Redpill me on crossbows, /his/ Could they pierce 12th century

>>1806787

>Artem autem illam mortiferam et deo odibilem ballistariorum et sagittariorum adversus christianos et catholicos exerceri de cetero sub anathemate prohibemus.
>Comment. The reference seems to be to a sort of tournament, the nature of which was the shooting of arrows and other projectiles on a wager. The practice had already been condemned by Urban II in canon 7 of the Lateran Synod of 1097, no doubt because of the it involved. [[41]]

>>1806787
They could certainly pierce mail since mail is quite weak to piercing attacks in general since breaking a ring is not that tough. From the fact that plate continued to be used very frequently and with great success untill the gunpowder age and to some extent beyond and the fact that normal arrows don't do much against plate we can assume they weren't that effective against plate. Of course most soldiers weren't wearing full plate, it's likely that were rather effective in general since despite what modern media tells you about the effectivenes of armour it actually does work very well combined with a weapon that can just deal with the common soldiers armour would be pretty deadly. The 420 no scoping nobles all day is probably just a meme though.

>>1806841
>mail is quite weak to piercing attacks in general since breaking a ring is not that tough.
then why is it still used today to protect against stabbing attacks and for shark protection?

File: GB3964.jpg (56KB, 756x850px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 756x850px

>>1806923
Because modern knives and shark teeth aren't made to pierce mail unlike many medieval weapons.

>>1806787
Don't carry it in the rain, you'll get killed by your employer.

>>1806787
Depends on the range, type of crossbow, and the bolts you're using. Much like bows, crossbows come in a variety of shapes and sizes. A proper longbow is a very different beast from a shortbow or a hunting bow.

>>1806787
>Could they pierce 12th century chainmail

The 12th century was a long time. The Crossbow started to be used by a number of European armies in the 1090s. There was some improvement to the design in the 1120s. The first important noble to start making systematic large scale use of crossbow was Alfonso I of Aragon. In 1117 he bought 500 crossbows for his Navy and by his own records in 1128 he had 3400 crossbows to his name. 700 of those were for the use of garrisons and 1500 for the use of his 28 galleys. That leaves 1200 for his use in field battles.

Anyways the earlest dated text that protested the use of the crossbow is from 1134. It is likely that crossbows were improved to the point they could pierce chainmail at short range a bit before before hand.

>14-15th century plate armor
>Please don't come into this thread trying to tell me that longbows could pierce plate armor, because they couldn't

Plate was very different at the start and close of the 14th century. It greatly improved over time. The last accounts of crossbows made for field use piercing plate armor that I know of are from the 1340s, which is the last the time frame for the last accounts of longbows piercing plate armor without it being the sides of helmets. Yes, longbows could pierce early poorly harden plate armor. Later plate armor not so much. For the monstrously powerful and slow loading crossbows used in sieges they could pierce any body armor if the target was inside about 70 yards.

File: Sharksuit.jpg (25KB, 300x481px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x481px

>>1806923
A Sharksuit is basically "chainmail with even tinier rings." Medievalshits can't make it.

Also modern knives aren't made to fight armored niggers, as >>1806955 have said. Incidentally, those German policemen use the sharksuit too.

>>1808636
i can see her boobies :^)

>>1808636
>nipples showing through chainmail
I didn't even know I had this fetish until now.
Got any more?

>>1808636
>"chainmail with even tinier rings."
well then wouldn't it be even easier to break even tinier rings?

>>1808697
The easiest way to break a ring is to cause it to burst from the inside with a stab through the hole, which gets progressively more difficult the smaller said hole is.
You can't really cut through metal rings too well with a slash.

Theoretically they had the stopping power of guns long before guns were even invented so yeah

>>1806787
They're actually not that powerful. Medieval crossbows had a very short powerstroke compared to a bow, meaning that for a given kynetic energy of an arrow, their pull weight had to be 3-4 times larger.
But the advantage over regular bows is that their power isn't limited by human strenght, so in theory they could pierce everyhing if designed properly. Video highly related; modern crossbows are devastating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLRymWv-CA

>>1809230
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNpAxD6Cd_k

>>1806787
>Were crossbows as good as the Pope made them out to be, and supposedly had them banned?
That's a myth.

They were supposedly banned during the second council of the lateran. However, the text specifically does not just mention crossbows but bows and archery in general. The pope also banned tournaments since he felt that they were too dangerous and fostered vanity in people. Obviously nobody cared about it.

>>1809230
>the advantage over regular bows is that their power isn't limited by human strenght, so in theory they could pierce everyhing if designed properly.
Another important factor is that they can be fired from cover and pre-loaded.

Crossbows have loads of advantages.