Arrows and Headshots

[Baron]

Felt I should make this post since I saw some silliness and I don't like silliness where it doesn't belong.

Bows will always have less accuracy than a gun. So let's look at how guns are used to get an upper bound of bow accuracy. In law enforcement as well as on gun ranges, and in hunting, all sources indicate that you should aim for the center of mass (usually the torso). This is pretty good advice, since the center of mass is the largest target and hitting it will often stop the target in its tracks. Headshots are more effective at instant shutdown, but a head is a small, densely armoured object and it's not unheard of for small arms to fail to penetrate the skull. Far easier to go for the center of mass. And this is with a supersonic object that can be simulated as moving in a straight line over short to moderate distances. Arrows are not that kind of object.

Headshots are something that's rarely if ever attempted IRL, and exist only in video games for those skillshots. Don't take CoD as a realistic gun simulator.

Arrows are universally slower and less accurate than guns. One advantage they do have is the ability to propel a 2 foot long wooden shaft into a target, and big wooden sticks are much better at doing harm and stopping targets in their tracks. An arrow can cause laceration, internal bleeding, broken bones, and more. Why the hell would you waste serious organ damage over hoping to hit the head? This isn't Walking Dead, hitting them in the torso will more often than not hit something vital for being not-dead. And it's a bigger target!

 

[Gregor]

I would like to add on this.

Draw weight does not mean that a bow is more powerful, the size of the arrow does too.
Arrows were not made equally, if you're firing an english warbow you have to fire a larger arrow otherwise the arrow would fall apart mid flight.

An english warbow was a weapon of war, back quivers didn't work since the arrow was three feet long, good luck pulling that out from your back.
Belt quivers were a thing, but the real english archers just carried the arrows in a bag and sticked them in the dirt in front of them before a battle.

And last, these bows were not made to instagib and kill people from a few meters range like whipping out a pistol. Bows were used en masse to disrupt formations and reduce morale
/thats/ why they were dangerous in warfare, because actual kills with them were fairly rare.

Bows have always been stand-off weapons unless you were Legolas the Elf. Aside from slings (which were very specialized) and thrown spears/javelins (which had limited range) they were the best way to hit your enemy from afar. In the ancient world, if the bowmen ended up in close combat the battle was not going well for whichever force had fielded the bowmen. I think the same basic tenet applies to crossbowmen, although they were employed a little differently.

 

[DraconDarknight]

They usually were not able to penetrate Plate Helmets enough to be fatal either, since we are already at the topic of bow realism.

 

[Gaby]

They usually were not able to penetrate Plate Helmets enough to be fatal either, since we are already at the topic of bow realism.

but nobody in Altera wears helmets! they're all too much in love with their own handsome faces.

in all seriousness though good post 10/10

 

[Gregor]

Let me explain something about helmets.


Helmets and breastplates were the thickest parts of armour, you're generally safe.

The problem is that it gets hot in that armour, and that situational awareness is decreased while wearing one of them, there are situations where its better to take off your helmet.

 

[Fronslin]

but nobody in Altera wears helmets! they're all too much in love with their own handsome faces.

in all seriousness though good post 10/10

Nah we just dislike helmet hair

 

[roopot]

Aside from slings (which were very specialized)

This is in fact incorrect.

 

[Gaby]

Let me explain something about helmets.


Helmets and breastplates were the thickest parts of armour, you're generally safe.

The problem is that it gets hot in that armour, and that situational awareness is decreased while wearing one of them, there are situations where its better to take off your helmet.

all that fancy stuff's just an excuse to look fabulous in plate armor.
fashion always overrides practicality

 

[Tybalt]

Felt I should make this post since I saw some silliness and I don't like silliness where it doesn't belong.

Bows will always have less accuracy than a gun. So let's look at how guns are used to get an upper bound of bow accuracy. In law enforcement as well as on gun ranges, and in hunting, all sources indicate that you should aim for the center of mass (usually the torso). This is pretty good advice, since the center of mass is the largest target and hitting it will often stop the target in its tracks. Headshots are more effective at instant shutdown, but a head is a small, densely armoured object and it's not unheard of for small arms to fail to penetrate the skull. Far easier to go for the center of mass. And this is with a supersonic object that can be simulated as moving in a straight line over short to moderate distances. Arrows are not that kind of object.

Headshots are something that's rarely if ever attempted IRL, and exist only in video games for those skillshots. Don't take CoD as a realistic gun simulator.

