Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Arrows vs armour Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 19, 20, 21  Next 
Author Message
Randall Moffett




Usergroups: None

Location: Sunny Southern California
Reading list: 5 books
Posts: 1,910
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 12:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As I said earlier you have to be careful with Pip's idea here. This means that they could not make any bow strings over 100 pounds draw which discounts everything as crossbows and other larger items seem to employ similar material in their string construction just thicker. If no natural material could handle those weights think of what it does to everyday technology as well. I really wish this idea would die as it is just so illogical. It has 0 evidence to back it but someone’s flawed opinion with a few backyard experiments. There is plenty of everyday evidence that natural material can handle that tensile strength then as now.

I am not sure if anyone can prove archers taller. In general English seem a bit taller than the average European. I have no doubts that soldiers on Henry's Flagship were cream of the crop. I think it unlikely they are using 50lb plus different bows though. I just checked the Warbow and the highest number was actually 150-160lb. draw.

I know blunt force trauma have been spoken about in the past and I think the jury is still out. No one has done enough on it to prove it either way. I have no doubt the arrows force would knock you over. Not sure what the chances of fatalities are. Modern ballistic tests for bullet resistant jackets monitor this, every country deciding what BFT is allowed before it is unacceptable.

I suppose a mounted man would add to the equation but I would have to get someone with a physics degree to help me figure it out I Think as there are likely loads of variables I am not thinking of.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher




Usergroups: None


Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 12:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

On the moving towards at 20 mph thing - An arrow, 1200 grain, 160 FPS (velocity at a bit of range, declined after initial muzzle of 190 or so) creates 93 joules. Add 20 mph to the velocity, or about 30 fps, and we are looking at a 190 fps combined velocity, and this is 130 joules, the difference between not pircing mail and piercing, if we look at Williams tests requiring 100 joules to penetrate mail over jack as valid.

Quote:
I have no doubts that soldiers on Henry's Flagship were cream of the crop. I think it unlikely they are using 50lb plus different bows though. I just checked the Warbow and the highest number was actually 150-160lb. draw.


Yes, the 50 pound difference would be extreme, but a 20 pound average difference may be well in line.

On the height thing - I'm going from memory, but IIRC the average height in England for a male during this time was about 5'8" (the average height actually went down a fair amount during the industrial age). Warrior types were generally a bit taller, but 6' on average goes well beyond that.

Was it Hardy who thought the average Longbow was 115-124 pounds in draw eight? Do we know where he come up with these estimates?

Quote:
I just checked the Warbow and the highest number was actually 150-160lb. draw.


Was this based off the Mary Rose findings? And if this was the highest, do we know what the average per this source were expected to be?

One thing though with all of this - The original question was not could arrows pierce mail, but at what distance. I have no doubt at some ranges they could. Even using Williams numbers, we have this

"he Great Warbow" 150 lb draw, 1485 grain arrow, 174 fps as tested - 135 joules
140 lb Longbow (Estimate) 140 lb draw, 1250 grain arrow, 188 fps (est) - 133 joules
120 lb Longbow (Estimate) 120 lb draw, 1250 grain arrow, 179 fps - 120 Joules

To penetrate mail and jack is 100 joules. All of these at the muzzle have the capacity to do so. Of course, velocity hence penetrative power would drop at range.

To penetrate 1mm of plate over this we are probably looking at about 155 joules, whch would make this real tough.

To penetrate 2 mm of plate, we need about 175 joules, maybe another 10 for the lighter arming doublet.

Composite bows would generate about 10-15% or so more joules than the same draw weight longbow, A composite Horn crossbow in the 300-350# range should be about 10% or so better than the 140 pound longbow.

A steel crossbow at 1000# draw weight, and a 7 inch powerstroke, 3-4 inch brace should generate about 266 joules with a 2000 grain or so projectile, though of course this is muzzle velocity.


I might add the penetration numbers were from Williams, the bow enrgies were not. One was from the Great Warbow
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,293
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 1:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
A 1200 Grain arrow at 200fps would give 145 joules, enough per Williams to penetrate mail over a jack.

