Are bows and crossbows to weak?

[bergh]

Generaly I think that Long bows and crossbows are to weak, in real life, a longbow would go through a full plate armour and kill the person inside it, somehow its quite hard to kill an person with TO 5-6 and full plate armour in tRoS, even with a good shot

Im thinking that maybe these weapon should have somekind of armour penetrating rule, halving armour points.

Ring/Chain armours are in realife no use against a war-tip arrow from a bow.

What do you think?

[Salamander]

Generaly I think that Long bows and crossbows are to weak, in real life, a longbow would go through a full plate armour and kill the person inside it, somehow its quite hard to kill an person with TO 5-6 and full plate armour in tRoS, even with a good shot

Im thinking that maybe these weapon should have somekind of armour penetrating rule, halving armour points.

Ring/Chain armours are in realife no use against a war-tip arrow from a bow.

What do you think?

Actually...
An arrow fired from a long bow would not penetrate harness (plate) at all. In the early renaissance when they were selling this type of proofness they were doing this thing called "proofing" where they would shoot the armour to show the potential purchaser how efficient the armour was. They started using crossbows, but as firearms became more prevalent they began to proof using them. If the round were to breach, the sale would not happen. There are countless suits of harness out there with proof marks which are from arbelests and muskets. I have seen a few of them.

As for using a bodkin arrow against maille (chainmail) it was determined recently that the majority of the time the arrow tip would only penetrate a fraction of an inch. Most often being stopped by the gambezon worn underneath.

Now this does not mean that the abstract idea of "Damage" did not find its way through the maille, because often it did. It was in the form of bruising and maybe some disrupted/torn flesh.

[Valamir]

I've heard this arguement before Sal.
I'm not convinced its accurate.

Meaning I'm not convinced that musket ball proofing has anything whatsoever to do with long bow penetration for a number of reasons.

1) While I've been unable to dig up the source again, I seem to remember that the "muzzle velocity" of a long bow shaft was significantly higher than that of early (i.e. pre industrial age) firearms; due to many factors including low quality powder, inconsistant calibration, and excessive windage.

2) the bullet from a arquebus or musket is going to have more surface area (especially if made from a soft metal like lead) to spread the force of the impact out on, much more so than the hard narrow point of an arrow.

3) "Proofing" is just as much a marketing gimmick of the time as "money back guarentee" is today.  It would completely be unsurprising to learn that the "proof mark" on some armors was added by a little creative hammering with a ball peen.  I'd bet money that when proofed with a firearm that the weapon used was undercharged when it could be gotten away with.

4) Further, the proofing shot is going to be fired at the thickest, most angled, i.e. best protected part of the armor.  Something you can hardly be guarenteed to have happen in combat.


Therefor I find it rather a stretch to start with a proof mark (even a fairly earned one) made under controled circumstances with a slow soft projectile and extrapolate from that effective immunity to the faster harder projectile of a long bow.

Did armor offer protection? certainly.  But it didn't offer invulnerability.

[Salamander]

Well, Val...

I have only heard from the historians and scholars who have worked with it. Go to SFI and see for yourself... You'll be suprised by what the guys who research this stuff have to say.
http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=48

You should also take a boo over here...
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=798&highlight=harness

Where I mention this specifically and they seem to believe that it was a shot fired in battle. Granted a slightly spent round, but they do believe it would not have penetrated regardless.

[Salamander]

In regards to proofing being a marketing gimmick, I don't think so, not at all. Remember, this is a world where Kings and Princes, who could literally decide who was going to live or die, were buying and using these suits of armour, hell, even the others who could afford this stuff could kill most anybody if they felt justified. You pull a gimmick, you are a dead man. Fraud was an offense punishable by death. And even if you survived, nobody is going to buy your armour anymore... You lied to them and your word is now nothing, worthless, just like your armour.

Also, I am not saying the harness offered invulnerability, I am just repeating what those who are admitedly more learned than I have said on the subject. Longbow arrows did not penetrate harness, neither did arbelest quarrels. The people who died from such injuries had the missile find its way into them via openings in the armour, not through it.

[bergh]

Hi Salamander

How thick was the iron of an full plate armour then???, no they did not have steel then, not as we know it.

I myself have fired an arrow against an chainmail of VERY good quailty, and it passed right through, in Denmark we have Viking festivals, and every year at almost every festival, the local archery club, dresses up and try to make some commercial for there sport, and one of the regular events is shooting at a chainmail. and the chainmail always looses.

And if you also are saying that Chainmails are ALL GOOD against arrows, then i wanna know about where you seen that?.

About Plates, im my local archery club they have shown me shooting though metal plates, with both old style wood english-longbows and combined bows. not armour plates, but standard iron plates,

[Salamander]

Hi Salamander

How thick was the iron of an full plate armour then???, no they did not have steel then, not as we know it.

