| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2015 4:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Honestly Dan, I don't how much your personal experience prove anything, wearing armor around and fighting it in are two entirely different things , one is cramp more exhausting endevour that the other. Have you ever tried to do historical reenactment/ sparring in those armors in those weather conditions? |
Of course. I've also pitched tents, dug ditches, and played cricket while wearing them. The only problem with heat is caused by helmets, not body armour. Keep your head ventillated and stay hydrated and weather is not a problem. People seriously underestimate the value of acclimatisation. If you are used to hot weather then it is not an issue. I can do manual labour outside in the sun all day in 35 deg temps but I struggle to leave the house when the weather drops below 15 deg C. The problem today is that kids have grown up with air conditioning and have never had a chance to acclimatise to the local conditions. I never encountered air conditioning in a house or school until I was in my twenties and my first car with air conditioning was only bought 8 years ago. I endured a lot of miserably hot days as a kid but now I appreciate how it has improved my tolerance for hot weather. If I had to do it again then I'd appreciate the air conditioning thank you very much but our ancestors didn't have that luxury.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
  |
 |
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2015 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
regarding the swords temselves, in a sense you are correct in that japanese sword edgews were VERY hard to the point if you tried to make an entire sword out of that sort of steel it;s snap in half on impact as such an impact by a sword to a katana edge can severely damage it
second thing is in regards to the yumi, how does it compare to the english warbow in it's ability to transfer energy to the arrow, i presume that the yyumi is of a semi composite construction, with a recurved shape
|
|
 |
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2015 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: | | second thing is in regards to the yumi, how does it compare to the english warbow in it's ability to transfer energy to the arrow, i presume that the yyumi is of a semi composite construction, with a recurved shape |
It's a reflex-recurve bow, but only moderately reflexed, rather than with the tips almost touching (might have 1-2 feet from a line between the tips to the furthest point on the belly, unstrung, for a 7' yumi). Made from laminated bamboo strips, or bamboo and wood, often with a covering for weather protection.
A late Medieval Japanese warbow would probably exceed 100lb in draw weight (based on thickness of modern yumi limbs and old warbow limbs). It's also a long draw bow, with the drawing hand ending up in front of the rear shoulder - a 35" draw length would not be unusual. The long draw and the reflex-recurve should give a 100lb yumi about the same energy as a 150lb English longbow. A military yumi is large and heavy-limbed, and arrows are usually very heavy (e.g., 125g). Because the arrows are so heavy, they're not very fast, and long-range performance isn't very good. But the bow delivers a lot of energy at close range.
Some details on construction: http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/22774/Yumi
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2015 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | William P wrote: | | second thing is in regards to the yumi, how does it compare to the english warbow in it's ability to transfer energy to the arrow, i presume that the yyumi is of a semi composite construction, with a recurved shape |
It's a reflex-recurve bow, but only moderately reflexed, rather than with the tips almost touching (might have 1-2 feet from a line between the tips to the furthest point on the belly, unstrung, for a 7' yumi). Made from laminated bamboo strips, or bamboo and wood, often with a covering for weather protection.
A late Medieval Japanese warbow would probably exceed 100lb in draw weight (based on thickness of modern yumi limbs and old warbow limbs). It's also a long draw bow, with the drawing hand ending up in front of the rear shoulder - a 35" draw length would not be unusual. The long draw and the reflex-recurve should give a 100lb yumi about the same energy as a 150lb English longbow. A military yumi is large and heavy-limbed, and arrows are usually very heavy (e.g., 125g). Because the arrows are so heavy, they're not very fast, and long-range performance isn't very good. But the bow delivers a lot of energy at close range.
Some details on construction: http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/22774/Yumi |
ok, so, level with me here, what is it about composite/ recurve bws that make them more powerful/ more efficient than something like a longbow?
and does the yumi have a construction that c0ounts as recurved
lastly, i remember mike loades talking about longbows with tips that had been steamed so that they curved away from the archer, would that help at all in the mechanics of the bow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2015 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | [...] The long draw and the reflex-recurve should give a 100lb yumi about the same energy as a 150lb English longbow. [...] |
ok, so, level with me here, what is it about composite/ recurve bws that make them more powerful/ more efficient than something like a longbow?
and does the yumi have a construction that c0ounts as recurved
lastly, i remember mike loades talking about longbows with tips that had been steamed so that they curved away from the archer, would that help at all in the mechanics of the bow? |
The area under the force-draw curve is equal to the energy stored in the bow. If the bow acted as a linear spring, the force-draw curve would be a straight line (that's the "linear" part), and the energy would be
E = 1/2*(draw weight)*(draw length - brace height).
Note that (draw length - brace height) is the distance the string is drawn back from the starting point. (Formula above is the area of a triangle.) If the bow is very, very long, and a straight stick when unstrung, and bends uniformly, the force-draw curve will be close to that linear curve. For a realistic length for such a bow, the force-draw curve is concave. The shorter, the more concave, and the longer, the straighter.
How can you store more energy? Equivalently, we can ask how to increase the energy under the force-draw curve? You can increase the draw weight, or you can increase the draw length, or you can change the shape of the curve, typically to something convex rather than concave. Recurved limbs will make the force-draw curve flatten out later in the draw (the tips of the limbs stay further apart, giving better leverage, so less force is needed). Reflex will strain the bow more when strung. Strung and undrawn, it's bent a lot more from its starting shape than a straight stick longbow. This means that the string is under more tension. This means that the slope of the start of the force-draw curve is steeper. Combine these two, and you have a convex force-draw curve.
For the yumi, (draw length - brace height) is about 25% than for a longbow, so 25% more energy. A reflex-recurve bow can give about 20% more energy from the convexity of the force-draw curve. Combine these, and you have about 50% more energy. Yes, the yumi counts as recurve.
If the bow stacks towards the end of the draw, the end of the force-draw curve will be concave. This is common, giving a S-shaped force-draw curve for many recurve bows. A gently S-curve is normal for a slightly reflexed and/or recurved longbow.
For more, including force-draw curves: http://archery.berkeley.edu/wp-content/upload...e-Bows.pdf
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Henrik Granlid
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2015 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
For the full plate vs shooting debate, I'd like to point out that during the War of the Roses, you see three types of troops.
Knights.
Spears.
Archers.
However, the spears and archers weren't what you'd think they were.
Spears were men at arms, trained in horse and lance and arnoured head to toe, they fought on foot alongside the archers. They fought with pollhammer and pollaxe. There were about 1 "Spear" to every Archer and they acted as lieutenants or whatever you'd like to call a lesser military officer.
For you see, the Archers of the war of the Roses were every single common soldier. They were all armoured differently and and were all both archer and polearm user (I.e. They all shot arrows, and if they were to fight, they lifted their polearm off the ground). As such, the armour of the infantryman of the war of the Roses was used to fire arrows, and some of them were properly plated. Maybe not quite as plated as a knight, but long as he had arms and a breastplate, there wouldn't be much, if any, difference in the ability to fire an arrow. Voiders, spaulders and a leg harness won't really mess with your ability to shoot a bow and arrow.
However.
Far as I know, western knights weren't famed for their horseback archery.
Overall, it is my belief that the first warrior to use a technique that the other warrior was suprised by/had no counter to would be the winning warrior.
Neither is going to go through the breastplate or top of the helmet. Both can wrestle, grapple and target weakpoints. Maybe the longsword can deal with heavy gauge, butted ring defenses better than a katana can deal with riveted rings. But that really doesn't say a lot in the overall battle. We don't know which spear was better. We don't know how laminated wood would absorb the force of a pollaxe.
Presented with the weakest point of defense on the other person's body, does any of the fighters have a weapon that can easily deal with it? This is the core of the question. A pollaxe or pollhammer point, or possibly even a longsword needlepoint should be able to handle Japanese maille defenses. Were there similar versions of acute-point Yari? If yes, there isn't really an advantage to either side, if no, the overall advantage goes to the European side. However, as I said, the first warrior to pull a suprise move that the other cannot counter will likely win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Feb, 2015 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Tom King wrote: | | People often forget that feudal japan ended AFTER the US civil war and wasn't concurrent with medieval europe. |
That's the point. They kept making armour (and wearing it) for 250 years after they stopped fighting. A lot of that stuff was not battleworthy. One did need to have one's retainers appropriately dressed, so there was demand for armour that looked like armour. (Thus the question about parade armour.) |
Some relevant numbers:
Sakakibara http://myArmoury.com/books/item.B004X7RIQ0.html says that about 1.5kg to 2kg is a good weight for a helmet skull (not counting neck protector, face, etc.). Assuming close-to-uniform thickness and comparing with the weight of an M1 helmet shell (2.3lb), that's about 1.2mm to 1.8mm thick. Steel-iron laminate. (Also says 2mm is good for torso armour.)
That's an Edo Period source, so peacetime armour.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Feb, 2015 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Coomer wrote: | | Second, the knight isn't going to try anyway more than likely. Confronted with this new armor, I'd bet that he'd treat it as equivalent to plate or the like and go with tried and true methods to defeat it, not hope that he's magically superior. Knights were not stupid. |
Consider this account from a 15th-century German knight. The English translation indicates that both he and his North African opponent made one or more cuts at the other, which inflicted no harm because both of them had good armor. The English wording is somewhat ambiguous and I unfortunately I don't know about the original-language text.
El Victorial, a 15th-century text that describes events at the end of the 14th century and in the early 15th, unambiguously records sword cuts against armor, some of them effective. See a partial English translation here. While the account appears to exaggerate Pero Niño's prowess to almost superhuman levels and the author - Gutierre Díez de Games - had an incentive to praise his boss, Díez de Games nonetheless had firsthand martial experience and included various details that reflect that. I doubt the mighty-blow trope was completely made up.
Base on such sources, I think there's a decent chance a 15th-century Europe knight would in fact cut with all his might against an unfamiliar armored foe. That's what Jorg von Ehingen wrote he tried first.
| Tom King wrote: | | Pole weapons meant for fighting armored opponents would make short work of such a kit, where in contrast the yari, yumi, and katana of a samurai would have no effective way to fight said weapon or injure the armored opponent bearing it. |
Pikes and swords killed plenty of armored Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries, so this strikes me as a curious argument to make.
I suspect at least the higher quality Japanese armor was superior 15th/16th-century European mail in overall protective ability, because in that era pikers in the front ranks rarely wore mail or jacks as their main defense. (Some Scottish pikers wore jacks in the middle of the 16th century.) Sir John Smythe thought even sleeves of mail unsuitable for pikers in the front ranks. Assuming Japanese armor was made to keep out the long yari that became so important, I bet it offered more protection overall than jacks and mail.
But in both cases it depends on exactly which periods and which kits you're comparing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph Grinly
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Mar, 2015 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You can argue this till the cow's come home, as they used to say. It never happened, so you can speculate what you like. Every country's armour and weapons of the time were adapted to their individual circumstances, and unless country's inter-acted, the question can't be answered in any realistic manner. You may as well ask the question " Was A Sopwith Camel of WW1 a superior fighter plane to a WW2 ME 109 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic