Longbow

Not against arrows they didn't

Mail + gambeson will slow an arrow down enough for it to not even be able to reach your skin

at 100 ms, full draw and not direct fired if you weren't dead you were fucked up from the KE, especially considering you aren't being shot just once.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

...

Longbows could penetrate tanks, thats why the british used them against the germans in agincourt in WWII.

Here's an interesting test showing the protective abilities of a gambeson. I wish they had repeated this with other arrowheads, but you still get the idea that a gambeson could save your life from a longbow shot.

youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

>aiming for the armoured man
>not aiming for the horse

Yeah it would save your life but the KE would be pretty serious.

KE? Kinetic energy?

yeah

It wouldn't. Getting hit with an arrow isn't like in movies where you fly 10 yards back.

No. Not really.

Under ideal conditions and against inferior plate, maybe, but it's unlikely.

That's not the point through. Plate armour was rare. The average joe would be wearing a gambeson and mail if he was lucky. Count de Frog might be arrow proof, but his horse isn't and his men aren't

a 144 pound draw bow would make the arrow around 110 joules which is equal to a shot from 22.lr, which is no joke.

Most armored knights dying of arrow wounds died to face wounds when they raised their visors at an unfortunate moment iirc

Depends on what era, also anything can beat anything depending on quality
The point of longbows like bows was to harass the enemy and force them into certain formations
Most key victories of the longbow are just bows funelling the enemy into heavy infantry formations and the enemy dying from suffocation
Also bear in mind not all of the body was covered in plate, so you don't actually need it to pierce plate, just mail

Only in very short distances. Arrows loose their power quite fast

>implying it won't get stuck in his coat of arms

you are correct.

the arrow heft from the strong arm of the English yeoman was the original sabot

it's a point of fact

depends how poorly the plate armor was made

No human force can pierce steel plate, and a bow is as strong as a human can be.

You are mistaken. It was Sluys.

yes, but only in the best circumstances. They can pierce the sides of the visor, as they are fairly thin

More like kill the horses and force the knights to fight on foot.

Have you ever shot a .22lr? It is a joke. Its barely above a BB gun.

Let me shoot you in the gut with one then.

When I'm wearing armor? Sure. Because that's what we're talking about. Your .22 isn't going to "crack bones" through armor like historychannel memearrows.

Matchlock pistols could penetrate period armor at close range at that armor was much better then 10th century plate. We were talking about gambesons not plate anyway.

it could penetrate ur mum that's for sure

Only English longbows folded 100 times can pierce through plate armor like butter.

>We were talking about gambesons not plate anyway.
from the OP
>Could the longbow penetrate plate armour

yer mum's thought of England a time or two, of that I can attest

don't speak of my mother that way

>discussion sub-threads don't exist
I don't know why people like you exist when Veeky Forums allows to track down the specific chain of discussion.
Maybe reddit is more up your speed.

>Here's an interesting test showing the protective abilities of a gambeson. I wish they had repeated this with other arrowheads, but you still get the idea that a gambeson could save your life from a longbow shot.

Did you not learn reading comprehension in school?

you're the only one who wants to talk about gambesons bruv

I haven't participated in gambeson discussion. I'm here to talk about brainlets such as you my dude.

Welp, looking through it seems there's no weaseling out of this one.
I was in the wrong. Sorry.

Even the narrator said in this case the wearer would be completely fine
and this is like the very best scenario you can get for an archer

mounted knight - shoot the horse which falls, the knight is trapped under the horses body and out of the fight, or injured when the horse falls. the scumbag english archers stream across the field using misericordes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericorde_(weapon)) on any downed knights they find.

and in mud, to boot

Very rarely and not usually fatally either, however it's still able to find gaps in the armour and many infantry would not be fully plated. Although mail and gambesons/aketins are shown to protect well from arrows. There are rare accounts of helmets being penetrated, but its always treated as abnormal and usually at a weak point, also not all bows, arrows or armour are created equal.

but horses were mostly armored though right? Or had some form of cloth which would likely catch the arrow. So you'd have to hit the calves of the legs or something.

Taking this as an example, pretty sure that plate would not sustain multiple hits, consider him being struck 50 times, surely he will suffer a significant wound.

No, but it could knock a knight off his horse.
It can't have been too much fun to fall off a galloping horse in full armour in the middle of a bunch of other galloping horses.

> implying the British forces needed bows to win a major battle

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verneuil

>No, but it could knock a knight off his horse.

Steel quality wasn't entirely consistent, and armor thickness varies based on location.
Getting through a breastplate AND wounding the wearer is essentially impossible. The tip of the arrow will lose its pointyness, which makes it impossible to get through the cloth underneath. Therefore the steel doesn't need to be of top-notch quality, even if it gets pierced the wearer will probably be fine.

Hypothetically it may be possible to wound through the limb parts as they are thinner steel and not as heavily padded.
The helmet and breastplate were designed to handle lance strikes so they were way out of the realm of possibility for a longbow.

Longbowfags confirmed for as deluded as katanafags.

Also, regarding full mail armour as was worn up into the 13th century, that seemed to adequately protect the wearer too. They could be pretty heavy duty with double layers, very tight weaves, and so on.

I've read accounts of arrows either bouncing off, getting jammed between rings or breaking a ring but not getting through the aketon.
The presence of specialized needle bodkins should be an indicator that wounding through at least some sorts of mail must've been feasible. Not all mail had the same amount of layers, the same size/thickness of rings (this of coure also varied on the part of the armour and the tailoring) and quality of rings and rivets.

