Are bows and crossbows to weak?

[Muggins]

On the comments on the effectiveness in TRoS, adding SA's in somewhere can normally make even the biggest bastard go down.

James

[Andrew Mure]

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.

Right, I'll have a go. Consider viewing the attack of the archers as all the archers firing in one mass volley attacking the unit rather than individual knights. First take tell the players in game a volley of arrows is being fired upon them by a regiment of archers in the distance, then roll the missile pool that you have designated for one archer (I suggest at least 10). Add any successes to the strength of bow (usually 8) but unless you have enough that you feel will kill or seriously injure a knight, keep the score in your mind and simply say arrows keep falling all around the unit. Allow the players to make a few decisions and then grin evilly and roll the missile pool again adding any successes to the score in your mind once it reaches enough to cause serious damage then resolve on one of the players' npc allies. Any successes left over add to a new strength of 8 and repeat the process every few minutes until either all the knights are dead, the players' regiment get close to engage the archers or their allies in close combat or decides wisely to get out of range. A word of caution make npcs the victims of this volley (at least lethaly) unless the players' characters are really asking for it. Also lessen the effectiveness of it if the players think up a good way to avoid the worst of it.

Your players should learn to fear massed archery pretty quickly! I imagine there will be some rule to cover mass bowfire in TFOB.

[Poleaxe]

To make longbows and crossbows more effective (which I think is necessary), rely on the house rule of TO only cancelling STR damage (in this case, the bow's STR).  I would actually up the STR of a crossbow.  In any case, you had the kind that where you physically pulled the bowstring and bolt back with your feet in the stirrups, but also the winch operated kind.  The early winches as I recall didn't required much strength, but took a long time to pull the string.  However, I've read that some later winches did require strength and lots of reload time, don't know if this is accurate though.

In any case, another simple fix... crossbow bolts and arrows from longbows (especially at short range, your call...) had armor piercing capabilities.  I've read about bolts (that means from x-bows only folks)that went through metal shields and into full plate and killing the man inside!  Make them do +1 or more damage to armors.  Whatever the longbow bonus, crossbows should deal one more extra point.  You may even want to adjust the damage downward for longer ranges.

-Alan

[Salamander]

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?

So welded maille. A type of maille not used after the invention of riveted maille.

In regards to making other types of armours, if the only weapon on the battle field was the longbow, then there would be no need, right? Well, there were other weapons. Please remember I did provide sources for you to peruse in support of my arguement. Rememebr I did say that there was still damage being done, even though the arrow does not get through the maille, it is still transferring energy, which will do damage, it is just that the maille will remain intact, at least that's what Eric Schmidt says, and he is only the foremost authourity on maille that I know of.

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.

A hammer... Are we talking about an arrow launched into flight with diminishing energy lost to noise (vibration) and friction, or are we talking aboput a smith bringing a hammer down on a nail to breach the links? I am sorry, but this example is apples and oranges.

[Salamander]

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.

Next time, remember to inclue the rest of the statement, in regards to those others who were purchasing the armour for themselves? I do not know if you intended to misquote to alter context or not, but please don't try it.

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

We are not talking about the lowest bidder or corruption here, we are talking about armour made by basically the only show in town. Had you taken the time to read my source by Mr Johnson, you would understand where I am coming from.

The "proof" mark is of questionable value.

Not if you put the proof mark in your own armour. :|

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.

You mistake misconception with physics.
The equation includes velocity, mass, material density, shape, consistency angle of impact, cross section and temperature.

And while these soft projectiles were softer, less accurate and slower than contemporary ballistic projectiles, they were still at least a match for mechanical projectiles (arrows & quarrels). As well, the musket ball was travelling at a much higher rate than any arrow or quarrel could achieve. I have no figures, but a musket ball would easily be travelling at about 200mps (656fps). An arrow? Maybe 50mps (164fps). A quarrel? About 100mps (328fps).

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.

