"Arrows vs. Armour" Topic

Experimental archaeology done in style! When the men-at-arms are all pretty well armoured, the longbow effective range is reduced to 20m and less.

That dinged up suit of armour would be really sweet for a 'veteran' reënactor:
YouTube link

You'd want leg armour for the front ranks. They'd then act as shields for the following ranks' legs.

Interesting how the brigandines protected against the war arrows so effectively.

Thinking ahead – back to solid plate against firearms.

these are cool videos; I think it just goes to show that our military forebears knew their stuff, and knew how to make weapons and armor that were incredibly effective for the technology of the time.

I think this also leans heavily that "volume of fire" was superior to slower, more aimed fire (or loose in this case). It was the leg, hip and "uncovered joints" that were likely to cause the combat ineffective wound versus the armor penetrating, and more likely, immediately fatal, shots.

What's more interesting is how this echoes modern equipment. Modern body armor actually covers less body area than the standard kevlar "flak" vests of just 20 years ago, but the ceramic plates in the modern kit can actually stop military small arms rounds at what would otherwise be lethal ranges. Yet the ceramic is incredibly heavy…

History sure does like to mirror itself.

I'd also throw in that the newest US Army combat rifles, with their heavier rounds to defeat modern ceramic armors, cause a overall reduction in rounds carried…hence the trade in theoretical volume of fire to more aimed fire in the foreseeable future for the US combat arms…