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 ... , 19, 20, 21  Next 
Author Message
Timo Nieminen




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Brisbane, Australia
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book
Posts: 1,010
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 4:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Using Williams' values for energy needed for bullets to penetrate, the 18kJ of a 0.50 BMG will penetrate about 12mm of mild steel plate, at normal incidence (the anti-armour sabot rounds will go through about 20mm of steel armour).

Given that brasses tend to be softer than mild steel, perhaps 19mm of brass (for non-sabot)? 2 inches might take about 80kJ.

An arrow will need less energy. But I don't think even the best Turkish archer could deliver 13kJ to the target.

(To be fair to Bacon, he did try to do experimental science once - but, alas, it killed him.)

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
William P




Usergroups: None

Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,169
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 5:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Timo Nieminen wrote:
Using Williams' values for energy needed for bullets to penetrate, the 18kJ of a 0.50 BMG will penetrate about 12mm of mild steel plate, at normal incidence (the anti-armour sabot rounds will go through about 20mm of steel armour).

Given that brasses tend to be softer than mild steel, perhaps 19mm of brass (for non-sabot)? 2 inches might take about 80kJ.

An arrow will need less energy. But I don't think even the best Turkish archer could deliver 13kJ to the target.

(To be fair to Bacon, he did try to do experimental science once - but, alas, it killed him.)

so in otherwords to penetrate that much brass using modern weapons, the weapons wed need would be getting into the realm of very light artillery.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Daniel Staberg




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books
Posts: 488
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 5:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Williams data is for round shot which has very poor penetration and ballistic performance due to the shape. Modern bullets have an entierly diffrent shape and performance.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
View user's profile Send private message
Glen A Cleeton




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Nipmuc USA
Posts: 1,450
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 6:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
ATTRACTION.

1. The Turkish Bow shoots so forcibly, that an Arrow from it has pierced 1 Attraction by Steel Target, or piece of Brass, two Inches thick: but what is more ftrzngc, similitude of the Arrow,, tho headed with Wood, hath gone thro* a piece of Wood, Suhst*nce- in eight Inches thick. And 'tis certain we formerly used in Sea-fight, certain ^"^ short Arrows, which they call'd Sprights, without any other Head, than Wood, sharpened; and these discharged out of Muskets, would go thro* the sides of Ships, where a Bullet would not enter. This depends upon one of the greatest Secrets in Nature •, viz. that Similitude Of Substance Will Cause Attraction, where the Body is wholly freed from the Motion of Gravity: for if that were away, Lead wou'd attract Lead, and Gold attract Gold, and Iron attract Iron, without the help of the Loadstone. Riat this fame Motion of Gravity, being a mere Motion of the Matter, and having no affinity with the Form, or Kind, destroys the other Motion; except itself be destroyed by a violent Motion, as in these Instances of Arrows; for then the Motion of Attraction by Similitude of Substance begins to shew itself n.


Quote:
PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

O F

FRANCIS BACON,

Baron of Verularit, Viscount St. jilhans,

and Lord High-chancellor of England $
Methodized, and tasL^EngUst, from the O RIGIN A L S.

With
OCCASIONAL NOTES, to EXPLAIN what is Obscure;

#

And sliew how far the several PLANS of the Author,
for the Advancement os all the Parts of Knowledge,
have been executed to the present Time.

In Three Volumes.

tyPE^ER SHAW, M. D.
VOL. III.

Mult't pettranjibunt, & augeb'itur Scientia.

LONDON:

Printed for J. J. and P. Knapton, D. Midwinter and A. Wa R D,
A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch, J. Pemberton, J. Osborn
and T. Longman, C. R I V I N G T O N, F. C L A Y, J. Batley,
R. H E T T, and Ihatchet T. M.DCC.XXXIII.


http://books.google.com/books?id=DNQRDPIb_aAC


Cheers

GC
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,254
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 7:39 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Excellent. Thanks Glen.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Usergroups: None

Location: New Mexico
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 979
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 8:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Timo Nieminen wrote:
An arrow will need less energy. But I don't think even the best Turkish archer could deliver 13kJ to the target.


Meh, an eight-ton or so bow could manage that. The Turks did have reputation for being strong. Happy Back in ancient India, Rama shot an arrow through seven sala trees that additionally leveled part of the mountain on which they stood and drove deep into the earth. In another case, Rama split a mountain-peak with seven arrows. Based on these examples, I think we can conclude that archery had declined by Bacon's time.

Read my historically inspired fantasy fiction in here. I walk along a winding path set by Ludovico Ariosto, William Morris, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Ursula Le Guin.

Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marcos Cantu




Usergroups: None


Likes: 1 page
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 1:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

i always relate these types of discussions to what i know about modern ballistics; esp when things like 'blunt trauma' are mentioned and how a non-penetrating hit from an arrow could supposedly knock someone down or daze them so much that they are vulnerable.

this video is from an incident in Iraq in 2005. a soldier was shot by a sniper using a 7.62x54R armor piercing round. his plate stopped the round and he was immediately able to recover and respond. i have estimated that when the round hit, it had 3434J of energy (184 grain round, impact velocity approx 2490 fps, 2532.9 foot pounds of energy).

http://youtu.be/c-UNFSZ8VKU


the plate was the original SAPI plate (not AP rated) over kevlar soft armor




note that when he is shot, he impact spins him and when he falls, he falls straight down and is not knocked back. this imo, is more a reaction to realizing he's been shot than to the force of the bullet impacting.

examples like this lead me to believe that blunt trauma from a non-penetrating arrow with <200J of energy on plate could be shrugged off without too much effort
View user's profile Send private message
Till J. Lodemann




Usergroups: None


Posts: 96
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 2:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I always wondered why the arrow was so much hyped in the english speaking historical community. I looked up M. Junkelmann, Die Reiter Roms III again and he gives tha maximal force for a crouched lance thrust under ideal conditions with a 600 kg horse at a gallop of 40km/h at 186326.35 Newton/cm².
So the point of the crouched lance impacts with a lot more energy then a longbow arrow or crossbow bolt even at point blanc, I believe
And this is something (parts of) plate armour (and the man inside) was able to widthstand somehow.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Usergroups: None

Location: New Mexico
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 979
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yeah, there's no question the couched lance hit harder than the arrow. You have various reports of lances penetrating mail and coats of plates both front and back. Humphrey Barwick invoked once such account to dismiss as useless the various lighter armors Sir John Smythe advocated. He noted such armors - specifically brigandines - might do well enough against arrows but had no place on a modern battlefield.
Read my historically inspired fantasy fiction in here. I walk along a winding path set by Ludovico Ariosto, William Morris, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Ursula Le Guin.

Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timo Nieminen




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Brisbane, Australia
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book
Posts: 1,010
PostPosted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 10:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Marcos Cantu wrote:
7.62x54R armor piercing round

...

it had 3434J of energy (184 grain round, impact velocity approx 2490 fps, 2532.9 foot pounds of energy).

...

examples like this lead me to believe that blunt trauma from a non-penetrating arrow with <200J of energy on plate could be shrugged off without too much effort


And even though the arrow is much heavier, it also has less momentum (about 5-6 N.s versus about 9N.s for the bullet).

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Moffett




Usergroups: None

Location: Sunny Southern California
Reading list: 5 books
Posts: 1,906
PostPosted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 6:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Marcos,

The issue is it is not that simple. I know people that have been knocked out after being hit by a bullet, though saved by their armour. A Cousin of mine is a cop and was hit and luckily he had his jacket on and it stopped the bullet but knocked him over and broke several ribs.

So while these stories are interesting and good to see the armour is saving the lives of our soldiers and friends every one represents a number of different events and factors.

I imagine though the US military does have some facts on this though.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Clifford Rogers




Usergroups: None


Posts: 39
PostPosted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 6:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Till J. Lodemann wrote:
I always wondered why the arrow was so much hyped in the english speaking historical community. I looked up M. Junkelmann, Die Reiter Roms III again and he gives tha maximal force for a crouched lance thrust under ideal conditions with a 600 kg horse at a gallop of 40km/h at 186326.35 Newton/cm².
So the point of the crouched lance impacts with a lot more energy then a longbow arrow or crossbow bolt even at point blanc, I believe
And this is something (parts of) plate armour (and the man inside) was able to widthstand somehow.


?Wouldn't newtons/cm2 be a measure of pressure, not force?

Clifford J. Rogers
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clifford Rogers




Usergroups: None


Posts: 39
PostPosted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 6:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Clifford Rogers wrote:
Till J. Lodemann wrote:
I always wondered why the arrow was so much hyped in the english speaking historical community. I looked up M. Junkelmann, Die Reiter Roms III again and he gives tha maximal force for a crouched lance thrust under ideal conditions with a 600 kg horse at a gallop of 40km/h at 186326.35 Newton/cm².
So the point of the crouched lance impacts with a lot more energy then a longbow arrow or crossbow bolt even at point blanc, I believe
And this is something (parts of) plate armour (and the man inside) was able to widthstand somehow.


?Wouldn't newtons/cm2 be a measure of pressure, not force?


If I calcuate right, 600 kg at 40 km/h = ke of 37037 joules = about 272 times a strong war-arrow.

Clifford J. Rogers
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Marcos Cantu




Usergroups: None


Likes: 1 page
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 11:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Marcos,

The issue is it is not that simple. I know people that have been knocked out after being hit by a bullet, though saved by their armour. A Cousin of mine is a cop and was hit and luckily he had his jacket on and it stopped the bullet but knocked him over and broke several ribs.

So while these stories are interesting and good to see the armour is saving the lives of our soldiers and friends every one represents a number of different events and factors.

I imagine though the US military does have some facts on this though.

RPM



i think that your example and mine help to illustrate the difference between an impact on flexible armor (mail/kevlar) or a rigid one (plate/modern ballistic plates). in the flexible ones, the 'give' behind the armor is part of the physics involved that allows to the armor to work--helping to spread the energy of the impact over a larger area. the downside is that more of the energy is transmitted into the body which is why modern armor has to keep the backface deformation at under 44mm

a non-penetrating arrow hit on plate armor would have approx 1/20th (or less) the energy of what was shown in that video of the medic being shot and would most likely have little effect on a 200lb armored man--barring a good hit to the helmet
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Usergroups: None

Location: New Mexico
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 979
PostPosted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 11:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Clifford Rogers wrote:
If I calcuate right, 600 kg at 40 km/h = ke of 37037 joules = about 272 times a strong war-arrow.


Yeah, but that's not how it works. The horse-rider combo doesn't deliver anywhere near its entire kinetic energy to the target. By the same logic, I could pierce the best historical breastplates with a dagger merely by charging into them at a modest run (68 kg at 5 m/s means 850 J).

As far as bludgeoning trauma from guns goes, see the videos I link in this thread.

Read my historically inspired fantasy fiction in here. I walk along a winding path set by Ludovico Ariosto, William Morris, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Ursula Le Guin.

Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marcos Cantu




Usergroups: None


Likes: 1 page
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 12:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

this video is an excellent example of the effects of a projectile hitting hard armor. yes its old (1986) but it is fairly well known in the firearms community as it dispels the notion of a bullet knocking a man down...

http://youtu.be/aaS_2l8nGdg


the round used is 7.62x51mm NATO ball with 3414 J of energy...many times that which an arrow at any range will have
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,254
PostPosted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 1:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Clifford Rogers wrote:
If I calcuate right, 600 kg at 40 km/h = ke of 37037 joules = about 272 times a strong war-arrow.


Yeah, but that's not how it works. The horse-rider combo doesn't deliver anywhere near its entire kinetic energy to the target. By the same logic, I could pierce the best historical breastplates with a dagger merely by charging into them at a modest run (68 kg at 5 m/s means 850 J).

As far as bludgeoning trauma from guns goes, see the videos I link in this thread.

Yep. The rider acts as a buffer between the horse and lance. The amount of energy that a lancer can deliver is dependent on his own strength. The weight of the horse is largely irrelevant. Mr Alvarez's article is a useful one to read. It has problems but it shows that the horse and rider cannot be considered a single unit.
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php
View user's profile Send private message
Clifford Rogers




Usergroups: None


Posts: 39
PostPosted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 2:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Clifford Rogers wrote:
If I calcuate right, 600 kg at 40 km/h = ke of 37037 joules = about 272 times a strong war-arrow.


Yeah, but that's not how it works. The horse-rider combo doesn't deliver anywhere near its entire kinetic energy to the target.


Yes, I agree. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Just thought it was interesting to note how much kinetic energy was involved.

Clifford J. Rogers
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Till J. Lodemann




Usergroups: None


Posts: 96
PostPosted: Wed 11 Apr, 2012 3:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Exactly what I thought too, Clifford!
Of course, Dan is right, these numbers are far from those which would occur in a real lance impact. Yet the impact still would involve more force then an arrow.
So why do I read so often such unrealistic claims made in connection with the longbow? I mean men being unhorsed or toppled over by the impact, or beaten senseless in their armour?

I am on the armourside of the argument with Dan (as that arrows can penetrate armour sometimes, but do not have a significant effect on the outcome of an encounter by the direct deaths or heavy wounds the inflict but by other more indirect means), as long as we do not see a test made with a range of breastplates, helmets and limbarmour of different historical correct qualities (with the correct materials and thicknesses) mounted on the right foundation (aketon and maybe mail), and from a number of plausible distances shot with a number of plausible bow weights.
Also I would really like to see how a padded jupon like the one from Charles VI. (de France) would change the game- after reading the Jack test topic from Micheal Edelson, I think it will reduce the effect an arrow can have on the armoured man even more.
View user's profile Send private message
R. Kolick




PostPosted: Wed 11 Apr, 2012 5:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Till J. Lodemann wrote:
as long as we do not see a test made with a range of breastplates, helmets and limbarmour of different historical correct qualities (with the correct materials and thicknesses) mounted on the right foundation (aketon and maybe mail), and from a number of plausible distances shot with a number of plausible bow weights.
Also I would really like to see how a padded jupon like the one from Charles VI. (de France) would change the game- after reading the Jack test topic from Micheal Edelson, I think it will reduce the effect an arrow can have on the armoured man even more.


i think we hit the truth here once again we are just ganna argue back and forth will no real effect here than to argue no one is really changing sides on this issue because their are historical reports of both arrows piercing plate and armor stopping arrows on top of that physics seems to support the armor but that doent explain the fact that people have been reported being killed in the field by english archers so unless we do a tests like the ones sugeted now and before (still wont beable to test what an arrow would do to a charging knight because that would involve puting the target on a horse and im against that for obvious reasons or youd need to set up a rig that could match a charging horses speed)
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Arrows vs armour
Page 20 of 21 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 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