Printable View
As we are talking about AP weaponry: what exactly is the reason for slings to be AP in EB? From my point of view an arrow of which the impact power is concentrated on one point should be able to penetrate armor better than a sling bullet the power of which is distributed on a larger area, thus allowing the armor to better dissipate the impact.
Please enlighten me, if i'm being deceived by my layman's line of thought.
Thing is, slings can penetrate armour quite easily, where as arrows have difficulties from a large distance. Even normal rocks in a sling can break bones easily.
ive always seen it as arrows getting stuck in or glancing off the armour whereas rocks dent and eventually break it. saves me from having to think too technically :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lysimachos
Never mind my question, i've found a thread where it is discussed:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=96094
I haven't thought far enough, but at least i haven't been totally wrong :)
Well, maybe that is the problem of the arrow's low weight and fragility. It is like comparing a dagger and a club. If you stab or slash a guy wearing maille, he will not get hurt at all, despite the fact that in the stabbing motion of a dagger, all of the energy is concentrated in that one millimeter point. There is simply not enough weight and momentum behind the dagger point to 1: pierce the maille and 2: to transfer shock waves significant enough to hurt the wearer. A club or mace on the other hand, can generate enough shockwaves to crush the body of the wearer, even without actually piercing the armour. Same is with the bullets and rocks launched from the sling. They never pierce the armour, but either shatter or severely dent it, at the same time pulverizing the flesh, bones as well as internal organs. It is very hard to pierce maille or plate armor with a kinetic projectile launched by physical means. Bullets can do it, but they are propelled by the force of a violent chemical reaction.
Think of it in large terms. A sword is more likely to cut exposed flesh. It's edge concentrates it's power for that purpose. A mace will not cut. But it will kill an armored opponent much easier, because it's purpose isn't to cut or pierce, it's to smash. Likewise, an arrow has a better chance of actually penetrating flesh, but steel shot will smash any armor it is thrown against. It doesn't have to penetrate to deal damage. Hitting the target is all that is required for damage to be done, whether to armor, or opponent, or both.
Isn't bare chain-mail bad against missiles? I read from somewhere that mail blocks incoming attack by distributing the pressure by the chain structure - it's much better to counter slashing attack but not thristing, since the thristing power on one point cannot be distributed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aper
chainmail is better against slashing, but it's not useless against arrows. It's not easy to break a ring of a good mail, and even if the missile succeeds in doing this, it usually has not enough energy to seriously injure the target. Don't forget that under the armor there always was some type of padded protection, that is perfect to dissipate the remaining energy of the arrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by AqD
The best way to deal with a chainmail is 1) a blunt weapon, that however perform bad against the padded armor under the mail, or 2) a melee weapon with a point small enough to penetrate a ring
3) the best, to aim at an uncovered part of the body : an Italian swordmaster, Massimo Malipiero, has recently did a study about the most common wounds on the battlefields of northern Italy in late middle-ages, and it results that most of injuries was suffered at the face, the easiest to hit big uncovered spot in the whole body, usually
Hope it helps :2thumbsup:
The main purpose of longbow, though, is not to annihilate the opponent, but to help the cavalry or infantry by creating confusion and disorder - and to prevent the opposing archers from doing that.