Arrows vs Armour 2

[MikeC_81]

https://youtu.be/ds-Ev5msyzo

It's finally here.

[SnuggleBunnies]

https://youtu.be/ds-Ev5msyzo

It's finally here.

Long time no see Mike. Thanks for letting us know, I've been eagerly awaiting this one.

[MVP7]

Excellent experiment. The original test was one of the best experiments out there and this is probably the most complete and historically accurate set of armor ever tested on camera. You can really see why many details of armor were designed as they were and why the plate coverage kept increasing.

It's also pretty interesting take on what is probably equivalent to a pretty "average" longbowman shooting at static target from ideal distance in low-stress situation. You can imagine how hard it would be to consistently hit the weak spots at longer range on rabidly approaching angry knight with the horse in the way.

[Jagger2002]

Mail was the weakness. Showers of longbow arrows are going to hurt. Even with the armor, you don't want to be in the front rank.

[w_michael]

Wow, a Stratford Scramble tournament. That brings back memories. Hey Mike.

[MVP7]

Another set of videos in this series has been released. This time it covers an infantryman-type mixed armor of the mid 15th century and newer arrow types. Perhaps most interestingly, in the main video Tod has 7 longbow hobbyists shooting at the suit of armor from 60, 40 and 20 meters. In terms of strength and skill the archers are probably a pretty good proxy for a gamut of historical longbowmen ranging from raw to professional.

First video is a controlled test of various arrowheads against a flat plate to test penetration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBbVWqA45fI

Second video covers the main test with multiple archers and a suit of armor. If you are going to watch just one, watch this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFFgcTzCvMo

Third video is a detailed look at the damage to armor pieces and how the arrows fared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMzSx9Pdyc4

Fourth video is an in depth look at some of the arrows used in the the tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfdZUEa7Sc0

My personal takeaways from these videos have been that the "primary" armor generally wins against any arrow at any range and secondary/tertiary armor loses against arrow at any practical range, and that shooting for the eye slits etc is not something that would systematically happen in battlefield conditions (which should not come as surprise to anyone). Brigandine, in combination with underneath mail worked even better than I would have expected based on some other (less comprehensive) tests I have seen. It's worth noting that the target takes a lot of shots, i.e. you have a ~15 meter front of archers shooting at one target rather than at a 15 meter front of targets, but those shots are disproportionally aimed at the best armored parts rather than the unarmored legs for the sake of the test.

Regardless of theoretical maximum ranges, the preferable shooting range against armored targets is as close as possibile. In wargaming terms, bows (and other missile weapons) would very much be a part of the "melee" as long as the bowmen remain steady and organized (which your average massed bowmen unit in the open likely wouldn't), the melee itself being a prolonged probing back and forth rather than a constant physical push and clash. In FoG2 the longbowmen fighting over stakes or other obstacles seems like a good proxy for this close shooting and from top down perspective things also work out for the missiles mixed in warbands, shieldwalls, Late Roman/Byzantine infantry, Sparabara and Immortals etc.

In low level medieval combat games like Mount & Blade or Mordhau you also see this kind of close range shooting where it ironically could be thought of as gamey (though in fairness, the armor is also always too ineffective in those games). On the other hand, in games like Total War the archers tend to hot swap to daggers as soon as some edge of their formation touches an enemy, which showcases the issues of bottom up approach in historical wargaming: despite the greater number of moving parts, the parts that are left out or inaccurate by practical necessity push inaccuracies to the top level.

Another takeaway from the videos is that I remain perplexed by the seemingly common late medieval practice of combining a full amor protection above hip to next to nothing below. In the test, vast majority arrows that caused combat relevant damage were to hips and thighs. Those hits would both immobilize and be very close to a lot of major blood vessels. If I had to pick as few pieces of armor to wear as possible, I'd definitely take cuisses as the first thing after helmet, chestpiece and some type of metal neck armor. Only then would I look at arm and hand protection and a mail layer.

[Athos1660]

The English defeat at the battle of Patay (1429) against a few charging cavalrymen (knights and mounted infantry) due to lack of time for placing stakes and organising the defence shows the importance of field fortification in the process.

There's been lots of experiments and a focus on the damages done by arrows on all types of Kngiht armours. But it's seems to me that the effect of arrows and stakes on the bare skin of horses and the wounds of the cavalrymen when falling off their injured horses have been quite underestimate or even overlooked, maybe because it is a less 'noble' gesture than piercing a thick plate of armour with an arrow. We immediately have the image of gallant Robin Hood in mind when thinking of archers.

An 'interesting' question is what was the most determining factor(s) regarding the outcome of an encounter between archers and cavalrymen :
- wounds by arrows through armours,
- stakes as cavalry speed reducers so that archers could enter close combat,
- injuries to horses made by stakes and arrows and the related horse accidents,
- terrain chosen to slow down charges and prevent flank charges,
- etc. ?

It might be reductive to look only at arrows vs armour with the success of HYW longbows in mind. It could lead to overestimate the genuine weight of these pointed little things vs armours in the real conditions of combat.

[SimonLancaster]

Wouldn’t the actual hail of arrows reduce the speed of cavalry? I wonder how hard the actual impact of an arrow is regardless of the penetration.