That's actually pretty easy to check: An Arrow weights approx. 50g, an armoured Man about 100kg. Using the principle of linear momentum and said velocity of 140mph, this will result in 0.07mph of backwards-velocity. That's about 0,03 m/s. Not that much.
The English warbow with a bodkin arrow will easily smash through plate armour if it struck true But this also depends on the quality of the armour and if it didnt penetrate it would throw whoever it hit back into his own ranks or to the ground, At the battle of Agincourt/Azincourt The french were slaughtered by arrow storms and then once they got close they got ripped apart by the men at arms, 1 because of the terrain and 2 because they were forced to advance with visors down so they couldnt see
@94AggressiveInline that armour as well as the padding underneath probably would have been completely penetrated by a musket ball in the same scenario. So I doubt that protection would save somebody from a let's say 0.7 calibre musket ball in the same situation.
@94AggressiveInline Knocked off by an arrow ? Have you been eating nails for breakfast ? Arrows have absolutely zero knock down power, they just penetrate, that's it. Just take a look at the kinetic energy generated, it's hardly up to pair with a 9mm handgun bullet, and one of those certainly wont knock you on your feet, just look at bullet proof vest tests = the man still stands firm even when all the energy of the round is absorbed.
@94AggressiveInline Weight means nothing by itself, it's weight couple with velocity that matters as this determines the amount of kinetic energy created. In short, no you will not get knocked off a horse by an arrow, and neither will you fly across the room if hit by a .45 cal handgun as some kids believe thanks to Hollywood.
@MiRyRE What is your definition of "shear force". They're firing an equal weight arrow at the appropriate speed. Are you trying to say the trauma caused by the arrow?
@brainplay I think that's basically what he's saying.
Blunt Force Trauma is still a rather critical medical issue. I don't care how blunt that arrowhead was after not penetrating the armour, if I knight was hit in the chest by a small lump of metal going 140mph, he probably would still be on his horse, due to stirrups and whatnot, but he would be in no condition to fight in the immediate future. Now imagine if that non-penetrating hit was on his forehead.
@TheShyoto People get hit with projectiles which when stopped in soft body armor have more kinetic energy than the medieval longbow and continue to fight afterwards. The Bickerstaff tests pushed the arrow from a 160lb bow to 156 joules. A 230gr .45 ACP hits for 540 joules and a 9mm 148gr hits for 475 joules. Does the arrow impact hurt? Heck yeah that will sting. Incapacitated? On a solid steel plate that dissipates the energy across the surface with padding beneath? I think not.
@brainplay Take a quick look back. Did I mention incapacitation? I think not. And think about it. If the steel plate really did dissipate the energy across its surface, why would you need padding underneath? The same way our weapons are better now, the same way our armour is better. /Soft/ body armour is a much better protection to kinetic energy.
"Immediate future" covers the immediate future. Even as short as, say, two minutes. Which is a long time in the middle of a cavalry charge.
@TheShyoto Why padding? Comfort and redundancy. A mace blow to a plate will be dissipated but you'll still want to have padding underneath to absorb what isn't. The padded aketon also acts like a jack to enhance the protection. You don't armor yourself to catch the minimum, you plan for redundancy like mass weapons, spears, or just comfort.
Soft body armor doesn't protect against kinetic energy. It just catches the bullet. You absorb the entire kinetic energy with no dissipation.
@Aserox Vital organs are deeper than 2-3 inches. Arrow needs to penetrate 4-8 inches depending on the angle of impact before they touch the vitals. Also point out that a bodkin is the worst kind of arrow for killing someone. Over a long period of time dying to sepsis or pneumothorax sure. But long thin bodkins produce self sealing wounds that prevent bleeding and will push around veins rather than cut them.
@brainplay Absolutley not... on a normal 160 pound middleweight man... 8 inches is almost out the BACK END! ... the romans even had a saying! 2 inches in the right spot is fatal. Perhaps on a very very fat man 8 inches is needed!
In boxing the sweet spot requires no more than 1 inch of penetration! although at that spot your not actually touching the liver... but pushing the rib into the liver...
@Gooseman2k2 Fact, and I am sure one of those hand cranked crossbows would give twice that penetration as I have argued in all these bow vs breastplate vids on here.
@TheShyoto I seriously doubt an arrow hitting a proper plate armor and gamberson, even fired from 20m away, will stop a cavalry charge. You need 2-3 inches to pierce a mans vital organs, at most this would hurt a lot, but probably piss him off a great deal. Soldiers, especially in those days, were quite tough. Not only adrenaline, but constant training and drilling would prepare him to not only take that arrow into the armor, but smile and kill you a few seconds later with a long pointy lance.
@TheShyoto If you don't believe me look at it like this. Jousting. Knights charge at great speeds at one another smashing lances into each other. It obviously hurts a lot, and they're blunt for tournaments. Surely the force from this is far greater than an arrow, even though the speed is less. Knights were able to get back up afterwards in many cases, much quicker than two minutes. In some cases they even keep riding fine, probably still hurting. You can even Youtube it, they still have jousting
"Liquid Armor" is better and can buy all the chemicals you need off of Ebay. Soft Kevlar into Semi hard armor for dirt cheap compaired too the price of plates.
Soaking your kevlar in shear thickening fluids is a revolution in armor.
also I am wondering at what pound of draw weight they are setting the machine to pull the bow. If its any less than 180 lbs, then it isnt an accurate medieval recreation.
@aaronvespro 180# was taken from replicas modeled after the Mary Rose findings using modern materials and techniques. The problem being that even small exaggerations to the design would increase the weight but would not necessarily mean that anyone would have shot it. 110# - 150# are the average based on surviving documents. The shot was based off of a 150# bow which is favorable to the bow and yet it still did poorly.
Oh and try getting hit in the chest with 180lb at 140mph, and keeping your composure, you would have broken ribs at least, and the head stuck in the armour would cause additional injury as the battle goes on.
And even if you survived a shot to the chest and the ensuing battle, they would die several days later from septicaemia (A disease which they knew nothing about )
It's not 180lbs @ 140mph. According to the Great Warbow the average 150lb draw ELB would fire a 1663gr(108gram) arrow at 171fps, giving it 1000 Newtons force, which is actually considerably less then what a trained boxer can do. Sure, it'd still smart, maybe force you back a step, maybe break a bone if hit in the right place, but it's far from guaranteed.
Also arrow flex straightens itself out after the first couple meters(and would actually cause it to deflect off more anyway)
@WitheringintheDark a boxer wears gloves-an arrow has a very hard sharp point and thats a lot more dangerous regardless of what you're wearing and by the way arrows are less dependent on energy but more on momentum which is why they pierce kevlar rather than bullets eg. 55m/s times 0.107 kg meaning that you are being hit by 5.88kg/s(that's pretty hard!) Also I have read the great warbow myself and although they are great analysts and historians they mix up their archery facts about poundages etc
A boxer wears gloves if hes competing. Ain't nothing saying he can't punch you in the face without them. The boxer would still have more momentum than an arrow. Regardless, I was talking about the blunt force trauma inflicted through the armor(since it's not piercing thick steel plate), not the penetrative properties of the arrow itself. I was correcting the guy on his wrong figures for mass and velocity. Have to take things in context 'ma man.
