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?

bergh wrote: 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?

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.

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.

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.

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,

bergh wrote: 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,

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

James

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.

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.

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

James

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.

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

bergh wrote: 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 wrote:

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.

Andrew Mure wrote: 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.

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

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.

how thick is your armour?

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.

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.

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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

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!

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

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

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"...

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?

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

Poleaxe wrote: I would actually up the STR of a crossbow.

Crusader wrote: 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.

Drifter Bob wrote: (...)
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.
(...)

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

.

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

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

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

Drifter Bob wrote:

Salamander wrote: 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