Alright, I have to be mean here. Did I not say the proofing weapon was originally an arbelest, replaced with firearms when they became prevelant on the battle field?

Also, I have shown you pictures of harness and opinions of diligent scholars in regards to the effectivieness of armour, where are your sources to the contrary. In short, I have shown you my side and the information used to draw my conclussions, information provided by serious students & researchers. Where are your sources?

[[MKF]Kapten]

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.

Not only that, but the archers had to train their formations and firing in coordination. Only the first and possibly the second line of archers could actually see the enemy. The others had to aim for a certain spot in the sky and wait for the "fire" (or whatever term they used) from the archery- leader. That kind of mass training for troops were very rare at the time. This was of course not the big factor, the big factor was the one you mentioned.

The TO 6 guy in plate will have a total absorption of 12, not 14. That means 5 successes to make a lvl 1 wound. Not excessive IMO.

[Hereward The Wake]

OK.
Arrows from longbows will generally not go through plate armour, to enough depth to do much harm, which will also stop most x bow quarrels. Bodkins will go through mail, depending on the type of bodkin, power of the bow, size of the rings and garment worn under the mail. A fire arm will drive a ball through most things, but of course plate can stop it if in the right place. Arrows will go through plate, but that is plates of metal fixed in a rigid position. allow for the angle of the face of the armour and the give of a person wearing it then you are unlikely to get through. However none of this allows fort he obvious results of the deflected arrow or otherwise going into an unprotected area. This information is based upon research which my father has been involved in over the last 30 years with The Royal Armouries and The Mary Rose trust using firearms, longbows and crossbows.


As to volley shooting, I think that too much emphasis is placed on it as much as it is in later musket armed periods, the likely hood is that after the first volley or maybe two they just shot at their own comfortable pace. A steady rate of SHOOTING (not FIRING as no fire is involved the process of shooting a bow or crossbow) is far more important. Is to visibility, you can see quite well for at least 4 or 5 ranks. and archer needs a good 3 or 4 feet of space to operate efficiently, that means you have quite good spacing to see through when you shoot. Again this information is based upon practical tests.

All the best
JW

[Crusader]

It seriously upsets me when someone buys into the outdated notion that longbows could shoot right through plate armour like it wasn't there.  Mr. Bergh, you ask why armour was "scrapped".  It wasn't because of longobws and crossbows, of that you can be certain.  Remember, the great English "longbow victories" were over by 1415, which is arguably the date that full, uncovered "white harness" full plate armour hits the scene.  Armour hung on long after the longbow and crossbow were scrapped, in fact.  

I can point to plenty of examples of battles wherein the archers got stomped by armoured men.  Patay comes to mind.  Or what about Brouwershaven?  The account of this 1426 battle contains the following passage:

"...Holding their fire till the armies were well within range, the Dutch 'shot simultaneoiusly at the English with over a thousand crossbows. But these did about as much harm as a shower of rotten apples:' they returned fire with their deadly longbows and drove the Dutch back in disorder - However, arrows could make no impression on Philip and his heavily armed knights, who now arrived on the scene. The chronicler points out that Andrieu de Valines was killed by an arrow in the eye because he was not wearing a helmet. Duke Philip was their in person, his banner carried by the lord l'Isle Adam, whose armour, and the shaft of the banner he was carrying, were soon festooned with the numerous arrows that had lodged in them: and arrows dented or damaged many a cuirasse. "

Note that the armour is recorded as having been damaged, but not penetrated.  The statement that "...arrows could make no impression on...heavily armed knights" alone weighs heavily in favor of the armour.  What about the Battle of Flodden?  Even the English, who won the battle, note that very few Scotsmen died from arrow wounds, owing to the efficacy of their armour.  What about Nicopolis?  Yes, the knights lost, but not before they frontally charged and wiped out a contingent of Turkish archers, who presumably carried those hyped composite bows.  It is the way the weapon is employed, not the weapon itself, that decides battles.  Sound tactics and strategy have won more conflicts than any weapon.

