Longbow's piercing full Plate Armour.

[Jeremiah Guffey]

I know this has been talked about before, but I'm wondering if there's any really good info on the net about the subject?

I run into people allllll the time online that think longbows could easily pierce plate armour like a hot knife through butter when it's not really going to happen to a good quaity plate suit.

I try to explain to people the basics of the curvuture of plate, the person is likely goign to be moving, plus the simple physics involved with it and yet people still don't believe anything but the general myth that somehow longbows could easily take down someone in plate armour with an arrow that goes right through his plate, into the padding underneath, through his body, and then into his horse....

I suggest people read John Keegan's "face of battle" but for the most part it's not easy enough for most people to pick up a book and read (sadly), so i'm wondering is there any videos demostrating a longbow with a bodkin arrow against plate (of the same type you would find in the late 14th/15th century or so).

I think it'd be sweet if the Arma put up a thing about it/did their own "tests" with a longbow and plate armour and put up an essay/video and such about it, though I know it's more geared toward melee combat and such <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

There was a show that portrayed this exact theory-showing diffrent impacts against plate and whatnot, it was very well done, I think it was the "weapons that made Briton" series, but could be mistake- Kevin do you know?

[Ray_McCullough]

I saw a show on the battle of Crecy. They tested the longbow on plate. It penetrated the plate but only once and not a good penetration and only at very close range. All other shots from the long bow on plate were useless. there target wasnt moving either.

[Kevin Peterson]

The show was in the "Weapons That Made Britain" series and it was about the longbow. They had a champion longbowman come and shoot his bow and using a doppler radar to find the speed of the arrow. The man's bow required 150 pounds of force to draw, which they said would have been around the extreme top range for longbows around the time of Crecy. The radar showed that at he bow the arrows speed was 52 meters per second or roughly 116 mph. After 800 milliseconds (.8 seconds) the speed had fallen off to 42 meters per second or 93.9 mph. Using this data they then used an air cannon to fire arrows with bodkin points at a munitions grade breast plate to guage damage. They used the air cannon because they could vary the amount of velocity the arrow was fired at and therefore replicating strikes on the breastplate at different ranges. At a distance of 80 meters (87.4 Yards) the arrow with bodkin dented the breastplate and bounced off. At 30 meters (32.8 yards) the arrow punctured the breastplate but would have caused only a bruise to the wearer. At 20 meters (21.8 yards) the arrow punctured the breastplate nearly the entire length of the bodkin point and went through the undergarment and into the body of the wearer causing a serious injury. Hope this helps out.

Kevin
ARMA Appleton

[philippewillaume]

Hello
They repeated the experiment with a slaq quenched Milanes breastplate. and it failed even at close range (it penetrated but failed to get through the undergarment) I think that was on the Armour one. They used the battle of Verneuil and the Lombard mercenary steam rolling the English archers as prop.
Now all that being said, it was a TV show and for those of you that have worked with TV we all know that the experiment has to show what they want to say.

If we beleive historicall text, by poitier armour could been made arrow proof.

Phil

[Erik D. Schmid]

Philippe is correct. Those tests left much to be desired. Money and time are always the deciding factors in whether or not tests of this sort are able to give accurate information. Unfortunately as is often the case, the TV folks want to save money so they cut corners and only get enough material with which to cobble together something that will appeal to the most viewers.

Only a privately produced documentary will ever be able to do these types of tests justice.

[Logan Weed]

From what I've read the majority of lethal or debilitating arrow wounds against a plate wearing target penetrated the eye slits or some other weak point in the helmet. Not a terribly high rate of success but considering the volume of fire possible and the range at which it could be utilized longbows certainly due seem to have been effective weapons against plate.

Then again, if they were able to simply penetrate the breast plate I doubt anyone would bother fighting with anything but longbows. An entire army could be wiped out within a minute (as I'm sure would be the result of an unarmoured advance on a longbow position on a clear day with no cover for the attackers).

[William Savage]

according to Ewart Oakshot arrows had about a 25% chance to penetrate plate.

I try to explain to people the basics of the curvuture of plate, the person is likely goign to be moving

hes probably not moving at a tenth the speed of the arrow, so the movement doesnt really matter, but if they could make bullet proof brest plates in the 16c./17c. (and they did) then im sure they could make arrow resistant plate.

[Martin_Wilkinson]

My understanding, based on a documentary, is that the arrow head has a major part in it's penetrative capabilities.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

No video exists of this, but a hungarian group called Mathias Rex did a quite extensive test. They used a reflex-bow, not a longbow actually (which is better for purpose I really bon't know. I belive that makes not much difference. Reflex-bows are said to be generally better, but they are not easily manufactured and shot). That had 45 pounds, meaning it would be around half as strong than a military example in the medievals. They shot this armour: http://www.sword.sg18.net/gallery/G01/images/AUT_0408.jpg (you can actually see some points in this picture where the arrows hit). There was absolutelly no penetration, not even from 15 meters.
- They used no armour piercing head.
- The armour is probably a bit thicker than the average medieval.
- This armour is not very accurate.

I believe there is a point in this ongoing converesation that is not well stressed: mail was called armour as well! I need not to say that mail has absolutelly no chance to resist an arrow! Most stories of archers shooting down knights come actually from a time, where mail was more common than plate. Think of Visby, Crecy for example: in best case they had transitional armour. Even the Black Army of Hungary had only breastplates above the mail with a kettlehat and sometimes a bevor, and that was in the 15th C.
The big talk about huns and osmans shooting down entire regiments of knights also come from the 10th to the 12th C.!

As a final note, I belive History makes his own proofs. Like, personal steel armour was around for almost a 1000 years.

And what about today? All bulletproof modern armour can be beaten by armour-piercings. Still the cops and corps are using them. Not everyone is equipped with enough resources for such rounds or can use them correctly.

Szab

[Erik D. Schmid]

I need not to say that mail has absolutelly no chance to resist an arrow!

Then that would put you at odds with almost every serious scholar of armour I know. Blanket statements like that are what drives the myths we all wish would go away.

Rather than reinvent the wheel here, do a search on the Armour board at Swordforum and maybe you will change your mind. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Filip Pobran]

i talked to one friend of mine, an archer, and he said that arrow has the best penetration power while coming down in it's trajectory. /\.

[Risto Rautiainen]

And if you are interested in what are the minimum requirements in conducting a scientific test on penetration, you can start by reading this thesis.

http://www.medievalproductions.nl/files/forshoworsafetyacrobat7.pdf

Although it's about bullets, it should give you an overall picture of the things to be considered.

[Filip Pobran]

thnx, nice project (i think i'll have a sciencegasm). it will take some time to read it, but it is worth




please, bomb me with some more similar material on pm.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hmmmmm.... You are probably right. Yet I personally tested penetration with longbow, reflexbow, longsword and half-sword on plate and mail. Our experiments may not have been accurate, but the bow destroyed one ring of the maile, while a halfswording thrust three. I was not able to pierce a plate up to date.

Szab