Medieval Archery

[Mryosi]

Armor had curvature to it that helps deflect arrows off the surface of the armor.

Do you have any source to back it up?
I, personally, find it hard to believe that it would make much of a difference. (I have no doubt that a slow arrow would be deflected, though not in a full speed, in my opinion)

And there was accurate three-layers cloth padding to the plate.

 

[Ace19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour

Concept and science is the same despite the modern examples.

 

[Tybalt]

Do you have any source to back it up?
I, personally, find it hard to believe that it would make much of a difference. (I have no doubt that a slow arrow would be deflected, though not in a full speed, in my opinion)

And there was accurate three-layers cloth padding to the plate.

@Scardrac @The Courier @Ace19 can back me up on this. But when things are curved and something hits it straight on, all of the force is not pin point accurate on one area, it is going to deflect off. Sources? My own knowledge of natural forces. I don't have time to go cite everything as if I was makign a history book for college. I sorted through what I could, i put the relevant information here. I've read countless articles and seen videos and i know how the arms race went. If plate armor could not protect from bodkin arrows, why even make it? people try to make Plate armor so weak and I can name several people but I ain't gonna call em out. Fact is, plate armor was worn to protect, not to be cut through like butter. Please take a knife and start cutting against a piece of steel. And post back here when you get all the way through.

 

[BarbarianGaming]

Do you have any source to back it up?
I, personally, find it hard to believe that it would make much of a difference. (I have no doubt that a slow arrow would be deflected, though not in a full speed, in my opinion)

And there was accurate three-layers cloth padding to the plate.

I don't know if its just me but I cant seem to find the point you're trying to argue.

 

[Raith]

I don't know if its just me but I cant seem to find the point you're trying to argue.

the point he was trying to argue is that plate armor didn't deflect arrows, and instead took the full force of the arrow where they were hit. I hope you know now.

 

[Tybalt]

the point he was trying to argue is that plate armor didn't deflect arrows, and instead took the full force of the arrow where they were hit. I hope you know now.

Then his point is wrong, cus it did. Really..think on it. You shoot an arrow in a straight line, and it hits a slanted surface. The arrow will slide along it, and veer off in that direction of the slant.

 

[Centurion]

 

[Raith]

Then his point is wrong, cus it did. Really..think on it. You shoot an arrow in a straight line, and it hits a slanted surface. The arrow will slide along it, and veer off in that direction of the slant.

I already knew this. I was just pointing out what I believed to be his point

 

[Tybalt]

I already knew this. I was just pointing out what I believed to be his point

was stating why point was wrong~ Didn't say it was yours~

 

[Scardrac]

Blah blah physics go stab an acute point against a dramatically curved surface with forward (not downward) momentum with live substance behind the curving angle.

There is a problem here. In order to get a good hit on the plate armor, you need good surface area to retain the force into a single point. That brings on problems with arrows. With surface area on the heads, you lose aerodynamics and you add weight to the arrow, which is a bad thing. Pointed arrowheads were made before plate armor was even a thing. The acute points were made to sunder the rings in chain maille apart, primarily. Plate armor was made and acted as a counteraction. Counteraction to that, blunt weaponry and high-impact weaponry. Things that weren't made to necessarily punch through, but to damage the user through inertia. End conclusion?

Arrows against plate armor = not too effective. Possible conclusion, but much more easy conclusions. Soldiers had different roles for a reason. This isn't an MMO where every 'class' has some way to overpower another. You're going to have a hard time 'punching through' good plate maille with a typical warbow at typical warbow range. They aren't that.

 

[Kyle1322]

but Muh bodkins

 

[Gregor]

Yes! there were cases where an arrow found a gap in plate armour and managed to wound a knight in history! It was possible!

. . . People tend to leave out in those battles, there were -thousands- of arrows raining down on a lot of knights.

Roleplay isn't fair as bows are a support weapon, and fights in HW tend to be small skirmishes where plate armour is king.

 

[Gregor]

Do you have any source to back it up?
I, personally, find it hard to believe that it would make much of a difference. (I have no doubt that a slow arrow would be deflected, though not in a full speed, in my opinion)

And there was accurate three-layers cloth padding to the plate.

The armours provided in these tests are made out of mild steel and iron. Steel in the medieval ages was hardened and tempered which makes this test unreliable.

 

[MRPolo13]

P.S- I've also heard (I think from Lindybeige on Youtube) that a chainmail and gambeson duo was really effective against most forms of combat-oriented archery. I don't know whether or not Lindy's reasoning is questionable, you can judge for yourself here.

Not extremely effective. Effective enough, so to speak. A longbow with a good 150 pounds of draw weight and two metres of length would still probably kill you. But there were examples from crusades of crusaders literally looking like hedgehogs and still fighting. They're not as bad as people think, but also not particularly amazing. A full plate armour is obviously much better xD

 

[MRPolo13]

Do you have any source to back it up?
I, personally, find it hard to believe that it would make much of a difference. (I have no doubt that a slow arrow would be deflected, though not in a full speed, in my opinion)

And there was accurate three-layers cloth padding to the plate.

You'll notice in later periods chestplates had a spine running through the centre. You also see this in modern car bonnets. This increases the strength of the armour immensely. Also, if something strikes at an angle, it has to penetrate the thickness of the armour at an angle. So if you try to penetrate a 5mm steel plate when it's flat on, you're only penetrating 5mm. But when it's at 45 degrees, you have to penetrate roughly 7mm, and your weapon has less of an angle to 'bite' into the armour. Here's a calculator for armour thicknesses: http://www.panzerworld.com/relative-armor-calculator

 

[Megadonkey30]

Do you have any source to back it up?
I, personally, find it hard to believe that it would make much of a difference. (I have no doubt that a slow arrow would be deflected, though not in a full speed, in my opinion)

And there was accurate three-layers cloth padding to the plate.

Besides everyone's response, you have the internet at your finger tips. Do some research bruh.

 

[MaelstromPuddle]

Need I also mention that those officers were either killed or made Prisoners of war and a majority of people were in Cloth and chain.

I will kick off if someone uses Englands luckiest victory as a case study for the use of bodkins.

 

[Teeke]

Agincort was cool, best fight I ever got to be a part of.

No wait, I wasn't there. I'm not that old

 

[pyrocide]

For medieval history, any claims made should be backed by sources. It's really uncool to spout a bunch of "facts" then tell someone to research what you just said. Case in point:

Dragons were actually common during medieval ages, and some historical reports show dragons were even used as a replacement for Pegasi since dragons had much thicker natural armor. If you don't believe me, do some research, bro.

(I agree with the curved armor side. I'm just trying to show you there's a nicer way of being right.)

 

[Tybalt]

For medieval history, any claims made should be backed by sources. It's really uncool to spout a bunch of "facts" then tell someone to research what you just said. Case in point:

Dragons were actually common during medieval ages, and some historical reports show dragons were even used as a replacement for Pegasi since dragons had much thicker natural armor. If you don't believe me, do some research, bro.

(I agree with the curved armor side. I'm just trying to show you there's a nicer way of being right.)

I done my research. Point was to deliver the facts of it all. Your right citing would help but I didn't take the time to do all that. Although, you will find everything stated above true if you visit multiple reliable sources on the internet.
But yea. If anytime I have an abundance of freetime I wouldn't spend on something else. I would cite these sources.