Originally posted by Black_rose
Did I read you right? Modern guns have a hard time penetrating plate armour and you think a medieval one wouldn\'t? Did you the know that the captain of the U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) was wearing a full suit of plate during that famous battle? And that he was struck by no less than nine bullets during the battle? They were at boarding range for crying out loud you don\'t get any closer than that during a sea battle; it could not have been more than 80 ft from the deck rail of one ship the opposit rail of the other and not one of those bullets penetrated the armour.
well only the armour of that time, plate armour was cancelled due to it\'s inabillity to withstand guns. the reason why bows dissapeard was guns having the ability to take out knights when a bow could not.
You have no idea what your talking about.
There was an arrow head that was the equivilent of a modern armour piercing bullet that when used with a long bow could take out a knight on horseback at well over a hundred yards.
Early firearms were just like eary crossbows inacurate and you could not hit squat at a hundred yards.
During the 18th century they were still makeing armour in the same way they had been doing for the three previous centurys.
Early firearms had little penetration power due to the round amunition they would not penetrate chain much less plate.
The reason why guns replaced bows? Well which was cheaper a trained archer or a man with a gun.
Why did armour fall out of use? Seriously would you pay for the armour to protect a soldier when you can just conscript another one and hand him a gun?
Back to econamy: Which is cheaper to transport the amunition for a riffle or the amunition for a bow?
Seige enginers were use wearing plate armour for protection from small arms fire as late as the 18hundreds .
there that should be enough for now.
