Right. Anyone who has a problem with understanding this is being intentionally obtuse.

Gorilla warfare. Crud. Now I am imagining a 400 pound silverback drawing a heavy warbow and dropping fools from 200 meter away.😁😉

Guerilla

​@@remliqaas am I

Lars is, to me, a complete bore. Trick shooting is like a joke. Registers an effect once, but falls flat the second time around. I imagine comedians need a broad repertoire and so collect and study jokes, but if you’re not interested in becoming a stand up, what’s the friggin point?

He really doesn't have impressive skill. Most of his stunts depend on gimmicked equipment. He shoots around people by simply using mis-tuned arrows. His speed shooting uses extra-wide nocks. When he splits the arrow by shooting at a knife, he uses a shaft with no point. He's a circus act.

@@jimmacq8485 well I definitely couldn't do it, so it's impressive to me.

@@A.Tag90 You can. You just need to cut out most of the footage.

I've never searched for or watched an archery video on RU-vid and this was recommended to me. F Lars Anderson!

still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea. there is some good point in his stuff.

@@charlespk2008 "still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea." but that's a big 'if' though, isn't it? you keep repeating your little sentence, but what if attacking more often makes the attack much less likely to work? we can build 40mm autocannons with much higher rate of fire than 120mm canons; and while a few lucky hits from a 40mm shell could mission kill a modern main battle tank (MBT), i don't see any nation replacing the cannons of their MBTs with lower caliber, faster guns to be more efficient at killing other MBTs!

​@@charlespk2008 There is a missing point in your logic. The correct logical way of thinking is, "If an attack works, then it works, at that specific scenario, with a specific timed action". Attacking sooner, will break the "a specific scenario, with a specific timed action", because the timeframe of action already different. For example. If shooting needs three seconds, so you can concentrate on a specific point of target, i.e. joint of armor (which usually unprotected), then shooting with only two or even one second will likely makes you miss your target (different setup, different timeframe to concentrate, different body tension, etc). Hence, the attack that should be worked, will not work.

still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea. there is some good point in his stuff.

@@charlespk2008 wut?

Agreed.

@@charlespk2008 Not much point with a very light bow only half-drawn.

@@johnminnitt8101 i am just referring to how he can shoot more quickly, there is no other type of competition that takes this into consideration.

I have done a fair amount of archery, nothing amazing. But yeah, most archers carried some kind of melee weapon for close combat. Lars "system" is fun to watch and looks cool. Functional, not at all. Rapid shots from horseback, sure makes sense. Slow fire, but more accurate, also makes sense. Hell, using a crossbow because it takes less practice also makes sense. Bouncing around like Legolas from LotRs doesny.

Not just is a sword helpful when badman comes close with a shield... But you also very rarely run out of sword ammo

Well, the least protection you should expect for someone looking for combat in a medieval times is a Gambeson (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ODS7ksbBRuE.html). And those are already good against Arrows. So I doubt a low LB bow will even get through much of that. If the enemy brings a shield, it gets even harder, because most of the target is now covered by another layer of impenetrable protection for you. The whole reason to go to high draw weights was that you have more chance to get through the enemies armor.

You are correct Feral (also a soldier here for U.S. Army.) You would never go into combat giving your soldiers only a bow. in historic times they often either had a dagger, a sword, or some other weapon when stuff got hairy

@@justin9202 for sure, much as say, the Comanche valued the bow when it got real then they'd go to the knife, club or tomahawk.........no jesting about with trick shots in combat.

oh you mean like aiming at a person to kill them....thats how short this video shouldve been

still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea. there is some good point in his stuff.

@@charlespk2008 The point is that Lars' attacks wouldn't work in an actual fight. His bow simply isn't powerful enough to get through textile armor, which was pretty much a universal thing on the medieval battlefield, much less the more effective armor combinations typically worn by professional soldiers.