I own a nice, high-end reproduction of a mid-15th century North Italian harness.  I spent a lot of money on it, and am justly proud of it.  I would trust my life to it, even in the face of the vaunted longbow.  Moreover, I've seen and worn actual breastplates of proof in a private armour collection in North Carolina.  Some of those breastplates are sufficiently thick that I have no doubt the proof marks were made by bullets which failed to penetrate them.  I will happily refer anyone to the collection's owner if further information is requested.  Recall also that there are one or two accounts from the American Civil War that illustrate the ability of spring steel (which certainly existed in the later middle ages and renaissance.  anyone who think otherwise is advised to go out and do some reading.  the work of Dr. Alan Williams, for a start) to stop the projectiles fired from primitive firearms.

[bergh]

how thick is your armour?

[Valamir]

Sal I have not, nor do I disagree with the main concept of your arguement.  However, I do disagree with the absoluteness of your arguement.  You started by saying that that a longbow wouldn't penetrate *at all*.  That is the point which I contended with before, and the point I contend now.  I am familiar with many of the "tests" you site, and they make a compelling case for armor penetration not being likely, but they mistake a small test sample for proof that it never happened.

You will note that I did not contest the current TROS rules which render a penetrating shot pretty darn unlikely.  I only contested two things, the aboluteness of your statement, and your willingness to accept proof marks as infallible indicators of invulnerability.  

I wish I could find my sources on the muzzle velocity of early small arms, but I have not been able to.  Longbow flight speed numbers vary from about 200-300 fps, though I've seen numbers as low as 150 and as high as 350.  I remember being extraordinarily surprised by the low muzzle velocities of early arquebuses, but I can not now put my hands on those, so barring that, cannot rightly argue that point further.

[[MKF]Kapten]

Plate armors were used up until the 17th century and the 30 years war. Before that, the emperors cuirassiers were as effective as they hade ever been (maybe not 10th century effective, but they were feared).

After that the heavily armored warrior had problems. But soldiers were still using breast plates for a long time forward. It was not that the armors were bad for the soldier in any way or that it didnt protect, it was just that the benefit didnt compensate for the cost of the suit of armor.

I suppose a breast plate could even protect vs a small caliber modern gun if at long range.

[Poleaxe]

I would like to clarify my claims regarding this issue.  

Prior to seeing the quotes above attesting, I had not seen any convincing historical quotes regarding Plate's ability to resist firearms and bows.  This I will take into account.

However, I am entirely convinced (and it seems Ralph is not either) of the absoluteness of the claims.

For instance, my claim was that longbows and xbows should have armor piercing qualities at CLOSE range.  Perhaps I was not specific enough.  I am thinking of about 30 to 60 for longbows, and 30 to 100 for xbows (ones with serious mechanic pull, anyhow).  

The historical records of pitched battles and armor's resistance to projectiles is not significant for our applications here.  Why?  They describe war, in which troops would most likely be more than 100 feet distant.  I'll bet you anything that for most TROS, situations, these projectiles are gonna be fired at 100 feet or less.  In TROS, we are dealing with individuals attacking other individuals, not usually mass battle scenes.  If this is the case, we need to accurately account for these short range projectile scenarios.

I am not convinced that the strongest man wielding an axe, pick, or warhammer (or any "can opener") has any better chance of piercing full harness than a man firing a powerful xbow at 60 feet or a typical (at the pinnacle of their time) English longbowmen at the same range.  The kind of mechanical advantage these ranged weapons employed could exceed the effectiveness of the strongest man's umph in melee, isn't that what physics tells us?

If the tests very specifically described a comparison of the full harness' resistance to can-opener melee weapons versus the missile weapons (the better versions of the long and x bow) at close range, that would be a better argument.  I think we need to see that comparison to be sure.  In fact, you may even need to see the test with a man wearing the actual armor (which is not really a good idea).  Is there any forensic evidence of people in full harness being shot at within 100 feet?  Some of those people had to die...the question is, at 100, 60, and 30 feet, which outcome is more frequent, that's what I believe is the important question for TROS players.

Anyway, for longer ranges, I never would have used the armor piercing rule for these missile weapons.  Just my opinion.

-Alan

BTW, I think it's entirely possible that early firearms (arquebus, etc.) may have had lower velocities than longbows and xbows, especially before friction could slow the latter down that much (i.e. close range).  I wouldn't expect a huge difference though.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen any adequate information to make a judgement call though.

[Salamander]

Sal I have not, nor do I disagree with the main concept of your arguement.  However, I do disagree with the absoluteness of your arguement.  You started by saying that that a longbow wouldn't penetrate *at all*.  That is the point which I contended with before, and the point I contend now.  I am familiar with many of the "tests" you site, and they make a compelling case for armor penetration not being likely, but they mistake a small test sample for proof that it never happened.

Okay, the *at all* thing was supposed to be in regards to the abstract concept of damage, or inflicting damage upon the guy in the suit through the plate itself. I did not hear of a single source that indicated a person was injured due to a missile going through the plate to harm the person, but going in through the openings on the armour.

You will note that I did not contest the current TROS rules which render a penetrating shot pretty darn unlikely.  I only contested two things, the aboluteness of your statement, and your willingness to accept proof marks as infallible indicators of invulnerability.  

I do not see the proof marks as symbols of invulerability, just a proof that the stuff works. Hell, Jake has inicated that he erred on the conservative side as far as the effectiveness of armour and this stuff should be even better... But that is something we'll see about shortly. As for the rules, they also work quite well for me. In the last session we had one of the players end up with a bit of a dent in their 3/4 Black & White from musketry, They were fearing for their lives at that point.

I wish I could find my sources on the muzzle velocity of early small arms, but I have not been able to.  Longbow flight speed numbers vary from about 200-300 fps, though I've seen numbers as low as 150 and as high as 350.  I remember being extraordinarily surprised by the low muzzle velocities of early arquebuses, but I can not now put my hands on those, so barring that, cannot rightly argue that point further.

I hope you do, this info would be useful. Also, thank you for the correction of the mechanical projectile velocities. They will prove to be handy.

[bergh]

I must say that i now have found my conclusion!

I simple add +3/+2 against armour like the half-sword rule, i ofcourse need to test how high the modifer need to be, but its easy, and do not effect anything else but armour...need!

[Valamir]

I do not see the proof marks as symbols of invulerability, just a proof that the stuff works.

Quite.  But lets also acknowlege that the samples of actual battlefield armor that we have today will have been naturally selected to be those that worked.  If a couple dozen knights at Agincourt died with long bow shafts penetrating their cuirass it would be safe to assume that that armor would not be reused, but instead melted down for scrap...a failed "proof" test as it were.

Therefor when modern tests are done based on the capabilities of period armor, the baseline they have for comparison will naturally be skewed towards armor that worked and thus survived until today.

In statistical analysis this is called survivorship bias.  As an investment manager its something I'm particularly sensitive to because it impacts how investment performance gets reported.  As an illustration, if a manager reports his investment performance only for his current accounts, this number will fail to take into account clients who left.  Since a good reason why clients would leave is poor performance, selecting only current clients will skew performance to the upside.  I would argue that the current armor collections in the world are similiarly skewed to the upside and can't be assumed to be representational of the mean since the pieces that turned out to be inferior would be less likely to have survived.

Also, thank you for the correction of the mechanical projectile velocities.

They came from a bow manufacturers website and so are numbers for modern reproductions (full reproductions, not SCA safe versions).  The bows seem to have been attempted to have been designed authentically including dimensions, shaping, and wood used, so given the relative mechanical simplicity of a long bow, they should be fairly close to accurate.