Arrows could penetrate plate armour extremely easily. Fuck, they could pass straight through shields and still kill the person holding them. There's a reason why generals shat themselves over a good troop of longbowmen.
>>116287394 A bodkin arrow from a longbow shot at nearly point blank range will have enough energy to penetrate SOME plate armors, yes, but it won't have enough to penetrate any quilting underneath the plate, never-mind bone.
A bolt from a heavy crossbow might do the trick, depending on how thick the armor is.
>>116287900 > but it won't have enough to penetrate any quilting underneath the plate It won't even touch it, the arrowhead will be blunt after going through plate armor and and only the tip will actually get stuck. Even if you're not wearing chain armor underneath, you will take no damage.
>>116288074 First of all, the best armor in that period would have been a coat of plates over chainmail, a bascinet with a houndskull visor, with some mix of plate armor and splinted armor on the limbs. Full suits of plate would not appear for about another century.
Second of all, armor of that quality would have been only present on a few heavy cavalry forces, not the bulk of the army, and barding for their horses would also very rarely be of that same quality.
This is what earlier plate armour would have been like - before superior heat treatment was invented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRXwk4Kdbic
Still protective, but at really close distances it could be penetrated.
>>116288074 The effect of longbows is generally overestimated. The golden age of the longbow was during the battles with Scotland.
>>116288225 That doesn't really look like a properly made armour though. Also, historical sources and accounts don't mention longbows to easily penetrate plate. I'd rather go with the video I've posted and >>116287545, which seems like a more properly set up experiment to me.
>>116288394 You do realize that in order to do damage, the arrow need to actually touch your body right? None of them did, they can put dents on armor but they can't penetrate easily. Also, arrowheads are pretty much blunt after going through it.
I'm going to tell you the short version : Yes, arrows COULD penetrate plate armor. The right arrow combined with the right arrow head shot out of a bow with a strong enough pull force made short work of any sort of armor used at the time (when people wore plate armor).
>>116288343 Read the video description, the armor being used was of higher quality than normal medieval, and the bows were on the lower end of quality. The bows they used were 80-100 lb draw, medieval archers used ones that were 120 or more.
>>116288554 >made short work of any sort of armor used at the time (when people wore plate armor) Complete nonsense.
First of all what is armour of "that time"? Longbows have been in use for centuries - way before plate armour.
Second, no. Armour - including chain armour and padded clothing - provided a reasonable defence against arrows, assuming they weren't point-blank shots. There are countless historical accounts describing armoured men looking like pincushions from all the arrows stuck in them.
Thirdly, late medieval armour was pretty much arrow proof. During battles like Verneuil or Patay, the cavalry DIRECTLY charged at the archers and only suffered minimal losses. At Patay, the archers didn't get to set up their fortifications, so they had to rely on the power of their weapons along and they were unable to stop the cavalry charge with arrows alone but were completely devastated by the attack.
People arent arguing that armor isnt a good defense its just that people seem to think that having armor means your somehow invincible and that everyone at the time had armor. Which is in fact bullshit considering a proper suit at the time was probably worth about as much as a modern house when you try to compare anything.
To say that armor makes all bows useless is total stupidity but thats what some people are saying here in this thread. Is it good protection against arrows? Sure. Does it make you an unwoundable god versus arrows? Hell no.
During the late middle ages, you wouldn't see that many conscripts on the battlefields but rather professional soldiers hired as mercenaries. But even during the high middle ages, a lord would try to avoid conscripting peasants. They had to take care of the land after all, and when they're dead nobody would be there to do so.
>>116288225 Though there were a lot of small holes, none of the shots fired at first would have been enough to get through the thick padded clothing traditionally worn under plate armor. It would probably bruise like hell though. Any arrows that got through would likely be superficial damage, especially if they come up against a rib. Painful, but better than the alternative.
It wasn't until later when the arrows started piercing through, mostly by hitting the smaller puncture marks a second time.
What this shows is that, while capable of protecting the wearer from initial shots, plate armor isn't really capable of dealing with sustained fire. Though, if this were an actual combatant, in proper plate, the armor would be properly tapered in the front in a way that would force the arrows to glance to the side, rather than absorb the entire force of the projectile, and the wearer would be moving.
TLDR; experiment was poorly set up, still demonstrates steel plate's ability to temporarily protect from concentrated ranged fire.
