Hello guys, this is my first post here.
I would like do add few considerations to the discussion about mycenean warfare.
1) Wide diffusion of helmets, large leather(elastic!) shields, legs protections even in less armored warriors suggest an key role of throwing units. Probably main units were relatively slow in manouvering, so that light archer, stones (or other bullets) throwers could target them without being reached by main army forces.
2) War chariots should have a relatively poor role, since nature of rocky terrain limited they massive use.
3) Chariots are anyway recorder on mycenaean mud tablets, so they should have a role, anyway, may be as countermeasure agianst light units(?), like archers moving base and arrow depot.
4) Basic combat tactics should have been at least partially based on the hammer clashing power of the phalanx (shape of shields and his central bronze head), and probably the strategy was aimed to break the wall of shields in the enemy line. Isolated warrios become greatly vulnerable. This, judging by the lenght of spears, the 8-shaped shields (a scaled structure: spear-shield-spear-shield-...), shape of swords, not used for their blade but for the tip, as strong close-range spears. Homeric poems tell of throwing spears, duels of alone heroes, but studying archeologic findings that seems just an epic fantasy. Homeric poems were written centuries after the mycenaean age, and no mention is made of some singular features of the achaean army. One upon all: tusk teeth helmets!
5) Cavalry should have a limited role too, and some factions should have no cavalry units at all.
6) iron weaponry had not significant advantage on bronze ones, during this period, due to poor iron quality.
I hope to give my little contribution to the discussion. Cheers from Italy.
Roberto.