The armour was steel. They had rather well defined and complex refineries for the time and the armour production facilities of the time were rather sophisitcated. A current armourer and swordsmith who is rather respected and well learned in this field did a paper on this, which can be found here.

http://www.oakeshott.org/

Under the heading of Research & Articles, titled Some Aspects of the Metallurgy and Production of European Armor

I myself have fired an arrow against an chainmail of VERY good quailty, and it passed right through, in Denmark we have Viking festivals, and every year at almost every festival, the local archery club, dresses up and try to make some commercial for there sport, and one of the regular events is shooting at a chainmail. and the chainmail always looses.

Tell me of this maille, was it riveted maille of drawn iron? Steel? or butted maille from India?

Check out those links to see what the difference is.

And if you also are saying that Chainmails are ALL GOOD against arrows, then i wanna know about where you seen that?.

Of course not. Maille of the period was hand drawn and made, ergo each suit was different, dependant upon the quality of the raw materials, tools, apprentices and masters. Better quality in these departments meant better quality maille.

About Plates, im my local archery club they have shown me shooting though metal plates, with both old style wood english-longbows and combined bows. not armour plates, but standard iron plates,

Ah, yes, armour and metal plates are different things. Take a look at the pictures from the myArmoury.com source I provided and tell me if you see any surfaces or places which would provide you with an optimal shot on a hardened steel suit of harness being worn by a very dangerous man who is moving and coming for you with an axe in hand...

I learned fast that shooting at paper targets is a hell of a lot easier than shooting at a man who is trying to kill you right back.

[bergh]

The chainmail was professinaly done, and each ring was "heated and smithed" together or what its called, and my dad is an black smith, althrough he is working in another job now, and i have many 100 of times helped him work with small jobs, and generaly i must say that i've, can't see how a metal ring can hold to an arrow with a long and thing metal arrow, comming in full flight. if it could why then did they even evolve other armours then?
Try taking a metal ring, even one larger then on an armour, take a large nail formed iron spike, and try ramming it into the ring with a hammer, i will not think that it can hold.

[Valamir]

Remember, this is a world where Kings and Princes, who could literally decide who was going to live or die, were buying and using these suits of armour

Ummm, no.  Not really.  There is a gulf of difference between armor that a prince buys for himself and armor that he outfits his company of pike men with.

Corruption is not a modern invention.  Nor is giving the commission to the lowest bidder.

The "proof" mark is of questionable value.

But aside from that...even assuming every mark was honestly made...the fact still remains that a musket ball and an arrow are two very different projectiles.

These are not high velocity armor piercing bullets we're talking about here.  These are irregularly size soft largeish projectiles shot from w weapon of excessive windage using powder that is much less powerful than that employed centuries later (and hela less powerful than black powder produced today).

Higher velocity + narrower cross section = greater penetrating power.

Its physics.

Just because its proof to a musket ball does not make it proof to a long bow arrow.

Now I'm not saying that a longbow could shoot through 3 knights, a horse, two trees and a castle wall.  But I've no problem believing that more than one guy in armor died with a hole in his plate.

[bergh]

i was not done :) hehe.

If full plate armour was immune to arrow and bolts (and early gunfire), why was armour then scrapped? i have read countless times that the english longbow was an feared weapon, becouse it was really dangerous against knights, becouse of the armour penetration ability.

And was there not battle at agincourt where the French nobles in VERY HEAVY armour, was shot down by longbow arrows?

[Andrew Mure]

The old longbow vs knight chesnut!

Here's my two cents. I saw the experiment mentioned on TV and though the arrow bounced off the sheet of plate used to represent the knight's armour, I have a problem seeing it as a conclusion. As the records that the experts used to work out the thickness of the plate were based on writings of an Italian master armourer, such an expensive suit of plate harness might have been owned by Kings and Dukes in the 100 years war period.

The armour of your average Knight of the day would have been made up mostly of chainmail. His helm would be a basinet (which is effectively a good quality pot-helm with an attached 'hound-skull' visor), he would also have a brestplate over his chainmail and if he towards the richer end of knighthood might also own some plate greeves or bracers. Furthermore even in the best quality armour of the day there were spots which were stronger or weaker than the equal disturbution of a flat plate of steel.

The reputation of the Longbowman however has very little to do with the ability of his arrows to penetrate the mounted knight's armour and more to do with the amount of arrows he got into the air. The rough 15 arrows a minute average given for Agincourt has been proven to be possible if not slightly beatable. Now consider a regiment of archers firing such a hail of arrows into a charging host of knights and consider the amount of arrows which will miss the riders and hit their horses. Horses who even if carpasioned are wearing nowhere the amount of armour as the knights on their backs.

