English Longbows w/ No Penetration?

[Patton21]

Hello everyone,

I have 6.2 w/ RR/RC and am thrilled with the realism and the level the game has been able to achieve. I have found that my English longbows in custom battle do not seem to kill many French dismounted knights when they approach my line. I have read several excellent articles including the included RR/RC manual. It seems that my longbow archers should be able to penetrate armor even at their longest range; roughly 1mm of armor. Have you guys found that the longbow seems less effective than it should be? I simply can not cause many casualties in the French ranks with my longbow. What are your thoughts? Thank you.

[Ichon]

The arrows have to get past both the shields and the armor of the DK which is difficult if it is on flat ground and a frontal shot. Higher ground and from flank or rear and the longbow and other types of quality archers are still devastating.

Its a slight compromise, if make frontal shots really effective then flank and rear would devastate killing entire units in a few volleys. This way you actually have to position your units a bit, not just let them fire at will and win which is not how English used them historically(fighting from prepared positions as much as possible etc).

[Point Blank]

Longbows were only capable of penetrating plate if they hit straight-on, at very close range. And knights wore padding under their plate. Once metallurgy improved plate was completely impervious to archery unless hit in a weak spot eg the visor.

Most armor, especially covering vital areas, was more than 1mm. In fact 2mm armor is not 2x harder to penetrate, its closer to 3x. 1.5mm is about 2x harder to penetrate.

[lampros69]

Longbows were only capable of penetrating plate if they hit straight-on, at very close range. And knights wore padding under their plate. Once metallurgy improved plate was completely impervious to archery unless hit in a weak spot eg the visor.

Most armor, especially covering vital areas, was more than 1mm. In fact 2mm armor is not 2x harder to penetrate, its closer to 3x. 1.5mm is about 2x harder to penetrate.

Spot on.

[Strategos Autokrator]

Yes, longbow shafts could penetrate plate armor. An arrow shot from a longbow of 150 lbs will go through mild steel without problems. There's of cause many variables to take into consideration, everything from plate hardness, thickness and impurities such as slag content, to weight of the arrow, draw weight of the bow, angel of impact, armor design, and shape and quality of the arrowheads. However, the impact of the arrow in and on its own was usually enough to incapacitate the man underneath the armor. You don't have to penetrate armor if you want to hurt someone, denting it and striking it multiple times will wear them out and make them easy prey for your own men-at-arms when they reach your line. The force behind an arrow equals a blow from a carpenters hammer! Imaging being hit 3-4 times like that at the start of a fight. You would be at a great disadvantage!

Early plate armor only had a Vickers plate hardness of around 100-250. Modern mild steel have a hardness of around 100 VPH, tool steel is around 250 VPH and hardened tool steel is around 500-600 VPH to put this in perspective. In the early 13th century, quality armor, mail or plate was extremely rare. In the end of the 13th century technology made the production of plate armor possible. In the start blacksmiths only slack-quenched steel with low carbon content. That will give you about 200-250 VPH. In the mid-14th century Milanese armor had a hardness of 300-340 VPH. Now they started to slack-quench high carbon steel. By the end of the 15th century the average quality of armor from Innsbruck, Augsburg, Nüremburg and Landshut had reached a hardness of around 400-500 VPH. Now they started to full-quench and reheat high carbon steel. Only the wealthiest of noblemen could afford this quality armor in the beginning. Supply and demand. It was not available to everyone. Anything from 350 VPH and upwards will prevent arrows penetrating the armor but it doesn't help much if only a small fraction of the soldiers wear this protection. On the battlefield, strength comes with numbers.