@@alexanderflack566 i don't disagree with that, i am just saying that knowing how to shoot soon and fast is not worthless. it's like comparing the machine gun to a bolt action 50cal

@@charlespk2008 You can't use those particular methods for speed shooting using a warbow. You will almost certainly injure yourself. If you want a firearms comparison, what use in war is there for a technique which works only with .22 LR rifles? The bows used in war have hard limitations on how rapidly they can be shot, due to how muscles work. Additionally, an archer can't actually carry that many arrows due to their bulk, and so would want to ensure that each one had the greatest chance possible to penetrate whatever armor the target is wearing. It doesn't matter how quickly you can put half a dozen arrows into a soldier's chest if their gambeson protects them from injury.

I like your definition. You have an open mind.

@@tyronekim3506 Which is why my brains keep falling out.

HAC - Historical archery combat. HEAC - Historical european archery combat

Most people do not own chainmail or armor. Think urban combat. Law and order break down. No new bullets. Sure some people in reloading equipment. Most do not. And you can only reuse brass a limited number of times. In that scenario, it doesn't take much of a bow to put a hurt on someone. You get hit in the thigh with a broadhead, you're not going to be running anymore. A gut shot? Slow, painful way to die. This reminds me of people who think a .22 isn't a big threat. But more people have been killed that caliber than any other. If shit hit the fan, Lars would mess up most of the people that came his way. I'm just saying I can see a scenario where I wouldn't want to mess with Lars and a kid's bow.

actually most gambeson (padded jackets) seemed to be bad vs piercing weapons...like arrows. also i feel video games, with there dps archers, started this "hobby". still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea.

@@charlespk2008 medieval archers used bows way on the heavy side. A light now wouldn't have been of much use on gambeson

@@infernalchaos1066 similarly one shouldn't mess with modern archer using modern recurve sniping at 90 m. Therefore, modern archer with modern recurve is as lethal as Lars with kids bow, I guess. But this argument is stupid.

Yeah. Watching Olympic archers really makes me glad I'm not on their bad side. I probably couldn't even hit the target at that distance lol. I still see scenarios where Lars' style could be useful, though. If SHTF, I'd like to think I'd last an hour or two before I got killed. I probably wouldn't, but one can hope.

Dagorhir, SCA, and Belegarth have been doing these kinds of exercises for decades.

That's the Bolide Archery Liuyao. It's an online-only bow being sold by Ebay/Ali retailers like Bosenbows, normally sold under generic "Traditional Chinese bow" tags.

Well I didn't expect to see you here

The quiver is called an ebira

That's what I think of when people say close quarters combat, and also the kind of demonstration that is needed to validate if combat archery works in the context that people claim it does. Run a practical shooting course, and the problems will become evident.

Seems foreign to me and I'm Malaysian.

@@remliqa Some online friends participate in it . Seemed more common . But if you check my channel By clicking my dog image you will see I shoot pole archery . That's uncommon . Cheers

I've been a dedicated archer and bowhunter (both traditional longbow and recurve bow, and modern compound archery & hunting) since I was about 10 years old (about 30 years) And I am also a former US Army Infantryman and combat veteran. Having experienced modern combat, I can tell you that the applications for archery in a modern combat theatre would be very limited, and applicable to only very specific scenarios. One scenario that comes to mind would be a "sniper" type of application, where their is a need for silence, and to make one accurate killshot from a concealed/hidden location. In that kind of scenario, a crossbow would be an excellent weapon. Modern crossbows are incredibly powerful, and incredibly accurate. The one I own will shoot a bolt 500fps. At that velocity, it is every bit as accurate as a rifle at 100 yards, and targets can be easily be taken down at well beyond that. I've put a crossbow bolt thru a basketball sized target at out to 160 yards. Beyond that, I struggle to think of a scenario where a bow, whether it be a traditional longbow or recurve, or even a modern compound bow would be application. Perhaps in an ambush type scenario, where several people can shoot and move between hidden locations. This would allow you to choose your battlefield, which gives you a big advantage. For how long an attack like that could be sustained is questionable. Maybe 2-3 shots and movements at most before you would have to fall back on using something more effective such as a rifle. As a combat veteran, i really struggle to see a bow of any kind being useful or worthwhile in modern combat beyond that. Unless a doomsday scenario were to occur, and over time ammunition were to be depleted and become scarce, and we devolved back into a more primitive form of warfare, I'm afraid that the days where a bow could be applicable again in modern combat are long gone.

