The victors of Agincourt and Crecy would beg to differ.
Would they really? Depends on how you look at it.
Let's see if this not so young guy learned his history better than the "young fellows."
At both Crecy and Agincourt the British forces beat a much larger French force, and both were won essentially by the English long-bow, a long-range weapon that depended on the attacking forces avoiding the merge. Archers are (generally) sitting ducks if infantry manage to reach them. Indeed Henry's archers at Agincourt were protected by palings (pointed sticks driven into the ground) to prevent fast cavalry from reaching them. It is notable that operating a long bow is very different than operating a sword and requires a totally different mindset. And the tactics used by a force heavy in archers and light in infantry is significantly different than the tactics used by a force with mostly infantry.
In short I believe Henry V and his commanders understood the value of long-range weaponry very well and knew very well how to use that weaponry correctly in a 15th century fight. Perhaps better than 4th Gen fighter guys understand a 5th Gen fight.
Did I get my history right?