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
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19, 20, 21  Next 
Author Message
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional



Location: upstate NY
Joined: 10 Nov 2005

Posts: 587

PostPosted: Tue 17 Feb, 2009 4:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The 'Sherman' was largely determined by the maximum width of U.S. freight lines at the time. It has been suggested that Eisenhower, who was still a bit miffed about not getting heavier tanks till the very end of the war, had the interstate highway system built partially for revenge.

I doubt very much that the extra weight and expense would have proved a deciding factor, particularly for men-at-arms who often fought mounted. For the breastplate proper, to add an extra millimeter in the prime target area, which would be about 1 square foot of area on a fair-sized breastplate (I am not including the fauld), it would add roughly 1 3/4 lb., or about 0.8 kg. In my experience, for early and even later 16th c. armour to have lost over 0.75 mm due to cleaning is not unusual (yes, there are clues; on a helm, for instance, there was a discernible step just below the lining rivets). The earlier the armour, the greater the losses can be.

jamesarlen.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Tue 17 Feb, 2009 8:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:


Nothing like wearing a 4mm thick breasplate and being hit in the face when your visor is up!


Aren't there a disproprtionate number of arrow injuries to the face of 100 years war nobles + knights for exactly (4mm aside) that reason?
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 18 Feb, 2009 7:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
It has been suggested that Eisenhower, who was still a bit miffed about not getting heavier tanks till the very end of the war,


Even the armour of heavier US tanks like the Pershing were still not overly effective at stopping rounds from a gun like the Panther,s or King Tiger, though they were effective against the shorter 75mm of the PKwIV.

My real point here is that armour is almost never considered proof against all battlefield threats, nor is it expected to be.

If it gives good protection vs. the majority of the threats, it is considered effective.

Even 1.5mm is going to give good protection vs many of the battlefield threats of the day.

It's tough to say exactly what draw longbows were, but even looking at a 150 pounder it's going to have real trouble piercing 1.5mm at 60 yards, which still gives pretty good protection.

Even 2mm won't help much against the heavier crossbows of the time, even at 60 yards. The heaviest portable battlefield types could generate 250+ jopules or so, and the siege types were even stronger.

Nat Lamb wrote:

Quote:
Aren't there a disproprtionate number of arrow injuries to the face of 100 years war nobles + knights for exactly (4mm aside) that reason?


Exactly my point. You can possibly make one impervious to almost all battlefield threats in the area the armour will cover, but you still have weak points that make even a top state of the art harness vulnerable.

This is why I believe that armour would be made that was not "proofed" against all threats. Regardless of the quality of armour, nothing is proof against all threats, whether it be getting hit in a raised visor, a gap, or even a very close range shot with an extremely powerful bow.
View user's profile Send private message
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Wed 18 Feb, 2009 2:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

But in the sort of cases we are talking about, the armour IS proof(ish). Tank armour is penatratable by a 9mm pistol, if you leave the door open. Seatbelts don't help in a crash, unless your wear them.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 18 Feb, 2009 3:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
But in the sort of cases we are talking about, the armour IS proof(ish).


Not sure what you mean here?

Just some rough guidelines, don't take anything to be too specific

Heavy crossbows at close range - neither 1.5 or 2mm is proof
Longbow arrows at close range - 2mm probably proof, 1.5 should at least reduce how heavy of a wound
Longbow arrows at longer ranges - Both are proof
Most sword cuts - Both are proof
Dead on hit with a mounted lance - neither are probably proof.
Hit to gap in armour - some protection from mail and doublet, but not proof. Either way, there is no difference with 1.5 or 2mm of armour.

There are not really a whole lot of battlefied threats where it makes a big difference if you are wearing one or the other.

Quote:
Tank armour is penatratable by a 9mm pistol, if you leave the door open.


A visor being up is not the same as a tanks door being left open. It's probably more similar to a tank commander with his head out of the hatch instead of functioning "buttoned up". There is a lack of protection invlolved for a better view of the battlefield.