I also question your notion of 'that's pretty hard'. An object with that momentum hitting a 80kg human being would only result in a rearward motion of 0.074 m/s. In comparison a 3.25kg human arm hitting you @ 16.5 m/s(manageable for a boxer) would have 54 kg m/s of momentum, resulting in a rearward motion of 0.65 m/s, and that's without putting his body into the blow as they are trained to do. Taking that into consideration im finding it hard to believe that arrow BFT is significant.
@WitheringintheDark I dont think you see the real difference withering-an arrow has a sharper point and since pressure =force divided by area the force is maximised a boxers glove divides its force less significantly. Thus the arrows sharper point would go right through you and combined with its momentum is devastating. No offense but you must be pretty stupid if you think and arrow from an english warbow is less harmful...
True, the force is more concentrated, but it is still less. The arrow could easily go through the bare human body, but good armor would stop it. There are accounts from historic battles stating that those who were in armor were exempt from wounds, but not bruises(as in, i-hate-this-for-a-week bruises) suggesting that while painful, the trauma alone wouldn't kill. There is nothing to suggest that the BFT inflicted from an arrow would actually kill a human being.
@WitheringintheDark haven't you seen the medieval biotapestries of arrows piercing right through armour-metal experience extreme deviation when puncture and that trauma will definetely shock or kill a human body. Also the arrows used here are not 1000gr or livery arrows and the bow that is supposed to be replicated is less than 90lbs which is nothing compared to a powerful 130lbs warbow shooting a 1500gr livery arrow at 50m
I've studied a modern test that showed 2mm of quality wrought iron(comparable to medieval munitions armor) stopping arrows fired from a 140lb bow. Tapestries don't really mean anything, they are subject to the whims of the artist and the noble who comissioned the piece.
@WitheringintheDark Can you show me that test? Because in my archery club there are 3 people who use longbows one using a 100lbs warbow from yew and hes done tests with us showing it can puncture through 3.5 mm carbon steel
ww w .tforum. info/forum/index. php?act=attach&type=post&id=13822
One must remember one of the most important factors is the hardness of the arrow compared to the hardness of the plate, in addition to the shape of the plate(no medieval armor was flat on any portion of the armor, which plays significantly in deflecting and absorbing the impact) and the angle of impact.
The book, The Knight and the Blast Furnace goes into great detail on the mechanics of arrow penetration on plate.
Not that the findings detract much from the longbow, the quality of armor needed to reliably stop it on the field wasn't Too common, nor did it always cover the whole body, not to mention that repeated hits on the same area were likely to eventually penetrate, and an arrow could pierce the slitted visor of even the best plate.
Also the padding used is incredibly important, as proper padding can increase the amount of energy needed to compromise the armor Significantly.
The article acknowledges that the hardness of the armor is in the lower half of noted examples, with the 3mm plate being equivalent to 15th century munitions armor, and certain milanese face-hardened plate can be over 60Rc in hardness. Also worth noting the arrows used were far harder then any recovered examples.
@minxel16 3.5mm hardened carbon steel will stop a 150lb. warbow even when using non-realistic hardened arrow tips. This was all published during the original Warbow Trials and the later Defence Academy warbow trials. 3mm stopped all arrows and the extra 0.5mm would make a large difference. I'm guessing those posers at your club aren't bothering to harden the plates or are doing a piss poor job of it. I'll also bet they're using non-period hardened tips of which non-have been found.
@brainplay I did quote 'show me that test' at least a link, you realise im not being the brash ignorant one here. The archers at my club take archery very seriously and honestly i would guess that you know little so far. And they're not posers either, youre probably one of those noobs on youtube who reads about archery on wiki believing they know everything, well I can tell you that ive made bows and shot them and on top of that read about them, so don't be so quick to disagree wiseass
In regards to your bow comment toward brainplay, the same can be said of someone who knows nothing about armor. A 3.5mm piece of sheet metal isn't armor by any measure afterall, and the fact that your results contradict that of other scientific tests using even More powerful bows(@ 10meters range no less) raises many questions on the quality of the material being shot at. It certainly doesn't sound like steel. Aluminum, maybe.
@WitheringintheDark Firstly the standard indoor range is 20yards which the armour was shot at, secondly again you cannot prove your argument correctly(where's that test you kept referring to-because if you really were that confident ,then you would show me). Many of the tests I have seen whether success or not have been badly taken out eg the bows was too low in drawweight or the material was too thick/thin. Advanced medieval armour was 18gauge -now you're getting sily if you think 3.5mm s weak
@WitheringintheDark i guess youre saying that the tapestries were completely false-think about it, both sides of the battle would be producing tapestries therefore the one winning and the one losing would weave their pictures correspondingly. PLaces like arras in france werent commissioned much by nobles as they were an independent guild, you can study paintings too showing the plate armour being pierced
It said 404 because you did not remove the spaces from the link. It does not let you post full links.
Gauge is for modern sheet metal, medieval armor was man-forged, it doesn't correctly apply. Mm's are sufficient.
I have seen no proof that the BFT from the long bow is capable of killing in it's own right, esp considering the plate itself absorbs most of the impact.
Modern sheet metal doesnt count since it's flat, not forged, and not hardened like actual medieval armor was.
I don't think they are completely false, just over exagerrated, as all historical documents often did, embellish the victors exploits.
Paintings also don't tell you the composition of the armor. As I said before, thin or poorly made armor Could be pierced, sure, as can the visor ect.
Most amateur 'tests' don't use the proper materials. They use arrow tips that are far harder then historically accurate against unhardened questionable quality 'steel'. It is no surprise in that case.
@WitheringintheDark I agree with most of that but nowadays steel is A LOT harder, in fact its pretty hard to find anything other than steel thats got high carbon content or carbon steel it being the new standard. If you ordered a steel sheet for example i wouldnt be surprised if it was carbon steel
Problem is there are several different kinds of carbon steel, and the higher the carbon content the more resistant to penetration it is, though angle of impact, hardness, and slag content play huge roles as well. confirmation of material quality is paramount to an accurate test, the one I posted correctly quantifies most of the variables.
According to the Alan Williams book mild steel is 50% more resistant then wrought iron, med is 120%, and med hardened was 200% more resistant.
From museum pieces, the plates typically fell between 200 to over 800vph in hardness, which typically matches or greatly exceeds the known hardness of arrow tips of the period.
The hardness of steel hasn't changed much, it's still hardened in the same way and can be to the same extent for the most part(quenching), we just have far greater control over the carbon content.
If you want an accurate test you need to properly annotate all the variables and use period weaponry.
Problem with using proper materials is it's extremely expensive. An accurate, forged reproduction of a steel breastplate would likely cost several thousand, and you going to be attempting to destroy said armor.
@WitheringintheDark in conclusion arrows both i have seen and have read about have pierced plate armour of the time-but not always, the chance that it will hit it head on is less than a deflection which is why the breastplate was accentuated. Thus arrows are deadliest in volume and guaranteed hits are on joints feet knees and especially horses. However, the fact that longbows were a great success at agincourt poitiers, crecy and auberoche shows that it was a formidable weapon of its day and age.
Indeed, bows butcher cavalry of all kinds for the most part.
However, according to chroniclers the bow was nearly completely ineffective on the plate worn at Poitiers, inflicted rather few casualties at Agincourt, and mail was the primary armor at Crecy. In the end, it was the man Behind the bow, the terrain, and the tactics that carried those battles, not so much the bow itself.
@WitheringintheDark true-but the same could be said for any weapon-at agincourt there were many casualties from the bow because they were slowed down by the conditoin and the french crossbowmen left the strings out in the moist air unbinding them
From the accounts I read on it the longbow Killed few, but did wound considerably, with the main factor being the hampering effect of the 1000's of arrow impacts that slowed the french advance through 100's of yards of thick mud, with heads down and visors shut, restricting breathing. By the time they reached the english line they were so exhausted and tightly packed they could scarcely lift nor swing their blades, and were cut down by the more mobile english archers and men-at-arms.
@WitheringintheDark yes but the only account of the arrows being recalled as ineffective in these battles is from Jean Froissart-a frenchman who is known for praising the french chivalrous knights which could suggest his accounts were biased. Also the main reason why historians think that few were killed by the arrows it the amount fired, is that 1000 were fired a minute-but this only implies that longbowmen were ineffective and your chances increase that way. Terrain most important though
While certainly capable of inflicting deep bruises and welts, maybe even concussions thru the armor, the test i've seen has shown that a shaped 3mm wrought iron plate is proof against an arrow.
Steel would be even tougher. While multiple hits on the same area, visors, non-overlapping thin limb plates, and joints could be penetrated to one extent or another, the head and chest would be safe for the most part. I suspect here we will simply have to agree to disagree.
@WitheringintheDark concentrated force is more than the boxer otherwise a needle wouldnt be able to stab your finger-thats ridiculous, it has been recorded that arrows DO penetrate steel tempered plate armour and that trauma from it DOES kill
I think this guy has missed out to major points... First archers shot arrows from bows, not specially designed ballistic air tubes, or whatever it is. The action of the string pushing the arrow would cause it to flex, so when it hits the armour, it has a jackhammer effect pushing it in deeper.
There is also the fact, that steel was not as strong then, and at 20m away an archer would shoot the warhorse and not the rider, or if he did he would aim for weak spots in the armour (Neck, eyes etc.)
Not all arrows hit the armour. The amour could not protect ALL of the body, so small parts of the body would all have been vulnerable to varying amounts; but of course the armour pretty much did all it could until the arrival of gunpowder.
maybe some of you missed the bit where he mentioned that the act of penetrating the armour *flattened* the point of the bodkin. Steel is steel it always acts the same way given it's crystalline structure speed and other factors of physics. they wore the stuff for very good reasons it protected the wearers against the weapons of the day. also the point should be made that a single arrow didn't penetrate armour, it took thousands to finally puncture a dent or previous hole.
Armouring a horse is very expensive and reduces mobility. Only a small percentage of very wealthy lords had destriers. So, after a certain date, knights dismounted and walked into action. Agincourt being the classic example!
@AnonAlmostDelivers Sometimes, yes, often less, much less, than the knight. A thickly padded caparison would be most common, I think, a plate harness for an entire horse is quite expensive, after all. :P
this guy does another video where he falls off of horseback in full armor and jumps back up again as if it were nothing. The armor doesn't even seem to stop his movement at all. That's because a suit of armor is half the weight of a modern marien's equipment.
@DavidUmstattd My point was hat he would loose his advantage of being mounted if the horse where killed. This would even out the odds a bit for the foot soldiers on the archers side.
@DavidUmstattd and going further with that, most of a marines(any soldier on the field on long march) has his equipment concentrated in his back pack and a miniscule amount in the armor/tac vest. whereas the armored medieval soldier would have had it equalized along his whole body thus cutting the poundage considerably. Both will fatigue Obviously but the armored medieval soldier would have had less back problems...unless you can count an axe hit on the back plate
@DavidUmstattd I completely agree with what you said, but there is evidence that wearing the armor whil trying to wade through knee deep mud, as well as dead horses and dead comrades for over 100 yards put the french at a serious disadvantage. : )
Marine equipment is far more practical and a bullet would penetrate through the armor quicker then a bulletproof vest you don't compare the two they were both specialized for different needs end of discussion
ThIS TEST IS NOT FAIR AS THEY CHANGED THE TYPE OF BODKIN USED FROM THE FIRST TEST,THERE WAS NO WAY ON EARTH THIS TYPE OF HEAD WOULD PENETRATE ARMOUR , THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS PROBABLY THE BODKIN DID PENETRATE THE ARMOUR WITH EASE SO THE SWAPPED IT FOR ONE OF A TYPE THAT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PENETRATE ARMOUR TO PROVE A POINT AND FIT IN WITH THE PLANNED SCRIPT OF THE DOCUMENTARY
@shinra46 NOT RELEVANT, OPINIONS ARE NOT LIES, SO I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO COME TO ENGLAND TO IMPROVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, BY THE WAY I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY KEYBOARD AT THE MOMENT, SO YOUR COMMENTS ARE TOTAL IRRELEVANT.
this test puts it more into perspective why the longbow was supposedly so lethal against knights in battles like agincourt, but in other battles seemingly irrelevant.
In conditions where cavalry was free to maneuver and knights were hit by 1 or 2 of these the archers would be helpless/useless, doing nothing before the knights were upon them.
But if they were slowed/stalled and the archers rained down on them at optimal range, it would be quite hellish, a swarm of bees.
I'll admit that against the finest steel plate, an arrow will not pierce the knights breast plate. But that is the heaviest part of the armor. I don't care if I can't penetrate your breast plate, I and theother few thousand guys around me will just hit your arms, or legs, or face, neck, or your horse. If your horse is running and it goes down your dead, I don't even have to hit you, and all those targets add up to alot more area than just thir breast plates.
This is why the English longbowmen were aiming at the exposed horses of the French knights to slow them down and to cause panic among them. Even a guy in full plate armor can be crushed or suffocate if he is trampled under the hooves of his own cavalry.
@TempestDust Actually, you wouldn't be aiming. Especially at a moving target that is rapid closing distance and changing the point of aim. You would be firing volleys at range. Maybe you would get your chance to aim as they closed to under 50yrds but by then you're retreating. There's a fairly large difference between shooting at a non-moving static target who's range is known vs. a charging knight.
penetration doesn't matter, the energy could potentially still kill you. it's like being hit in the chest by a basebasll, it doesn't pierce your chest, but the impact could cause a heart irrithmia and cause death. that's over 150 foot pounds of energy with that type of arrow, enough to cause 50 g's, which when applied to the chest, protected or not, will stop a heart.
@Raithor83 good point, but your not absorbing all that energy into foam paddin, that'd going to give substantial blunt force trauma, and a heavier arrow would do even worse
@drewnickel The force of the strike first gets dissipated by the armor, then the padded gambeson below that, then the ribs and any fat layers. That's assuming the armor is actually making contact with the skin which it often is not. Some possible bruising but otherwise, there isn't going to be enough to cause any serious damage.
Look at this the video. If there was any mass trauma it would have left a large dent in the clay. It didn't do it here nor the other video where it did penetrate
@brainplay keep in mind some of these long bows fired massive 1000gr arrows at 200fps, notably the ones people used at over 200yds, the 150lb long bows. this was maybe at best a 200 or 300gr arrow, but in truth that's nothing like what the big boys fired. 1000gr at that speed would probably penetrate the armor too, if not crack the breast plate through it.
