I remember a roman historian (Vegetius?) requiring a soldier to hit with an arrow a human size target from 100 metres / yards. So here is the problem:
-What size of a rectangular target would a human make (yes, I shoot cardboard boxes :wink: )? Something like a surface of 50cm x 70cm perhaps?
-How about the distances? If I am shooting for example from a distance of 30 metres what size of rectangular box would represent this size of a "human target"? Is there perhaps a pattern to calculate the size of a target to use with different distances?
I hope you understood what I mean and thanx in advance :wink: !
Well, 30m is (approximately) 1/3 of 100, so decrease the dimensions by factor 3. If you use a 50x70cm cardboard for 100m, you have a 17x23cm one for 30m.
(This should be correct, it's like the triangle of Thales, isn't it? Or close to it...)
See attachment. :lol:
Thanks Sander! In fact the adaptating the target-size to the shorter distances isn`t much of a problem (silly me :oops: ). Only problem in fact is the realistic size of a rectangular target representing human shape...
Virilis,
Here are a few items from my infantry and machinegun training manuals. the human tagets should be about 100mm X 30mm. If you blow up the 25M zeroing target silhouette to 80mm it should be close to what you need.
I suppose you mean 100cm and 30cm instead of 100mm and 30mm?
Thanks guys, this silhouette thing looks very promising :wink: !
As a human doesn't change shape or size over distance, I would think there would be no mathimatical question here. Just cut out the correct shape, add the legs (post) and fire away. It will become increasingly hard to hit, but is more consistent with reality. At 30 yards, a trained archer will aim at the kill zone of the heart/lung region around the sternum (breastbone), at 100, a good solid body hit in the torax is very satifactory, as this will take down the "enemy", although not killing outright. So over distance, a scoring hit (kill) will be in a larger area (when competing).
Mind you, a wounded enemy is a far greater burden on his logistics than a dead one, so for reasons of demoralising and burdening your opponent with wounded, a non killing shot which will incapacitate your foe should be prefered to an outright kill (rather morbid discussion :? ).
and if you don't hit at a 100m ... well, nevermind, just remember that at this distance a single archer just can't hit a mobile, aware target. The arrow is just simply too slow, the target has more than enough time to step aside after the arrow has been fired :-) )
Ah, yes, that is providing he can see it coming! I can assure you, there is as much chance of stepping smack into it's path as avoiding it! An incoming arrow at that distance is impossible to track head on.
Just keep that scutum up, and keep moving..... :lol:
Quote:Mind you, a wounded enemy is a far greater burden on his logistics than a dead one, so for reasons of demoralising and burdening your opponent with wounded, a non killing shot which will incapacitate your foe should be prefered to an outright kill (rather morbid discussion ).
Morbid, maybe, but it is no less true today than then.
Another factor to consider is the greater "drop" of an arrow at 100m than 30m. At 30m, the trajectory is pretty flat, but at 100, you will actually be aiming well above the intended target spot, because the arrow will not travel parallel to the ground for very far.
Same applies for a rifle, but much less. A "typical" rifle bullet might drop say, 20cm at 200m, while an arrow will drop maybe 30m. Does that make sense? Of course these numbers are entirely arbitrary, since caliber, powder load, strength of bow, weight of arrow are all unknowns....
The only way to know if you can hit a man sized target with an arrow at 100m is to make a man sized target and shoot from 100m. Anything else is just guesswork. :?
Or make 4 targets and group them.. that way, when one steps aside "to avoid being hit", there's a fine chance you'll tag one of his buddies!
Quote:I suppose you mean 100cm and 30cm instead of 100mm and 30mm?
Thanks for catching that. My computer kept defaulting on me and I had to retype the message. It's never good to type angry. Firing at downsized short range targets is never as good as full-sized long range. In fact we used to call scaled down ranges "Kiddie Quals (qualifications)". The issue only gets worse as the projectile velocity decreases and ballistic arc increases. The bottom line is that accuracy is a direct function of the amount of rounds you send down range. Sometimes though, you just don't have the range facilities to really do it right.
And also, in the long run, the Romans were probably using massed archers, so pinpoint accuracy was possibly not as necessary as being able to dominate a target area with volleys of arrows. ie the HQ group?
Thanks guys! It is not a question of hitting a individual man, I mean (Vegetius?) propably just put an example of overall accuracy required. If you can hit a man sized target from 100 metres, you can also propably hit a little group of men from 200 metres, which is more an option in a real battle situation I quess.
In fact I tried to hit a 30 x 40 cm target from 100 metres yesterday with my 80-pound bow and EVENTUALLY I DID :wink: !! It just took some 20 arrows...