gaylolis
.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 1,994
- Points
- 153
there's also the skill of their mouth as wellPlot armor.
it's so like a xuanhuan / xianxia mc to make enemies vomit blood with your insult
there's also the skill of their mouth as wellPlot armor.
Who said anything about running with a bow drawn? Why are you jumping to that? You fire then you can move. Well-armed knight will not be as light-footed as a lightly armed archer even if their base speed is the same (no advantage there)
And as far as I've noticed - your well-armed opponent also has the advantage of hiding behind cover and being able to close into a running away opponent? You are using 3 separate advantages to overcome just one - range.
Let me tell you - it is extremely hard to kill a person that is running away (in a medieval setting)
And again what would armour do if the opponent simply isn't there? What I am having an issue with here is the fact that you assume that fight starts once both combatants are aware of each other and there is only a win/loss outcome and no other. Which for me sounds more like a designated fight (duel/tournament/sparring) rather than a broad fight in all its gruesomeness. A fight where you can run away to live another day and come back tomorrow to an unsuspecting opponent. a fight that can start from an ambush. Or a fight where you bloody your opponent only to come back later and finish him off. Or a fight where there is no time limit on how long you can keep your opponent on the edge until they give up.
I’m pretty sure heavy infantry didn’t exist in the context your using it in the medieval agesBow and arrow is basically a missile weapon system, that to achieve maximum destruction at maximum range, accuracy must be sacrificed and replaced with volume of fire. However, if you think that the bow and arrow is impractical at close range against an armored opponent, then you will get nasty surprise.
Most professional archers (not militia) in the medieval era, have to be able to kill a moving human size target at 60 meter in one shot. It is possible because they train since they are able to walk. While modern soldiers specialize in silent killing, they have to be able to kill a stationary target at 30 meter.
About the arrow's penetration to body armor, well, most heavy armored units in the medieval era were wiped out or slaughtered by an archer unit, be it heavy infantry or heavy cavalry.
I’m pretty sure heavy infantry didn’t exist in the context your using it in the medieval ages
It is definitely better to be small-ish and stocky. The best height for a wrestler is about 5’8” to 5’10”. To give you some Contect, Jordan Burroughs (the Postor child for the Double Leg Takedown and best wrestler in the world at 74 kg) is 5’8”. There are also many other world level competitors that are taller than that. One being David Taylor, who is the pastor child for the Ankle-Pick, my personal favorite takedown that favors longer wrestlers like himself at 6’0”. So sometimes, it depends on your style, but the best height for the person not wrestling in a special niche is 5’8” to about 5’10”.To me range and height really matter. In a 1v1 duel you want to have more range and height than your opponent as you can gain further control of said duel. I do wrestling and usually the taller combatant wins as he doesn’t have to be as vulnerable when doing pokes or lunges and as result can keep more of there power budget.
Right, time to put this myth to bed once and for all.Bow and arrow is basically a missile weapon system, that to achieve maximum destruction at maximum range, accuracy must be sacrificed and replaced with volume of fire. However, if you think that the bow and arrow is impractical at close range against an armored opponent, then you will get nasty surprise.
Most professional archers (not militia) in the medieval era, have to be able to kill a moving human size target at 60 meter in one shot. It is possible because they train since they are able to walk. While modern soldiers specialize in silent killing, they have to be able to kill a stationary target at 30 meter.
About the arrow's penetration to body armor, well, most heavy armored units in the medieval era were wiped out or slaughtered by an archer unit, be it heavy infantry or heavy cavalry.
You were talking about using modern age military technology as some kind of debunking of the place I put range on the list. A completely invalid argument.And I was talking about range - you were the one who locked in on bows specifically. And all these examples you provided are examples that might overcome the distance. until they get close.
Take a terrain advantage - both dressed well both have weapons bow(B) starts from afar there are covers and sun is shining into B face, the person A goes cover to cover until eventually he succeeds and reaches person B. Now A is somewhat winded (from all that running if he was recovering in there archer might decide to gain distance) and he has to start CQC. B drops the bow and pulls the sword. (when I said greater distance I didn't mean only great distance and pick your nose and do nothing up close.)
And yes armour does slow you down because I am not talking about 5-10 seconds of CQC where you can do jumps and somersaults. I am talking about that running to reach your opponent and then possibly chase him on the battlefield. So no your heavily armoured knight will not be playing tag with anyone for longer than a single rush (especially in helmet)
And you are still ignoring my other points.
Right, time to put this myth to bed once and for all.
The only reason archers are effective is because, with the exception of the Roman legions, NO country shy of the modern age has had the funding to outfit all their soldiers. So, essentially what would happen is the vollies of arrows would slaughter the unarmored units in the group, leaving the fully armored unit leader as one of the few survivors. At that point, he's easy pickings for your melee units.
Arrows cannot pierce full armor. Not European Knight era full plate anyway.
Alright. So, things have been stepped up a level when I provided a source with that video. Now that things are on that level, and you have just said stuff that directly contradicts the link I gave (they stated the poundage of the bow used in their test. It was MUCH heavier than 50-70 pounds.)Military Historian Dr David Whetham of King’s College, University of London, Physicist Paul Burke of Cranfield University and Hillary Greenland, Secretary of the Society for the Promotion of Traditional Archery have recently (about 4 years ago) carried out experiments at the MODs UK Defence Academy at Shrivenham, Oxfordshire into the effectiveness of the English War bow [a.k.a. Longbow].
They used bows with 110, 140, and 150 pounds draw weights and a range of different late medieval arrowheads. To make the tests as authentic as possible they examined the skeletal structure of the bodies of medieval bowmen excavated from the battle of Towton and from those drowned on the Mary Rose. They then searched for a modern individual whose bone/muscle structure most closely matched. They found one, Mark Stretton from Leicestershire who was a blacksmith and by pure chance, an avid archer since the age of six.
Some of you will be aware of similar experiments carried out over the last 30 years, which have concluded that “Bodkin” arrowheads were not able to pierce plate armour, and so the hail of arrows was used more to break up enemy formations. Some of these “tests” have been televised, showing such arrowheads buckling or bouncing off late medieval plate armour.
It appears these tests were carried out using bows with only 50-70 pounds draw weight, and the wrong arrowheads were used for the armour being tested. The latest tests using correct period arrowheads have shown that the energy released at impact was 100-120 joules, the equivalent of being hit with a sledgehammer. Such arrows were found to be able to penetrate plate armour at ranges up to 200 meters, enough to kill, or seriously wound the wearer.
In my previous comment i use word 'missile', just to be clear so people do not think it's a modern weapon, i will ad a little explanation i copied from google.
Definition by Oxford Languages
mis·sile
/ˈmisəl/
noun
an object which is forcibly propelled at a target, either by hand or from a mechanical weapon.
"one of the players was hit on the head by a missile thrown by a spectator"
Sinonim:
projectile
a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive.
"the plane disintegrated after being hit by a missile launched from the ground"
You are concentrating on the details of the picture (one that I took from the internet after 5 seconds of searching) without trying to understand the general message it was trying to give.
And you are the one who started adding additional detail to your initial post - your original message was about a general "fight" without any other specifications. Hell, even the medieval period was inferred since you were talking about it.
And I also inferred the fact that you imply some small zone and that is the reason why I said this is more of duel\tournament factors for a very specific part of the fight.
Again A and B are equal in all settings. A has any armour you want. B has no protection. What will A do if B doesn't show up or hides? What A will do if he realises he is fighting because the knife is entering his brain through the opening of his helmet?
Alright. So, things have been stepped up a level when I provided a source with that video. Now that things are on that level, and you have just said stuff that directly contradicts the link I gave (they stated the poundage of the bow used in their test. It was MUCH heavier than 50-70 pounds.)
As such, if you are going to speak exactly in contradiction to a link I provided, I am going to need you to provide a link as well.
Ok, that's a message board link. Anyone can say anything they want on a board like that, and therefore his word is no more valuable than your word.Source: https://www.quora.com/Were-there-bows-arrows-that-can-penetrate-plate-armour?top_ans=28721309
Second answer by Henry Foley.
I knew what I was searching for. I just didn't want to waste more than 5 seconds trying to find a better picture. I found one that showed the general layers. And stop trying to attack my character for no reason. Not a single time I have attacked you personally nor claimed you to be stupid or lazy or both.
Your video also don't show the data required to make the precise conclusion.Ok, that's a message board link. Anyone can say anything they want on a board like that, and therefore his word is no more valuable than your word.
I provided a link to a video that showed people doing a live test, and they stated all parameters used in their test. All individuals involved with that test were respected individuals within the HEMA community. Also, the war bow they used was easily double the 50-70 pounds cited by the source you provided. Therefore, it is not an effective argument against the source I provided at all.
If you are going to want to contradict my data, you are going to need a source of equal or better standing. A link to the methodology and data from the actual study Henry Foley is citing would be more than sufficient, but anything that is an actual source with authority behind it would do.
Poundage of the bow, historical period and crafting techniques of the armor, historical data in regards to the types of armor used in the period, types of metal and forging techniques being used to craft the arrow heads. Also, the results.Your video also don't show the data required to make the precise conclusion.
For example, the velocity, the weight, the hardness, the draw, etc. What data you are talking about, in the video?
Fine, let's assume i don't have actual good source to back my argument. However, your source also not better than mine.Poundage of the bow, historical period and crafting techniques of the armor, historical data in regards to the types of armor used in the period, types of metal and forging techniques being used to craft the arrow heads. Also, the results.
Number of arrows shot, number of arrows destroyed, number of arrows that actually punctured the steel plate (zero BTW,) those numbers qualify as data. The stuff I noted above qualifies as methodology. Do you want me to provide an abstract? You are asking a lot for someone who has provided nothing but baseless assertions.
There is data there in the video, and it is more data than you have provided thus far. By the fact that you have chosen to go with what-aboutism instead of providing a source, I take this to mean that you do not have an actual good source to back your argument?
Fine, let's assume i don't have actual good source to back my argument. However, your source also not better than mine.
Stating about historical data, crafting techniques, type of metal, and forging techniques, then try to make replica for some testing, is not enough evident.
First, you need to know the penetrating power and hardness, between the two, then you can do some test. Why? Because, with same techniques, type of metal, or the same forging, two blacksmiths will have two different products, who will guarantee that the power of penetration and armor hardness bertween the replica and the original are same.
That's why, we need the most basic parameter, such as the weight, the velocity, the hardness, between the two, and not just historical data, but from proper methode (scientific or anything that have been approve by the expert in the field, not just historian and HEMA expert.) Then, you can doing the shooting test and draw the conclusion base on the result.
Beside, even if there are no relic to use as material for the evaluation about the hardness, the velocity, etc. At least, people in the video could evaluate the replica.
Well, you want to call data in the video as a proper data, yes you can, because you can believe whatever you want to believe. You can also believe the conclusion in the video is an absolute fact. However, in my opinion it's not enough to back your argument.