But now that you mention a 9mm pistol.... Tank armour, even that of a Sherman, provides protection, "proof" to a point against most battlefield threats - small arms, machine guns, even .50 caliber, hand grenades, most artillery (a direct hit by a 150mm may stop one but 100mm or lower will have a tough time doing anything). The only thing that would really knock it out were 75mm or better in general AP rounds, though some 50mm could cause a problem. To summarize, a Sherman's armour provided "proof" protection against most battlefield threats, so it was effective.

I would see 1.5mm plate performing in a similar manner. Just because it's not proof against any weapon at any range does not make it ineffective.
View user's profile Send private message
Hunter B.




Location: Away from Home
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 51

PostPosted: Wed 18 Feb, 2009 5:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:

But now that you mention a 9mm pistol.... Tank armour, even that of a Sherman, provides protection, "proof" to a point against most battlefield threats - small arms, machine guns, even .50 caliber, hand grenades, most artillery (a direct hit by a 150mm may stop one but 100mm or lower will have a tough time doing anything). The only thing that would really knock it out were 75mm or better in general AP rounds, though some 50mm could cause a problem. To summarize, a Sherman's armour provided "proof" protection against most battlefield threats, so it was effective.

I would see 1.5mm plate performing in a similar manner. Just because it's not proof against any weapon at any range does not make it ineffective.



Not really. The primary anti-tank gun of the Wehrmacht throughout most of World War 2 was an 88mm (they also had a 75mm, but the 88 was far more effective), which decimated American, British, and Russian tanks throughout the entire war. It was also the main gun (variant, same caliber obviously) on both Tigers and the Elefant tank Destroyer. Even the 57mm (British 6lber) was more than adequate up until the introduction of the Tiger 1s, then it had to hit either at close range (under 100 yards) or from the side.

Even the modern M1A2 has only a 120mm main gun, I think the largest gun on a currently deployed tank is the 125 on the Russian T-90.

The key to armor penetration is velocity, not size. You want a good combination of high speed and a small area to focus the force of that impact on. the 105 and 155 howitzers actually fire rather low velocity projectiles. The trick with AP rounds during WW2 (and a good bit after) was putting as much powder as you can behind a fairly small projectile in order to get the most velocity out of it while not spreading the point of impact over too great an area.

Interestingly enough, what really helped the T-34's sloped armor defeat most German AP rounds was the fact that the alloy used in their AP shells while as hard as the stuff used by the Allies, was actually more brittle, so German shells had a tendency to shatter on impact if the angle was too great.

“It is the loose ends with which men hang themselves.”
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Wed 18 Feb, 2009 6:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think we've strayed off-course a bit here with tank talk. Happy
Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Hunter B.




Location: Away from Home
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 51

PostPosted: Wed 18 Feb, 2009 6:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:
I think we've strayed off-course a bit here with tank talk. Happy


Sorry, it was in the name of historical accuracy Blush

“It is the loose ends with which men hang themselves.”
View user's profile Send private message
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Wed 18 Feb, 2009 6:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
Quote:
But in the sort of cases we are talking about, the armour IS proof(ish).


Not sure what you mean here?

.

Yeah, sorry, that was a bit vague. What I meant was that 100 years war (was the period I was vaguely waving my hand in the direction of in an earlier post) That a disproportionate number of injuries amoungst high ranking men at arms, knights and on up (i.e. those likely to be wearing plate harness) are to the face. This would seem to indicate that the armour was efective enough to ward off the vast majority of strikes with non-incapacitating damage to the wearer. Although this is not a perfect definition of "proof" it indicates that the armour was "efective" vs that attack ( hence "proof-ish). If Sir Hapless gets shot in the face while lifting his visor while looking for loose change on the battlefield, it is not the fault of the armourer so much as Sir Hapless not listening to Sir Ocupational Health and Safety.*

