The effects of missiles - how important were armour and shields?

[andrew881runner]

Hi guys. I saw a video in YouTube be where you could see a thick wooden plate being penetrated by many inches by arrows shot by a modern composite bow. So even if modern bows are a bit more powerful, I am sure that Shields could be penetrated by Bodkin arrows thrown at close range by longbows. I will look for the video. While steel plate armor was much more resistent to arrows. I have seen some video where Bodkin arrows Pierce it a bit but never enough to hurt the guy wearing it.

[Nick Harbud]

Hi guys. I saw a video in YouTube be where you could see a thick wooden plate being penetrated by many inches by arrows shot by a modern composite bow. So even if modern bows are a bit more powerful, I am sure that Shields could be penetrated by Bodkin arrows thrown at close range by longbows. I will look for the video. While steel plate armor was much more resistent to arrows. I have seen some video where Bodkin arrows Pierce it a bit but never enough to hurt the guy wearing it.

One of the better accounts I have come across of tests on armour and shield penetrations is Mark Stretton in Secrets of the English Longbow chapter 5. 

Incidentally, this book has a source for the notorious 80 Joules fatal blunt force trauma energy; Controlling Risks Around Explosives Stores by the HSE.  Apparently it is based upon experiments carried out by the clever French shooting lead balls at something or someone.  But before you all go off thinking "Well, that's it then," you might like to read Mike Loades' account of shooting blunt arrows at an instrumented dummy in Longbow.

[Erpingham]

I couldn't resist looking up the HSE ref :

27. Not all falling debris will
be potentially lethal. The traditional criterion in the US
and Western Europe is that debris possessing a kinetic energy of 80 joules or more
should be considered potentially lethal. An example of such a missile would be a
cricket ball (mass approximately160g) thrown hard. In the view of some members of
the Working Group the criterion is pessimistic. Much will depend on the part of the
body stuck; a missile possessing a kinetic energy of 80J might well prove fatal should
it strike a person on the skull but is unlikely to do so should it strike a limb.

Remarkably similar to the discussion in this thread above.  Note also the word "potentially" which tends to get missed and the need to consider where debris/arrow strikes.

.

[Patrick Waterson]

And perhaps also the question of penetration - arrows being traditionally superior to cricket balls in this regard. 

Anyway, nice to pin down the source: well done, gentlemen.

[Erpingham]

And perhaps also the question of penetration - arrows being traditionally superior to cricket balls in this regard. 

Indeed.  The controversial context though was when discussing the effect of arrows which failed to penetrate armour.

[Patrick Waterson]

Which adds a further consideration for non-penetrating hits: the ability of the armour to spread the impact.  A good gambeson worn underneath could help to transmit the force partly sideways, Chobham armour-style.

[Erpingham]

Which adds a further consideration for non-penetrating hits: the ability of the armour to spread the impact.  A good gambeson worn underneath could help to transmit the force partly sideways, Chobham armour-style.

Even better if you used a layered armour of plate over mail over gambeson, or even leather, mail, fabric.  Looking at later medieval armours, before good alwhite armours and for many people after them, this was the way it was done.

[Nick Harbud]

...a cricket ball (mass approximately160g) thrown hard....

...and some people consider this to be good sport rather than a potentially lethal industrial hazard.   

[Erpingham]

...a cricket ball (mass approximately160g) thrown hard....

...and some people consider this to be good sport rather than a potentially lethal industrial hazard.   

But they tend to wear armour while doing it - helmet, arm-guards, gloves, chest protector and pads - just to be on the safe side

[valentinianvictor]

Whilst researching for a recently completed project concerning the Battle of Adrianople I looked at sources that mentioned actual casualty figures for both the Romans and their opponents where listed in battles.

I was quite surprised to note that when figures were mentioned, and they were not as many as I had initially thought, the Romans when victorious appeared to suffer a lot less casualties than I was expecting on the whole. I was expecting to see a few percent more as all the accounts appear to show an exchange of missiles before the battle lines clashed.

After further study I came to the conclusion that the missile barrage was more connected with boosting morale whilst attempting to lower the opponents. The missiles otherwise appeared to have little effect (apart from at Ad Salices where Goth's throwing large, fire-hardened clubs managed to disrupt the Roman front line). The majority of the casualties caused was when one side's morale gave out and the army broke, the pursuer's then causing horrendous casualties on those fleeing before them.

[aligern]

A welcome conclusion Adrian and borne out by almost all classical battles. The asymmetry of casualties is at the heart of Mark Grindlay and I's rejection of the idea that the Roman armies were essentially based upon plum throwing and are, as traditionally thought, primarily swordsmen. The plum is a weapon that prepares the way for the sword by , hopefully,  rendering the opponent's shield ineffective. Its effect is described by Caesar at Bibracte and at the end of the Classical period, by Agathias when portraying the warfare of the Franks. (using angons).  If the hand thrown missiles were that effective then casualties in Roman battles, particularly Roman against Roman , would be much heavier on the winning side because they would have endured a storm of hand thrown missiles equally with the losers.

Roy

[Erpingham]

But classical armies certainly felt the need for a skirmishing missile force.  And the Romans of the Polybian legion period had quite a lot of dedicated javelin skirmish power.  Even if we allow that these didn't kill many people (and Adrian's conclusions seem to mirror those of others in this respect) they must have had an important role.  What was the point of deploying a skirmish screen in warfare of this period, if we accept it wasn't causing casualties to the enemy main body?

[Justin Swanton]

But classical armies certainly felt the need for a skirmishing missile force.  And the Romans of the Polybian legion period had quite a lot of dedicated javelin skirmish power.  Even if we allow that these didn't kill many people (and Adrian's conclusions seem to mirror those of others in this respect) they must have had an important role.  What was the point of deploying a skirmish screen in warfare of this period, if we accept it wasn't causing casualties to the enemy main body?

Skirmishers that are free to shoot up a body of heavy troops over a long period of time will eventually annihilate them. I'm thinking of Carrhae and that fight between Spartan hoplites and peltast skirmisher types who essentially spent the day decimating them at no cost to themselves. And if skirmishers are able just to spend some uninterrupted time disrupting the formation of the heavies, that leaves the latter vulnerable to charges by shock troops, which if I'm not mistaken was the tactic of the Huns and Mongols.

Hence the need for a skirmisher screen to keep one's own heavy troops fresh and orderly, ready for the main clash with their counterparts. Since skirmisher vs skirmisher does not produce significant results, their role was relegated to a pre-battle warm-up that bought time whilst each general sized up his opponent and decided what he was going to do.

[valentinianvictor]

But classical armies certainly felt the need for a skirmishing missile force.  And the Romans of the Polybian legion period had quite a lot of dedicated javelin skirmish power.  Even if we allow that these didn't kill many people (and Adrian's conclusions seem to mirror those of others in this respect) they must have had an important role.  What was the point of deploying a skirmish screen in warfare of this period, if we accept it wasn't causing casualties to the enemy main body?

I'm sure its in Vegetius but it appears the skirmishers main role was to screen your armies battlefield deployment and prevent disruption of the battle lines before they were fully deployed. Any attacks by the skirmishers would be on the skirmishers of the other side who were attempting the same thing, or by pelting the opposing force who did not possess skirmishers thus delaying their deployment and thereby allowing your force to attack the enemy at a disadvantage.

[Nick Harbud]

Regarding the effects of missile fire, the main protective factor that outweighs all others is that the shooters simply miss.  I mean there are plenty of examples in later periods when people were better at keeping detailed records of such things, including:

• During the British advance on Blenheim village a French brigade of 4,000 musketeers discharged their weapons at 30 yards, yet caused only 800 casualties.


• And lest you think this is simply down to the inaccuracy of the weapon, one might also cite the defenders of Rorke's Drift who fired 20,000 rounds of Martini-Henry rifle ammunition, yet are estimated to have caused less than 1,000 Zulu casualties.

Your Roman example does not surprise me.

In terms of wargames rules this is quite a key point.  Currently nearly all rules regard a shield as predominantly being a protection against missiles on the approach to the extent that troops lacking such protection can find it difficult even to make contact.  Of course, if one takes a view that it is has minimal value outside hand-to-hand combat then all sorts of armies start to be come more interesting.