Mail wasn't worn over a jack. It was worn over an aketon or pourpoint which was more lightly padded. 145J is enough to punch through the samples that Williams tested (which hardly tells us that all types of mail were equally vulnerable). However, by the 15th century, mail was being worn UNDER a padded jack which could have up to 30 layers of linen. 145J is not enough to get through this double layer of protection. That is probably why they worn this combination.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Mon 02 Feb, 2009 1:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher




Usergroups: None


Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 1:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here is what I have been using, excerpts from some of Williams tests:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006...uscle.html

Quote:
Impact tests:

Williams unless specified otherwise)

Energy to defeat, in Joules:

Arrowhead vs. Buff Leather 30 J
Lance vs. Cuir-boulli 30-20 J
Lance vs. Padding (16 layers linen, 60g for 16 x 21 cm) 50 J
Arrowheads vs:
Modern Mail (mild steel) alone 80 J
Modern Mail & Jack Penetration 100 J
Modern Mail and Tailor's Dummy 100 J (Soar et al)
Modern Mail, Jack Penetration, and 35 mm penetration of Plastilene behind 120 J
15th c. Mail (low carbon steel hardened by quenching) two links broken and jack behind completely penetrated: 120 J
1 mm mild steel plate (perpendicular impact) 55 J for 45mm penetration
1. 5 mm mild steel plate 110 J
2 mm mild steel plate 175 J
1 mm “Victorian wrought iron”: 46 J for 51 mm penetration at 10 m
1.9 mm “Swedish” Wrought Iron 80-75 J


Apparently this brief summary does not have the jack over mail combo, or if so it does not state whether over or under. There is nothing I see regarding mail + Gambeson, which I thought was suprising.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,293
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 1:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
Here is what I have been using, excerpts from some of Williams tests:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006...uscle.html

Arrowheads vs:
Modern Mail (mild steel) alone 80 J
Modern Mail & Jack Penetration 100 J
Modern Mail and Tailor's Dummy 100 J (Soar et al)
Modern Mail, Jack Penetration, and 35 mm penetration of Plastilene behind 120 J
15th c. Mail (low carbon steel hardened by quenching) two links broken and jack behind completely penetrated: 120 J


Williams actually said that only the 120J test penetrated the combination far enough to cause injury to the wearer. And even in this instance 35 mm is hardly a fatal wound.
80J damaged the mail but not the padding
100J holed the padding but not far enough to hurt the wearer.
The padding in this instance was made from 16 layers of qulted linen
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher




Usergroups: None


Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 2:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Any idea what type of arrowheads? Bodkin or other?
View user's profile Send private message
Joshua Connolly




Usergroups: None

Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 49
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 2:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:


Joshua,

This testing really would have little resemblance to your analogy of cars as they are not rigging it against them only using the material that made the vast majority of armour. It is more like comparing what 80-90% plus of cars perform at. Seems to be the only fair way to do it, if you had but one option would you test the 90% or 10%?

Hardly invalidates anything in reality. The debate of glancing surfaces on a plate in part compensated by angle of fire. While clearly this is not 100% it does not invalidate it. It would be impossible nearly to run a scientific experiment without infinite funding for good armour. You then have to decide which type of Breastplate, likely with a large number per design. Quality of material as well. You have to decide when it does glance or penetrate why it did so and what of millions of possible angles were responsible. Flat sheets with degree of angle gives them hard numbers and a way to see what certain angles deflect at, which in the testing showed was an important factor in defeating arrows.


RPM


Randall,

Well, that's why I say it's sort of what was happening and not what was actually happening. The conditions are what I really wanted to compare in that comparison, not necessarily the intent behind the conditions. Albeit, the analogy was somewhat extreme. As well, I never said it was invalidated due to the flat sheets but rather that I, personally, felt it was almost invalidated, and saved due to some of the circumstances of the test.

But as for the flat sheets, that's exactly the problem. I think we both understand that armor is not simply the material it is constructed from. An example of this is the armor designs of the T-34 during World War 2. Was the actual metallurgy involved in its sloped armor that much better than those of the German's or any other nation? To my knowledge, not really. In fact, I believe their metallurgy was inferior to those of the Germans and other Western European nations. I could be wrong though. Admittedly, if they're simply talking about the ability of an arrow to penetrate non-armor materials, I'll give them that. However, if you're talking about the ability to penetrate armor, you need something that actually simulates armor. Simple flat sheets do not do this, so at the very best you're demonstrating an arrow's ability to penetrate flat sheets of metal, but not plate armor.