*there is no historical evidence of any knights with these names participating on either sude of the 100 years war Big Grin
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 19 Feb, 2009 1:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nat Lamb wrote:
[If Sir Hapless gets shot in the face while lifting his visor while looking for loose change on the battlefield, it is not the fault of the armourer so much as Sir Hapless not listening to Sir Ocupational Health and Safety.*

*there is no historical evidence of any knights with these names participating on either sude of the 100 years war Big Grin


That is so funny I had to comment. Wink Laughing Out Loud Cool

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Thu 19 Feb, 2009 9:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
I think we've strayed off-course a bit here with tank talk


Yeah, that's true. I was really just trying to illustrate a point that armour does not have to be proof against all battlefield threats to be considered effective.

Just one quick addition to the off topic stuff Big Grin

Hunter B - I'm aware of theimportance of velocity for penetration, just like with arrows. As I mentioned, I was speaking generalities, I did not want to go into things like a Pz V has a far suprior 75mm than the russian or american counterparts, I was just trying to speak in generalities to keep things simple. And the 88 was the the best AT gun around, but far from a common battlefield threat.

I guess one thing also about armour having to be proof to be effective - why was thinner limb armour, often in the 1mm range worn if it was not proof, as 1mm is not proof at much range vs. even against longbow arrows (unless of course over mail and padding - but 1mm over a doublet is not by any means proof armour) - 2mm limb armour could have been made and worn.

But 1mm provides protection against many common battlefield threats, that's why it was worn.

I don't disagree with James Arlen Gillaspie's assertion that some armours may have been thicker when made than when found - but my point is having armour that is "proof" against all battlefield threats is neither possible nor needed for the armour to be effective.

A bit along the lines of the armour wearing thinner upon cleaning - Someone else mentioned that arrowheads were surface hardened, and this will oxidize off over time in many cases. Sounds plausible, I wonder though then why broadheads and "chisel head" bodkins have been found in a hardened state, but not needle nose bodkins?

I'm not saying that surface hardening would not oxidize, but just curious for an explanation about other hardened ones being found.
View user's profile Send private message
Hunter B.




Location: Away from Home
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 51

PostPosted: Thu 19 Feb, 2009 6:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
Quote:
I think we've strayed off-course a bit here with tank talk


Yeah, that's true. I was really just trying to illustrate a point that armour does not have to be proof against all battlefield threats to be considered effective.

Just one quick addition to the off topic stuff Big Grin

Hunter B - I'm aware of theimportance of velocity for penetration, just like with arrows. As I mentioned, I was speaking generalities, I did not want to go into things like a Pz V has a far suprior 75mm than the russian or american counterparts, I was just trying to speak in generalities to keep things simple. And the 88 was the the best AT gun around, but far from a common battlefield threat.


We'll have to go to PMs over that to discuss it in more depth. Suffice to say we disagree.

Quote:
I guess one thing also about armour having to be proof to be effective - why was thinner limb armour, often in the 1mm range worn if it was not proof, as 1mm is not proof at much range vs. even against longbow arrows (unless of course over mail and padding - but 1mm over a doublet is not by any means proof armour) - 2mm limb armour could have been made and worn.

But 1mm provides protection against many common battlefield threats, that's why it was worn.

I don't disagree with James Arlen Gillaspie's assertion that some armours may have been thicker when made than when found - but my point is having armour that is "proof" against all battlefield threats is neither possible nor needed for the armour to be effective.

A bit along the lines of the armour wearing thinner upon cleaning - Someone else mentioned that arrowheads were surface hardened, and this will oxidize off over time in many cases. Sounds plausible, I wonder though then why broadheads and "chisel head" bodkins have been found in a hardened state, but not needle nose bodkins?

I'm not saying that surface hardening would not oxidize, but just curious for an explanation about other hardened ones being found.


Oh, I agree completely on that.