Now I am not trying to spoon feed you the old myth about knights who are thrown from horses being unable to raise because of their armour, but realise that people who get thrown from horses these days tend get hurt badly regardless of armour. After this hail of arrowfire the regiment of knights has now three types of members, knights without horses, horses without knights and knights who somehow get through unscathed, it is also rather likely to somewhat disorganised. What happens when the perfect-formed regiment of billsmen behind the archers engages the knights?

No wonder that commanders who had experienced longbowmen before and learned from it, made their knights dismount to attack archers...

As to bows vs armour in TROS I reckon its about right. A longbow is strength 5 + 3 + successes, a toughness 5 guy wearing mostly chain has a defense of average 9. Like the historical references whether an arrow penetrates armour is a mixture of the force behind the shot, the size/evasiveness of the target, where it hits the armour and a bit of luck.

Oh, regarding the Agincourt record add up the number of aimed shots a character can make in a TROS minute, I think you'll all be pleasently surprised.

[Muggins]

Time to wade in...

Plate armour, and to a lesser extent maille, is very good protection against archery. But it is not all encompassing. The English archers at battle like Agincourt and Crecy would fire hundreds of arrows, and only one of those need hit an unprotected joint or, more likely, a exposed piece of equine flesh. The charge would be broken up, rather than the chargers killed. Most accounts indicated that archers using swords, maces and clubs, as well as the infantry, did the killing, after the charge had disintegrated. In many cases the victories were extremely close- dismounted knights are harder to hit, but obviously close faster.

Plate armour became outmoded, not because it did not offer sufficient protection, but because the nature of war and the men who fought them changed. The rise of the militia and the professional soldier relieved the nobility of much of the burden of warfare. By the middle of the 15th century, most nobles were loath to expose themselves to the risks of warfare, preferring to spend their money on many troops rather than a single suit of armour. Armour, of increasing thickness but decreasing quality, was used up to and past the English Civil War (1640s). It could stop a musket ball, but not 100s of them.

On the issue of longbow arrows passing through maille, several things need to be asked. Firstly, what was the covering behind the arrow? A gambeson absorbs a lot of impact. What was the distance? Close range arrows could well defeat some maille. Longer, ballistic trajectories lessen the force of the arrow (why crossbows were much valued, for greater stopping power).

And the major point about charging knights: The knight is not going to stand still and be shot at, and the archer had better not miss!

James

[Muggins]

Damn! Beaten to the punch...! Two posts written at the same time...

James

[bergh]

Ofcourse i know that range is a big factor!!! and if the arrow was shot directly at the knight, or at longer ranges in a loop angle (or what its called).

My problem is that i have problem with players with to6-7 in full plate armour, somehow they are immune to arrow fire.

Fine that in agincourt, there where severly houndred arrow, and then one of them found a soft spot. BUT this does not work in TROS, TO6 and full plate is 14 protection, and a longbow is 5+3+hits.
a person need to have 7 hits just to make an level 1 wound, which means that its only crack archers who can shoot a knight. (or lucky shoots, but then again normal level archers should then be EXTREMLY lucky).

I hope someone would help me make a system/houserule who could help me, making full plate armour not the most secure places to be in a arrow rain. i want a houserule/system where sometimes an arrow finds a weak spot, and where i can justify rulevice that an normal skilled archer had "found" the weak spot.

Think of an battlefield, a regiment of archers is shooting, the crack player characters are in the target regiment, all in full plate armour, they wanna see me roll damage for those arrows, how can i jusify that the arrows hit with 8-9 hits, that means that the archeres have about 15-19 in there missile pool. highly unrealistic for normal regualar archers.

[Andrew Mure]

Damn! Beaten to the punch...! Two posts written at the same time...

James


No worries, the posts' good whoever thought of it first. I am quite taken by the points you made about the increase in popularity of mass warfare and of the crossbow's benefits so I thought I'd add something about that.

The longbow's main disadvantage as a weapon was the logistical support needed to successfully deploy it in numbers. Realistically to train a longbowman one had to start training him from childhood merely to gain the strength needed to draw the bow (this is well represented in TROS) as well as a good aim. One can imagine the amount of Longbowmen deployed by the English throughout the Hundred Years War would have required a sizeable proportion of the young men of England (and some extent Wales) to have undergone this rather obsessive education. There was a law introduced by King Edward 'Longshanks' I (real 'nice' guy) banning on pain of death all other sports than archery on a Sunday, which appears to encourage such a lifestyle and a thirteen year old boy from the period has been dug up near York who has arms like treetrunks!

One of the advantages of the crossbow and then later muskets was that almost anyone could be trained to use them effectively in a relatively short space of time.