I agree. I shoot a recurve and for me, that's the type of bow I love - although I would like a longbow at some point. While compound isn't for me, it always makes me wince when some recurve shooters seriously criticise compound shooters. Sure, a little good-natured teasing between those two camps is fine, but both are entirely, and equally, valid bows/disciplines. What's the difference between a compound and a recurve shooter? The recurve guy can spell 'Disciplines.' :D (Sorry, couldn't resist, mate).

Right lol. Does he think they never had sieges or raids on towns?

Well said! It's the branding I take most exception to. If instead Lars was branded as an 'Archery Trick Shooter' in much the same as you might see in a game pool trick shots, or some of the old 'Wild West Shows,' then it'd be great. Trying to give it some form of false validity by claiming it is something which it demonstrably just isn't, is what makes it sad.

@@jens-kristiantofthansen9376 I completely agree and I think it's certainly hurt his credibility.

40 to 50lb is clearly enough to kill unarmoured opponents and I would argue use of the bow at 30 to 60 yards was more common than this idea of longbowmen firing arrows at 300 yards which is absurd.

lol...you need a Black Bow and Arrows.

@@bobboitt3126 with fluorescent colours!

Put a stock on your bow, and keep arrows in speed loading clips. Trenchcoats and sunglasses optional

But still less cool than Combat Tactical Archery. Splitter.

No. The problem is that modern target bows have the same effective range (or less) than that of other bows, giving it no range advantage and therefore not fulfilling the role of a sniper. At best, you might consider a scoped bow as a designated marksman weapon. However, in an archer vs archer scenario, a regular archer is just as capable of hitting an Olympic archer with simpler gear and less restriction. The precision of the Olympic archer is excessive for a practical context.

When using Slavic do you pair the forefinger or the middle finger with the thumb to hold the arrows? Because I've found that one like using the middle finger and thumb often works more fluidly when it comes to making sure the arrow fits right into the string since you don't have to reset/rearrange your forefinger, but I'm just curious about your approach as well.

The problem is that people who claim specific pros and cons of any method of archery have no experience of using archery in combat. What we see is a surface-level comparison without any of the nuances brought about by practical application, comparing simplistic figures like how many shots per second, without a realistic grounding in when, why and how someone might shoot that quickly.

And you are doing wrong. NUSensei's attitude is good (first define then discuss etc.), but he has not a few false information there.

The problem with setting aside historical accuracy is that people apply modern doctrine and concepts to historical contexts that they would not be suitable in. Modern militaries train in dynamic combat skills because the weapons they use allow them to do so, and are refined by the need to fight in environments and scenarios that did not exist earlier in history. The whole concept of urban warfare is relatively new, combined with huge advances in transportation and communication that allow for small unit tactics and independent operation, in turn permitting huge force projection and force multipliers. Basically, it intuitively makes sense for a modern infantryman with an assault rifle to be able to move, shoot, reload quickly. They use a versatile weapons system that facilitates that kind of combat. But that was not the technology, warfare and doctrine used by early gunpowder armies in the 18th century, which did fight in static lines. Clearly, this wasn't the style of warfare used by archers in the 15th century and earlier. Aside from horse archers, foot archers did not engage in dynamic urban combat the way we see modern soldiers do. You want to capture a town, you send in the infantry equipped with the arms and armour for close quarters fighting, not your ranged fighters. Practical archery balances speed, power and accuracy. The current mindset with "combat" archery puts heavy emphasis on speed, but historical military texts such as Gao Ying and Saracen Archery strongly push the more balanced application. Saracen Archery specifically opens with the need to balance the pillars of archery, including speed, penetration, accuracy and self-defense (that is, not being in a position where they can be harmed). Many of the specific skills in "combat" archery are, ironically, only suitable for an exhibition event to demonstrate personal feats of skill, and would not be suitable in a practical scenario. People can explore how a bow _could_ be used, but it doesn't mean that it _was_ used in such a way.

You can't set historical accuracy aside when talking about historical combat