Armor Durability vs. Ranged Weaponry

[James Brazas]

I've done some research recently into armor durability vs. various forms of ranged weaponry.

All of the records I've found are quite conclusive that maille simply couldn't withstand longbows, crossbows, or early guns. The 100 Years' War proved that quite well.

I have heard conflicting information regarding the durability of plate armor vs. those same weapons, though. Some accounts I've read of Bosworth stated that Richard and his knights could confidently charge towards archers, etc. as their armor could deflect the vast majority of arrows.

However, I've also seen tests where longbows pierced steel breastplates virtually every time. I couldn't verify the quality of workmanship on the breastplate, though.

I know that the phrase "bulletproof" comes from Renaissance suits of armor where they would look for the "proof" of a dent where the armor had withstood a gunshot from fairly close range, so I know suits of armor could be effective against some early guns.

Still, I'd be quite curious as to how effective plate armor was in defeating longbows, crossbows, and early guns. Did it depend primarily on the era, the workmanship, the range, the location of the impact or what?

Any insights would be appreciated.

[Stacy Clifford]

Regarding mail, it depends on the density and quality. I doubt any would survive bullets, but there are accounts of Crusaders walking around looking like porcupines with arrows sticking out of their mail and still able to fight. This piece of mail we tested in 2003 proved nearly invulnerable to every sword we tried on it and is the toughest I've ever seen:



As for tests on plate, you have to take a few things into consideration with modern tests. In almost all of them, the archers are aiming at a stationary target, but a moving one is probably going to deflect arrows more efficiently. One longbow test video I saw recently showed arrows punching through a breastplate, but only about an inch deep. Add a thick gambeson or arming jacket underneath, or even better a mail shirt, and those arrows probably don't puncture the chest cavity, leaving bruises or surface wounds at worst. The armor looks terrible, but it's still done its job. They wouldn't have worn it if it didn't work, but in the arms race weapons eventually won out as 150-lb. war bows gave way to 300-lb. winch-driven crossbows, which eventually gave way to guns. Even against early guns though I think a quality breastplate could have still given you at least a 20% chance of deflection, which is better than nothing. It would be really nice to see a test against a moving target with accurate garments underneath replica-quality armor and see what really happens instead of sitting here theorizing about it.[/img]

[Jonathan Hill]

Yes all those factors are part of it. Defeating armor is not a question of if, but a question of how much. How much force needs to be imparted to X projectile to penetrate Y armor, conversely what kind of armor do I need to wear to protect me from X projectile? No one will wear armor if it doesn’t protect you from the most common damage you will take, if a man in armor easily went down to an arrow without fail, he would drop the armor and pick up a bow without hesitation. Thus will armor protect you from arrows, given a good set of armor and facing the common type of projectile for its time, yes.

The energy a projectile carries will depend on what point in its flight it is in. The energy at release is not the same as the energy it carries in a long arch as gravity brings the arrow back down to earth. The weight of the shaft shape of arrowhead, caliber of bullet etc all are factors in figuring this questions out. Over history bows have been of many different draw weights, the arrows have been of many different weights, the arrowheads have been of different shapes, and armor has been of many different qualities. A bow used from horseback will be different from that used by a footman and an arrow meant to fly 500 yards will not be the same as an arrow meant to hunt deer with or the arrow meant to be used against a man in armor. So any time you ask this question you need to be specific, what bow, what arrow, what armor, etc. comparing the wrong types will lead to false understandings of armor and arrows. If you take a 120 lb longbow with hardened steel bodkin arrowheads and put it up against naked chainmail you will shred the maile like Swiss cheese, but this is a poor comparison, wrong bow, wrong arrowhead to use against that armor, and you would usually have another type of armor to help diffuse the energy of the arrow.

The one constant you can see through history is that armored men have stood in a hailstorm of arrows, survived and it took melee weapons to move in and kill them after. From Carrhae to Agincort and many more, the armored men were not killed in droves by arrows. They were annoyed, pestered and exhausted by arrows, some did die, but most fought hand to hand and when killed it was by other weapons.

Now you have brought up a point I think is very important to any discussion of Arrows vs Armor, that being damage. Perhaps the armor did hold to one arrow or ten arrows, but did it damage the armor? How many arrows will it take to damage the armor to the point is will give? This seems to be the more important question to me.

This is a flawed test as all are, too close range, too light of armor but it demonstrates the point of damage. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs

I’m with Stacy more realistic tests should be done, but frankly it’s also a stupid thing to do. A skilled archer if he can aim will not aim dead center, the variable is can he aim.

