Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIV

[Mutazoia]

Asking again. I also saw that new-ish Nova about armor and with how difficult the one breast-plate was to make, I'm wondering why people didn't stick with the many smaller plates of a brigandine.

A few reasons (all era dependent):

For one, a solid piece, although harder to make, offers very little in the way of gaps that a weapon can slip through. And then there's the status factor. A noble was rich enough to afford the harder to make, more expensive armor, whereas the common soldier would be in the cheaper, easier to make brig....and you wouldn't catch a Lord dead in armor designed for a peasant soldier. Although that ideology tended to wane as time went on.

Later on, a noble might wear brig armor if he wasn't really expecting to fight, and only bust out the plate when he personally rode into battle. This way he was armored in case the enemy made it to the camp, but wasn't stomping around in a Buick's worth of metal all day.

Eventually, the full plate was mostly for show/tournaments, especially once "guns" were more common. A musket could fire once or twice, but if the enemy charged, you didn't have time to re-load, so it was back to swords, where a breast plate would be more effective, but a full suit was too cumbersome. And by THIS time, making a breast plate was comparably easier and less expensive (they could "machine" barrels, after all. Making a plate was relatively easy) and provided far more protection than the old suit of brig. Even then, it was usually the rich that got the breast plate, the rank and file were S.O.L.

[gkathellar]

Broadly speaking, how effective were medieval/renaissance-era firearms compared to, say, crossbows?

Expanding on what wolflance says about going shotgun, not that the comparison between firearms and crossbows isn't always apt. Handgonnes and pistols were often used at extremely short range, and in some cases substituted for the lance, rather than the crossbow. I've seen training manuals that depict sword-on-gun and gun-on-sword techniques for heavy cavalry.

[Blackhawk748]

So i just bought a Devils Edge steel Khopesh and a Cold Steel Bill from Kult of Athena. These are my first fully functional weapons i've ever bought and im wondering what a good thing to test them on is. I've seen water bottles and tatami mats, but water bottles dont seem like enough and tatami mats just feel like im wasting money.

I once saw Skallagrim use some sort of starch and water mixture to make some sort of gel in a bottle, so i think i may go with that. Any other suggestions?

[Mr Beer]

Pig carcasses are supposed to be a good analogue, but people get all weird when you nail up dead pigs in your garden, dress them in olde worlde clothes and armour and then chop them up with mediaeval weaponry. It's all 'disturbing behaviour' and 'budding serial killer'

[Vinyadan]

Bamboo is quite typical, but very hard to cut, and you might want to wait until your technique is better. Iirc, a 10 cm diameter bamboo is as hard to cut through as two men.

[snowblizz]

I once saw Skallagrim use some sort of starch and water mixture to make some sort of gel in a bottle, so i think i may go with that. Any other suggestions?

That sounds a lot like ballstic gelatin which is used for testing weapons as the properties is close to flesh. Mythbusters used a lot of that stuff. However needed to be refrigerated a lto before use, and I suspect it's not gonna be cheap.

[Blackhawk748]

That sounds a lot like ballstic gelatin which is used for testing weapons as the properties is close to flesh. Mythbusters used a lot of that stuff. However needed to be refrigerated a lto before use, and I suspect it's not gonna be cheap.

I know he has Ballistic Gel, which he uses in his Torso mold and remolds periodically, but it was in his Dane Axe review where he had some sort of Starch Water mix.

Bamboo is quite typical, but very hard to cut, and you might want to wait until your technique is better. Iirc, a 10 cm diameter bamboo is as hard to cut through as two men.

Well i dont have access to bamboo. Would a thick cardboard tube designed to hold plastic wrap at a factory work? Cuz i can get a ton of those

[Mike_G]

Well i dont have access to bamboo. Would a thick cardboard tube designed to hold plastic wrap at a factory work? Cuz i can get a ton of those

If you want to practice your technique, like your edge alignment and so on, those are fine. They're fine for evaluating a flat chop versus a draw cut kind of thing, or one blade versus another. They are not a good body simulator, so you can't say "Wow, this thing cuts through a tube, it would be devastating to a limb" with any conviction.

You can also cut the tubes, then put clothing on them and try again to see how much difference that makes.

In short, thye're not perfect, but you can learn a lot using them.

[Blackhawk748]

If you want to practice your technique, like your edge alignment and so on, those are fine. They're fine for evaluating a flat chop versus a draw cut kind of thing, or one blade versus another. They are not a good body simulator, so you can't say "Wow, this thing cuts through a tube, it would be devastating to a limb" with any conviction.

You can also cut the tubes, then put clothing on them and try again to see how much difference that makes.

In short, thye're not perfect, but you can learn a lot using them.

Excellent, cuz im gonna need a good practice target and i can get those for free. Im gonna have a fun weekend when my Bill comes in.

[Blackhawk748]

Putting this in a different post cuz its a radically different question: Why did they stop using Khopeshes? Seriously, from what i've seen its an excellent cutting weapon, one that only gets better when made from steel, so why did they suddenly stop?

[Mike_G]

Putting this in a different post cuz its a radically different question: Why did they stop using Khopeshes? Seriously, from what i've seen its an excellent cutting weapon, one that only gets better when made from steel, so why did they suddenly stop?

Well, similar blade styles do crop up later. And they would be bad at thrusting, and not have a lot of reach, and were maybe heavy for the reach they got. And cutting is not very effective against a lot of armor types, so if your enemies are well armored, maybe it's a bad choice.

This is all me spitballing. Lost of considerations go into choosing a weapon, and maybe its streghths were ourtweighed by its weaknesses.

[Blackhawk748]

Well, similar blade styles do crop up later. And they would be bad at thrusting, and not have a lot of reach, and were maybe heavy for the reach they got. And cutting is not very effective against a lot of armor types, so if your enemies are well armored, maybe it's a bad choice.

This is all me spitballing. Lost of considerations go into choosing a weapon, and maybe its streghths were ourtweighed by its weaknesses.

I dont buy the thrusting thing. Thrand did a video with it and while its not as good as a dedicated thruster, its perfectly fine at thrusting. Plus he was using one that didn't have a sharpened tip.

I do plan on testing thrusting ability once i get mine as the Devils Edge one has a sharpened tip, but as i see, its biggest weakness seems to be reach, but axes had a similar issue, but people still used those, so im not sure.

Edit: Once more, completely unrelated, i now have a Historical Stuff channel and i've got a video about chariots. So go rip that to shreds and make fun of my editing if you are so inclined

[Deepbluediver]

I have a question- does armor interfere with firing a bow in any significant way? I know that armor was less cumbersome than it's sometimes depicted as in movies, but athletes still usually compete in very loose (or skintight), lightweight clothing for freedom of movement and such. European archers aren't usually shown in heavy armor, I guess because being ranged combatants they wouldn't need it as much, but is there any reason you wouldn't want to have a platoon of archers in plate armor other than the cost to equip them? I've also read that while in Europe the bow was the weapon of the common man, in Japan it was almost exclusively a samurai weapon, and they had a different style of armor with large shoulder pauldrons. Does anyone have any information on firing a bow while wearing something like that? Would armor significantly impact accuracy or rate of fire or anything?

[Gnoman]

The famous Byzantine horse-archers fought in fairly heavy armor. I strongly suspect that any lack of armor on foot-archers had more to do with lightening their load than it does any armor-weapon interference.

[rrgg]

I have a question- does armor interfere with firing a bow in any significant way? I know that armor was less cumbersome than it's sometimes depicted as in movies, but athletes still usually compete in very loose (or skintight), lightweight clothing for freedom of movement and such. European archers aren't usually shown in heavy armor, I guess because being ranged combatants they wouldn't need it as much, but is there any reason you wouldn't want to have a platoon of archers in plate armor other than the cost to equip them? I've also read that while in Europe the bow was the weapon of the common man, in Japan it was almost exclusively a samurai weapon, and they had a different style of armor with large shoulder pauldrons. Does anyone have any information on firing a bow while wearing something like that? Would armor significantly impact accuracy or rate of fire or anything?

I don't think it made shooting a bow impossible but the type of armor seems to have had some impact. Elizabethan military treatises tend to specify that longbowmen should continue to wear flexible jacks and medieval-style "skull" helmets instead of corslets, morions, or burgonets like other soldiers. Sir John Smith felt that crossbowmen could be armed with a solid curiass and a morion, but that archers should wear "deepe steele skulles" or something else with a very narrow brim and either mail shirts or "light and easie brigandines" that provide a lot of flexibility.

According to Thomas Styward on the arming of archers/longbowmen:

"NEcessarie it is that euerie man haue a good and méete Bowe according to his draught and strength, light and easie: a Iacke with a skull, sword and dagger, nothing vpon his armes, whereby in time of seruice he maye easily draw the arrow to the head, that they may deliuer the same with strength an arte as Englishmen be accu∣stomed. They must haue also braser and shooting glooue, their strings whipped and waxed ouer with glew, their feathers drie: so bee they seruiseable in any weather to serue against the enemie to slaughter and execution."

[Brother Oni]

I have a question- does armor interfere with firing a bow in any significant way? I know that armor was less cumbersome than it's sometimes depicted as in movies, but athletes still usually compete in very loose (or skintight), lightweight clothing for freedom of movement and such. European archers aren't usually shown in heavy armor, I guess because being ranged combatants they wouldn't need it as much, but is there any reason you wouldn't want to have a platoon of archers in plate armor other than the cost to equip them? I've also read that while in Europe the bow was the weapon of the common man, in Japan it was almost exclusively a samurai weapon, and they had a different style of armor with large shoulder pauldrons. Does anyone have any information on firing a bow while wearing something like that? Would armor significantly impact accuracy or rate of fire or anything?

The only real requirements for shooting a bow in armour is that you have sufficient range of movement in your shoulders and back, and that there aren't any protrusions or loose/free bits for the bow string to catch along its path.
The former means you want something fairly flexible while the latter usually means nothing on the inside arm of the arm holding the bow and generally nothing too ornate around the face.

Samurai armour is fairly open-faced, so the helmet doesn't interfere with shooting and the Japanese style of archery using a thumb draw to the ear, also permits a lot leeway in armour styles:

Spoiler: Kyujutsu in armour

Show

As for affecting the shooting rate, I found this old pre-WW2 video: link
The rate of fire doesn't seem to be affected, although I can hear my range officer's bellow from here.

The bow was far more common a weapon among the non-samurai than you seem to think - I agree that mounted archery was exclusively samurai, but there were plenty of ashigaru (and samurai) foot archers.

Edit: Olympic athletes do target archery, where accuracy and consistency is prized above all else. This means that the technique and equipment are specialised for this, so drawing any conclusions on historical battlefield techniques and equipment from modern target archery should be very carefully done - for example in modern target archery, there's nobody attempting to kill you, so there's no point in being able to achieve a high rate of fire (Olympic regulations allow 2 minutes per 3 arrows).

Another consideration is cost - plate harness is expensive and since the average English bowman wasn't especially rich, they wouldn't have the money to go into combat equipped in full plate harness.

[gkathellar]

Putting this in a different post cuz its a radically different question: Why did they stop using Khopeshes? Seriously, from what i've seen its an excellent cutting weapon, one that only gets better when made from steel, so why did they suddenly stop?

Speculative, but I feel instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of trying to fence with a khopesh. That sickle blade looks awkward and top-heavy to me, enough that I wonder why you wouldn't just use an axe. While the hook could be useful against some other weapons, it seems like it would come at the cost of more general advantages, like a strong spine or a false edge. Given only a portion of one edge was historically sharpened, it might also have presented opportunities for an opponent looking to get in close.

But these are just guesses.

[Vinyadan]

About the kopesh, a good way to know is looking for what substituted it.

About bows, I believe the Spartans had bowmen in heavy armour.

[Deepbluediver]

Thanks everyone who responded to my question about armor and bows- I've got to look up some of the stuff mentioned for more details, but it all sounds like it makes sense. In general it seems like the answer is mostly "no", and if yes then all they really needed was some simple variants to make it work pretty well.

[Blackhawk748]

Speculative, but I feel instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of trying to fence with a khopesh. That sickle blade looks awkward and top-heavy to me, enough that I wonder why you wouldn't just use an axe. While the hook could be useful against some other weapons, it seems like it would come at the cost of more general advantages, like a strong spine or a false edge. Given only a portion of one edge was historically sharpened, it might also have presented opportunities for an opponent looking to get in close.

But these are just guesses.

Its ture that it isnt a fencing weapon, but everything i've heard has said that its actually not as top heavy as it looks. Apparently it handles similar to a Falcata. Also its more weildy than an axe, or at least thats what i heard.

I guess i could see it being replaced as a general weapon by straight blades, but its not like people didnt have specialized weapons before.

[Max_Killjoy]

Speculative, but I feel instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of trying to fence with a khopesh. That sickle blade looks awkward and top-heavy to me, enough that I wonder why you wouldn't just use an axe. While the hook could be useful against some other weapons, it seems like it would come at the cost of more general advantages, like a strong spine or a false edge. Given only a portion of one edge was historically sharpened, it might also have presented opportunities for an opponent looking to get in close.

But these are just guesses.

There's a lot of variation in the "kopesh" -- some of them had almost the entire front edge sharp, an actual thrusting point in line with the hilt, and a small false edge (between the tip and the "hook").

Its ture that it isnt a fencing weapon, but everything i've heard has said that its actually not as top heavy as it looks. Apparently it handles similar to a Falcata. Also its more weildy than an axe, or at least thats what i heard.

I guess i could see it being replaced as a general weapon by straight blades, but its not like people didnt have specialized weapons before.

If I had to take a stab at it, I'd say the kopesh was hard to make from early iron, and never came back as the quality of iron improved and thus the size and shape of blades that could be made expanded.

[Martin Greywolf]

So i just bought a Devils Edge steel Khopesh and a Cold Steel Bill from Kult of Athena. These are my first fully functional weapons i've ever bought and im wondering what a good thing to test them on is. I've seen water bottles and tatami mats, but water bottles dont seem like enough and tatami mats just feel like im wasting money.

I once saw Skallagrim use some sort of starch and water mixture to make some sort of gel in a bottle, so i think i may go with that. Any other suggestions?

First question you ned to answer yourself is if you know how to do cuts well enough to not kill yourself and/or bystanders. Just taking a sharp piece of steel and going to town isn't the best of ideas.

If you do go for it, start with plastic bottles. You need to see if you have good edge alignment in a cut, and if you can string together several cuts without compromising it. If the asnwer is no, then there's no real point in going for something sturdier - well, other than fun.

After that, tatami mat substitutes tend to work well. Either use them or tightly rolled newspapers - you need to thoroughly soak the later to make them a good analogue.

Ballistics gel is a terrible medium - it is a good substitute for human flesh only if you are using firearms on it. If offers much, much greater resistance to any larger blades, even bladed arrows, than it really should.

Putting this in a different post cuz its a radically different question: Why did they stop using Khopeshes? Seriously, from what i've seen its an excellent cutting weapon, one that only gets better when made from steel, so why did they suddenly stop?

They aren't excellent cutting weapon - they are good, but not better than other, later blade types, and certainly not better than longer blades like spatha and it's ilk. When it comes to weirdly shaped weapons like these, the answer is always simple - it wasn't worth the hassle.

Kopesh is the way it is because it's a neat way to make a good cutter out of bronze - making a bronze blade in the shape of a falchion wouldn't end well simply because it's so thin. Once you have better quality of iron, there's nothing the gladius can't do as well as kopesh, and it's a lot less involved process to forge the latter out of a bar of metal.

As for thrusting, there's a vast difference between can't thrust at all, can thrust and can thrust well. Kopesh falls into the middle category - you can stab someone but it clearly isn't designed to be a good thruster.

I have a question- does armor interfere with firing a bow in any significant way? I know that armor was less cumbersome than it's sometimes depicted as in movies, but athletes still usually compete in very loose (or skintight), lightweight clothing for freedom of movement and such.

What you wear into a competition has no place here - armor, no matter what type, is costly and restrictive and therefore much less comfortable than civilian wear. You don't put it on unless you need it, and people often don't put it on even when they really should. You can clearly see this in some of the medieval hunts where nobles wore their normal clothes, even though armor does help a bit if a bear decides to chew your leg off.