Let's face it, your average grunt for most of history has never had "the best" equipment, even when provided by the State (or perhaps especially when so provided). It's almost always been made by the lowest bidder, or the one that had the best connections. While that extra half millimeter might make all the difference in the world between a slight wound and being skewered, the odds of it doing that probably wouldn't justify the extra cost versus patching up the armor and throwing it on another volunteer/conscript.

For higher ranking officers/noblemen, I think it can goes without saying that they will have the best protection they can afford, so that 2mm breastplate was probably perfect for them.

As was noted, all the armor in the world doesn't protect you from Murphy. If you have your visor up at the wrong time, well, sucks to be you.

“It is the loose ends with which men hang themselves.”
View user's profile Send private message
Tibor Szebenyi




Location: Hungary
Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 45

PostPosted: Sun 22 Feb, 2009 2:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi!

We made a small test on lamellar armour, and vegetable-tanned leather pieces:

http://nomadok.gportal.hu/gindex.php?pg=18980390

It was some years ago, and I know, that it is not the best test. The lamellar armour is made of 1.5mm thick iron, laced with synthetic chord first, then leather thongs. Our main mistake is, that we didn't use leather straps btw the lamellae and I didn't chisel the edge of the holes. Therefore, both kind of lacing were split, but the arrows couldn't penetrate the plates. The arrows usually broke, even the aluminium Easton shafts. We used field arrowheads, several armour-piercing heads, but the result was the same. On the second picture you can see, that I shot into a hole, making it rectangular (it was an armour-piercing head). The leather was a 7mm thick cattle hide without any hardening technique. I cannot penetrate it with the field- and piercing head, but it was easily defeated with sharp heads. However, I couldn't shoot through two layers of this leather.

The bow was a Grózer TRH turkish bow, 55# at 34". As I said, this test has many faults, but in my opinion a well-constructed iron armour -whether it is eastern or western design- cannot be penetrated with an arrow. Maybe my bow is a bit weak, but the armour was also made of simple, plain iron, not steel.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Christopher VaughnStrever




Location: San Antonio, TX
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 382

PostPosted: Mon 23 Feb, 2009 9:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I dont know if anyone cares but here is some testing that was performed. I just ran across the thread.http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=83020
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Mon 23 Feb, 2009 9:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
The bow was a Grózer TRH turkish bow, 55# at 34". As I said, this test has many faults, but in my opinion a well-constructed iron armour -whether it is eastern or western design- cannot be penetrated with an arrow. Maybe my bow is a bit weak, but the armour was also made of simple, plain iron, not steel.


A bow like this would have problems generating 80 joules on impact from a few feet away, which really does not give much energy for impact considerations. The great warbow 150 lb longbow was more in the 140+ joule range at the "muzzle", which means even at 180 yards it would still be around 100j

Quote:
several armour-piercing heads,


Were these armour piercing types hardened or not? If they were not, the plate being soft makes no difference as the arrow were not.

Quote:
I cannot penetrate it with the field- and piercing head, but it was easily defeated with sharp heads. However, I couldn't shoot through two layers of this leather.


This seems to fall in line with other testing - "cutting" heads like a broadhead seem to be best against textile or leather based armour.

I'd be interested in how many grain arrows you were using. The <80 joules was based on a 1000 grain arrow - any lighter arrow would generate even less. And it's hard to say if joules is even the most correct way of estimating penetration - momentum might even be the more correct force measurement.

These questions may be answered on your website already, but your english is far bett than my hungarian Wink
View user's profile Send private message
G. Bezanson




Location: Amherst, Nova Scotia, Canada
Joined: 23 Feb 2009

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri 27 Feb, 2009 6:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

hello, i would like to share what little information i know.

I have seen a test done on the history channel trying to prove or disprove the ability of the longbow to pierce plate. I do not recall any of the numbers or specifics involved, as it was a few years ago so please forgive me. They were comparing different arrows against different kinds of armour, including mail and plate. I probably should state that the program was about the longbow, and so may have been slated in it's favour compared to the armour, as they were not shooting at a range that would probably have been more likely in an actual battle.