Arrows are universally slower and less accurate than guns. One advantage they do have is the ability to propel a 2 foot long wooden shaft into a target, and big wooden sticks are much better at doing harm and stopping targets in their tracks. An arrow can cause laceration, internal bleeding, broken bones, and more. Why the hell would you waste serious organ damage over hoping to hit the head? This isn't Walking Dead, hitting them in the torso will more often than not hit something vital for being not-dead. And it's a bigger target!

I know this. I was talking about the people in tin cans who can't be penetrated or those in this leather moor elf armor that is the almighty arrow resistant armor. So fine.

Your right about the organ damage and bigger targets tho. I was saying that if I see someone get attacked and they are wearing armor all over there body that he can't first incapacitate them with a leg shot, my character is going to shoot them in the head to prevent himself or others he cares for to be harmed.

 

[Lord_Sinclair]

...he can't first incapacitate them with a leg shot, my character is going to *attempt to* shoot them in the head to prevent himself or others he cares for to be harmed.

As stated in the first post, it would be easier to aim for the torso to get a similar result.

 

[Gregor]

This is in fact incorrect.

I dont understand, Slings were /very/ powerful weapons that could rival bows, the problem is that they cant be used en masse very well. But their killing potential and accuracy from afar was very dangerous.

 

[BarbarianGaming]

@Tybalt What we're trying to say is head shots are useless. If you look at a lot of medieval helmets a lot of them are pointed and or made so that arrows literally deflect off them.

 

[Tybalt]

They usually were not able to penetrate Plate Helmets enough to be fatal either, since we are already at the topic of bow realism.

Aye, but you will still feel the impact.
Someone went to go on a blood rage for a blood god and terrorized a town for no other reason. That person was shot 5 times in the head with /Warbows/. Their brains would be mush, not to mention the concentration of fire would hurt the integrity if the helmet greatly.
But apparently the person wasn't even phased.

Arrows whether stopped by armor or not, the target is going to feel that.

Imagine getting your head throttled by a bigger head bodkin arrow shot at 150 mph in the head 5 times.

Have you seen baseball players get hit in the face with only 90 mph baseballs? Yeah they definitely feel that even wih their helmets on.

Also an English longbow could knock a knight straight off his horse.

 

[Tybalt]

@Tybalt What we're trying to say is head shots are useless. If you look at a lot of medieval helmets a lot of them are pointed and or made so that arrows literally deflect off them.

I was talking as if the person he's shooting didn't have a helmet on, I thaught that was obvious

 

[Lord_Sinclair]

Head-shots could certainly result in concussions and other significant injuries, but I think the initial point was that it is far easier to aim for the torso than the head. That, and the fact that a torso shot would still stop the opponent satisfactorily.

 

[Tybalt]

As stated in the first post, it would be easier to aim for the torso to get a similar result.

If they are wearing armor over their body......... If they are wearing armor that someone can't shoot them in the leg to bring them down or in the organs.I won't hesitate for the head..... Which a lot of people reasonably dislikes headshots.

 

[Baron]

A concussion is hardly as significant as having a two foot long shaft of wood through your chest.

 

[Gregor]

Aye, but you will still feel the impact.
Someone went to go on a blood rage for a blood god and terrorized a town for no other reason. That person was shot 5 times in the head with /Warbows/. Their brains would be mush, not to mention the concentration of fire would hurt the integrity if the helmet greatly.
But apparently the person wasn't even phased.

Arrows whether stopped by armor or not, the target is going to feel that.

Imagine getting your head throttled by a bigger head bodkin arrow shot at 150 mph in the head 5 times.

Have you seen baseball players get hit in the face with only 90 mph baseballs? Yeah they definitely feel that even wih their helmets on.

Also an English longbow could knock a knight straight off his horse.

Cite sources on your points please.

Also, a baseball is a different proectile than an arrow

Also, in real life arrows can be deflected entirely when they hit a metal /round/ object.

 

[Tybalt]

Head-shots could certainly result in concussions and other significant injuries, but I think the initial point was that it is far easier to aim for the torso than the head. That, and the fact that a torso shot would still stop the opponent satisfactorily.

The whole point I said about shooting someone in the head was if it was absolutely impossible to shoot them anywhere else T-T I'm a hunter Irl, I'm not arguing that fact.

 

[Lord_Sinclair]

So you're assuming that the opponent has armor, but no helmet.
Highly unlikely, especially if it's obvious there are bowmen in the match.