European archers aren't usually shown in heavy armor,

Yes they are. It's just that combatants in general aren't usually depicted in heavy armor since it was expensive and therefore not universally used. And yes, that third link was indeed a horse archer in full plate.

Also consider that the depictions of archers in brigadines are heavy armor, knights themselves often went to battle in brigadines as shock cavalry.

I guess because being ranged combatants they wouldn't need it as much, but is there any reason you wouldn't want to have a platoon of archers in plate armor other than the cost to equip them?

Not really, but I think you underestimate just how high that cost is, especially since these are medieval recruitment methods - there is no central authority issuing equipment, you show up with whatever equipment you have and are paid accordingly.

I've also read that while in Europe the bow was the weapon of the common man,

This is a bloody stupid myth that needs to go die in a fire. Bow was a weapon first and foremost, and was used by anyone and everyone. The composite bow was associated specifically with the steppe nomads, but they certainly aren't commoners.

Also keep in mind that when someone says medieval Europe, they really mean medieval England with maybe some France and Germany throw in 99 times out of 100.

And let's not forget that when it comes to armored people capable of archery, every single knight is one. It's just that they are much more valuable as shock cavalry, since all you need for an effective archery unit is a bow and arrows equipped people, but you need the full gear for shock cavalry one. In essence you can mitigate the need for armor on your archers by tactics - hide them behind infantry with shields, behind walls or trees, etc etc, and put your armored folks where you need the line to hold.

Or, to put it in another way, think more in terms of "I have 50 suits of heavy armor, 100 spears, 100 bows and 200 men, how do I get the most out of them", instead of "I have 200 men, how do I equip them to have a balanced force". The army you get is never the army you want.

[Deepbluediver]

What you wear into a competition has no place here - armor, no matter what type, is costly and restrictive and therefore much less comfortable than civilian wear. You don't put it on unless you need it, and people often don't put it on even when they really should. You can clearly see this in some of the medieval hunts where nobles wore their normal clothes, even though armor does help a bit if a bear decides to chew your leg off.
*snip*
Or, to put it in another way, think more in terms of "I have 50 suits of heavy armor, 100 spears, 100 bows and 200 men, how do I get the most out of them", instead of "I have 200 men, how do I equip them to have a balanced force". The army you get is never the army you want.

Thank you very much- that's all nice and educational. It doesn't really answer my question though.
You provided a lot of evidence that soldiers did wear armor while using bows, but I'm asking if doing so interfered with your ability to shoot the bow, and by how much in terms of rate-of-fire and accuracy. Even if it does, it might still be beneficial overall to wear armor because the tradeoff is a relatively large benefit to protection and a small loss in other factors.

I guess the absolute answer is yes, so maybe I should instead be phrasing my question as "how does shooting a bow while wearing armor compare to shooting a bow without armor". I ask because in addition to simple curiosity, I was wondering if it would make sense in a game to have some sort of armor-penalty apply to ranged attacks.

[Blackhawk748]

First question you ned to answer yourself is if you know how to do cuts well enough to not kill yourself and/or bystanders. Just taking a sharp piece of steel and going to town isn't the best of ideas.

If you do go for it, start with plastic bottles. You need to see if you have good edge alignment in a cut, and if you can string together several cuts without compromising it. If the asnwer is no, then there's no real point in going for something sturdier - well, other than fun.

After that, tatami mat substitutes tend to work well. Either use them or tightly rolled newspapers - you need to thoroughly soak the later to make them a good analogue.

Ballistics gel is a terrible medium - it is a good substitute for human flesh only if you are using firearms on it. If offers much, much greater resistance to any larger blades, even bladed arrows, than it really should.

Im not formally trained or anything, but im fairly confident i can use a sword without harming myself or others. I of course will be very careful, thus why my first targets are milk jugs.

They aren't excellent cutting weapon - they are good, but not better than other, later blade types, and certainly not better than longer blades like spatha and it's ilk. When it comes to weirdly shaped weapons like these, the answer is always simple - it wasn't worth the hassle.