>Could the longbow penetrate plate armour

No but I'm guessing their arrows might in some cases.

Muzzleloading pistols were FAR stronger than a .22. Again, have you ever shot a .22?

More important, you can't put heavy armor on a horse's hindquarters and expect it to move freely.

Repeating what i said in another thread:There are no "Archers" there is light infantry that can shoot with a bow and there is light infantry that cannot shoot a bow/doesnt have a bow.

Are they effective against cavalry at range? No. it would take an absurd amount of arrows fired at a horse to bring it down if you are firing from the front and even then it will be due to blood loss due to where its vital organs are located. Killing a horse with arrows is extremely difficult especially war horses which were usually the largest beasts they could find. And this is all assuming the horses are not covered with anything. Just try hunting a deer with a bow sometime and see even if you land a perfect arrow passing through its heart how far it can run.

Were they effective against infantry? Is it armoured? If yes then it is not effective. What archery is good at is causing chaos. It is difficult to maintain all your body parts covered and make sure you are not being hit at openings as you advance. It basically causes your charge to be slowed and careful.

If it is unarmoured or lightly armoured? Very deadly. The most deadly when compared to any other ''type''.

Again, archers would pull out swords and convert into infantry as soon as the range was closed. Even english bowmen were not exclusively archers. They were infantrymen who had bows.

that is obviously shit plate

that is obviously good plate

There is a battle in which it was noted that a lot of sides of helmets had arrows go into them around 1380. However the side of a helmet is much weaker than the top or face most of the time.

Also plate armor was used over a long period of time and improved. Chances are that it could piece early transitional plate armor at close range but lost effectiveness over time. See pic for the type of armor I am talking about.

In any event by the late part of the hundred years war it could not. But it could find gaps via volume based fire.

youtube.com/watch?v=HMvz-z1SPLQ&index=9&list=PLMUtS78ZxryM86pqkpM990dIcxe7oGkOm

youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY&index=2&list=PLMUtS78ZxryM86pqkpM990dIcxe7oGkOm

youtube.com/watch?v=yewwhjUYEPQ&index=3&list=PLMUtS78ZxryM86pqkpM990dIcxe7oGkOm

youtube.com/watch?v=IHqo4syIqD8&index=4&list=PLMUtS78ZxryM86pqkpM990dIcxe7oGkOm

Good luck with that. For horse to fall you have either kill him with that shot (brain damage), or break his legs. It was hard to do even for firearms.

>Again, archers would pull out swords and convert into infantry as soon as the range was closed. Even english bowmen were not exclusively archers. They were infantrymen who had bows.

Actually this is true ONLY of English archers, since the English fielded so many of them and so few actual infantry, their bowmen were expected to draw sword and take part in the pell-mell. Archers of other nations would run away from direct combat, which of course is the single great advantage lightly armored troops have.

That is the only reason they are famous.

They fakely portrayed themselves to be soft targets and suddenly turned into hard ones.

The longowmen must have been excellent tailors, because if arrow were capable of throwing man in armor out of the horse, then after each shot bowmen had some arms to sew back on. I know it's Veeky Forums board, but isn't Newton's third law of motion taught in elementary schools?

Of all pictures you could have chosen. You had to to use that abomination of a armour

>Matchlock pistols
>10th century plate
I have never seen such things. Please show me authentic examples of these.

>best scenario
no. This is optimal 1v1 scenario. In a war where there's 1000s of archers shooting, few would go through given that if 1 or few could weaken the plate's integrity, few more would simply go through.

A bow is a simple machine that considerably multiplies the force. It's not like you could throw one that fast.

Matchlock pistols could penetrate plate and plate armor existed in greece, the roman empire and among parthian and sassanian cavalry

not the guy you are replying to but pushing a man back enough off his centre of gravity that he falls especially if he is bouncing around on the back of a horse is certainly possible, and doesnt require a huge amount of force, a lot certainly but within normal human capabilities

>given that if 1 or few could weaken the plate's integrity
That's not how metallurgy works senpai. Denting armour does not significantly make it weaker. If anything it would become even stronger through work hardening
Your only bet is penetrating the armour from point blank and hitting that exact same spot over an over again untill an arrows manages to go through
That's just not happening even with a gorillion amount of arrows

youtube.com/watch?v=q1WZLVZYBwQ
at 14:35
>there is not a single known historically recorded incident of a single individual dying from an arrow wound when wearing full armour

arrows cant penetrate plate armour
Crécy was an inside job

>not the guy you are replying to but pushing a man back enough off his centre of gravity that he falls especially if he is bouncing around on the back of a horse is certainly possible, and doesnt require a huge amount of force, a lot certainly but within normal human capabilities
What the fuck dude. It's already hard enough to do with a lance on horseback. What do you think an arrow will do?

Sluys was a naval battle and german submarines were underwater arrows couldnt penetrate them

i'm pretty sure an arrow fired from a longbow can penetrate a submarine even at 200m depth

Can you show me an authentic matchlock pistol (not a repro) and a 10th century plate armor ?

Yes but only the weakest spots and at close ranges for example the sides of visors. This has been confirmed by modern experiments. Most soldiers didnt wear plate tho or only wore partial plate armour so it was still an effective weapon at the time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clibanarii

...