@drewnickel Please keep in mind that the arrow used here is the same type and weight used from the Longbow portion of this series which was fired from a 150lb bow by Archery longbow record holder Mark Stretton and penetrated an unhardened breastplate. Second, also note that the arrow rapidly decelerates. While it may leave the bow at 200fps, it might arrive a 1/10th that speed depending on the range (. Third, 1000gr. is still just 2oz. Search youtube for Weapons that Made Britain - Longbow
@brainplay keep in mind though, a 300gr compound bow arrow aat the same speed will pierce light armor, a 1000gr one can kill an elephant, and highly efficient ones will maintain the same speed for hundreds of feet due to the massive inertia. plus if it's a really sharp one it'll go through even easier. theres always a way to defeat armor even with the most primitive weapons.
@drewnickel That's all fine and dandy but we aren't talking about compounds, lightweight aluminum arrows, nor shooting elephants at 30ft away. We're talking about wood yew bows, with inefficient heavy flax string, and iron tipped arrows, attached with rendered hide or milk glue and fired at 300yrds with an armored enemy that will cross 300yrds in 40sec. Seriously, search Weapons that made Britain - Longbow and watch all 8 parts.
@brainplay I'm saying that a compound bow shooting at the same speed as a 150lb long bow with a 1000gr arrow can kill an elephant and pierce light armor. as in a longbow at 230fps will pierce about 1/4" of steel with a 1000gr arrow, and will continue to go on and kill whatever's behind it. a 1000gr arrow at that speed could go through the shoulder of an elephant and out the other side. back then instead of speed they relied on sheer weight and power to kill animals and people
@drewnickel I don't get why you're bringing up compound bows. They are more efficient than a longbow ever will be. I don't get where you've come up with the 1/4 steel number either when you have videos of 100lb traditional longbows that can't penetrate 1.5mm high carbon steel at near point blank ranges (1/4 steel is 6mm and the average breastplate was only 2mm). Why are we talking about elephants by the way? They don't wear steel armor and are hunted by 90lb bows.
@brainplay I'm saying a long bow of the same power will pierce the same. not the same draw. for example a 150lb long bow is like a 60lb compound bow, and my 60lb compound bow can shoot through 1/4" of steel, just plain steel, as for 2mm high carbon steel it would be no problem, and with the modern broad heads they have for longbows or compound bows, it wouldn't matter cause it would still pierce. I'm talking about steel arrows, not wood, they had steel arrow heads back then too btw
@Istojataachatearme Iron is the same density if not heavier, and shears rather than making a smooth blade so it's sharp like obsidian. and in medievel times they discovered putting a block of coke in the iron made it stronger, in theory they created the first steels in the middle ages. with a simple 125gr broadhead and a 10.4gr/inch arrow my bow will pierce two of those plates or steel of the same thickness and strength.
@drewnickel even bullets struggle with 1/4 inch of steel you seriously have your facts messed up. The arrows that a composite bow used were much lighter so had less force and penetration than a warbow's heavier arrows but could be shot further and I'd like to see your very biased test where you paint cardboard and call it carbon steel because it would certainly not be 'no problem' if an english 160lbs warbow can do that with ease in comparison
@minxel16 steel is basically carbon and iron, coke is impure carbon. put it together you have simple steel. it's all about weight, and the diameter, if you make the arrow head longer, but also thinner, it'll be the same weight, but have more penetration. in theory, you could make an arrow entirely out of steel that weighs 1000gr and was 1/8" in diameter and it would be able to shatter a cinder block, and easily pierce the crude armor that they had in the middle ages.
@drewnickel carbon steel is when steel which has higheer concentrations of carbon which must then be heated to make it more flexible and not brittle. Where does it say that Mike Loades was using the same 1000gr arrows for this test?
@drewnickel Arrows are tuned to the bow. If you shoot an arrow with a spine that's less than the bow weight your accuracy drops. Too low and the arrow just explodes before it leaves the bow (see archers paradox). Unlike modern bows, medieval bows are crude using heavy, inefficient linen string (we use B-50 polymer now). Heavier arrows put more strain on the bow, take more energy to propel, and decelerate faster.
@brainplay wrong medieval bows were better than now a days the archers where raised from a young age they developed tremendous muscles and enough to actually deform the bones (good way) to help with the tremendous strain of 200-250 lbs draw weight its so much that you could not even get to that much power if u tried the rest of your life also they used flux and the string was stronger than modern string think about it weaker string holding 4.5 times the weight also the armor was better
@minibikerider1 They haven't found any nor has there been any mention of a bow over the 200lb mark. Even the Mary Rose bows are iffy past 150lbs. Between 120-150lbs is the norm depending on which source you go to. Flux? You mean flax. You do realize that flax fiber is what's used to make linen? No it was not stronger. B-50 is stronger and lighter. Fastflight blows them all away but is hard on reflex/deflex bows. Yes people use replica warbows of the same pull weights today.
@brainplay there has been a mention to 200 lb bows but I forget where I meant flax and I know it isn't as strong but it still works don't it or where did all these old bows use as string grass no they dint I don't care how strong flax can be when fiddled with all I meant was it works fine sorry i did not write clear enough so some body that takes everything so literally can read and understand
@drewnickel one would use even heavier arrows than 1000gr! The point is although a longbow is slower than a hornbow-its like a slow steam train(slow but powerful) so you can keep adding arrow weight without fearing very slow velocity expecting high penetration
@brainplay most bow speeds are taken at ten yards where it stays pretty much the same but it will never be a 'tenth' of the speed it leaves the bow but usually 4/5 eg 200fps at first to 150fps at 20yds
@minxel16 Once again, watch the full video (weapons that made Britain: the bow).. They had Mr. Stretton fire an arrow and ballistically tracked it by shortwave doplar radar. The arrow rapidly decelerated and lost 1/5 of it's energy in 0.8 seconds while still decelerating. The fletching and circular motion of an arrow is a constant drag and that kind of deceleration doesn't reduce unless it passes basic terminal velocity which is weak.
@brainplay arrows dont move in circles-they fluctuate like a wave because the tip is moving at a slower velocity than the nock causing it to bend-this isn't drag, it's stored and released elastic energy converted to kinetic energy as it bends out again-this doesn't create drag it propels the arrow and although the arrow lost a lot of energy-most speed tests are carried at standard 20yards when the arrow adjusts so speed more or less remains constant
@minxel16 First, yes arrow move in circular motions (spin) to improve accuracy and has been documented to do so as far back as a 1578 treatise on archery. You're confusing that with archers paradox. Second, paradox inhibits propulsion and accuracy as it does not conform to the linear path of the arrow.
Where are you going with your speed test? Strettons arrow was tracked by doppler radar for it's ENTIRE FLIGHT, not by a speedometer or amateurs shooting at 20yrds.
@brainplay Actually if youve ever shot a longbow-the paradox increases accuracy since it 'bends around the handle'. I was not confusing it with circular motion but just acknowledged that arrows do spin if they are fletched left or right wing. And if you watched the video for speed recording, strettons arrows were only measured for about the first ten yards and they did not say themselves that it came to a tenth of its speed eventually. Paradox is when tip moves slower than the nock
@minxel16 I don't understand where you're going with this. We spine our arrows to bend around the handle to shoot forward. This doesn't increase accuracy but removing it as with compound and composite bows does. The bend has nothing to do with the tip moving slower than the nock, only due to the bending around the bow back.
