So we all know about the common question of why muskets supplanted bows if the latter seems better, and among the reasons cited is better accuracy. This is often responded by pointing out the limited role of accuracy in mass combat which better works focusing on firepower.
So i decided to read up on accuracy of musket fire in real combat situations during the age of the bayonet, and what really called my attention was not how accurate or inaccurate it was, but how well documented it is, with accounts ranging from absolute decimation of enemy formations in a few volleys, to fierce, extended firefights with massive volume but minimal losses, it included accounts from officers, generals and soldiers about how they perceived how effective musket fire was, with examples of battles from all over the period, we have tests dating from this period of the effectiveness of musket and cannon fire in controlled environments, heck even statistics of casualties compared to bullet usage from which we can infer some things. So it seems like we know really well how the dynamics of musket fire worked on the battlefield. But then it occurred to me, do we know as much about the usage of bows in mass formations, in such excruciating detail? As far as I'm aware, sources on medieval warfare are not only not as numerous as that of the early modern period, but they also aren't often interested in detailing battle experience and performance with such clarity, much less that of non nobles.
And i think this is important because another thing that I realized was that, more often than not, musket ineffectiveness stemmed not from the inherent inaccuracy of the weapon, but to the poor performance of soldiers in actual combat situations, and who can blame them? Under the threat of murderous musket fire, who is willing to get close enough to deliver controlled, disciplined, calm, murderous musket fire of their own? Soldiers would shoot at way too long of a range in anticipation, would shoot in a disorganized fashion, would just not shoot, would shoot as fast as possible disregarding actual aiming etc. Ideal performance was just that, an ideal.
Then comes the obvious implication, that literally none of the above is exclusive to musket warfare, people have feared for their life since I'm pretty sure forever, and there's no way the actual combat effectiveness of bow fire was as good as one might think simply based off theoretical considerations of maximum range and accuracy and whatnot. The thing is that i just don't have the same clear image of massed archery as I do for massed musketry, and I fear it is, as I say above, due to a lack of sources. So my question would be: just how much do we know about actual combat performance of archery when compared to our knowledge of musket performance? And if we know better about the latter, then do you think that this influences the popular perception of the musket as an inherently inaccurate weapon?
I'm approaching this from a slightly oblique angle, but you'll probably see why archery was phased out in favour of gunpowder.
There is a recent video from Tod's Workshop which has one of the best demonstrations of arrow penetration on armour. To keep this brief, the experiment was done with authentically recreated bows, arrows and armour by the leading specialists in their field, using Agincourt 1415 - seen by many as the peak of European medieval archery. The test considers a few assumptions and interpretations, some that may defy the popular perception of massed archery. The "arrow storm" described in sources was said to be so intense that the French foot soldiers had to march with their heads down to avoid arrows penetrating their visors, and this is line with the practice of shooting arrows at short distance (i.e. the arrow trajectory is flat, forcing the soldier to look down). At this distance (25 metres), hits were essentially guaranteed.
In short, plate armour absolutely stopped arrows. Apart from lucky hits in gaps or faults in the armour, the thickness and design of the plate armour used at the time was able to provide sufficient protection against arrows.
Why is this important in this context? It validates the shift away from archery to the more effective musket: armour had won the race and the advent of gunpowder weapons made not only the manufacture of effective ranged weapons and ease of use by trained regulars, it was also capable of defeating the armour that was in use at the time, which in turn saw the decline of full body protection.
While arrows may not have been effective at penetrating armour, do bear in mind that the volume of shooting done at Agincourt would have been a terrifying force to reckon with, with 7000+ archers pouring arrows on the slowly advancing French. The impact of multiple arrow hits would have had some effect in pushing the French back, funneling them away from the archers and towards the men-at-arms, while soldiers and horses would be wounded and panicked. Few people may have died from direct hits by archers, but the psychological impact may have been much greater.
C. Oman, in History of the Art of War, writes:
'The horsemen of the French posted all along the flanks, began to attack our archers on both sides of the army . . . but they were quickly compelled amidst showers of arrows to retreat and fly [ten arrows a minute from every man within range]. . . with the exception of a few who ran between the archers and the woods, yet not without slaughter and wounds ... a great many, both horses and horsemen were arrested by the stakes and sharp arrows, so they could not escape far.'
As for the accuracy of massed archers, there are a couple of interesting and contrasting viewpoints. Prince Louis Napoleon, writing long after the decline of archery, said of English archers:
'a first rate English archer who, in a single minute, was unable to draw and discharge his bow 12 times with a range of 240 yards and who in these 12 shots once missed his man, was very lightly esteemed'.
This claim may be highly exaggerated and romanticised, as the rate of shooting is unbelievably fast, with modern estimates by practitioners using 100 to 200lb war bows being more conservative at 6 to 10 shots per minute (comparing the experimentation and evaluation done by Mike Loades (War Bows), Mark Stretton (English Warbow Society) and Joe Gibbs). The claim that a skilled archer should be able to hit 11 out of 12 shots at 240 yards also defies belief. However, 240 yards in unusually long for practical use of the bow - while capable of shooting further, precision shooting was done under 70 yards in a direct shooting manner.
During the Napoleonic Wars, General de Marbot wrote of the Bashkir horsemen in his journal:
Their efforts were chiefly directed against Sébastiani’s cavalry, and in a moment the barbarians surrounded our squadrons with loud shouts, letting off thousands of arrows. The loss these caused was slight, for the Bashkirs are totally undrilled and have no more notion of any formation than a flock of sheep. Thus they cannot shoot horizontally in front of them without hitting their own comrades, and are obliged to fire their arrows parabolically into the air, with more or less elevation according to the distance at which they judge the enemy to be. As this method does not allow of accurate aiming, nine-tenths of the arrows are lost, while the few that hit are pretty well spent, and only fall with the force of their own weight, which is inconsiderable; so that the wounds they cause are usually trifling. As they have no other weapons, they are certainly the least dangerous troops in the world.
Despite the fact that Marbot was ironically hit by an arrow, his assessment of a 10% hit rate against unarmoured massed infantry leaves a lot to be desired.
To evaluate our sources thus far in relation to your question, I would ascertain:
One might argue that the inaccuracy of muskets comes from the simple technical reason that early muskets did not have sights, and the pieces were "leveled" to ensure that shots were actually on target, hence the short distance. A skilled marksman would know the bullet drop and elevation needed to hit a further target. In contrast, the accuracy of archers is overstated in pop culture and pop history, as we are used to seeing Robin Hood figures supposedly hit every single shot.