Shooting from different angles does help somewhat, but it still has limitations in that you're still firing at a surface which still doesn't have the properties of the actual object it's supposed to represent. For example, when you're firing at armor from an angle, you're not just dealing with the angle from one direction, but from every aspect of the slope itself. Literally, if I were to fire at a metal sheet from 45 degrees, I'll be dealing with an entirely different sort of variables than if I were to fire at a shaped breastplate from 45 degrees. Admittedly, this does depend upon the armor in question, but that's why it becomes important to confine your conclusions to what you've actually tested. For example, testing against flat sheets doesn't tell you very much about actual armor, but about, frankly, flat sheets. Now, I recognize the problem with money, lord knows I need more of it for my own purposes, but not having enough money doesn't make up for the flaws of an experiment, whether they were avoidable or not. I'll admit it, my standards for scientific testing are extremely high.


Now, for the world according to Josh. What would probably make experiments like that better is for them to admit their limitations. Right now, I don't remember if this one went too far into their own limitations, and if they did my opinion will change somewhat, but when you're testing against a simulated material, you have to take into account that it's a simulated material and not an actual piece of the material itself. You can predict that armor might fall into a similar pattern, but this really depends upon the level at which the simulated material mirrors what it's intended to represent.

I have other problems with this particular work, ranging from the distance the arrows were fired from, to the hardness of the arrowheads, but I have the biggest problem with the flat plane thing. It's rarely used properly, and my own disposition makes me think it might not be applicable at all.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher




Usergroups: None


Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 2:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/...esting.pdf

Above is another test. It is also flawed in some ways, but has some interesting conclusions.

I wish it would not have been with a 75 pound longbow. The momentum was equal, but the 75 pounder at close range had more KE (not much) and a higher velocity by a fair amount. I wish tests would be done using the exact specs on the bow, as there are many factors to penetration and it's hard to say which matter most.

It was a 110 lb longbow he was trying to replicate though, a bit light for some to consider a longbow

I did not understand the point of butted mail, but at least he mentioned it was not as viable, and he did use rivetted mail.

I was intrigues by the performaqnce against a scale type of armour - my guess is lammelar would have functioned in a similar fashion, though lammelar has more overlap than the scale.

The blunt penetration issue though I thought was off. He was using numbers assigned to bullets for deformation - and my understanding is while bullets can deliver hydrostatic shock because of the velocity involved, blunt trauma from arrows would not.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Usergroups: None

Location: New Mexico
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 986
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 3:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Jenkins wrote:
The de Soto were facing American Indians with longbows probably in the 80 pound range.


Wait a second. You're using de la Vega, right? He wrote that none of Spaniards could draw a captured Amerindian bow. When describing English-trained archers, he made no distinction between their weapons and Amerindian weapons. Various other authors noted the power of Amerindian archers. I bet they drew bows every bit as heavy as any English archer.

Quote:
I wouldn't place too much stock in anything Garscilaso wrote.


Well, how about Cabeza de Vaca?

In this fight some of our people were wounded, in spite of their good armor. There were men that day who swore they had seen two oak trees, each as thick as the calf of a leg, shot through and through by arrows, which is not surprising if we consider the force and dexterity with which they shoot. I myself saw an arrow that had penetrated the base of a poplar tree for half a foot in length. All the many Indians from Florida we saw were archers, and, being very tall and naked, at a distance they appear giants. Those people are wonderfully built, very gaunt and of great strength and agility. Their bows are as thick as an arm, from eleven to twelve spans long, shooting an arrow at 200 paces with unerring aim.

and

We found them shot through and through with arrows, for, although several wore good armor, it was not sufficient to protect them, since, as I said before, they shot their arrows with such force and precision.

On the whole, there's a mountain of evidence that arrows could pierce mail. Old World or New World, you get the same results.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Teuscher




Usergroups: None


Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 3:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
On the whole, there's a mountain of evidence that arrows could pierce mail.


As I mentioned at the start, the question is not "could an arrow pierce mail"

I think most would agree that an arrow of sufficient hardness and sufficient force can penetrate mail, plate on the other hand would depend much on thickess and hardness. IMO an arrow could penetrate 1 mm, even 1.5 mm of plate at point blank range - but this is the thickness worn over mail. Something in the 2mm range is highly doubtful.

It's more at what range could these penetrate.

Quote:
Mark Stretton conducted tests with heavy war arrows suggesting that they had about 80% of point blank penetration against foam targets at 60 yards and 67% at 180 yards. (Soar et al). At longer range penetration of plate would also be adversely affected by more oblique impact.


This here, based on the joules exerted by different bows, would indicate to me that at 60 yards, a heavy longbow could penetrate mail, if the 140-150 pound types were in use. The light ones my guess would have to be much closer, probably half that distance or less. And this is mail with a gambeson beneath.

As far as any further, it seems any bow would have a tough time pentrating mail at 180 yards. Even a longbow of 150 pounds would be at about 90 joules at this distance. It might stick in the padding, but that would be about it.

Of course one question I have is what type of arrows and what hardness was Wlliams using. It appears from another test I posted a link on is that a hardened broadhead was the best armour piercer, while Williams used a short bodkin, something that did not fare well in the other test.

I do quation the mail on that test though with the link above. The author gives credits to all invloved, and the "high quality" rivetted mail does not have a maker that I can see, and he says everything not attributed to someone else was made by him. Would be interesting to see some mail made by Schmid here.

The other problem I have with the test above is the velocity of the tested bow was calculated, not actually tested, so the velocity could have been far different which would have made a huge impact on the test.
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books
Posts: 488
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 5:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

While interesting I found more than a few problems with the "champ bane" archery tests above. While the velocity of a point blank shot from the 75 pund bow may be the same as that of the 110 pound bow at 250 yds I have serious doubts that the angle of attack would be the same in both cases. In the test all arrows are striking the target essentially the best angle possible.

No details of the materials of the armour tested are provided. The plates used look like mild steel at best, better steels or even hardend steels would provide more protection. The quality and weight of the linen would also have a significant impact on the test. Most modern linens tend to be loose weaves and the fibres are cut very short which reduces the strenght of the cloth compared to linen made in the middle ages.
The coat of plates could and would be worn over mail as well which would have improved the level of protection a fari bit even if it increased the weight.

Still I found the test an interesting read and a more ambtious and evenhanded test than most "backyard tests" I've seen referenced online.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher




Usergroups: None


Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 5:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Still I found the test an interesting read and a more ambtious and evenhanded test than most "backyard tests" I've seen referenced online.


Kind of my thoughts too. He did attempt to get things right, and many tests don't use the correct weight bow.

Interesting stuff about the linen, Daniel.

The padding underneath the mail I don't think was right either. I would think the ribbing of quilting it correctly would have helped, I think the individuaql tubes would have been more dense and held together better than the pqadding as used by the author.

It did have some interesting things to it though. One is the broadhead cut the cloth materials much better than the Bodkins. I'd be curious to see how the bodkins would have fared with a more substantial gambeson under the mail.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,293
PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 1:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I get tired of saying this but "riveted" does not equal "period". 99% of the weapons tests with mail are either using butted mail, which is a complete waste of time, or the mail imported from India/Pakistan. I have previously given long lists of how this riveted mail is inferior to even the poorest quality museum samples. William's test was done against both a 15th C museum example and a modern relpica made by Erik Schmid, which is why is it worth studying.

Edit: The point Williams used was a hardened steel pyramid with an angle of 18 degrees. It was meant to simulate a bodkin arrowhead. He also tested a simulated lance/spear head with a 60 degree point and found it less effective than the bodkin.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Tue 03 Feb, 2009 1:22 am; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,293
PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 1:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
In this fight some of our people were wounded, in spite of their good armor. There were men that day who swore they had seen two oak trees, each as thick as the calf of a leg, shot through and through by arrows, which is not surprising if we consider the force and dexterity with which they shoot. I myself saw an arrow that had penetrated the base of a poplar tree for half a foot in length. All the many Indians from Florida we saw were archers, and, being very tall and naked, at a distance they appear giants. Those people are wonderfully built, very gaunt and of great strength and agility. Their bows are as thick as an arm, from eleven to twelve spans long, shooting an arrow at 200 paces with unerring aim.


And Bacon wrote that Turkish arrows could penetrate two inches of brass. Just because it is written down somwhere doesn't make it true. In any case the above should be easy to support with modern experimentation. Shoot a heavy warbow at some oak trees and see what happens. If modern experimentation produces a result that is similar to the source then we have a case.

And once again in case you missed it the first hundred times: where have I said that arrows could not pierce mail? The question is how often mail was compromsied by an arrow that injured a man badly enough to take him out of the fight. IMO it did not happen often enough to affect the outcome of a battle.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher




Usergroups: None


Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 7:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think the psychological effects of arrows are overlooked as well. I'm not sure how comfortable I would be charging a line of high powered pellet guns in a t-shirt and gymn shorts! These don't do quite what a bow would against mail, but if I'm advancing, I see my friend go down after taking one in the eye, and I get hit by a pellet that gives me a nice little bleeding wound to the thigh, and there are pellets flying everywhere, I may think twice about advancing.

I'm sure they had a good effect on morale and the will to fight.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Usergroups: None

Location: New Mexico
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 986
PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 9:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Just because it is written down somwhere doesn't make it true. In any case the above should be easy to support with modern experimentation.


We don't necessarily have enough information to recreate the bows and arrows Cabeza de Vaca encountered. The details of arrow construction could make a big difference. But it's fairly consistent with other accounts of powerful bows, such the Welsh arrow's penetration of that oak door. I'm not sure about modern tests, but I know C. J. Longman could pierce an inch of oak with a 65lb bow. I'm certain a 150lb weapon would do better.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Teuscher




Usergroups: None


Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 10:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:

Quote:
In this fight some of our people were wounded, in spite of their good armor. There were men that day who swore they had seen two oak trees, each as thick as the calf of a leg, shot through and through by arrows, which is not surprising if we consider the force and dexterity with which they shoot.


Yes, but were they wearing more plate or mail? If they were consistent with 16th century armour it would have been far more plate, and mostly partial plate, not full suits.

And mail would not have been the head to toe of the 13th century, but more shirts and short hauberks.

It does mention the force of the arrows, but also the precision.

I feel it far more likely that they were wounded in unarmoured areas or those protected by something like a Buff Coat.

It's very very hard to believe that a stone or copper tipped arrow (or even wood) could penetrate 2+mm of metal that breastplates and Helms were likely made of, as comparative hardness is one of the most important parts of armour penetration, particularly with plate armour.
View user's profile Send private message
James Arlen Gillaspie




Usergroups: 
Industry Professionals

Location: upstate NY
Posts: 342
PostPosted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 7:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Some observations regarding the “Defence Academy Warbow Trials”; and related matters; I note that many of my points echo De Vries, as well as several previous posters.

The old charcoal smelted iron simply does not behave like modern metals. The use of rolled iron was a major error. The picture I posted earlier IS a rolled charcoal iron, and very expensive. As can be seen, the directional grain doesn’t do it any favors. I cannot, however, say at this point that it is the same stuff, but it very likely came from the same source, as no one else I know of is rolling real wrought iron (which is made of whatever recycled scrap they can round up). The genuine old stuff of the sort we are concerned with, being beaten out with triphammers, has a much more random grain, causing the more random delamination patterns typically seen in old armour. This randomizing of the grain minimizes the problems inherent in a strong unidirectional grain. It will also be noted, by those who have read Dr. Williams’ The Knight and the Blast Furnace, that iron armour (and many armours of steel, especially Italian armour after c. 1500), was almost always ‘air cooled after fabrication’. This is because work hardening increases brittleness drastically, compared to modern mild steel. Cold work has to be done sparingly and very carefully, and it is a good idea to normalize it afterward, which is what Williams’ data seems to reflect. Normalized samples should have been compared to the work hardened stuff to check their assumptions.

The repeated references in the article to A 22 Wallace were odd (particularly after their initial disclaimer), seeing as it was made by Augsburg smiths at the height of their skill in the ‘golden window’ period (best armour ahead of weapons, but firearms are coming up fast), which would mean the best tempered steel they were capable of. Such armours tend to be substantially thinner than munitions pieces, because they can be! It is comparing apples and oranges. The lighter weight was no mean advantage. I must add, though, that the measurements of its thicknesses are, of course, what it is now, and cannot be exactly the same as the original thicknesses of its parts. It is simply not possible in the vast majority of instances to measure the thicknesses of a five hundred year old breastplate (or any other piece of armour) and be sure that the measurements are close to the original thicknesses. Determining the original thicknesses is a complex problem that can rarely be solved with certainty, and usually comes down to best educated guess. Abrasive losses due to cleaning over the last five hundred years have usually been considerable, with rare exceptions. File cleaning was a common method, with predictable results. An early ‘Maximilian’ cuirass I worked on awhile back had a backplate almost as thick as the breast (measurements revealed that they both had been forged from stock at least a tenth of an inch or 2.54 mm thick, interestingly enough), and it was clear from the crisper engraved lines on the backplate that it had not been cleaned as often, doubtlessly due to it being against the wall (yes, they were a matched pair, not associated). Corrosion of the interior surfaces is often a significant factor, too. What the current thickness measurements establish is a lower limit to their possible thickness; we know that they were no THINNER than their current measurements, allowing for the fact that the inner oxide layer can affect the readings due to iron oxide occupying several times the volume of iron.

Think on this; why would anyone buy 1.5 mm thick breastplates for their men-at-arms when slightly thicker ones would be proof? Was the extra expense and weight all that much of a deterrent? A more likely culprit for failure would be consistency of materials, which was much more difficult to achieve when metallurgy was far more art than science.

As for blunt trauma; one of the things plate does best is prevent blunt trauma (note the frequent use of it in the S.C.A., where everyone is assumed to be wearing mail and a helm with nasal), and the genius of plate armour design of the sort under discussion is that its ability to reduce blunt trauma is unparalleled in the history of mankind. The so-called ‘globose’ breastplate keeps the impact surface far away from the ribcage (also presents a nice deflecting surface due to its form, of course), and channels impact around it. If a projectile should penetrate, it has a lot further to go to reach the wearer. To put the iron directly in contact with the Plastalina is not realistic; in fact, much of the breastplate does not even touch cloth for modern arming doublets (in those cases where the breastplate has a reasonably accurate shape, and is not too flat), which almost always lack the padded breastplate shape that characterizes the doublets of the time. The impact of an arrow or crossbow bolt is, as has already been commented, not to be compared to the impact of a battlefield lance.

Considering helms and helmets; unlike classical visors, which often look like a human face, and fit closely, the visors we are concerned with are often shaped to deflect frontal impact with great efficiency, and the helms have extremely effective suspension systems. It is very, very difficult to render someone unconscious who is wearing an accurate helm with an accurate suspension system.

jamesarlen.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Teuscher




Usergroups: None


Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Tue 17 Feb, 2009 1:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Think on this; why would anyone buy 1.5 mm thick breastplates for their men-at-arms when slightly thicker ones would be proof?


I agree with most of what you say here - but I have to chime in on this. Why would the US make tanks that were easily penetrated by a Panzer V? Even the post Sherman models were not proof against this gun. And the original Shermans were not even very effective against a Panzer IV 75mm, and the Panzer IV was around in limited numbers even at close to the start of the war.

Even a King Tiger could be penetrated by the heaviest guns, though not at great range.

I guess what I am saying is armour is rarely considered proof against all battlefield threats.

A 1.5mm breastplate could make sense - lighter and less iron (cheaper) than the 2mm types. They were also effective (but not proof) against other common battlefield threats, swords, axes, maces, etc. They would also be effective against most arrow fire unless at very point blank range.

Heck, even 2mm plate would not stop a lance with a direct flush hit from a knight charging on horseback - plus the 1000# crossbows could pentrate it at close range I would think (well over 200j)

I think it would be extremely rare to find armour that is proof against all battlefield threats at any range, and most armour is a bit of a compromise between effectiveness, cost, and weight.

Nothing like wearing a 4mm thick breasplate and being hit in the face when your visor is up!
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Hinton




Usergroups: None


Posts: 9
PostPosted: Tue 17 Feb, 2009 3:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

IMHO Some of the confusion with the Mary Rose bow test draw weights came from the degeneration of the 2 Bows used in the primary tests.
In addition the testing of the elastic modus of the Yew vs thickness of the bows is a bit out dated as at the time the only yew that could be found with a ring count any where near to the originals to conduct the tests with was Oregon yew
unfortunately Oregon yew behaves slightly differently.
Now there is access to a European source of good quality yew should the tests be carried out again some of these anomalies should be removed.
The European yew has a higher ring count per inch and is correspondingly heavier and more dense.
No real tests have been carried out on strings and some obvious things like glueing haven't been taken into consideration.
IMPO This stand point maybe more about being controversial than any deep held convictions.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Arrows vs armour
Page 3 of 21 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 19, 20, 21  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2013 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum