>>64220685
>In this scenario I've made up
OP made up
>Where the archers have almost no ammunition
for the 1415 campaign, not not just the one battle
each archer was issues 24 arrows, they would carry about half of those on their person and the rest would be in the baggage train
since the line infantry doesn't get it's artillery that is in the baggage train the archers don't get their extra arrows
>And are statistically missing 200% more shots than they did in real life
I'd really love to see your sources on how accurate archers are
I'm going with arrow head finds on battle fields
they aren't found clumped up or on a line as if engaging just the front ranks of the enemy but all over. why? because most arrows are being shot indirectly into the mass of the enemy
a line formation offers a much smaller target to indirect fire than a mass of troops. you squeeze more men into a smaller area.
Due to the area longbow men need to wield their bows most of the archers are going to have to be in back ranks and thus not able to fire directly but have to lob their shots. this why they would be of limited use
>And are entirely made up of brittle cowards
the historical record shows that nearly all bayonet charges didn't make contact with the enemy, the charge was blunted or the receiving party ran.
This is where the much tighter formation muskets where employed in matter. a musket is much slower to load, but a formation could put out a lot more shots because you could have more men fire giving you more punch for the same frontage.
>Whilst the musketeers have l33t hax never missing muskets
if they did there would be no need for a charge
>And are psychologically tempered ultra disciplined unbreakable super men completely unaffected by little things like 1 in 3 losses in the space of a minute
losing 1/3 you men and not breaking was something line infantry did again and again during the napoleonic wars