A point on wearing plate armor

[MRPolo13]

There is a lot of things unclear about if bows can pierce through plate.

Adding some empirical data by Alan Williams. He studied armour more than anyone else and produced a book of almost 1000 pages about it. (The Knight and the Blast Furnace)

Lets take a look at the data. I will take it straight from the conclusion. The necessary kinetic energy (in joules) needed to defeat armour setups (Cause penetration past the armour of 40 MM actual penetration into flesh is excluded) These tests are done using the pyrimidial bodkin point.

Knight (C13) in mail and padding: 120 J.
Knight (C13) in mail, padding, and 2 mm coat of iron plates: 220 J.
Knight (C15 with Milanese armour) curved plate of 2 mm, medium-carbon, air-cooled, striking angle of 30°, no padding: 230 J.
Landsknecht/Swiss Pikeman (C16 Nürnberg infantry armour) keeled armour, 2.5 mm, at 45°, no padding: 260 J.

How much force does an arrow have? Williams cites quite low values (The tested longbow was quite weak with only 80lbs draw weight)

The normal english warbow suggests an average draw weight of 140lbs, A bow like that would generate around 120 J at point blank

The average English longbow generated kinetic energy of 120 Joules which is just enough to penetrate the armour of a knight who is wearing nothing but chain mail and padding. 50-100 Joules more would be needed to cause enough tissue damage to incapacitate him!

How about crossbows? Taken the measurements of Payne-Gallwey one can arrive at 140 J for a heavy siege crossbow of 1200lbs. As you can see, plate armor is more than sufficient.

But, this is tested against the strongest part of the armour, arrows can still be deadly by hitting weak points, or damage joints and immobilize people in armour.

And before you recite armour test videos:

A lot of armour testing videos neglect quite some factors. For one it is stationary armour with nothing inside, usually a mere 1 MM and without a gambeson, together with the fact that most modern repro armour is mild steel - period armours were generally hardened; this makes a pretty significant difference to penetration.

Historical accounts claim that crossbow was highly effective. Also, as you did point out, that is the strongest point of armour. On top of that, chest would often be protected by the horse. It's likely arrows and bolts would actually hit elsewhere simply due to horse providing a 'shield'.

 

[Scardrac]

It also depends on the thickness and quality of the armour in question. Also the angle of which the shot is made.

(as demonstrated, it doesn't take much to prevent a shot, but still.)

 

[Gregor]

Historical accounts claim that crossbow was highly effective. Also, as you did point out, that is the strongest point of armour. On top of that, chest would often be protected by the horse. It's likely arrows and bolts would actually hit elsewhere simply due to horse providing a 'shield'.

The middle ages spanned a thousand years, with varying degrees of effectiveness of armour and crossbows

Crossbows did go through mail, and wounds dont need to be instakill to be effective weapons.

 

[Tybalt]

See the video in the other thread

But yeah I also saw very different videos regarding that too.
Usually the Crossbows can barley pierce the armor while I saw a video of war bows (probably bodkin arrows) that pierced right through it. (To a point where chain mail or a thick leather jacket below it would suffice to protect you)
I assume the arrows and bows were both made with modern day materials though.

Edit:

Aye I've seen this. The bodkin a sometimes can pierce the armor but it won't go too too deep. The deformation of the metal, is actually more dangerous than the arrow itself

 

[Scardrac]

>in RP fight

>bow aimed at center body

>complaint when he can't believe it isn't butter

 

[MRPolo13]

>in RP fight

>bow aimed at center body

>complaint when he can't believe it isn't butter

+1 for I can't believe it's not butter xD

 

[Gaby]

A well-trained soldier knows where to hit the enemy to cause maximum damage. Do you seriously think an archer would aim directly for the plate armour? Nah, they would definitely be pointing at the gaps and chinks in the armour where they would easily hit the flesh.

this!
why the heck are we arguing about crossbows piercing plate armor when we know such armor has chinks that can be exploited?

 

[BarbarianGaming]

Because everyone aims for the chest.

