Why was the Longbow in use for literally 300 years when it simply could not penetrate armor? I have watched several experiments with modern reproductions and never once has it achieved penetration of plate armor. In this latest one they can't even pen at point-blank range a late medieval brigandine and cheap Sallet helmet which was worn by poorfag troops. Rich nobles wore high-end bespoke plate made from tempered steel with every surface calculated to deflect blows and it would have zero chance against that. The amount of training that went into using the bow doesn't seem worth the results.https://youtu.be/SFFgcTzCvMo
Look at the picture you just posted, and count what's the percentage of unarmored troops on it.
>>64684842Those are archers who would not normally be under attack unless the situation was fucked beyond repair. It would usually be knights and men-at-arms who were the targets of archers.
>Youtube botspam thread
>>64684834>England wasn't very industrialized so making a bow is easier than making a gun>Rate of fire if overstated is relevant>Bongs alreasy had a long history of archery so why do away with it?You saw similar things in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia where bows were used up until the 18th century. The fact is if you were shooting a bow since you were five and were already teaching your son to shoot a bow why would you swap from a bow to an expensive weapon that you don't know how to use?Even England didn't fully stop using the longbow until the civil war when the New Model Army standardized equipment enough that you didn't have pike blocks with a random mixture of guns, longbows, and crossbows.
>>64684834Even in the videos it is clear that less than 100% of most targets will be sufficiently armored.
>>64684834Because it doesn't matter. Swords also don't cut through metal like butter and yet they were used for over a thousand years as well. Instakilling just doesn't happen.
>>64684834>300 yearsIt is literally the simplest form of bow. It has been in use for tens of thousands of years.
>>64684834Did you even watch the video?
>>64684834Horses. A rain of arrows will spook even well-trained and armored horses, and many warhorses were not fully armored.
>>64684834Not all men wore full pl8. And horses are typically not fully armored.
>>64684834Kills Kings fine.
>>64684857>Those are archers who would not normally be under attack unless the situation was fucked beyond repair.you have no idea what you're talking about
>>64684834The knight fears the crossbow. So they banned it.
>>64685109The papal ban against crossbows included bows, slings and javelins as well. But nobody gave a shit about this edict.
>>64684834>Why was the Longbow in use for literally 300 years when it simply could not penetrate armor?It was good for killing everything NOT wearing armor, like horses and other bowmen.
>>64684834dirt cheap, especially when you offload the training cost on your populace
Watching the YT video it appears that the arrow storm did not kill many armored troops but it did have a debilitating effect. Let's say you are advancing into an arrow storm. You take four hits. One hits your brigandine, causing severe pain and maybe cracking a rib. One hits the chainmail protecting your arm, causing a bloody flesh wound. One hits you on the helmet, causing a cut and slight concussion and half-blinding you with blood. One goes into your completely unprotected leg and you are now combat-ineffective. You stumble and fall and the guys behind you trample you into the mud.
>>64684834>I have watched several experiments with modern reproductions and never once has it achieved penetration of plate armor.And you never at any point wondered if different parts of the armor were different thicknesses? The helmet and the chest are the thickest parts you retard.
>>64684834Retarded question, wouldn't an arrow even if it failed to achieve penetration, still cause fairly serious internal injuries owing to the sheer force of impact?
>>64687156and those parts are the thickest because they are the parts presented to the arrow storm, Einstein.>>64687163The small, overlapping plates of the brigandine proved good at dissipating the kinetic energy of a strike. Combined with its lightness and flexibility it was the best late-Medieval protection. Even rich knights started ditching their fancy bespoke plate for a brigandine.
>>64684834Longbows killed horses, which are very difficult to armor up and are the primary reason the French nobility were so effective in battle. Arrows could also penetrate the much thinner limb armor from a fair distance, some accounts say from up to 100 yards away. But yes longbows are a bit overrated in general, plate armor is extremely overpowered until guns start coming along.