They recreated Stretton's arrow speed with the air cannon and used it on munitions plate (iron) and hardened plate (steel) at various replicated ranges/speed.
@brainplay Yes spine is a degree of an archer's paradox. And yes it does increase the accuracy since if you shot an arrow with a very stiff spine which paradoxed little around the handle it would veer to the side. This is vital for bows like the longbow and flatbow with no arrow rest as it must perfectly bend around the handle avoiding contact so it can create a clear path. And yes again it has EVERYTHING to do with the nock accelerating faster than the tip deforming it (normal reaction)
Found an article on the paradox: ww w. texasarchery. o rg/Documents/ArchersParadox/Archersparadox .h tm
remove spaces.
The flexion occurs because the shaft pushes away from the bow at the same time the string is freed to push the shaft toward the front of the bow. The tip get's no sideways push, but since it has mass it resists the forward motion for an instant while the nock is moving forward, and the shaft bends as a result.
This causes the oscillation in the first few meters.
@WitheringintheDark yes that is basically a more complicated way of saying what i said-it's the normal reaction of the arrows mass that resists causing it to bend but essentially the nock accelerates therefore faster than the tip. However oscillation continues for about 20m before it finally returns to normal straight direction as the energy is lost.
@minxel16 the shaft is the mass resistant object not just the tip and adding weight nto the tip acts like a lever forcing more resistance and thus more bend, however, paradox cannot happen if the arrow is too stiff, thus one must always use the correct spine for the bow.
Yep, nice video showcasing it here: watch?v=WzWrcpzuAp8
The way it was always explained to me was that a majority of the arrows mass was in the tip, so the tip resisted going forward for just a fraction of a second, which makes the shaft flex around the bow instead of the fletching hitting it and causing it to veer off target(as is the case with too stiff spine) or exploding and putting shards through your hand(in the case of too weak spine)
@WitheringintheDark heres a link suggesting that thinner arrowheads which were of higher quality may have been used to penetrate higher quality armour
I'm not saying that arrows couldn't penetrate any plate armor at all. Just stating that the thickest portions of it, the breastplate and helm, places on the limbs were the plates overlap ect. would prevent most if not all penetration depending on thickness.
That publication I linked showed that 3mm of wrought iron withstood a hardened long bodkin(which actually performed worse on the armor then the short bodkin and lozenge arrow) supporting that position.
@WitheringintheDark can you show me which link because a few have been posted to me about the topic-go check royal armouries site for arrow types-your tests prove otherwise but they concluded that the hardened long bodkin was more effective-maybe just coincidence, but too needle-like and it would have bent rather than penetrated
Honestly I and several others are beginning to doubt the bodkin was designed to penetrate plate at all, considering it doesn't perform as well as short bodkin or lozenge heads in any tests recorded so far.
From looks it seems as if it was more designed to pierce maille at short range.
@WitheringintheDark yes thats the needle bodkin which was designed to pierce rings in chainmail, however, professional organisations like the royal armouries have only found a dozen arrowheads to test and that shows that more specualtion has to be done on which is best. Needke bodkins are useless against plate-but I have seen ones in between a quarrel head bodkin and a barbed head that apparently performed the best but it is just called a bodkin despite it being different.
@WitheringintheDark another point is that steel bodkins were usually quenched and tempered not usually done in tests and that would make them equal hardness to the armour which i believe only mark stretton has done being an excellent fletcher
It certainly merits more research. I would like to point out though, the article I linked you to was performed by the Royal Armoury, and the archer that did the test firing Was Mark Stretton.
@WitheringintheDark good link although the posters in the forum are notably armour biased ;) Theres a lot to be researched more than tested in my opinion-on top of my reply to the test i think that more bodkins and arrowheads needed to be recovered and a bow used. What was interesting was that usually a smaller fraction of arrows were used for long ditance -in the mary rose-type 8 bodkin but the majority were type 16 broadheads(quenched for hardness) which suggest they would be used for armour
@WitheringintheDark fter the findings were originally presented at the International Medieval Congress in Kalamazoo, Michigan,
Through this and other routes, the previously widely held view that bodkin points were the main type of armour piercing warhead has gradually given way to greater acceptance of type 16s in this role.
This is from the royal armouries proving that the barbed points may have been used for plate-who knows? I heard of arrow research in Townsford which could lend insight
@WitheringintheDark thanks for that very interesting-a few things i would improve; keep arrow hardness same,test all thicknesses(they missed out a few) USE A BOW this is most important for me because like a drill an arrow spins, it paradoxes and perhaps the elastic energy in it from a bow provides extra energy. And use harder arrowheads as they were documented by the royal armoury as being quenched to harden the outside like armour-oh and use broadheads type 16 found on the mary rose..
@WitheringintheDark I meant the lab tests-because thats when they tested the more 'realistic' thicknesses-the arrow went slower in the tube they admitted and it didnt paradox or spin which may provide extra energy-who knows, a drill seems better for cutting metal than if you stabbed it in. Also test one used a hickory backed yew bow-hickory is known to have a sloppy cast in comparison to excellent yew sapwood as it gains moisture very quickly
They tested All of the thicknesses in the outdoor tests, they simply selected those specific thicknesses for further testing, there is nothing inherently more 'realistic' about them. The thickness varied between 1.2-4.57mm, though no more then 2.5-3mm for serviceable Field plate.
Also the english longbow was a straight self bow, not a reflex bow those were the types of bow used by the Mongols, and require a composite construction to withstand the stresses.
@WitheringintheDark also i respect the test as the most valid one that i have seen thus far but bows of the time werereflexed(adding velocity) adding reflex to a warbow! You've got yourself a much more deadly weapon and the tips tended to be thinner also increasing the velocity-getting as close to the construction of the mary rose warbows would be ideal if you dont mind me pointing out but thanks for the link VERY USEFUL-are you a member of my armour?
Not to mention every little additional advantage you try and squeeze out of the bow and arrow, so too can the armor be squeezed, by testing them against a wrought iron plate of the highest hardness found instead of one of the lowest.
And perform a similar test vs. mild steel, which is considerably tougher, and medium steel, which is tougher still. If 2mm wrought iron prevents 'lethal' penetration on that test, 2mm of hardened med. steel would take almost anything thrown at it.
I can see that type 16 has a tip reinforced enough to be a good potential piercer, and the barbs at the end, if the arrow managed to penetrate deeply enough, would make extraction from the armor impossible without taking it off. It does seem kind of wide compared to the other types tho, which hurts penetration.
On another note, they almost never test plate with proper padding such as felt or leather with linen backing, which helps limit penetration and bounce the arrow out.
@WitheringintheDark The arrow wont necessarily 'bounce out from padding but it definetely hinders the last killing inches -it was proven that padding or chainmail too close to the armour would be useless as in an experiment using paper: first the paper was poked with a pencil separately but they noticed that this took more force than if it was rested on an object (the chainmail in the armours case) Also surface area defines pressure and thus penetration but barbed arrows being thinner have less
I also recall a test that shown the type 16 to be the most effective vs. jack coats but the needle bodkin was more effective versus any type of armor, but it used really thin plates and didn't confirm the hardness or make of any of the materials, so it's findings are dubious at best.
