|
|
Post by wyvern on Aug 31, 2019 5:28:09 GMT
For those of you who are interested, Tod's Workshop YouTube channel have conducted a test of a Longbow against armour. Efforts have benn made to match battlefield conditions; the bow and arrows are copies of those found on the Mary Rose and the armour has been made to the same specs as medieval French armour. Here's the link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Aug 31, 2019 6:51:42 GMT
Great! Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Aug 31, 2019 9:34:46 GMT
Fascinating stuff. Must watch for anyone interested in DBA. Will change perceptions for sure
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Aug 31, 2019 13:14:41 GMT
An important question to ask would be what proportion of a French army would be wearing armour like that because without it you're toast!
Also in an arrow storm would some deflected arrows find their way into joints between armour? I could imagine their would be some casualties from that perhaps? Would an arrow like that punch through eye slit in a visor ? Unless fully armoured, horses would be vunerable too, although I know French knights dismounted after Agincourt to attack longbowmen.Interesting stuff though 😀
|
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Aug 31, 2019 14:43:31 GMT
Concussion is a popular theme across a number of sports of late, and rightly so. Arrows bouncing off any head protection from close range must have knocked ‘em senseless! Joe Collins extra pip to move into contact house rule looks a good shout. Medieval equivalent of being in a tank - great until it gets hit!
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 31, 2019 15:36:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 31, 2019 15:48:13 GMT
Armor this good would not be tremendously common in 1415. By the 1450s it would be very common. This is why you see references to shields still being used.
A heavier bow would hit harder, but even a 25% increase would probably not pierce that armor.
The impact is about that of being struck with a warhammer.
Moving 100 yards into a hail of arrows like that would have been horrible.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Sept 9, 2019 2:28:06 GMT
I think of people who get hit by shots while wearing tactical vests. They are often knocked down and have to check to see if the shot went through. Getting hit by an arrow that dents plated armor might well knock the wearer down, especially if they were shifting weight when hit or in any way not totally set.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 9, 2019 11:37:30 GMT
Concussion is a popular theme across a number of sports of late, and rightly so. Arrows bouncing off any head protection from close range must have knocked ‘em senseless! Joe Collins extra pip to move into contact house rule looks a good shout. Medieval equivalent of being in a tank - great until it gets hit! Craig Maybe if you're talking about longbows, but what about all the other bows in DBA? The Spartans didn't seem to have as much trouble with Persian bowfire and they had spears in front of them, plus the Spartans weren't covered in armour! I must admit to being a bit concerned about this desire to tinker with the rules justified by one or two examples in history when the rules cover a much, much wider time frame. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 9, 2019 12:32:30 GMT
I see what you are saying Sheffmark...
Bows (low power) against Hoplites (not fully armoured)...
Longbows/Crossbows (high power) against medieval dismounted men-at-arms (fully armoured)...
....the effect would be about the same.
Of course, this only really works if you play against historical opponents.
No-one thinks that army I/22 New Kingdom Egyptian Axe-men or Sherden (4Bd) would actually stand
a chance against the IV/85 Burgundian Ordonnance plate armoured foot (also 4Bd).
DBA is ‘blind’...to it a Blade is just a Blade...and as a Bow is just a Bow...no matter the period.
With that in mind, the rules work quite well.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 9, 2019 12:32:58 GMT
Concussion is a popular theme across a number of sports of late, and rightly so. Arrows bouncing off any head protection from close range must have knocked ‘em senseless! Joe Collins extra pip to move into contact house rule looks a good shout. Medieval equivalent of being in a tank - great until it gets hit! Craig Maybe if you're talking about longbows, but what about all the other bows in DBA? The Spartans didn't seem to have as much trouble with Persian bowfire and they had spears in front of them, plus the Spartans weren't covered in armour! I must admit to being a bit concerned about this desire to tinker with the rules justified by one or two examples in history when the rules cover a much, much wider time frame. Actually, they did. The Greeks had issues closing with the Persians...they developed specific tactics to deal with it. The Swiss had troubles with Italian crossbowmen. The Germans had issues against the French archers. So, this applies to all. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Sept 9, 2019 13:20:31 GMT
I must admit to being a bit concerned about this desire to tinker with the rules justified by one or two examples in history when the rules cover a much, much wider time frame. I don't think anyone was talking about tinkering with the rules, just noting an interesting video about one specific time. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 10, 2019 20:37:40 GMT
Its an excellent video and a fair test as far as it goes. Bear in mind this is the best case for the target - the arrows are hitting on the thickest part of the armor - helms, limb armor were much thinner (and so for that matter are the sides of the breast plate as the armor tappers off. Your also hitting the rounded surface of chest plate. Finally the armor is heat treated a late medieval development which did not come into general use until after Agincourt (only a few knights would have had such armor and even then not on all surfaces). To be fair they did tests with both heat hardened arrows (common at Agincourt) and non treated but for some reason did not test hardened arrow heads v. unhardened armor probably the most common match up in the HYW war (the Milanese mercs at Verneuil being a notable exception). And you may also note they actually kill the target with the first arrow which went below its breastplate and into the mail skirt underneath and then into the body. Blunt trauma from that level of Jules of energy striking a human would also have inflicted wounds and degraded combat performance. Keep in mind that no other medieval weapon swung by an actual human would be likely to penetrate that type of breast plate at that point.
