Will plate armor stop an arrow?

[Grant Lamontagne]

I suppose the obvious answer is yes, because that was what it was designed for.  But, as with the Mythbusters, I do appreciate seeing some serious testing, and it's always great to see the results.  I just watched this, and I think it is a fantastic video showcasing the effectiveness of armor against skilled archers.



I figured I would share as I thought you might all appreciate seeing it too.  I like that they went to a significant amount of effort to ensure they were as historically accurate as possible.

Of course the splinters and ricochet parts may have caused superficial cuts, which, in the days before antiseptic and antibiotics may have ended up killing the soldier anyway, but I think paring it down to the basics was more interesting.

Def

[SirVicaLot]

Gotta watch that later. I like those experiment videos and tests 

[Barry Rowland]

I think I'd rather get taken out right away with the arrow than the sepsis that followed, if I had to go . We borrowed a season of Mythbusters from friends of ours.  It's a great time!

[Grant Lamontagne]

I have an Android TV box, and if you install an app called Mobdro you get access to a 24 hours Mythbusters stream.  All Mythbusters, all the time!

Between that and the Rick & Morty and Futurama streams I am pretty well set for life! 

Def

[Barry Rowland]

 

[Sea Monster]

Suffer in your jocks, Bernard Cornwell

(For those that don't read his books, he's got a great big throbbing fascination with english longbows)

So, Crossbows next?


(for anyone who's never used a bow before - I wouldn't take this video as a discredit to their efficacy - a (modern arrow at least, alloy shaft, etc) will go through a lot more than you might think - treat them like guns! Only point at stuff you want to have a bad day.



Some light wikipediaing (yeah, not exactly solid research) indicates that historians have been, at best, slipshod with their testing of arrow heads (ie - hardening, carbon content/steel quality) so pinning down particular qualities of arrowheads and then marrying them up to particular qualities of bows and THEN marrying that up to particular qualities of armour on the field at the time seems to be "whatever feels good to that historian at the time" and not a super reliable indication of what combinations of bows, arrows, and armour may have ever actually been in the same fight at the same time...

[chrono]

Talking about armor... You are not planning what this guy did, are you?  I mean, Christmas shopping in April... 

[Craig]

Really like that YouTube channel. Thanks for posting 

[Chako]

Can't view it in my region.

[Grant Lamontagne]

Sea Monster is indeed correct in the assesment of gear at the time.  Add in a complete lack of manufcturing standards as we know them today, and I'd say it's virtually impossible to test accurately.

That being said, I think these guys managed an excellent "worst case scenario" type situation, and gave the archer every advantage possible, and still resulted in failure.

Of course, modern bows and arrows versus modern body armor is a totally different story.  A Kevlar vest won't even slow down a modern arrow by itself.  Yes there are observable plates etc that make a difference, but most vests  are designed with blunt force of a bullet in mind, and not the piercing tip of an arrow.

Def

[nate j]

I agree the guys in the video went to great lengths to try to create armor, bow, and arrows that were as historically realistic as possible.  However, I did observe something that I question the authenticity of...

The archer in the video wants to be sure his arrows strike the breastplate, so he is aiming for center mass on an isolated breastplate.  So, his target is quite possibly the thickest part of the thickest piece of armor a knight or man-at-arms in full plate would be wearing.  A knowledgeable modern big game hunter doesn't just aim center mass; instead, he attempts to shoot the animal somewhere that will cause quick incapacitation and death (lungs, heart, or less commonly, brain).  A well-trained modern shooter facing a two-legged antagonist will take (or transition to) head shots if there is suspicion the antagonist may be wearing body armor.  Likewise, it would be more logical, in my view, for an archer facing armored opponents on foot to aim for known weak points in the armor (perhaps face, neck, armpits, joints?), where the arrow might stand a better chance of penetrating should it fly true.  It would be interesting to see the experiment repeated with a full suit of armor.

[pfrsantos]

Suffer in your jocks, Bernard Cornwell

(For those that don't read his books, he's got a great big throbbing fascination with english longbows)

So, Crossbows next?


(for anyone who's never used a bow before - I wouldn't take this video as a discredit to their efficacy - a (modern arrow at least, alloy shaft, etc) will go through a lot more than you might think - treat them like guns! Only point at stuff you want to have a bad day.



Some light wikipediaing (yeah, not exactly solid research) indicates that historians have been, at best, slipshod with their testing of arrow heads (ie - hardening, carbon content/steel quality) so pinning down particular qualities of arrowheads and then marrying them up to particular qualities of bows and THEN marrying that up to particular qualities of armour on the field at the time seems to be "whatever feels good to that historian at the time" and not a super reliable indication of what combinations of bows, arrows, and armour may have ever actually been in the same fight at the same time...

+1

A regular recurve bow, between 36 and 42 pounds of strength, can send an arrow (well, a couple of inches, at least) through an iron gate at 30 meters (awlso a cement or hollow brick wall).

 

[pomsbz]

I watched that video months ago, I had a few questions. First of all the main fact that the English won a decisive victory at Agincourt due to the longbows and secondly, if the longbows were not effective as a weapon, why were they being used? I think it's possible that fewer had plate armour than is being assumed and that although it protected the chest, that was a relative irrelevancy given the fact that a wound in any of the limbs would probably have disabled the knight in any case, if they had survived the wound they would have been finished off by foot soldiers once wounded and disabled on the battlefield. If you are wearing heavy plate armour and have been knocked off your horse with an arrow in your leg, you're not going to survive long against infantry. There is also the huge number of prisoners taken which outnumbered the English army to the extent that Henry ordered a massacre of them. One assumes that a great many had been disabled on the battlefield. Perhaps that is all the longbows had to accomplish. Disable the cavalry advantage.

[Don Pablo]

Wasn't Agincourt before widespread deployment of plate armour? So that's moot, I believe.

[Sea Monster]

A well-trained modern shooter facing a two-legged antagonist will take (or transition to) head shots if there is suspicion the antagonist may be wearing body armor.

I'm a far worse shot with a bow than I am a firearm - I won't be trying for any trick shots.

and I'm no John Wick with a firearm, so odds are, body armour or not, I'm still going to put every round where I know I can hit and just hope I have more rounds than they have motivation...

And, I suppose apples for apples (as far as it goes) a longbow (or recurve bow, for whichever clever nations came up with that) and bodkin arrows are the medieval "equivalent" to 308 or 338 rounds....rather than 9mm....

The archer in the video wants to be sure his arrows strike the breastplate, so he is aiming for center mass on an isolated breastplate.

This occurred to me watching the video (but I thought of it in terms of the side of a boat - there's thick curved strong bits, and flat thin weak bits...I suppose I would do that though, wouldn't I?)

I've not done any deep studies of warfare, but I rather imagine archers work more like "artillery"  - firing wildly into the mass of enemy troops, rather than the accurate assassins snapping off arrows into the throats of specific foes that we know from video games and movies....so they're just as likely to hit a face, a shoulder, an arm, a leg, or nothing, as they are the strong, angular section in the centre of a breastplate....




For all that - if I could afford it, I wouldn't go out of my way NOT to wear it if I had to fight some poxy archers in some smurfty European bog....

[pomsbz]

Wasn't Agincourt before widespread deployment of plate armour? So that's moot, I believe.

I had understood the test to be specifically about the effective use of the longbow against the plate armour used at Agincourt by the French knights.

[Don Pablo]

I had understood the test to be specifically about the effective use of the longbow against the plate armour used at Agincourt by the French knights.

I guess I was wrong, they WERE wearing armour:
www.seeker.com/amphtml/heavy-armor-led-to-french-knights-loss-1765319035.html

[Sea Monster]

I guess I was wrong, they WERE wearing armour:
www.seeker.com/amphtml/heavy-armor-led-to-french-knights-loss-1765319035.html

My understanding, from Cornwells "modified histories" is that that the english (after a great deal of faffing around the countryside) picked as good a spot as they could find, set themselves on the high ground, and let the french get drawn into a trap to take away the benefit of their armour and horses.

Also, apparently (according to Cornwell) - anyone with any money to speak of surrendered pretty quickly in the hopes of being ransomed off. If there's any weight to it, it would seem battles of that period only lasted until all the poor people had died, then the rich survivors went about discussing who should pay whom in order for everyone to go back home and have a nice glass of wine or pot of tea until they could round up some more poor people for another fight...

[Don Pablo]

Sucks to be a peasant!

[pomsbz]

I wonder if anything has changed since then? 

[Don Pablo]

I wish.

[pfrsantos]

Nah, pretty much this, with different apparel throughout the world and ages...

[Don Pablo]

Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
I didn't have to watch the video to remember that and the talk about ratifying bills at the biweekly meeting.

[Grant Lamontagne]

I agree the guys in the video went to great lengths to try to create armor, bow, and arrows that were as historically realistic as possible.  However, I did observe something that I question the authenticity of...

The archer in the video wants to be sure his arrows strike the breastplate, so he is aiming for center mass on an isolated breastplate.  So, his target is quite possibly the thickest part of the thickest piece of armor a knight or man-at-arms in full plate would be wearing.  A knowledgeable modern big game hunter doesn't just aim center mass; instead, he attempts to shoot the animal somewhere that will cause quick incapacitation and death (lungs, heart, or less commonly, brain).  A well-trained modern shooter facing a two-legged antagonist will take (or transition to) head shots if there is suspicion the antagonist may be wearing body armor.  Likewise, it would be more logical, in my view, for an archer facing armored opponents on foot to aim for known weak points in the armor (perhaps face, neck, armpits, joints?), where the arrow might stand a better chance of penetrating should it fly true.  It would be interesting to see the experiment repeated with a full suit of armor.

Maybe that could be the next segment of the test- can you hit an armpit with a longbow while someone is rushing at you swinging a three foot longsword over their head?

The test wasn't "Can an archer hit the weak points in the armor" it was "Can an arrow penetrate plate armor" so aiming for the soft bits kind of misses the point of the video.  Also, given the variety of impact points from a supposed excellent archer, I have to wonder about the precision of the bow and the ability to hit the easy bits anyway.

Def

[Don Pablo]

Ye olde archers were more of an area effect weapon.
Get the group to aim in the general direction of the enemy army and hope to kill enough or scare them simply by raining arrows.

[AimlessWanderer]

How many of the French were on horseback? I assume they'd be the ones that were iron clad. The foot soldiers wouldn't have been wearing a full tin suit, surely.

[Smashie]

You didn't have to kill the knight, just his horse (or wound it so it panics and sods off at high speed). He's then dumped on the ground, most likely unable to get up, with no help from panicking foot soldiers.

[pomsbz]

You didn't have to kill the knight, just his horse (or wound it so it panics and sods off at high speed). He's then dumped on the ground, most likely unable to get up, with no help from panicking foot soldiers.

The Wikipedia article on the battle (I know, I know) says that the hail of arrows mainly killed the horses in the charge which as you said, makes the knight easy pickings for the more agile foot soldier.

Ye olde archers were more of an area effect weapon.
Get the group to aim in the general direction of the enemy army and hope to kill enough or scare them simply by raining arrows.

Yup, machine gun effect.

[pomsbz]

I'm also interested in the supposition that the arrows were being fired straight rather than in an arc. I believe they referenced a tapestry of the battle? Is not akin to referencing Hollywood for the authenticity of military field tactics and the reality of using firearms, etc?  I wonder whether arrows fired at an arc would have substantially higher velocity and a greater penetration angle?

[Chako]

If you have thousands of archers firing in an arc to maximize distance because this is what they did, you will take down some knights, their horses etc. But you will also litter the battlefield with arrow shafts that will also aid in the impediment of the oncoming force. The longbow is ideal for this, and considering that a lot of folks had to practice this since childhood, they were fairly good as a lot with accuracy and speed of firing. Besides, those battling with longbows were always protected by other troops. Positioning your archers from behind just makes sense. Not saying that they didn't have to take some close up shots...but for the most part, they were considered too valuable to just throw away on the battlefield. The French with their crossbows did not have the range to combat the longbows. Both the longbow and crossbow do have their advantages and disadvantages. The longbow took years of practice to get any good with it. You also had to develop good muscles to use one. The crossbow is great in the hands of untrained troops as you just aim and pull a trigger. You can load one and get of a shot rather quickly, but then it takes a lot of time to re-load. One could argue that the crossbow had greater penetrative power at short distance compared to the longbow. Just for a time, the longbow reigned supreme on the battlefield for what it did to the opposition.