The strength of a bow is not just the speed of the arrow and therefor the range, it's predominantly the weight of the arrow. E=(1/2)mv^2. A 150 lbs longbow bow will shoot a 95,9 gram arrow at 53 m/s out to 233 meters and give you an initial kinetic energy of 134 J. A 74,4 gram arrow will shoot out to 258 meters with the speed of 57,8 m/s and give you 124,3 J. A livery arrow, the multipurpose arrow of the time, of 63,7 grams will shoot out to 265 meters at about 61 m/s and give you 118,5 J. And even more extreme, a 53,6 gram arrow will reach 314 meters at 65 m/s and give you 113 J. The arrow will regain 76-82 % of its speed as it hit a target on its way down. The 53,6 grams arrow will regain 58 % and the 95,9 grams arrow will regain 67% of its initial kinetic energy at max distance. The advantage of a heavy bow is the ability to shoot those heavy shafts the same distance a weaker bow will shot a light arrow, in other words, at the same speed. The 53,6 grams arrow will give you 113 J at point blank and 65 J at max distance. The 95,9 grams arrow will give you 134,7 J at point blank and 90 J at max distance. That small amount of extra kinetic energy at max distance is crucial when dealing with early plate armor of low quality and even more so when dealing with average armor at point blank. With a 170 lbs bow or even 200 lbs bow this will increase even more because you can shoot an even heavier arrow. The elite archers of the Mary Rose vessel did use predominantly 150 lbs bows and a few 170 lbs bows.

Against mail the type 16 arrowhead will burst open links and cut through the padding underneath like a warm knife through butter. It's actually better than a needle bodkin. In the 13th century horses were protected by mail and boiled leather. Archers would literally mow down horses from 200 meters away with bows in the 110-130 lbs range in the beginning of the 13th century. It doesn't matter much if you even wear Gothic plate armor if you get your expensive horse shot from underneath you by a common archer and than have his buddies gang up on you and strike you down with mallets, polaxes and bills. The longbow was a tool used in concert with other weapons, tactics and strategies. You don't have to penetrate plate armor for it to be effective. And its effectiveness is not a myth at all. The issue has to be analyzed with the armor development in mind in combination with the development of even heavier bows and better and more sophisticated arrowheads.

[+Marius+]

Yes, longbow shafts could penetrate plate armor. An arrow shot from a longbow of 150 lbs will go through mild steel without problems.

Yes, except there is not a single mention in the history of plate usage of an arrow or bolt ever penetrating plate armor and killing its user.
Not a single one.

There's of cause many variables to take into consideration, everything from plate hardness, thickness and impurities such as slag content, to weight of the arrow, draw weight of the bow, angel of impact, armor design, and shape and quality of the arrowheads.

Yes, and all of those factors go in favor of armors, even mail armor is reported of stopping warbows and crossbows very often.

However, the impact of the arrow in and on its own was usually enough to incapacitate the man underneath the armor.

That is idiotic.

You don't have to penetrate armor if you want to hurt someone, The force behind an arrow equals a blow from a carpenters hammer! Imaging being hit 3-4 times like that at the start of a fight. You would be at a great disadvantage!

The aketon/gambeson worn underneath plate armor has an extreme amortization effect that not only absorbs blunt impact but also spreads it across the entire plate section that is struck, it is faaaar more difficult to deliver blunt trauma to a plate armor wearer than most people seem to believe;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEX21WgJzA8&t=28m0s

Frontal lance strike; continues talking like nothing happpened.

Early plate armor only had a Vickers plate hardness of around 100-250. Modern mild steel have a hardness of around 100 VPH, tool steel is around 250 VPH and hardened tool steel is around 500-600 VPH to put this in perspective. In the early 13th century, quality armor, mail or plate was extremely rare. In the end of the 13th century technology made the production of plate armor possible. In the start blacksmiths only slack-quenched steel with low carbon content. That will give you about 200-250 VPH. In the mid-14th century Milanese armor had a hardness of 300-340 VPH. Now they started to slack-quench high carbon steel. By the end of the 15th century the average quality of armor from Innsbruck, Augsburg, Nüremburg and Landshut had reached a hardness of around 400-500 VPH. Now they started to full-quench and reheat high carbon steel. Only the wealthiest of noblemen could afford this quality armor in the beginning. Supply and demand. It was not available to everyone. Anything from 350 VPH and upwards will prevent arrows penetrating the armor but it doesn't help much if only a small fraction of the soldiers wear this protection. On the battlefield, strength comes with numbers.