>>116289008 That's interesting an all but can you now tell us of the battle of Agincourt where the french lost 10000 men to English longbowmen?
>There are countless historical accounts describing armoured men looking like pincushions from all the arrows stuck in them.
And there's accounts of most of the same men dying after the battles. Bleeding exists. Plate armor provided defense sure, but not enough for most men to survive a longbow barrage.
The French won ONE battle by surprising the English before they set up their positions and that somehow makes longbows ineffective? Pffff. Get your head out of your ass. By the late 14th century plate armor was already just a burdensome symbol of European technological stagnation.
>>116290060 Considering a soldier in plate armor would be outnumbered around 5 to 1 or more typically, I'd say that's a realistic estimation of what would happen after 30 seconds of running at the enemy like an idiot.
>>116289798 >The French won ONE battle by surprising the English before they set up their positions and that somehow makes longbows ineffective? I mentioned two. Verneuil and Patay. During both battles the archers were simply charged by cavalry and had no way to do something about it. Had the longbows been that deadly, why didn't they just shoot the cavalry?
Fact is that longbows alone weren't all that useful. They needed proper fortifications. Also, what many people disregard is that the British knights particularly enjoyed fighting dismounted. You can even see it reflected in their armour. Unlike French and Italian armour, British armour - just like German armour - was usually symmetrical, which made it easier using two-handed weapons like long swords and pollaxes. And the British used these knights to protect their archers from people who'd get too close to them.
Also, as I said earlier: British mercenaries also fought in service of Italian mercenary princes. How do you explain that nobody bothered to take note of the impact of the longbow or decided to adopt the weapon had it been such a knight-killer? Yet the accounts mostly talk about the shiny armour. Not much about deadly longbows of destruction.
Certainly longbows had their uses, but they weren't the ultimate tool to defeat knights. Had they been the ultimate tool to defeat knights, then certainly others would have jumped the hype train as well and used them, but during the 15th century, the time of the longbow was almost over.
The golden age of the longbow was against the Scots. The Scots had lightly armoured infantry fighting in formation. Against such troops a longbow is a devastating weapon - not against a fast moving heavily armoured guy on a horse.
>>116289798 >By the late 14th century plate armor was already just a burdensome symbol of European technological stagnation. By the late 14th century full suits of plate armor were a brand spanking new development, if they even existed at all. Plate armor continued to be widely used well into the 17th century, through about 200 years of guns being fairly common, and about 100 years of guns being the primary ranged weapon on the battlefield. What the fuck are you even smoking?
>>116287394 There were some special arrows that if fired from good range with precision by a trained marksman could penetrate heavy armor. But its not that easy not every single archer could do it and there is a lot more to it than just firing an arrow, quality of the arrow/armor and the distance and strength of the marksman counted a lot.
Its was not a common thing to happen and in medieval times when an archer actually managed to kill a heavy armored knight he would get the piece of plate that was pierced by the arrow and hang in front of their camps as a warning and a way to brag.
>>116288225 damn son, look at how many arrowsluts had to throw themselves at that plate before they got through. Point blank shit too. like bouncing off that shit. Not to mention the chain mail and thick jerkin underneath.
arrowsluts and bowfags just mad they aint platepiercing like superior boltbros and crossbow alpha males.
>>116290364 You would surgically remove the arrowhead by cutting it out. Pushing it though and yanking it out are two ways to cause MUCH more damage than necessary. An amputation might still be a good idea though, because nobody wants a gangrene infection.
>>116290543 Crossbows had actually been around since the antique. They didn't "succeed" the longbow but they accompanied them. Guns had been around for quite some time too. Crossbows stuck around longer than bows on the battlefields, guns stuck around longer than crossbows, but it wasn't really a sequential development in the sense of "we need something better now".
>>116290617 The shots from a bow are not necessarily weaker than that of a crossbow, even if the crossbow has higher poundage. This is due to the fact that crossbows are more compact and require a higher poundage to achieve the same force behind the arrow.
A big advantage from crossbows came from not having to manually keep the mechanism drawn and ready to fire. In sieges, you could reload in safety and pop out to shoot for example.
And yes. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere that the black bow MC has is hax in some way.
Yes, thats true. It also took a VERY long time to train a longbowman because you had to pull a specific way. It was really nothing more than an oversized bow, but knowing how to pull it and being strong enough to pull it meant you couldnt just take mr random peasant farmer / sustenance hunter and put a longbow in his hands.
>>116290543 Because an archer to be useful in combat required years of training and very good upper body strength. England won a lot of their battles by the simple fact that people were taught to use bows to hunt from young age. Crossbows and Guns are popular because they require almost no training at all.
And yes with advances on technology guns eventually became stronger and more efficient than bows. But Longbows for a long time were the bane of a lot of armies out there.
Hell Khans almost conquered the world because Mongols could use a bow while riding a horse. Shit was literally impossible to deal with and even the roman empire shit their pants when they knew about them.
>>116290459 >By the late 14th century full suits of plate armor were a brand spanking new development
14th century is the "pinnacle" of the full plate. Yes the pinnacle is when it was developed. 15th century is when they slowly but surely realized a 100 full plate knights prancing around when the enemy has 10000 troops won't win you a war and moved to mass produced cuirasses. By the beginning of the 16th century only parade armor was full plate and I don't even need to say parade armor was rare as fuck.
>>116288074 muddy fields, the french trickling into the battle and the french horses getting killed by the arrows causing the knights to get stuck in the mud where they eventually fell due to exhaustion. most of the men killed were killed not by arrows but when the british stormed the plains and stabbed any mother fucker who was too exhausted to defend themselves.
Agincourt wasn't about longbows as it was about properly set up positions.
See Patay. the longbows don't have the advantage of prepared defenses or muddy terrain and they got slaughtered by the french vanguard.
>>116291018 You had to take aim in the same sense you'd take aim with a bow. If you look at historical depictions of people firing arquebuses (rather than muskets - given the time period), you'll see that they attempt to take aim not very much unlike people do with a modern rifle.
>>116291687 Maximilian armour was most certainly worn on the battlefields too though. It was obviously mostly affordable to the military elite of course. But during the late 15th and early 16th century, heavy cavalry still wore full plate armour.
Can't seem to find any solid data on the effectiveness of plate armor against ballistics. but isn't that because there would have been an arms race between the weight of armor versus the draw weight of bows? the men in armor would have wanted it to be as light as possible, but thick enough to protect against the popular bow used by the enemy.
>>116291974 >A bow from the crusades had a draw weight of 200lbs. I'm not too certain where you get that number from.
Renaissance longbows have been found from the time of Henry VIII on a ship that sunk (Mary Rose).
The draw weights were estimated between 100lbs - 185lbs.
If there ever was a bow with such a draw weight, it was by no means the average but an upper boundary - where it may even be questioned whether it was actually used on the battlefields or just made by someone for the heck of it.
>>116292544 You gotta make it yourself. Shot is the easiest shit to make and it's why most people in downtrodden countries make homemade shotguns more often than automatics; the ammunition is easier to make plus it's just a fucking pipe with a hammer.
>>116292373 I read that later longbows salvaged from Henry VIII's ship The Mary Rose have been estimated to have a draw weight of up to 900 Newtons; which is roughly 200 lbs. Archers from that time must have been beastly strong, they trained with one-handed pull ups and all.
>>116289723 Even so, most of the regualar army didn't have plate. They only had leather and chainmail. Most of the fully decked out plate wearers were full knights in heavy cavalry regiments, which there weren't as many of as you would think. MAYBE, 100-200 guys per army. Even most of the cavalry were non-knighted light cavalry,with light armor, who couldn't afford a suit of plate if they saved up their entire years wages.
>>116294001 Plate armour parts were actually cheaper than chain armour. What made full plate armour expensive were the intricate joint mechanisms. Most of the common men would have been equipped at least like this during the late middle ages (pic). Breastplates were also far from uncommon.
>>116294001 >>116294239 When it comes to cavalry, there's actually a nice picture by Albrecht Duerer, which he made as a study for one of his works (Ritter, Tod und Teufel), showing a common mercenary on horseback. It is safe to assume that he depicted the man as he saw him, because in the actual work he added further armour parts and made them more elaborate. While he doesn't wear the most expensive plate armour one could buy for money, he could clearly afford a decent set of armour - as one would expect from a professional warrior fighting from horseback.
What I can't dig is the fact that his sword is going through these men in plate armor.
It would have been better if he was knocking these guys aside like using a huge baseball bat instead of CLEAVING RIGHT THROUGH THEM from helmet to crotch. That's what's most likely to happen. He kills them through blunt force trauma because of his strength and weapon, not fucking going through them like he was using a lightsaber.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.