| Author |
Message |
|
Risto Rautiainen
|
 Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 3:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
What people are mostly looking at here is the velocities that the projectiles travel at. As Aaron pointed out F=mv^2, but in the case of arrows and bolts and penetration of armour I would say that weight is as equally important. When penetrating stuff with cutting edges at low velocities I believe momentum is what you really need. It seems to me that 150-200 fps is about the highest that it is relatively easy to obtain even with hunting (cross)bows. After that you concentrate on increasing the mass of the projectile.
|
|
  |
 |
Daniel Parry
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I must say my first impression was that it might have been a bit of target practice - a few crossbowmen on a boring Wednesday afternoon throwing some coins in a hat and saying 'Right.... first one to hit the helmet twice takes the pot' or some such. The fact it was hit four times and from such an extreme angle made me think that. But then thinking about it the angle could be explained by the shooters being quite close to wall. But then I'm no forensic expert. The thing that made me doubt that it was target practice was that presumably even a simple helmet would be something of value not to be wasted - wouldn't they be more likely to have used something less valuable - I don't know ... like a pig's head from the kitchen rubbish or a log or something ? Unless they were trying to prove the armour piercing capability.
If it was on the guys head at the time I suppose he wouldn't have known much about it.
I guess there could be dozens of explanations. Looking at the helmet over the parapet idea above, it might even have been a taunt - stick the helmet on a stick and shout down at your besiegers something like ' You can't shoot for s..t !'. Though if that was the case, it was a bad judge of ability by the defenders !!
Welcome back, Aaron. Don't know what you had to go through over there and this isn't the place to ask but a very, very welcome back.
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ahah!
Elling, master detective has an idea...
The suspects, Luc LeBozo and his friends are standing guard on the wall, when Luc, supposedly by accident, pushes his helmet over the edge.
Due to a fluke of physics, the helmet still floats after hits the water.
At this point, rather than taking a swim to recover his valuable piece of state property, Luc instead proposes a bit of target practice...
"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
|
|
  |
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder about that scenario too... I mean it seems odd to be using a helmet for target practice, but were whoever was attacking the castle that on the ball when it comes to crossbow marksmanship? I mean is it plausible to believe that not one or even two but three crossbowmen all plugged the same poor slob that was looking over the wall? All with headshots?
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
Last edited by Russ Ellis on Sat 17 Sep, 2005 11:00 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knowing soldiers, sinking a helmet with crossbow fire (Fun!) rather than swimming out to get it (WET!) is quite plausible.
Especially if it also serves to impress Women (Cute).
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | Knowing soldiers, sinking a helmet with crossbow fire (Fun!) rather than swimming out to get it (WET!) is quite plausible.
Especially if it also serves to impress Women (Cute). |
Knowing the military mind I think that's highly plausible. 
I also have to say that my experience has led me to believe the more improbable a situation seems the more likely it is. I wouldn't discount the possibility that this helmet was being worn by some unfortunate at the time.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, like 3 to 4 hits when a dozen or so crossbowmen spot some fool who decided to spit in the moat at just the wrong time.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Risto Rautiainen
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Okay, what about a guy who was climbing up a siege ladder, got to the top, where a couple of guys were waiting for him, but on a plane just a little lower? I really don't know what kind of settings there would be at the parapets. The close range would somewhat explain the extreme penetration.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Black Mastro wrote: | | Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
Makes sense to me, though, considering how little respect crossbowmen got in the 16th century. Explains why the gun took over... |
Speaking of the gun, the heavy Hispano-Italian musket of the 16th century fired its 2-ounce lead ball at almost 1,000 feet-per-second. |
Actually, according to the ballistic data reported from the experiments in Graz (Von Alten Handfeuerwaffen) the wall guns (AKA "dopplehaken", with similar bore-sizes and weights as the Spanish "Mosquets") exibited velocities between 482 meters per second (1581 fps) for one, and 533 mps (1748 fps) for the other. Pretty impressive for .87" and a .81" caliber (respecively) blackpowder firearms.