DBX is a big picture simulation. As wounds accumulate on arms legs and bruises and shock accumulate a body of troops will eventually cease being combat effective and so we remove the element. This doesn't mean they aren't there any more only that they aren't going to do anything further in that battle. At Agincourt for instance many battered French Men at Arms pushed in behind those advancing against the English Men at Arms forming a useless column of essentially, by DBX standards, non-combatants.
If you like heavy armor rules try these: metal barded horses (as at Verniul) count as Foot for Distance Shooting (this is an essential rule for late medieval battles). Full armored Men at Arms (rare) get a +1 on a Doubled Result in any type of Combat (so they still get knocked back but are just hardly to kill straight out).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 11, 2019 18:00:52 GMT
Maybe if you're talking about longbows, but what about all the other bows in DBA? The Spartans didn't seem to have as much trouble with Persian bowfire and they had spears in front of them, plus the Spartans weren't covered in armour! I must admit to being a bit concerned about this desire to tinker with the rules justified by one or two examples in history when the rules cover a much, much wider time frame. Actually, they did. The Greeks had issues closing with the Persians...they developed specific tactics to deal with it. The Swiss had troubles with Italian crossbowmen. The Germans had issues against the French archers. So, this applies to all. Joe Collins "This applies to all." That's a pretty sweeping statement Joe. Not sure what Greek tactics you're thinking of, but at Marathon they didn't seem to have issues closing with the Persians. One website has this to say about the battle: "Descending onto the plain, the hoplites slowly advanced towards the Persians before charging the last 100 metres in full armour." www.historyhit.comAnother says: "One of the Greek generals - Miltiades - made a passionate plea for boldness and convinced his fellow generals to attack the Persians. Miltiades ordered the Greek hoplites to form a line equal in length to that of the Persians. Then - in an act that his enemy believed to be complete madness - he ordered his Greek warriors to attack the Persian line at a dead run." www.eyewitnesstohistory.comSo the Greek tactics here seemed to be to speed up, not slow down. Re the Swiss, I didn't think they had many problems with any opposition until Bicocca when they came up against Arquebusiers, supported cannon, behind a sunken road and earthwork? Before that they were the pre-eminent troops in Europe. In fact I thought that the reason opponents turned to the Landsknechts was because they couldn't find another way to stop the Swiss, so decided to try and fight fire with fire. Also the Swiss were instrumental in bringing about the demise of the Burgundian army of Charles the Bold, an army containing not only a fair few crossbows but also some English Longbows. But looking across the wider aspects of history, unless there's been some massive historical research done, I don't see how we can know whether the enemies of Early Sumeria, Nubian, Early Vietnamese, Japanese, etc, etc right through to Mount Builder and Eastern Forest American and Burgudian etc had such problems with bow fire such that it halted or slowed their advance. In fact as evidenced above, there could be an argument that if you are under bow fire you're more liable to speed up, to get through it and get to close quarters sooner. I think this is something Phil has included in the DBMM rules where in some cases you can push your troops forward for free when under bowfire, so they get in quicker. |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 11, 2019 18:03:40 GMT
I must admit to being a bit concerned about this desire to tinker with the rules justified by one or two examples in history when the rules cover a much, much wider time frame. I don't think anyone was talking about tinkering with the rules, just noting an interesting video about one specific time. There has been a suggested rule amendment that inf pay 2 pips to contact bows. It was suggested as a house rule but is now up for test in at least one competition in England. My point is I'm not sure it could be justified across such a wide sweep of history as the DBA rules cover. |
|
