My 2 cents.
Some things against the effectiveness of bows.
1) In a real battle injuries are often felt less than if you were hit while simply standing. One could get 10 2" deep penetrations and go on fighting. And just die in an hour. There were multiple accounts of people receiving more than one handgun bullet (I think one guy received as many as 14 .40 caliber bullets), continuing to act aggressively for extended periods of time and then surviving. And I think there are recorded accounts of
maille-clad warriors being hit with lances and continuing fighting. I think a mounted lance has more energy than a warbow arrow.
2) While a hit to maille can be debilitating, plate armor is entirely different. I probably wouldn't even feel a 1" deep dent in my breast plate.
3) (this is somewhat speculative). When firearms became wide-spread armor got thicker. So why didn't it get thick enough earlier if a warbow was such a good anti-armor weapon? And why didn't knights often use large
shields to protect themselves from the arrows? Maybe that's because they considered their armor to be good enough?
4) (again somewhat speculative) And who said that bows found on Mary Rose are a good representation of an AVERAGE warbow? They should be the best of the best. And from another century I think. So shouldn't we compare one best only to the other best?
5) (a reply to why archers were tortured etc.) Archers were non-noble. I think any non-noble warrior had very few chances of being treated well if captured. And in addition to being non-noble they were a real nuisance for a knight.
And some things for effectiveness of a warbow.
1) Not everyone had full armor.
2) Not all armors were equally good.
3) Even in case of best armors not all parts were equally thick
4) There were HORSES! And horses usually had very little or no armor. Kill a lot of horses and you make a field almost impassable for cavalry. And if that cavalry is stupid enough to try and pass this field (hey, we've seen it somewhere, haven't we?) you've got a good opportunity to kill even more horses. And horsemen.
5) Speed of a charging knight is added to the speed of an arrow. In case of heavy slow-flying arrows it could add quite a lot of energy=penetration.
6) Even without killing arrows can wreck havoc on the enemy. Just try standing still while being hit by a whip. One can easily survive 100 hits, but enduring them is not a joke. You are very likely to seek for cover and that would mean a defeat with the following massacre of the fleeing army.
So guys, what are all the arguments about? There have been made quite a few tests to make a conclusion. And the conclusion would be that an arrow shot from a warbow is very unlikely to penetrate areas covered by the strongest armor (usually torso and head). And if it fails to penetrate, at least in case of plate armor, it does not deliver any serious would. But there are always areas covered by thinner armor or not armored at all, there are unarmored horses, and there is an effect of missile fire on enemy morale, maneuvers and ability to fight effectively. How much effect would archers have on the outcome of a particular battle, whether penetrating armors or not, is an entirely different question and the answer would depend on a hundred of different factors such as chosen tactics, disposition of forces, morale, weather, terrain, number of different troops in opposing armies, etc. Archers were obviously effective troops, or they simply would not have been used, but they were not ultimate fighters, or there would be no need for cavalry, crossbowmen, etc.