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
 |
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gordon,
| Gordon Frye wrote: | | David Black Mastro wrote: | | Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
Makes sense to me, though, considering how little respect crossbowmen got in the 16th century. Explains why the gun took over... |
Speaking of the gun, the heavy Hispano-Italian musket of the 16th century fired its 2-ounce lead ball at almost 1,000 feet-per-second. |
Actually, according to the ballistic data reported from the experiments in Graz (Von Alten Handfeuerwaffen) the wall guns (AKA "dopplehaken", with similar bore-sizes and weights as the Spanish "Mosquets") exibited velocities between 482 meters per second (1581 fps) for one, and 533 mps (1748 fps) for the other. Pretty impressive for .87" and a .81" caliber (respecively) blackpowder firearms.
Cheers,
Gordon |
Wow!
I stand corrected, then.
My source was the revised version of John F. Guilmartin's Gunpowder and Galleys--Changing Technology & Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the 16th Century. I just checked the book again, and Guilmartin actually has an endnote pertaining to the Musket in question. He refers to a test done in 1970 at the H.P. White Laboratory in Bel Aire, Maryland, where an 85 cal. lead ball of 890 grains (just over 2 oz) was fired from a 31 inch barrel with a charge of 215 grains of powder (.49 oz). The muzzle velocity was about 1,100 f.p.s. Guilmartin then states that the Spanish used heavier charges, and that the barrels of their muskets were longer--60 inches or more based on the examples at the Museo Militar in Madrid. These factors would lead to a muzzle velocity of approx 1,500 f.p.s.
Impressive indeed!
Best,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David;
I have GOT to get a copy of Guilmartin, no question! Sounds like a very cool book!
Now, back to our normally scheduled discussion of crossbows, dismemberment and soldier's diversions...
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gordon,
| Gordon Frye wrote: | David;
I have GOT to get a copy of Guilmartin, no question! Sounds like a very cool book! |
It is easily the most compelling book on the subject, since it establishes that A.T. Mahan's views on naval warfare actually don't apply to the peculiar conditions of the 16th century Mediterranean.
Originally written in 1974, the new revised edition first appeared in 2003. It is currently available from Naval Institute Press.
| Quote: | Now, back to our normally scheduled discussion of crossbows, dismemberment and soldier's diversions...
Cheers!
Gordon |
LOL!
Best,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
T.L. Johnson
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Sep, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: | | ...How tall were the walls of this fortification? The angle of entry is extremely high, and suggests to me that either the wearer was looking UP at the moment of impact (which is highly unusual) or the crossbowmen were right at the base of the wall. Why would crossbowmen be right beneath a parapet? Shouldn't they be further away behind pavises? ... |
My guess is that the first shot to strike was the shallowest one, the others coming in close behind.
With the first hit, he fliched his head back, which put him in a position where the following three struck through closer to the vertical.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, folks. So we're up to 4000-5000 foot pounds for 16th century muskets? That's in elephant rifle territory.
Were there actually breastplates that stood up to that kind of force?
Anyone have stats on the power of pistols?
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | Wow, folks. So we're up to 4000-5000 foot pounds for 16th century muskets? That's in elephant rifle territory.
Were there actually breastplates that stood up to that kind of force?
Anyone have stats on the power of pistols? |
According to Sir Roger Williams, there weren't many breastplates that would withstand musket shot, at least at fairly close range. He says 20 in 100 might; and Francios de la Noue complains about the "stithes" (anvils) that men had taken to wearing in a futile attempt to be proof against muskets. Lucky for them all, round balls are a horrible shape for ballistic stability, since a vacuum forms behind them as they travel through the air, and they therefore loose velocity quite quickly. From any great distance, almost any armour is sufficient to deflect even a musket ball (which is why Sir Phillip Sydney owed his death from a spent ball to having lent his cuisses to Sir William Pelham in the hurry of arming prior to the impressive catastrophy at Warnfeld in 1587). At any sort of real range, the force is significantly reduced, and even a buff coat will stop it (according to Marshal de Saxe, at least!)