Irrelevant, historical sources are far more important than modern researth of historical metalurgy.
Sources say mail stopped arrows and bolts extremely often and that plate armor was virtually impossible to penetrate with both.
That's just how it is reported from those times.

The strength of a bow is not just the speed of the arrow and therefor the range, it's predominantly the weight of the arrow. E=(1/2)mv^2. A 150 lbs longbow bow will shoot a 95,9 gram arrow at 53 m/s out to 233 meters and give you an initial kinetic energy of 134 J. A 74,4 gram arrow will shoot out to 258 meters with the speed of 57,8 m/s and give you 124,3 J. A livery arrow, the multipurpose arrow of the time, of 63,7 grams will shoot out to 265 meters at about 61 m/s and give you 118,5 J. And even more extreme, a 53,6 gram arrow will reach 314 meters at 65 m/s and give you 113 J. The arrow will regain 76-82 % of its speed as it hit a target on its way down. The 53,6 grams arrow will regain 58 % and the 95,9 grams arrow will regain 67% of its initial kinetic energy at max distance. The advantage of a heavy bow is the ability to shoot those heavy shafts the same distance a weaker bow will shot a light arrow, in other words, at the same speed. The 53,6 grams arrow will give you 113 J at point blank and 65 J at max distance. The 95,9 grams arrow will give you 134,7 J at point blank and 90 J at max distance. That small amount of extra kinetic energy at max distance is crucial when dealing with early plate armor of low quality and even more so when dealing with average armor at point blank. With a 170 lbs bow or even 200 lbs bow this will increase even more because you can shoot an even heavier arrow. The elite archers of the Mary Rose vessel did use predominantly 150 lbs bows and a few 170 lbs bows.

Yea, that's all nice and all, but still irrelevant in comparison to the available historical sources that describe crossbowmen wearing only gambesons reloading under arrow fire and looking like pincushions during their own volley release.
Armor worked extremely well, there is a reason why people sacrificed so much money, resources and mobility just to wear it.

Against mail the type 16 arrowhead will burst open links and cut through the padding underneath like a warm knife through butter. It's actually better than a needle bodkin. In the 13th century horses were protected by mail and boiled leather. Archers would literally mow down horses from 200 meters away with bows in the 110-130 lbs range in the beginning of the 13th century.

Utter nonsense.
Walter of Châtillon was shot over 20-30 times by horse archers at point blank during a single engagement in the Levant and none of the arrows penetrated his body.

It doesn't matter much if you even wear Gothic plate armor if you get your expensive horse shot from underneath you by a common archer and than have his buddies gang up on you and strike you down with mallets, polaxes and bills.

Archers engaging knights in melee is a modern myth, after the French(I suppose you were pulling the Agincourt/Crecy argument) were dehorsed, they were engaged by English knights and men at arms who were far more experienced at fighting on foot than their French counterparts.

Archers and light infantry engaging in close melee against heavy infantry, regardless of how tired or broken they are, would result in an massacre of the archers and light infantry and was never done.
The modern myth of archers actually engaging in melee during the battle of Agincourt is a modern lie told to make the lower classes feel better about sticking it up to the "Man", nothing else.

We have many historical sources of men with relatively good armor being massacred by warbows. Falkirk 1314, Boroughbridge 1322, Dupplin Moor 1332, Halidon Hill 1333, Crécy 1346, Nevills's Cross 1346, Poitiers 1356, Aljubarrota 1385, Homildon Hill 1402, Shrewsbury 1403, Agincourt 1415, Formigny 1450, Towton 1461 and Tewkesbury 1471.

No we don't, in all of those mentioned battles the vast majority of casualties were during the melee, even at Crecy, 1542 of the 2000 deceased "knights" died at the English front line, and at Agincourt there is not a single named armored person that died from an arrow, all were mentioned as reaching the frontline and getting owned by the more experienced English knights and men at arms.

True. Only the elite companies. Most of them had 110-130 lbs bows. A 110 lbs bow will still give you 73 J at 250 yards, enough to penetrate a gambeson, and mail of average quality, by 3 inches.

Warbow vs plate armor at extremely close range fired from perfect conditions;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk&t=1m30s

Warbow vs plate armor at extremely close range fired from an imperfect angle;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8FG...bOVmQOVGFjCMcA

Warbow vs the gambeson alone(that was worn underneath that plate/mail) also fired upon from close range;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

End of story.

[Caesar Clivus]

Ah the longbow myth lives on!

[k/t]

It makes you wonder why the English army doesn't use them anymore.

[Ichon]

It makes you wonder why the English army doesn't use them anymore.

Actually many clandestine ops outfits like to use crossbows and blowguns still. Longbow a bit awkward to use and takes too long to train with- same problems now as in medieval times.

[Caesar Clivus]

It makes you wonder why the English army doesn't use them anymore.

There was an article posted here ages ago about how even when firearms developed to the point where they were easier to use, required less training and did more damage than a longbow that there were still some English nobles/politicians etc who still wanted to keep using the longbow. They really didn't want to let it go!

[hessia78]

actually it was both the depletion of suitable wood producing trees such as yew and the decline in the amount of people who physically condition and trained to use a warbow to its maximum effectiveness. There was a phrase about when training a longbowman you start with his grandfather, as it pretty much took a lifetime to master the bow and learn the required skills to pass down to the next generation. Training firearm equipped troops on the other hand took only a few weeks with basic instructions. While a musket or crossbow were better at penetrating armour, a longbow in the hands of a trained yeoman had a greater rate of fire and was more accurate at long range.

[k/t]

They were probably the same kind of people who marched into enemy machine guns because it was the "honourable" thing to do.

[Caesar Clivus]

They were probably the same kind of people who marched into enemy machine guns because it was the "honourable" thing to do.

I think you mean they were the kind of people who marched others into enemy machine guns because it was the honourable thing to do

[AClockworkOrange]

Or pride...people get all funny when it comes to pride. Perhaps they felt the Longbow "defined" what it meant to be English or in the English army.


I'm getting way off topic, but

Most armor, especially covering vital areas, was more than 1mm. In fact 2mm armor is not 2x harder to penetrate, its closer to 3x. 1.5mm is about 2x harder to penetrate.

I wonder if this can easily be desribed by (armor width in millimeters)^(Golden Ratio) = times harder to penetrate.

(1.5)^(Golden Ratio) = 1.927 (about 2x)
2^(Golden Ratio) = 3.06956 (about 3x)
3^(Golden Ratio) = 5.9155 (about 6x)

It's hard to turn off work mode sometimes....

[Ichon]

It might be simple way to think of it but it wouldn't increase linearly in that fashion however and as important is probably the curve of the surface area. Any flat planes or notches would weaken the armor. You could have flat 3mm plate vs curved 3mm plate and there would be a large difference.

[k/t]

^^

[Gorrrrrn]

curious why knights have both plate armour and shields?
didn't plate make shields redundant?

[Tears of Destiny]

curious why knights have both plate armour and shields?
didn't plate make shields redundant?

Well, because a guy in Plate and a shield is harder to kill then a guy in plate.

Then people started making really NICE plate, and the shield was dropped in favor of massive weapons that required two hands, to penetrate the plate, and really nice guns that could do the same...

[Ichon]

curious why knights have both plate armour and shields?
didn't plate make shields redundant?

Not instantaneously. Early plate and partial plate was not a huge improvement over mail as it was usually quite heavier than mail for only a little better protection. Eventually as plate become much better shields become cumbersome for most plated fighters and many adopted 2 handed weapons since they needed the extra power leverage gave to fight other knights in armor.

[eizo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Kinda hard to imagine people back then made armor of that quality but still...if you are an English archer and you watch this video on youtube 10 minutes before battle, you would be like, "oh screw you guys am' going home"...