Naturally a harder arrow will always perform better against any given piece of metal, provided it's got a good point.
I don't think we can do more then guess until better evidence comes out in any case.
A 27-year-old Unemployable Taiwanese suffers from Psychiatric Disorder in Canada. The sicko has problem with social interaction with people, so he has to channel his desire for communication in a perverted way and becomes a psycho on YouTube 24 x 7 x 365.
Without a job, he eats shit for a living and bullshits like an idiot in weird Taiwanese English on YouTube to seek attention and boast his extremely low self-esteem. Haha!
Kiddo, someone as completely fucktarded as you've proven yourself to be isn't scary. The only person you'd ever injure with a gun would be yourself. You're not scary. You're not important. You're just pathetic. A pathetic, cowardly little piece of shit that can't do anything but spew mindless insults and childish threats over the internets. If you little cocksucker ever met me in real life, you'd piss and shit yourself and cry for your mommy.
Hmmn... Ok here's a fair test. We'll take this longbow arrow made to period spec. and we'll take this modern hardened rolled steel breastplate...What? Why is everyone looking at me? You can't expect me to pay a blacksmith to pound out metal this thin and this large. It would take a year and be full of imperfections.
That's actually pretty easy to check: An Arrow weights approx. 50g, an armoured Man about 100kg. Using the principle of linear momentum and said velocity of 140mph, this will result in 0.07mph of backwards-velocity. That's about 0,03 m/s. Not that much.
LangerName 1 month ago
I used to wear plate mail. Then I took an arrow to the knee.
xcorps1992 1 month ago
Can't speak for longbows, but both my crossbows (Barnett quad 400 and PSE TAC-15i) penetrate car doors with ease.
tvr390se 2 months ago
The English warbow with a bodkin arrow will easily smash through plate armour if it struck true But this also depends on the quality of the armour and if it didnt penetrate it would throw whoever it hit back into his own ranks or to the ground, At the battle of Agincourt/Azincourt The french were slaughtered by arrow storms and then once they got close they got ripped apart by the men at arms, 1 because of the terrain and 2 because they were forced to advance with visors down so they couldnt see
94AggressiveInline 2 months ago
@94AggressiveInline that armour as well as the padding underneath probably would have been completely penetrated by a musket ball in the same scenario. So I doubt that protection would save somebody from a let's say 0.7 calibre musket ball in the same situation.
supersmash43 2 months ago
@94AggressiveInline Knocked off by an arrow ? Have you been eating nails for breakfast ? Arrows have absolutely zero knock down power, they just penetrate, that's it. Just take a look at the kinetic energy generated, it's hardly up to pair with a 9mm handgun bullet, and one of those certainly wont knock you on your feet, just look at bullet proof vest tests = the man still stands firm even when all the energy of the round is absorbed.
bellator11 1 month ago
@bellator11 I think the arrow would knock you down because of it's weight...
94AggressiveInline 1 month ago
@94AggressiveInline Weight means nothing by itself, it's weight couple with velocity that matters as this determines the amount of kinetic energy created. In short, no you will not get knocked off a horse by an arrow, and neither will you fly across the room if hit by a .45 cal handgun as some kids believe thanks to Hollywood.
bellator11 1 month ago
probly knock the guy off his feet
gagurmom 5 months ago
@gagurmom cause a 220lbs guy running with 70 pounds of armor with all his wrath is gonna be stop by that arrow. No.
masvindu 5 months ago
@masvindu it sure stopped they're asses at Agincourt and those knights were on horses getting owned by the Welsh Longbow.
UchihaGamer111 4 months ago
@UchihaGamer111
Their horses were owned. Their actual defeat was a major tactical blunder, of letting the forces traggle through mud, and forcing.
Arrows didn't stop them. Terrain did. Arrows helped.
RWBn00b 4 months ago
@RWBn00b Lmao I already knew about that and you're a idiot to place the English victory solely on that.
UchihaGamer111 4 months ago
They are forgetting the shear force from the bow.
MiRyRE 6 months ago
@MiRyRE What is your definition of "shear force". They're firing an equal weight arrow at the appropriate speed. Are you trying to say the trauma caused by the arrow?
brainplay 6 months ago
@brainplay Looking back, yeah. I don't know why I worded it that way.
MiRyRE 6 months ago
@brainplay I think that's basically what he's saying.
Blunt Force Trauma is still a rather critical medical issue. I don't care how blunt that arrowhead was after not penetrating the armour, if I knight was hit in the chest by a small lump of metal going 140mph, he probably would still be on his horse, due to stirrups and whatnot, but he would be in no condition to fight in the immediate future. Now imagine if that non-penetrating hit was on his forehead.
TheShyoto 5 months ago
@TheShyoto People get hit with projectiles which when stopped in soft body armor have more kinetic energy than the medieval longbow and continue to fight afterwards. The Bickerstaff tests pushed the arrow from a 160lb bow to 156 joules. A 230gr .45 ACP hits for 540 joules and a 9mm 148gr hits for 475 joules. Does the arrow impact hurt? Heck yeah that will sting. Incapacitated? On a solid steel plate that dissipates the energy across the surface with padding beneath? I think not.
brainplay 5 months ago 2
@brainplay Take a quick look back. Did I mention incapacitation? I think not. And think about it. If the steel plate really did dissipate the energy across its surface, why would you need padding underneath? The same way our weapons are better now, the same way our armour is better. /Soft/ body armour is a much better protection to kinetic energy.
"Immediate future" covers the immediate future. Even as short as, say, two minutes. Which is a long time in the middle of a cavalry charge.
TheShyoto 5 months ago
@TheShyoto Why padding? Comfort and redundancy. A mace blow to a plate will be dissipated but you'll still want to have padding underneath to absorb what isn't. The padded aketon also acts like a jack to enhance the protection. You don't armor yourself to catch the minimum, you plan for redundancy like mass weapons, spears, or just comfort.
Soft body armor doesn't protect against kinetic energy. It just catches the bullet. You absorb the entire kinetic energy with no dissipation.
brainplay 5 months ago 2
@brainplay What do you think of my argument to Shyoto? :P
Aserox 3 months ago
@Aserox Vital organs are deeper than 2-3 inches. Arrow needs to penetrate 4-8 inches depending on the angle of impact before they touch the vitals. Also point out that a bodkin is the worst kind of arrow for killing someone. Over a long period of time dying to sepsis or pneumothorax sure. But long thin bodkins produce self sealing wounds that prevent bleeding and will push around veins rather than cut them.
brainplay 3 months ago
@brainplay Absolutley not... on a normal 160 pound middleweight man... 8 inches is almost out the BACK END! ... the romans even had a saying! 2 inches in the right spot is fatal. Perhaps on a very very fat man 8 inches is needed!
In boxing the sweet spot requires no more than 1 inch of penetration! although at that spot your not actually touching the liver... but pushing the rib into the liver...
Gooseman2k2 3 months ago
@Gooseman2k2 Fact, and I am sure one of those hand cranked crossbows would give twice that penetration as I have argued in all these bow vs breastplate vids on here.