Per pistols, yes I DO in fact have some stats! Funny you should ask... the Graz experimentors (above) found that a wheellock pistol from 1620 of 12.3 mm (about .48" caliber) had a muzzle velocity of 538 mps (1,765 fps: better than a .44 Magnum ) for a force of 917 Joules (compared to 4444 Joules and 6980 Joules, respectively for the above mentioned muskets). At a range of 15 feet though, it was sufficient to punch through the breastplate from 1570 that they fired at, though it did NOT penetrate the two layers of linen behind it... something for the other thread going on now to ponder!
Of course all of this must be considered with the fact that modern, high grade gunpowder was used in these experiments, so the realities were probably a tad slower.
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Hall
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
...
Last edited by Jason Hall on Fri 23 Sep, 2005 9:17 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Meulemans
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason Hall wrote: | There must have been a reason for the "1,600" lb. crossbows being mentioned here. There's a reason for heavier ammunition in firearms.
Any thoughts to this end? |
Yes. I would say that it is all about downrange energy. The effective range of the crossbow is greater because it utilizes a heavier projectile, and while its total range may be equal to or even less than that of a longbow, it hits a lot harder when it gets there.
I would add, given your point of "inefficient 'cost-to-weight' ratio" that a crossbow in excess of 400-500 lbs. would not be expected field equipment and would rather be limited to fixed, defendable positions. Keeping under this weight allows for the use of cranequins/goat's feet/belt hooks and thus increases the rate of fire to a reasonable figure to give some hope of survivability.
When it comes down to it, the crossbow is a targeted weapon, aimed at an individual, while the longbow (and practically speaking, early firearms) were tools of harassment. In the case of the helmet which is the subject of this thread, I would say that, whether worn at the time or not, it was most certainly targeted.
-Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, certainly measurements in joules only give a very rough estimate of weapon power. For example, if you want to punch through a breastplate, it's much easier to use a sharpened steel lance point than a ball of lead. That's why muskets can have such force and still fail to penetrate at times.
Thanks for the info on pistols, Gordon. As I thought they are far weaker. Interestingly enough, Williams says the lance was only very slightly less powerful than the pistol...
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Meulemans wrote: |
When it comes down to it, the crossbow is a targeted weapon, aimed at an individual, while the longbow (and practically speaking, early firearms) were tools of harassment. In the case of the helmet which is the subject of this thread, I would say that, whether worn at the time or not, it was most certainly targeted.
-Eric |
Excellent point, Eric! Volley fire, whether in the form of a "Storm of Arrows" or a "Swedish Salvee" is, as you note, more general than specific. One reason that the tactics of the Longbow (i.e. "Sleeves of Shotte", Mangas, etc.) were easily transposed to firearms. Much of Sir John Smythe's argument in favor of the Longbow was it's accuracy, which was in turn derided by Sir Roger Williams and Humphery Barwick: in any sort of large formation, those in the rear ranks are firing "at random". Sadly I have no competence in discussing the crossbow, so I'll leave that discussion for others!
And Jason, I agree completely with you: "About Face" by the late Col. David Hackworth is a marvelous book, and should be read by everyone interested in warfare of any sort. It not only gets into the nitty gritty, but moreso, into the minds of those engaged in the ugly "sharp end" of an army.
But one other thing to note, since you brought up a LOT of excellent points, is that of logistics. It certainly SEEMS as though one of the major reasons for the English dropping the Long Bow (among other far more romantic arguments! ) was that arrows made by a fletcher and armourer were far more expensive than powder and lead, and far, far more expensive to ship and transport to the field of battle. Powder and lead may weigh a fair amount, but they're far less bulky, and by the 16th Century, far cheaper AND more available on the Continent than arrows, even if the bows themselves were cheaper than firearms. Logistics plays it's special role in all wars... 
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not expert on the crossbow either, but I'm pretty sure that it was also used in mass volleys. As for accuracy, Paine-Galloway said it was somewhat hard to track fast moving targets with a heavy steel crossbow. One text suggests that the Amerindians were reasonably impressed by the accuracy of Spanish crossbowmen.
And logistics are certainly important. but the inability of the longbow to pierce plate armor played a major role as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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