[Clint_Schaaf]

I don't have any personal experience in medieval armor, but in my attempts to learn a little more about the subject I've come upon this article at myArmoury.com. Mr. Howard cites several historical accounts of mail stopping arrows and other weapons. Being a beginner I can't attest to the accuracy of this article or the information in it, but it was a very interesting read if nothing else.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

[s_taillebois]

Early plate armor (literally a coat of plates) would have been more vulnerable as it was not fitted, and the joint areas would have been either heavy cloth or mail.

The later more developed plate armor, less vulnerable. But the qaulity varied greatly. At Crecy and Agincourt French plate could be pierced by arrows from longbows. However a bodkin* worked differently than a modern arrow, it compromised the armor, and unless a lucky hit went in far enough to disable immediately, a armored opponent could take several hits before going down.

At Vernuel the French finally got armor which was effectively arrow proof, but obviously the horses, visors (sights) etc were still vulnerable.
The Italian armor used by the Italian mercenaries was a early form of hardened steel.

One factor on the durability of this armor was how much movement the plate had taken, steels of the late medieval were more brittle than a modern steel. Temperature was also an issue, early steels could be made more brittle by cold. So the Rus, Teutonic knights, et al could have had slight fractures due to cold, and cold armor could possible split when hit.
This may be why the Mongolians did not seem to have much interest in adopting European armor styles (plus these were not all that suitable for Mongolian warfare)
This cold issue is a problem which the metalmakers had well into the twentieth century (some have looked at the Titanic steel and found it brittle when frozen or close to frozen).

*The tips of a good bodkin was hardened. But have to remember that these were made and issued in the thousands. So the qaulity would have varied. Arrows were a fairly expensive piece of equipment*, but nothing like a suit of plate or sword. *In preperation for Henry's Agincourt campaign thousands of arrows were made, and virtually every goose within 60 some miles of London was used up...

[Stacy Clifford]

I’m with Stacy more realistic tests should be done, but frankly it’s also a stupid thing to do. A skilled archer if he can aim will not aim dead center, the variable is can he aim.

When I say tests should be done on a moving target, I don't mean somebody wearing the armor. Setting up the armor on a wheeled platform (wagon pulled by a rope, remote controlled car, etc.) and moving it toward the archer like a marching or charging infantryman is what I had in mind. Rolling over dirt, grass and rocks would help simulate some of the up and down and side to side motion of a man on two legs, which should significantly improve the quality of the test.

As far as aim goes, here's a question. Across a wide gap on the battlefield I would imagine you don't really aim very much, you just fire into the mass of men to disrupt them. As the enemy draws within a certain range then an archer can try to pick his shots and aim at individuals. Once the enemy gets very close, the archer has to start thinking about dropping the bow and preparing to engage the enemy hand to hand before it's too late. If a man is 20 yards away I'm sure you can aim anywhere you want to with ease, but if your shot doesn't take him down, he might not give you time to try again. So the question is, at what range can the archers start taking serious aim, and at what range is it a good idea to stop shooting and grab your sword?

[s_taillebois]

"As far as aim goes, here's a question. Across a wide gap on the battlefield I would imagine you don't really aim very much, you just fire into the mass of men to disrupt them"

The skill of longbowmen at distance a type of aiming, ranging the arrows to drop them into a 'kill zone". Which apparently took some years to be able to do consistently as it was a complex ranging problem, compounded with wind, landscape and etc.
In that regard the longbow at distance could be considered a type of artillery. And they did occasionally misjudge, at Barnett a contingent of bowmen shot their own people down because of a mistake regarding similar looking flags.

But not having a thousand or so longbowmen, trained to range, its not as likely we'd be able to approximate how dangerous this type of shooting actually was...most movies TV shows and the like (as noted) show the archer shooting straight in...direct fire was probably the easiest thing for which these men had to train.

[Stacy Clifford]

I've seen plenty of movies showing the arrows raining from above, and I do understand there's a considerable amount of skill involved in properly ranging a shot at hundreds of yards (I believe there are still competitions for that), but it certainly is not the same as firing directly at a target as these modern tests do, wherein you could see the face of the man you're shooting at. It would be interesting to do a long-range "lob" test as well, but that could be difficult as you say.

I suspect when they say it took years to train a good longbowman, it was mainly long range shooting and improving rate of fire that took years to master. Shooting 20-30 yards with reasonable accuracy doesn't take that long (months, though you won't be Robin Hood) if you practice frequently.

[Jonathan Hill]

First off an archer who drops his bow and picks up a sword to fight a man at arms is a dead archer. Just about every battle you can think of that used archers to any decent effect sent in their own heavy cavalry or infantry to deal with the infantry/cavalry before any of the archers got in to the hand to hand fight. So the archer should retreat before trying to hold the line against men trained to fight hand to hand and equipped with heavy armor.

Just to hypothesize on when to run: a fast clip for a non-aimed shot would be three seconds per arrow, let’s double that for an aimed shot. Now a good record for sprinting 40 yards is under five seconds, so lets also say in armor 20 yards in six seconds. So if the archer is getting off a shot every 20 yards the infantryman covers I’d stop about 40 yards out at least. These are just estimations, I’d love to get the armor guys out and make them sprint! That would be fun for me!