Kopesh is the way it is because it's a neat way to make a good cutter out of bronze - making a bronze blade in the shape of a falchion wouldn't end well simply because it's so thin. Once you have better quality of iron, there's nothing the gladius can't do as well as kopesh, and it's a lot less involved process to forge the latter out of a bar of metal.

As for thrusting, there's a vast difference between can't thrust at all, can thrust and can thrust well. Kopesh falls into the middle category - you can stab someone but it clearly isn't designed to be a good thruster.

Huh, interesting. Once i get a good straight blade i can do a real comparison. I guess i just see a few advantages the Khopesh has over a normal cutter (the ability to hook being a big one) so i was mostly curious why noone seemed to try and revive it.

[Mike_G]

Thank you very much- that's all nice and educational. It doesn't really answer my question though.
You provided a lot of evidence that soldiers did wear armor while using bows, but I'm asking if doing so interfered with your ability to shoot the bow, and by how much in terms of rate-of-fire and accuracy. Even if it does, it might still be beneficial overall to wear armor because the tradeoff is a relatively large benefit to protection and a small loss in other factors.

I guess the absolute answer is yes, so maybe I should instead be phrasing my question as "how does shooting a bow while wearing armor compare to shooting a bow without armor". I ask because in addition to simple curiosity, I was wondering if it would make sense in a game to have some sort of armor-penalty apply to ranged attacks.

If the armor restricts vision, like a full face helm with just vision slits, that would really hurt. If the armor restricted shoulder movement, that would hurt. Other than that, it wouldn't be too bad, just hot and uncomfortable.

You need good range of motion to fight at all, so armor that interferes with shooting a bow would interfere with swinging a sword.

There is some really heavy jousting armor that would mess with your shoulder movement, but nost armor should be fine.

Obvious exceptions would be gauntlets that make manipulating the string and arrow difficult, or anything sticking out that might catch the string.

I wondered about, and had my suspicions confirmed, that a breastplate would effect firing a musket or rifle, since the butt would be hard to seat in your shoulder, and would slide on the breastplate. Somebody posted a video a few pages back.

[Vinyadan]

About safety: the one instruction I'd give is: when using sharp implements, swing in such a way that, even if you were to miss, or if you were to cut through your target, you will not hurt yourself. It's very easy to hit your legs. It's something of a ritual for beginners working with a billhook. It was much worse when people used sickles, since they tended to wound their inner thigh and bleed to death (which could have been avoided by cutting away from themselves, instead of towards them).
Try doing some hits before you sharpen your weapon. Like, a few days, or even weeks. An unwhetted blade is much more forgiving on your body, even though it can still chop wood. It probably won't cut plastic bottles, but you can better your aim.
Also, keep length in mind, and don't poke your eyes out.

[Deepbluediver]

You need good range of motion to fight at all, so armor that interferes with shooting a bow would interfere with swinging a sword.

That's a good point- I guess any sort of armor would be designed with the end goal for it's use already in mind, and could be adjusted appropriately.

[Blackhawk748]

About safety: the one instruction I'd give is: when using sharp implements, swing in such a way that, even if you were to miss, or if you were to cut through your target, you will not hurt yourself. It's very easy to hit your legs. It's something of a ritual for beginners working with a billhook. It was much worse when people used sickles, since they tended to wound their inner thigh and bleed to death (which could have been avoided by cutting away from themselves, instead of towards them).
Try doing some hits before you sharpen your weapon. Like, a few days, or even weeks. An unwhetted blade is much more forgiving on your body, even though it can still chop wood. It probably won't cut plastic bottles, but you can better your aim.
Also, keep length in mind, and don't poke your eyes out.

It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just trying to figure out how you cut your leg with a billhook.

I mean, I would stand, leading with my right hand with my right leg out front, cutting in a right to left downward motion. How would I hit my leg?

[Martin Greywolf]

Thank you very much- that's all nice and educational. It doesn't really answer my question though.
You provided a lot of evidence that soldiers did wear armor while using bows, but I'm asking if doing so interfered with your ability to shoot the bow, and by how much in terms of rate-of-fire and accuracy. Even if it does, it might still be beneficial overall to wear armor because the tradeoff is a relatively large benefit to protection and a small loss in other factors.

Historically speaking, RoF and accuracy weren't a factor when it came to the "do we have archers in heavy armor" question, which is the gist of my point. To expand on these a bit.

RoF is practically a non-issue in military archery. One archer can carry 30-ish arrows on him, if you go ham with those, you run out really, really quickly. There are some tactical situations where you want high RoF, but they are relatively rare - mowing down charging, lightly armored infantry is about the only case.

Most of the time, archers are used for longer range harrasment - keep shooting people to make them hide behind shields and not move around. You want to keep up a steady stream of missiles in this case, slow enough to easily resupply everyone, fast enough to keep people hunkered down.

Second most common archery use is point-blanking, hide behind an obstacle (brambles, ditch, third row of shield wall, etc) and shoot an arrow into weak points in armor from rather close distance. Which brings us rather neatly into accuracy, and you need quite a bit of it here.

So, RoF is not that important, accuracy is more important, and armor restricts both to some degree. However... it's not that much.

I guess the absolute answer is yes, so maybe I should instead be phrasing my question as "how does shooting a bow while wearing armor compare to shooting a bow without armor". I ask because in addition to simple curiosity, I was wondering if it would make sense in a game to have some sort of armor-penalty apply to ranged attacks.

Ah, much more specific.

RoF in armor doesn't really suffer all that much, or rather, it is a question of gloves. Any kind of gloves impairs your fine manipulation, and nocking an arrow is pretty fiddly. For our purposes, all gloves are mostly equal - sure, plate gloves have inflexible parts on them, but their insides, i.e. where it counts for manipulating arrows, are leather. And let's not forget that you can counteract this problem by simply training in gloves, or not wearing them at all. So answer here would be maybe a small penalty, but give it to everyone who has gloves.

There are arguably differences between types of gloves (hourglass gauntlets get more in the way than late gothic ones) and between good quality tailor made gloves and some bits of metal you scrounged up, so maybe -1 penalty that goes away for masterwork?

Accuracy is pretty much unaffected, with a caveat - if you have a visored helmet, you can see your target just fine, but you loose a lot of peripheral vision, which you may well need to quickly change targets. This problem is not just for archers, heavy infantry fought with raised visors on foot a lot of the time, putting them down only for defending against arrows or for mounted charges (if they had a horse, which they mostly did - a knight will fight as a heavy infantry during a siege, after all). The field commanders universally had their visor raised, with some opting for kettle hats or other visorles helmets.

Putting this into game penalties is iffy - what you have here is an action that reduces how well protected you are and increases your situational awareness or vice versa - if you want to go into this level of detail.

There is one thing, however, that has a much greater impact on how effective an archer you are - fatigue. No matter how good the armor, fact of the matter is you're still lifting 2 kilos of metal more than you would without it, and you are stewing in your own juices all the while. Again, this is also a problem for heavy infantry. From my experience, you get thirsty after about an hour of just standing in full mail armor on the sun (granted, it was 40 Celsius at the time), and three hours without water will make your head spin (at best) or give you a full on blackout. As someone who prefers being a spearman in gambeson, I can attest to the fact that once things go south, I can sprint away a lot faster than the heavies.

The issue with this is that you don't have a lot of systems that model stamina elegantly, so it's pretty hard to represent this mechanically. Since most of the fights in TTRPGs last a very short amount of time (seconds to minutes, not minutes to hours), I'd go with not bothering with this.

In conclusion, I'd say a small penalty for gloves that goes away with masterwork fitted armor is about right, with maybe adding opening and closing visor into the mix. If you do the latter, do remember that your opponent can open/close your visor for you on some helmet types!

And as Mike_G said, there are specialized tournament or parade armors that would make you, in some cases, unable to use a bow at all. These are, however, not really meant to be fighting a war in.

[Deepbluediver]

@Martin Greywolf

Thank you very much- that was all very informative and interesting to read. I've never worn armor of any kind, and the only experience I have with bows are the lightweight ones they let kids shoot at summer camp.
In think you're right and I'm going to leave aside the penalties for now; the combat systems in games are supposed to be an abstraction, and when the quirks are two small or to finicky to model well, it's better to just not have them.