"Medieval Myth Busting. Arrows vs Armour" Topic

I've just come across this video on you tube and thoroughly enjoyed it. Plenty to think about here and very watchable.

YouTube link

I hope that you enjoy it.

Well worth watching. Very much the case I have been trying to make re the 15th Century from historical sources – but good to see a no-nonsense practical test being done.

Phil
Shows North

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

Yes but, longbows are not sniper rifles, rather think of them as artillery.

Very interesting! Thanks

That was a great watch!

This video has made it's way through the internet of late, I've only watched a little of it. But it goes without saying, armor works or none would bother using it.

Interesting video. He has a few other videos that are also of interest. The one on the heavy crossbow (windlass used to load). A mere 1250 lb pull weight. Three shots in two minutes.

youtu.be/MMoL_SBD6gw

Fascinating! Thanks for posting. The modern arrow at 10m was not what I would have expected.

armor works or none would bother using it.

. I recall reading that armour often isn't to protect the weather, but rather make the wearer think they are protected. Although after seeing this video, I'm a bit dubious about that believing statement.

Haven't watched the video, but from discussion elsewhere, I believe it deals with direct more-or-less horizontal fire (like shooting at a target), not ballistic volley fire coming down from above, at a much closer to vertical angle of entry. So with a near-continuous hail of arrows* raining down against massed men the effectiveness would be different.

But in any case, the victory at Agincourt was due to superior English tactics vs. French knights too stupid to not march in a frontal assault through fresh mud.

*Rate of fire of a trained archer could reach 1 shot every 3 seconds (20 rounds per minute). So to the armored man approaching it would be WHAM…WHAM…WHAM…WHAM…WHAM…WHAM…WHAM…
and that against a single archer.
Go with staggered volley fire and you get WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM….
And if that's coming in by the thousands it's WHAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAM….
Got to be more than a little disconcerting!

This is the reply I wrote to the video on youtube.

The way I've always seen it, it should never be a simple question of 'did arrows penetrate armour?'

To understand what that question is really asking, some things need to be understood.
1 – The people being shot didn't all have identical armour, and thus levels of protection varied.
2 – The level of protection provided by the armour varied across the body. There could easily be extremely well protected areas of the body next to completely unprotected areas (a man could have the most effective breastplate, but also have his visor up).
3 – Plate armour was worn over mail and soft armour.
4 – To cause a serious flesh injury or death, the arrow has to penetrate all layers of armour and clothing and then go deep enough to cause real damage.
5 – Even if the arrows don't penetrate, the force of the impact would be considerable. Also, if they stick in the armour they will cause a real hindrance. So penetration isn't required for there to be an effect.
6 – The more arrows there are, the more chance of 'lucky shots' causing serious damage. Advancing into a heavy arrow storm, even if you are lucky to have no penetrating shots, would be SERIOUSLY UNPLEASANT. You'd have to have your visor down (restricting vision, breathing, and awareness of what's around you), it would be demoralising, terrifying, and exhausting. The more arrows, the scarier and more dangerous it gets.
7 – Even if you escape unscathed from the arrows, people around you will be falling down, and those behind you may well be pushing you onward. The chance of falling over and not getting up is very real.
8 – The battlefield situation will greatly affect things. What range? How many arrows, and for how long? How exhausted are the men being shot at? What sort of state are they in when they contact the enemy?
9 – Being shot with an arrow wouldn't necessarily kill you instantly. It might do. Or it might might cause a serious enough injury to instantly take you out of action (probably to die hours later). Or it might cause a light Injury to allow you to carry on fighting, but not without some significant level of impairment. You don't want any of those things happening.

So… 'did arrows penetrate armour'? Yes? Sometimes? What sort of armour, and in what sort of situation? That's not the question we should be asking.
How about… Did good quality full plate armour protect you from the arrows and increase your chances of survival? YES. If you have little or no armour, you are in much greater danger of serious injury and death. You'd want that armour.
Did fully armoured men still get killed by arrows? YES. The more arrows, the greater the chance of death.
Were longbows an effective weapon in an Agincourt-like scenario? YES. Use them in huge quantities and they must become seriously effective, and not just for penetration reasons.

This video is fantastic. It highlights two important points for me.
1 – Longbows were powerful, lethal weapons, capable of penetration mail and soft armour to easily cause serious injury and death.
2 – Top quality plate armour was very effective at stopping arrows from penetrating, especially the breastplate.

And can someone please talk about the horses? You fire thousands of arrows at the advancing knights. Even if you don't even hit the knights, you hit a LOT of horses. Were they as well armored all over?

If I'm shooting I aim at te horse. A horse going down probably also affects horses next to and behind the target.

And can someone please talk about the horses? You fire thousands of arrows at the advancing knights. Even if you don't even hit the knights, you hit a LOT of horses. Were they as well armored all over?

Depends on the period. In the early 15th century you'd be right, but by the mid to late 15th century men-at-arms were wearing full plate and did not generally fight on horseback.

And can someone please talk about the horses? You fire thousands of arrows at the advancing knights.

The video was specific to Agincourt. French advanced on foot in the center through mud. The test was against a breastplate that was based on an existing 1390s breastplate.

Charlie's point about not all armor being equal is very apposite. Not everybody being shot at has top quality armor, if any. Just because a .30/06 bullet wouldn't penetrate a tank, the US Army didn't make all the infantry turn in their M-1's.

"Even if you don't even hit the knights, you hit a LOT of horses. Were they as well armored all over?".

Yep, depends upon the owner's wealth, unit, period, etc., etc..

Personally, I believe this is why many "knights" and/or MAA chose to fight on foot.

I suspect no matter how well trained and disciplined, horses do not, and will not stand for being hit by multiple "missiles" (arrows and crossbow bolts). I suspect they'd freak out, even if not injured, and would go trotting off on their merry way, probably after having thrown their riders to the ground so they can do so more quickly and effectively.

With so many missiles in the air, I suspect a lot could find chinks in the armor, and/or even vision slits – hence the Perry Brothers' pose of knights keeping their heads/helms down while advancing on foot, for their Agincourt range of French figs..

I am just going to pass on all this.

Nicely (?) described in Cornwell's book.

A long time ago, I saw a TV programme where a longbowman stuck a small piece of clay on his arrow to stop it skipping off.
I wonder if that would make a difference?