[Stacy Clifford]

Proper tactics would be to have other troops available to protect the archers, but I know many archers still carried a backup weapon just in case. Whether they drop and run or drop and fight though, there is still a point at which it's no longer safe to stand there and keep shooting. 40 yards sounds pretty reasonable, but I agree that would be a fun test to watch!

[s_taillebois]

"I've seen plenty of movies showing the arrows raining from above, and I do understand there's a considerable amount of skill involved in properly ranging a shot at hundreds of yards (I believe there are still competitions for that), but it certainly is not the same as firing directly at a target as these modern tests do, wherein you could see the face of the man you're shooting at. It would be interesting to do a long-range "lob" test as well, but that could be difficult as you say.

I suspect when they say it took years to train a good longbowman, it was mainly long range shooting and improving rate of fire that took years to master. Shooting 20-30 yards with reasonable accuracy doesn't take that long (months, though you won't be Robin Hood) if you practice frequently".

Yeah the ranging which was further complicated by the movement of the men who were being targeted for a volley. And Barnett for example the friendly troops who took the fire were moving quickly onto the pitch and the ranging of the longbowmen was 'good enough' as despite the distance and poor visibility they killed most of that contingent. And ability such as that was contingent on the ability to draw, nock and loose with profiency and that took some years and repeated practice to learn. The 20-30 yds with a warbow, much of that was physical training-these men's remains are noted for changes in the shoulders, arms related to drawing within the bow.
There have been some modern experiments with long range volley fire with bows but these only used at most a few hundred people. 2-3000 archers running about 15 arrows a minute could send a incredible amount of fire down range. At the same time they would also expend the arrow sheaves quite quickly, so many of these arrow storms probably lasted in minutes.

"First off an archer who drops his bow and picks up a sword to fight a man at arms is a dead archer. Just about every battle you can think of that used archers to any decent effect sent in their own heavy cavalry or infantry to deal with the infantry/cavalry before any of the archers got in to the hand to hand fight."

Depends on the fight and period. Henry 5th's army was heavy on the archers because the cost of the preceeding years of the war had drained treasuries. One could get more archers per pay than a aristocrat knight or a free lancer and his retinue. As a result in Henry's campaign, archers were sometimes tasked as melee troops simply because there were not enough heavy troops to fulfill that function. And many of those he did have, he made dismount to ensure they didn't rush off the field chasing honor and glory.
Many of Henry's archers (and those into the Roses period) had served in various campaigns and so were hardly incapable at melee despite lacking heavy armor. At times that armor actually worked agaisnt the knights under the wrong conditions,for example at Agincourt the conditions of the wet soil may have actually actually bound temporarily downed or partially downed knights (by suction on metal)...at least according to some tests done in the area.
And anyway, a archer had mauls, sledges, daggers, falchions and no great love for the aristocracy (because they knew they were viewed as 'men of no worth') and as a result in melee they could be dangerous people. These men had little reason to follow what chivalric intent which did exist because it did not apply to them. It could be argued that the 'death of chivalry' (such as it was) could have been a result of Henry's use of large numbers of yeomanry.
Dafydd Gam who supposedly fought through the melee to rescue King Henry, may have been amongst the archer contingent. (There's some uncertainty if Gam was a real man or a legend...and likely that will never be ascertained)

Plus we do have do remember that much of late medieval melee was actually chevelchees burning out villages and etc. So many of the archers, knights etc would have often been up against local militias, town watches or even less.

[Clint_Schaaf]

And anyway, a archer had mauls, sledges, daggers, falchions and no great love for the aristocracy (because they knew they were viewed as 'men of no worth') and as a result in melee they could be dangerous people.

Not to mention the physical training you spoke of earlier. These men were likely very strong from training with a 100-150lb bow. Beside their physical strength they would also have been very tough individuals living harsh medieval existence without the privileges and luxuries of the aristocracy. If I ever met an archer with a maul, I'd make it a point to be extra polite.

[James Brazas]

@Stacey Clifford

Interesting. So would era would that sort of mail be used? You said it withstood any sword you attacked it with. Did that include thrusts? Would it withstand a longbow?

[James Brazas]

So it seems there is a consensus that by the time full plate technology really came into its own, it could reliably protect its wearer from several shots from a longbow or crossbow (unless the archer managed to shoot into the visor or something). Sometimes, an arrow or bolt might penetrate the armor only to get caught in the gambeson or mail.

Am I correct?

[James Brazas]

So regarding mail, was it essentially a faite accompli that knights clad in mail would be defeated by longbowman or was it still a coin toss? Would standard kite shields have been of much use?