Are bows and crossbows to weak?

[Crusader]

I submit also the tests performed by the Royal Armouries that can be found on film in the BBC's "Arms in Action: Mail and Plate Armour" which should be available at historychannel.com.  Not only is steel plate shown stopping arrows from longbows, two different, and much more powerful crossbows have their projectiles stopped cold as well.  

In addition, the appendix of Robert Hardy's "Longbow", surely an authoritative work on the subject, concludes that while it might have been possible to pierce the thinner armour on the limbs, it was nearly impossible to pierce the torso or head armour to a sufficient degree to kill the man inside.  Tests described in Dr. David Nicolle's "Fornovo 1495" support the same conclusion, describing arrows from a 30kg bow piercing 1mm (a good average thickness for limb armour) plate to a depth of 52mm, 2mm (a good average for body armour) plate only to 11mm, and 3mm (helmets, certain breastplates) plate not at all.  If doubling the bow's draw-weight yields double the penetration, we're still looking at only 22mm penetration on body armour, which might scratch a man through the padded doublet he wears under the plate.

Arrows don't kill men in plate armour.  Wound, maybe.  Kill, no.  If a longbow could shoot through plate armour, why then did the bowmen who killed Lords Dacre and Clifford at Towton wait until they lifted their visors?  If the longbow was such a powerful weapon, why didn't they just shoot them where they stood?  Because it wasn't possible, that's why.  Aiming for a vulnerable point in the only way to kill a man so harnessed with such a weapon.  I *do* believe a man with a pick (or even a dagger!) at close range stands a much, much better chance of penetrating plate armour to a significant degree than does a man with a bow at 60 feet.

I have provided some examples from in-period historical documents that illustrate the effectiveness of armour at stopping arrows, and will provide more if necessary to drive home the point.  Valamir, I challenge you to find one example of an arrow killing a man through his plate cuirass.  If you like, I can dig up at least one example from the ECW wherein a man attests that an opponent was "...so well-sheathed in plate and mail that my pistol would leave no impression on him".  Plate could stop bullets, and not all proof-marks are the work of unscrupulous armourers trying to fool customers with a 'marketing gimmick'.  As for bows really being more effective than early firearms, recall the words of the English writer who, in arguing that the English should give up the outmoded longbow: "God forbid we should try our bows against their muskets"...

[bergh]

I would love seeing those small movies some time, but the site you mention is down, could you send em via email or something like that, or give a link?

Im thinking on taking an 2mm steel plate and a old axe i got and try to see if there is any reaction.

More importent, those armour thickness you mention, are there more sources?

[Drifter Bob]

Consider viewing the attack of the archers as all the archers firing in one mass volley attacking the unit rather than individual knights.

Interestingly enough, this is actually how Longbow archers were used, and how they were trained.  Contrary to popular belief, due apparently to the propaganda of the English, Welsh or English longbowmen could no more target individual knights (or any other humans) 200 yards away than can contemporary archers with modern bows.  They could however fire en-masse in high arcs, and learn to strike designated areas, rather in the manner of mortars or light artillery as opposed to a sniping weapon.  

For a fact, few missile weapons were used in any other way, the Romans found that javelins were relatively ineffective except when thrown en-masse, muskets were fired in volleys, etc.

It is well documented that those famous Yeoman archers trained to fight this way.  One of the exorcises they regularly engaged in was to fire from a group at a colored tarp or sheet laid out downrange.

JR

[Drifter Bob]

I would actually up the STR of a crossbow.  

There was a very wide range in the power of Crossbows from the High Middle Ages to the Renaissance.   Like firearms, they continued to improve in power.  At the time of the Crusades, you began to see weapons more powerful than any before seen outside of Europe, which had to be spanned with the help of foot stirrups, goats feet, belt hook etc.  These weapons had a draw strength of as much as 400- 600 lbs.  (Keep in mind that modern crossbows almost never have draw strength in excess of 250 lbs.)

By the later Renaissance, there were some military crossbows with steel prods (bows), which had draw strength as much as 1,000 - 1,200 lbs.   These weapons could only be spanned using complex winches or so called cranequin, a device similar to a modern car-jack.  They were very powerful indeed.

These were rare, expensive, diffcult to maintain, normally used by highly paid specialist mercenaries.  In fact they were largely phased out due to their much higher expense than that of firearms.

There were some anecdotes of super-heavy crossbows, arbalests, peircing helmets, splitting shields and etc., but it should be kept in mind, there were many types of crossbows, and few were anywhere near that powerful.  The weapon in the Core Rulebook is similar to the Crusades era bow, which continued to be used for centuries.

Of courrse, don't forget that flower of battle is coming out soon, there may be some new weapons and / or weapon variants available.

JR[/b]

[Drifter Bob]

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.  

Similarly, at the Battle of Leignitz, the even more pronounced Mongolian recurve composite bows, perhaps the equal of longbows, were used against surrounded knights, but failed to penetrate their armor and were directed instead against their mounts.  Another one of many, many such examples


JR

[[MKF]Kapten]

(...)
There were some anecdotes of super-heavy crossbows, arbalests, peircing helmets, splitting shields and etc., but it should be kept in mind, there were many types of crossbows, and few were anywhere near that powerful.  The weapon in the Core Rulebook is similar to the Crusades era bow, which continued to be used for centuries.
(...)[/b]

Also exaggeration is nothing new for the 20th/21st century. I think a lot of battle reports and descriptions like the one quoted were exaggerated for one reason or another. Not all, by all means, but the general trend of that time was to be more poetic than prosaic in descriptions.

(Oh, and about scrapping plate mails punched through by arrows; I dont think they would be scrapped as much as patched up and handed down to lesser troops. Rather a bad plate armor than no plate armor).

[Drifter Bob]

I'd like to sum up the technical data.  Most bows and crossbows probably would fail to penetrate plate armor or properly made mail at normal range.  Maybe, given the vagaries of chaos, a 1% chance. Think of early tanks in world war II.  A 10-20 milimeters of armor could stop high powered rifles and machine guns pretty much with impunity.

At point blank range and / or using the very heaviest weapons would increase the likelyhood of armor penetration somewhat, but still not to a very reliable rate (5-10% maybe?)

Finally, I thought those bullet proof curiasses were mostly used after the era of full plate armor.  Those heavier cuirasses were often worn with buff coat and helm, and little else.

The type of ammunition (bodkin heads) is also a relavent factor.  


Given this info, I think we are still missing the main issue with regard to game mechanics, which is that few in TROS would be outfitted in full plate harness over their whole bodies.  You either have to have a fitted suit personally made for you by an armorer, which is incredibly expensive (like a hand made car would be today) or you have pieces picked up here and there, whcih would tend to fit poorly and be much heavier, and therefore much more encumbering.

So in most cases, TROS characters and NPCs would probably have something less than 100% coverage.  The solution becomes that of killing Achilles: attack where they are vulnerable.  Nice thing about TROS is even hacking off (or thoroughly impaling) a foot would probably end the fight on your behalf.

Many knights also did use lesser armors even after the era where mail was universal.  Brigantine was a very popular substitute for a steel or iron cuirass.  Brigantine would be much more vulnerable to an arrow or bolt finding a gap between the plates.

And even fitted suits of plate often had many parts, like the backs of the legs or parts of the backs of the arms, that were not covered by plate.  There were heavier harnesses, like the Italian gothic types, but they would be extremely restrictive of movement.

JR

.

[Salamander]

Nice to see you are covering your bases. I saw your questions over at myArmoury.com.

[Drifter Bob]

Nice to see you are covering your bases. I saw your questions over at myArmoury.com.

Did I post some questions to myarmoury.com?

JR

[Hereward The Wake]

Test conducted RARDE, The RA etc have been done under the ranges quoted, no significant penetration was made. Certainly not enough to stop the wearer. But one must remeber that that comparatively few people wore full harness, in itself a bit misleading as they were not armours that fully covered every bit of the body. The majority of even fairly wealthy men at arms would wear half armours and as such would be more vulnerable. Hence the attacks of hand weapon and missles wil be most effective to the unarmoured areas. Certainly an attack wth a hand weapon at the breat plate will not get through, but a thrust to the arm pit, face, groin etc wil do damage. As such it doesn't matter that arrows, x bow bolts can not penetrate armour as there were plenty of places that were vulnerable, even on the best armed men.

So armour changes to offer greater protection, from all weapons, weapons change, and improve. But armour continues to be used in some form and fire arms increase, but longbows and crossbows are still used as they have roll to play. However once the nature of warfare changes so does the type of weapon used and the armour worn.
All the best
JW

[Salamander]

Nice to see you are covering your bases. I saw your questions over at myArmoury.com.

Did I post some questions to myarmoury.com?

JR

No.... but bergh did. Look at the Subject line... :)