 

[Valonyx]

stuff

Pff, the english only won because the french knights were far better at tactical retreats then them!
*raises white flag*

 

[BarbarianGaming]

*raises Italian flag*

 

[Valonyx]

No actually, the French kept putting the pressure on the English. Also, the French had lost almost their entire army (either captive or dead) during the battle. None ran away, as far as statistics go.

They weren't exactly the most noble of fighters, mind you. They attacked the English baggage train; in response to this, Henry ordered all his men to kill their prisoners (the prisoners actually outnumbered the Englishmen by at least 2-1 at this point of the battle). Again, a case of tactical genius.

im trolling angry.

They tried to use a french strategy that /sometimes/ worked, La Baston, which very basically consisted of plainly charging with most of the troops you had directly in the enemy.
French generals didnt take into account the environment conditions, a mistake France does often :I

*hum* Napoleon in Russia *hum*

 

[Valonyx]

There's also l'Élan, a french morale strategy which emphasizes general Morale over actual skill or personnal combat knowledge, which, somewhat like La Baston, consists of ramming enemy armies with sheer numbers so large that you become almost litterally walk over them or force them to break ranks.

Élan = general army spirit, mostly infantry
La Baston = charge, effective with heavy cavalry

 

[MRPolo13]

There's also l'Élan, a french morale strategy which emphasizes general Morale over actual skill or personnal combat knowledge, which, somewhat like La Baston, consists of ramming enemy armies with sheer numbers so large that you become almost litterally walk over them or force them to break ranks.

Élan = general army spirit, mostly infantry
La Baston = charge, effective with heavy cavalry

Bit of a Russian tactic... Except Russians actually always had the population to do it with, and rarely succeeded. :L

 

[Valonyx]

Bit of a Russian tactic... Except Russians actually always had the population to do it with, and rarely succeeded. :L

Well the russian version didnt work because they were badly geared :/.

In the french version, it's basically the same not very trained troops, but now with good quality gear.
France always (apart from the first world war) had well-equipped armies.

 

[Gaby]

Because everyone aims for the chest.

again.
why.
the body has numerous weak spots that could mean certain death, they're not all in the torso.
I mean if we're arguing about crossbow darts piercing plate armor, why can't you just aim between their eyes? or at their neck?
I think someone else here mentioned the biggest weak spot in plate armor is the eyes themselves. why... don't people just aim for that?

I mean yeah
thats gory as hell.

 

[BarbarianGaming]

That depends on the type of helm you're wearing.

 

[Gaby]

That depends on the type of helm you're wearing.

As for aiming for the eyes, that really depends on the helmet.

most people in Altera don't wear helmets.

the one time I saw someone describe their character as wearing full plate WITH a helmet, it was to obscure his identity.
Protip: aim for the eyes. no one guards it.

 

[MRPolo13]

Have any you tried attacking the eyeslots of a helmet is my question...

They're not easy to hit. At all. Took me a couple of tries to actually get the sword in slowly at an immobile object.
Protip: Don't aim for the eyes unless the oponent isn't moving and you just want to finish him off, else you can try all you want.

(Bare in mind that this particular great helm had quite large eye slits too.)

 

[DraconDarknight]

I kinda remembered how people didn't believe one can swim plate armor once - here is proof for the contrary.
Please note what the guy says himself and that its probably his first time ever wearing plate armor.

Don't know who it was anymore so I'll just tag everyone who ever saw me swimming at said place.

@Ced
@jared - Hope thats the right jared..
@Tybalt
@Naelwyn
@Spear

 

[Tybalt]

I kinda remembered how people didn't believe one can swim plate armor once - here is proof for the contrary.
Please note what the guy says himself and that its probably his first time ever wearing plate armor.

Don't know who it was anymore so I'll just tag everyone who ever saw me swimming at said place.

@Ced
@jared - Hope thats the right jared..
@Tybalt
@Naelwyn
@Spear

Well, it sure isn't a smart idea.

I believe the argument I had is that you would be slower in plate.

I'm aware you can do cartwheels in it, but I can guarantee you an unarmored person runs faster than someone in plate (*knows someone's going to say otherwise*)