For mail they were shooting at a dummy wearing a heauberk and a coif. Both types of bodkin arrows pierced the mail, with one of the needle bodkins piercing the coif and the heauberk both. If memory serves, the stouter bodkin made to pierce plate did not pierce quite as deep, butt looked lethal non the less.

To the testers credit, when testing plate they opened up with a piece of armour, as opposed to a flat steel plate as so many tests have done. The problem with this being that they had selected a gothic bevor. It wasn't long before the archers found it to be nigh impregnable.

After that set back they decided to begin firing on a small steel plate. After eing unable to breach the small plate, they figured that a larger plate may be more easily pierced. They did find that the needle bodkin was inefective, as the end coiled on impact, leaving the arrowhead looking like victorian wrought iron-work. They were able to pierce the plate with the more pyrimid shaped arrowhead.

I really wish i could provide more specifics on this, but i can't.

There was a comment on the first or second page of this forum stating that the blunt force of an arrow would be nullified
by the armour, using jousting as an example. I agree with the conclusion, though not with the reasoning. Jousting armour was signifigantly different from armour used for battle, being much heavier and less flexible. Also a jousting lance was made with the intent of having it shatter during the collision.[/i]
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 27 Feb, 2009 10:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

G. Bezanson wrote:
For mail they were shooting at a dummy wearing a heauberk and a coif. Both types of bodkin arrows pierced the mail, with one of the needle bodkins piercing the coif and the heauberk both.

Except that the mail they used had nothing in common with anything that was worn historically. These tests invariably use butted mail or the rubbish coming from India. There are literally tons of surviving pieces of mail in various collections and there isn't a single one that even remotely resembles that used in the test. I've said this every time this subject comes up. There is only one mail test that attempts to use a reasonable target and that that is in Williams' book but he underestimates the strength of a longbow. There are only two plate tests that attempt to use a reasonable target - one is in Williams' book and the other is in the RA's Arms and Armour journal. Both have been discussed here and both have flaws. Nothing on TV is worth discussing except as an example on how NOT to perform an armour test.
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Mon 02 Mar, 2009 1:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Since the amount of armour on the battlefield only increased in the period of the longbow, one can asume that it helped. (as compared with the age of gunpowder, where armour became drastically less common in a few decades)

This is not to say that bows could not be effective. However, to return to the (oh so off topic but sooo tempting...) tank analogy, they are more AT rifles and Molotovs than the 88's they are sometimes made out to be.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 02 Mar, 2009 4:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The regions that initially developed plate armour (mainly Germany and Italy) did not get much exposure to the English longbow. A good argument can be made that the so called "arms race" didn't have much influence on the introduction of plate armour at all. Economic and social factors were likely more important.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Mon 02 Mar, 2009 4:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
The regions that initially developed plate armour (mainly Germany and Italy) did not get much exposure to the English longbow.


These areas did have exposure to much crossbow use however. The heavier crossbows would have been more of a threat to penetrate mail.

We do however have areas where the bow was often the primary weapon of cavalry. In these areas (Middle East) a lammelar corslet was worn over mail by the better equipped heavies, even the heavily armoured type that used bows. Whether this was a response to the threat of the bow or melee weapons is a good question.

It would not suprise me if penetration of mail at the ultra short ranges turkish type horse archers seemed to prefer was common. The better equipped types wearing lammelar over mail may well have worn this to protect themselves from point blank arrows threats.

Similar but a bit different methods of reinforcing mail were practiced in both the middle east and among the horse people of the russian steps - be it the "mirror" armour style of breastplate worn over mail on the steppes of the turkish "plated" mail (not sure if the best terminology for this, but referring to the turkish mail reinforced with small metal plates built into the mail).
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Arrows vs armour
Page 4 of 21 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum