Define "resembling". And I'd love to see you wearing 3" of plate... :-)
Rod.

Do you really expect me to believe that you can put an arrow through a three inch thick steel plate?

More to the point, do you really expect me to believe that plate armour was customarily 3" thick?
Rod.

How is that relevant? I was responding to your claim that "a direct strike with a long heavy bodkin can with a direct strike still penetrate 3" to 4" at the closer ranges." That's even worse than Bacon's claim that a Turkish arrow could penetrate 2 inches of brass.

Is this a language issue? Saying that a shaft could penetrate 3" to 4" is not the same thing as saying that it would penetrate 3" of steel.
Rod.

ah. Definitely a language issue. Apologies.

No problem. But would you care to define what you would consider a representative test? Given that no-one is likely to offer an antique breastplate.
Rod.

Didn't Sylvia Leever do some destructive testing on extant breastplates?

The name is not familiar, particularly not in the context of working with an established exponent of shooting the heavy war shaft.
Rod.

PS. Perhaps you are referring to Professor Levy? Nonetheless the research into penetration is being done by Robert Hardy with Simon Stanley and by Mark Stretton of the Towton Archers with Pip Bickerstaffe.

I agree rod, 3" to 4" of penetration would have extreme effects if it struck over a vital area like heart, lungs, helm - etc.

Agreed, plate was to reduce the likelyhood of sustaining serious injury, I.E. cuasing a blow to glance and to protect against cuts. Armor was NOT standard and footmen to knights fell to the archer, crossbowmen and even sling stones i am reading. <---- i guess a football shaped slingstone was able to blow thru leather and into the body? I used to play with a sling - was quite good, but never could get power like that.

I have often wanted to fire a war arrow and quarrel into the air and get a radar gun on the missile on the way down. But im to chicken to fire in the air and get close enough when its heading back down.

I don't think archers or crossbowmen ran par se, i think they were ready to throw down if need be, but likely preferred not to.


I still can fire a needle bodkin through chain maille, I am attempting to find someone that can get me ballistics gel and make a torso and try it with a cloth under garmet.


Dan........ firing a bodkin through even 3mm of steel is not going to be as big as an issue as you think its going to be. What the issue is going to be is you accepting that it can be done and WAS done and that the items we build (plate and weapon) to the standards that you want them at to hands down accept it. <<<----- NO DISRESPECT ment or inflected in tone towards you dan. Especially when i fired on 1050 carbon steel plate at .121 thickness (about 3mm?) and put one heck of a punch into it at 175lbs. I can say hands down a 600+ lb crossbow is going to destroy it, admittedly my worry is then at 600lbs the chain maille behind it, but thats why we are also using a 1500 to 1900lb. I am just having real issues with anyone that says something like that. ESPECIALLY when you have not (to my knowledge) played with a heavy crossbow and know the power of one.



David

Not even a doubter would wish to stand in front of Simon Stanley or Mark Stretton in a suit of their best. The consensus here is that such a volunteer would likely not require a return ticket, so there would be some saving on the travel expenses. :-)
On a more serious note, I do not doubt that some steel armour of the highest quality would have considerable effect in resisting penetration, but then again, how many would be so equipped in a force of several thousands?
And even the best would have their weak spots.
As for maille, it has holes in it, and I note that elsewhere Dan has stated that a spear thrust can penetrate maille. (But not a heavy war shaft designed for the purpose?).
Rod.

As I have stated elsewhere, 40 yards is not the limit of the lethal range, it is only a credible limit on the distance where you can be more certain of your shot in a fluid situation if aiming at a particular individual.
At extreme range the change in angle will certainly reduce the chances of penetration of plate, But the impact is still capable of being lethal if the appropriate spot is hit within parameters.
It is just that against plate the parameters are greatly reduced in scope with the change in angle.
Rod.

Armour penetration does not automatically mean efficiency; 3000 longbow archers didn't win the english Banocburn, even firing at closed ranks of unarmoured pseudo-pikemen...

Also, as battles are not won by misslie troops alone, you would need a sufficient close combat force to hold the field. And as close combat troops with few missile troops do a better job than missile troops without close combat cover, the close combat troops are usually prioritized.
Flintlock Musketeers, however, can protect themselves, with bayoneted rifles.

Mediocre leadership will usually lose you the battle and 3000 archers are not much use if they are not properly employed.
Rod.

You can also infer that the good friar was not an authority on making arrowheads, that a journalist will tend to put a gloss on things and being considered arrow proof is not a guarantee.
Excuse me, did I say "spear"? I must have been thinking of the Viking sagas. I should have said "rondel".
See "MRL 15thC English Rondel Dagger" where you say "I thought that the whole point of the rondel was to enable the second hand to exert additional force when punching through maille".
But then a spear will follow where a rondel can go...
Rod.