Yes it was better at penetrating armour than broad-head arrows. Chainmail wasnt very good versus such arrows but full plate armor started appearing in early 15th century.

Not all would have had such armour by the time of Agincourt but we do know how northern Italian plate armor was produced and exported in big numbers so it wasnt that rare.

Such armour being smooth and angled meant arrows were not that effective against it. Short range shots could still hurt and wound men in arms or legs. If walking into a rain of arrows it would force men to keep their heads and visor down. The combination of wounding and reduced command and control might have had a disordering effect on a dismounted attack but the number of killed men would have been low and arrows alone were not expected to stop such an attack.

With the introduction of plate armour the Men-at-Arms stopped using shields and as shields were good at stopping arrows that does indicate shields werent really needed anymore. Several tests I know of shows that arrows couldnt penetrate torso/head armour at 50 yards but could still go through the thinner arm/leg armour.

At Agincourt the English archers could have shot perhaps something like 150000 arrows against the first French line advancing of about 6-8000 men. If they were so good at hitting their targets as well as penetrating armour, as some people like to think, then the sources would have told a different story of the battle than what we can read.


CBR