TheReven1 1 month ago
@TheReven1 You mean like those crazy windlass crossbows? yea I'm sure at very close ranges they could punch through a thinly plated tank!
Gooseman2k2 1 month ago
@TheShyoto I seriously doubt an arrow hitting a proper plate armor and gamberson, even fired from 20m away, will stop a cavalry charge. You need 2-3 inches to pierce a mans vital organs, at most this would hurt a lot, but probably piss him off a great deal. Soldiers, especially in those days, were quite tough. Not only adrenaline, but constant training and drilling would prepare him to not only take that arrow into the armor, but smile and kill you a few seconds later with a long pointy lance.
Aserox 3 months ago
@TheShyoto If you don't believe me look at it like this. Jousting. Knights charge at great speeds at one another smashing lances into each other. It obviously hurts a lot, and they're blunt for tournaments. Surely the force from this is far greater than an arrow, even though the speed is less. Knights were able to get back up afterwards in many cases, much quicker than two minutes. In some cases they even keep riding fine, probably still hurting. You can even Youtube it, they still have jousting
Aserox 3 months ago
are these guys like mythbusters-wannabes?
darkdvr 6 months ago
@darkdvr no its a history documentary........
21whitworth12 6 months ago
look up paper armor from mythbusters
chadchamplin 6 months ago
@meloprato yes he is looks like I'm one too but I one-hit em with only 6 pd mw longbow mw bodkins ye I know I'm the best.
xXNick1997Xx 6 months ago
"Liquid Armor" is better and can buy all the chemicals you need off of Ebay. Soft Kevlar into Semi hard armor for dirt cheap compaired too the price of plates.
Soaking your kevlar in shear thickening fluids is a revolution in armor.
Plenty of Youtube video's too look at about it!
ScientologySucksAss 6 months ago
also I am wondering at what pound of draw weight they are setting the machine to pull the bow. If its any less than 180 lbs, then it isnt an accurate medieval recreation.
aaronvespro 7 months ago
@aaronvespro 180# was taken from replicas modeled after the Mary Rose findings using modern materials and techniques. The problem being that even small exaggerations to the design would increase the weight but would not necessarily mean that anyone would have shot it. 110# - 150# are the average based on surviving documents. The shot was based off of a 150# bow which is favorable to the bow and yet it still did poorly.
brainplay 6 months ago
Nooooo not the arrowhead
TheTaron88 8 months ago
Oh and try getting hit in the chest with 180lb at 140mph, and keeping your composure, you would have broken ribs at least, and the head stuck in the armour would cause additional injury as the battle goes on.
And even if you survived a shot to the chest and the ensuing battle, they would die several days later from septicaemia (A disease which they knew nothing about )
SvenDreyriAx 8 months ago
@SvenDreyriAx
It's not 180lbs @ 140mph. According to the Great Warbow the average 150lb draw ELB would fire a 1663gr(108gram) arrow at 171fps, giving it 1000 Newtons force, which is actually considerably less then what a trained boxer can do. Sure, it'd still smart, maybe force you back a step, maybe break a bone if hit in the right place, but it's far from guaranteed.
Also arrow flex straightens itself out after the first couple meters(and would actually cause it to deflect off more anyway)
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@WitheringintheDark a boxer wears gloves-an arrow has a very hard sharp point and thats a lot more dangerous regardless of what you're wearing and by the way arrows are less dependent on energy but more on momentum which is why they pierce kevlar rather than bullets eg. 55m/s times 0.107 kg meaning that you are being hit by 5.88kg/s(that's pretty hard!) Also I have read the great warbow myself and although they are great analysts and historians they mix up their archery facts about poundages etc
minxel16 8 months ago
@minxel16
A boxer wears gloves if hes competing. Ain't nothing saying he can't punch you in the face without them. The boxer would still have more momentum than an arrow. Regardless, I was talking about the blunt force trauma inflicted through the armor(since it's not piercing thick steel plate), not the penetrative properties of the arrow itself. I was correcting the guy on his wrong figures for mass and velocity. Have to take things in context 'ma man.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@minxel16
I also question your notion of 'that's pretty hard'. An object with that momentum hitting a 80kg human being would only result in a rearward motion of 0.074 m/s. In comparison a 3.25kg human arm hitting you @ 16.5 m/s(manageable for a boxer) would have 54 kg m/s of momentum, resulting in a rearward motion of 0.65 m/s, and that's without putting his body into the blow as they are trained to do. Taking that into consideration im finding it hard to believe that arrow BFT is significant.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@WitheringintheDark I dont think you see the real difference withering-an arrow has a sharper point and since pressure =force divided by area the force is maximised a boxers glove divides its force less significantly. Thus the arrows sharper point would go right through you and combined with its momentum is devastating. No offense but you must be pretty stupid if you think and arrow from an english warbow is less harmful...
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
True, the force is more concentrated, but it is still less. The arrow could easily go through the bare human body, but good armor would stop it. There are accounts from historic battles stating that those who were in armor were exempt from wounds, but not bruises(as in, i-hate-this-for-a-week bruises) suggesting that while painful, the trauma alone wouldn't kill. There is nothing to suggest that the BFT inflicted from an arrow would actually kill a human being.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark haven't you seen the medieval biotapestries of arrows piercing right through armour-metal experience extreme deviation when puncture and that trauma will definetely shock or kill a human body. Also the arrows used here are not 1000gr or livery arrows and the bow that is supposed to be replicated is less than 90lbs which is nothing compared to a powerful 130lbs warbow shooting a 1500gr livery arrow at 50m
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
I've studied a modern test that showed 2mm of quality wrought iron(comparable to medieval munitions armor) stopping arrows fired from a 140lb bow. Tapestries don't really mean anything, they are subject to the whims of the artist and the noble who comissioned the piece.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Can you show me that test? Because in my archery club there are 3 people who use longbows one using a 100lbs warbow from yew and hes done tests with us showing it can puncture through 3.5 mm carbon steel
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
ww w .tforum. info/forum/index. php?act=attach&type=post&id=13822
One must remember one of the most important factors is the hardness of the arrow compared to the hardness of the plate, in addition to the shape of the plate(no medieval armor was flat on any portion of the armor, which plays significantly in deflecting and absorbing the impact) and the angle of impact.
The book, The Knight and the Blast Furnace goes into great detail on the mechanics of arrow penetration on plate.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark
Not that the findings detract much from the longbow, the quality of armor needed to reliably stop it on the field wasn't Too common, nor did it always cover the whole body, not to mention that repeated hits on the same area were likely to eventually penetrate, and an arrow could pierce the slitted visor of even the best plate.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@minxel16
Also the padding used is incredibly important, as proper padding can increase the amount of energy needed to compromise the armor Significantly.
The article acknowledges that the hardness of the armor is in the lower half of noted examples, with the 3mm plate being equivalent to 15th century munitions armor, and certain milanese face-hardened plate can be over 60Rc in hardness. Also worth noting the arrows used were far harder then any recovered examples.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark sorry but you must tell me a gauge to be reliable-i could have 4mm soft steel which would be useless
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16 3.5mm hardened carbon steel will stop a 150lb. warbow even when using non-realistic hardened arrow tips. This was all published during the original Warbow Trials and the later Defence Academy warbow trials. 3mm stopped all arrows and the extra 0.5mm would make a large difference. I'm guessing those posers at your club aren't bothering to harden the plates or are doing a piss poor job of it. I'll also bet they're using non-period hardened tips of which non-have been found.
brainplay 7 months ago
@brainplay I did quote 'show me that test' at least a link, you realise im not being the brash ignorant one here. The archers at my club take archery very seriously and honestly i would guess that you know little so far. And they're not posers either, youre probably one of those noobs on youtube who reads about archery on wiki believing they know everything, well I can tell you that ive made bows and shot them and on top of that read about them, so don't be so quick to disagree wiseass
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
Well, I Did post the link for you.
In regards to your bow comment toward brainplay, the same can be said of someone who knows nothing about armor. A 3.5mm piece of sheet metal isn't armor by any measure afterall, and the fact that your results contradict that of other scientific tests using even More powerful bows(@ 10meters range no less) raises many questions on the quality of the material being shot at. It certainly doesn't sound like steel. Aluminum, maybe.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Firstly the standard indoor range is 20yards which the armour was shot at, secondly again you cannot prove your argument correctly(where's that test you kept referring to-because if you really were that confident ,then you would show me). Many of the tests I have seen whether success or not have been badly taken out eg the bows was too low in drawweight or the material was too thick/thin. Advanced medieval armour was 18gauge -now you're getting sily if you think 3.5mm s weak
minxel16 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark can you post it again-it just said 404 not found
minxel16 7 months ago
Comment removed
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark i guess youre saying that the tapestries were completely false-think about it, both sides of the battle would be producing tapestries therefore the one winning and the one losing would weave their pictures correspondingly. PLaces like arras in france werent commissioned much by nobles as they were an independent guild, you can study paintings too showing the plate armour being pierced
minxel16 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@minxel16
It said 404 because you did not remove the spaces from the link. It does not let you post full links.
Gauge is for modern sheet metal, medieval armor was man-forged, it doesn't correctly apply. Mm's are sufficient.
I have seen no proof that the BFT from the long bow is capable of killing in it's own right, esp considering the plate itself absorbs most of the impact.
Modern sheet metal doesnt count since it's flat, not forged, and not hardened like actual medieval armor was.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@minxel16
I don't think they are completely false, just over exagerrated, as all historical documents often did, embellish the victors exploits.
Paintings also don't tell you the composition of the armor. As I said before, thin or poorly made armor Could be pierced, sure, as can the visor ect.
Most amateur 'tests' don't use the proper materials. They use arrow tips that are far harder then historically accurate against unhardened questionable quality 'steel'. It is no surprise in that case.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark I agree with most of that but nowadays steel is A LOT harder, in fact its pretty hard to find anything other than steel thats got high carbon content or carbon steel it being the new standard. If you ordered a steel sheet for example i wouldnt be surprised if it was carbon steel
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
Problem is there are several different kinds of carbon steel, and the higher the carbon content the more resistant to penetration it is, though angle of impact, hardness, and slag content play huge roles as well. confirmation of material quality is paramount to an accurate test, the one I posted correctly quantifies most of the variables.
According to the Alan Williams book mild steel is 50% more resistant then wrought iron, med is 120%, and med hardened was 200% more resistant.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@minxel16
From museum pieces, the plates typically fell between 200 to over 800vph in hardness, which typically matches or greatly exceeds the known hardness of arrow tips of the period.
The hardness of steel hasn't changed much, it's still hardened in the same way and can be to the same extent for the most part(quenching), we just have far greater control over the carbon content.
If you want an accurate test you need to properly annotate all the variables and use period weaponry.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@minxel16
Problem with using proper materials is it's extremely expensive. An accurate, forged reproduction of a steel breastplate would likely cost several thousand, and you going to be attempting to destroy said armor.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark in conclusion arrows both i have seen and have read about have pierced plate armour of the time-but not always, the chance that it will hit it head on is less than a deflection which is why the breastplate was accentuated. Thus arrows are deadliest in volume and guaranteed hits are on joints feet knees and especially horses. However, the fact that longbows were a great success at agincourt poitiers, crecy and auberoche shows that it was a formidable weapon of its day and age.
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
Indeed, bows butcher cavalry of all kinds for the most part.
However, according to chroniclers the bow was nearly completely ineffective on the plate worn at Poitiers, inflicted rather few casualties at Agincourt, and mail was the primary armor at Crecy. In the end, it was the man Behind the bow, the terrain, and the tactics that carried those battles, not so much the bow itself.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark true-but the same could be said for any weapon-at agincourt there were many casualties from the bow because they were slowed down by the conditoin and the french crossbowmen left the strings out in the moist air unbinding them
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
From the accounts I read on it the longbow Killed few, but did wound considerably, with the main factor being the hampering effect of the 1000's of arrow impacts that slowed the french advance through 100's of yards of thick mud, with heads down and visors shut, restricting breathing. By the time they reached the english line they were so exhausted and tightly packed they could scarcely lift nor swing their blades, and were cut down by the more mobile english archers and men-at-arms.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark yes but the only account of the arrows being recalled as ineffective in these battles is from Jean Froissart-a frenchman who is known for praising the french chivalrous knights which could suggest his accounts were biased. Also the main reason why historians think that few were killed by the arrows it the amount fired, is that 1000 were fired a minute-but this only implies that longbowmen were ineffective and your chances increase that way. Terrain most important though
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
While certainly capable of inflicting deep bruises and welts, maybe even concussions thru the armor, the test i've seen has shown that a shaped 3mm wrought iron plate is proof against an arrow.
Steel would be even tougher. While multiple hits on the same area, visors, non-overlapping thin limb plates, and joints could be penetrated to one extent or another, the head and chest would be safe for the most part. I suspect here we will simply have to agree to disagree.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark concentrated force is more than the boxer otherwise a needle wouldnt be able to stab your finger-thats ridiculous, it has been recorded that arrows DO penetrate steel tempered plate armour and that trauma from it DOES kill
minxel16 7 months ago
I think this guy has missed out to major points... First archers shot arrows from bows, not specially designed ballistic air tubes, or whatever it is. The action of the string pushing the arrow would cause it to flex, so when it hits the armour, it has a jackhammer effect pushing it in deeper.
There is also the fact, that steel was not as strong then, and at 20m away an archer would shoot the warhorse and not the rider, or if he did he would aim for weak spots in the armour (Neck, eyes etc.)
SvenDreyriAx 8 months ago
Not all arrows hit the armour. The amour could not protect ALL of the body, so small parts of the body would all have been vulnerable to varying amounts; but of course the armour pretty much did all it could until the arrival of gunpowder.
londongamer 9 months ago
@londongamer Yeah, the aimed at the neck, face, armpits, legs, etc.
temp54 9 months ago
What is the name of this show? I would like to watch more of this.
Garrettcore 9 months ago
@Garrettcore
Weapons that Made Britain. This clip is from the armor episode. You can watch it here on youtube:
watch?v=MbGFb1Pu-YA
gurkfisk89 9 months ago
bah not true at all, my 8 powerdraw can kill tincancs in 4 hits!
Vobolous 10 months ago 27
@Vobolous lol, you are cRPG player?
meloprato 6 months ago
@Vobolous Mine does it in 3! This clearly means the video is wrong! xD
ZapperMe 6 months ago
@Vobolous wtf are you talking about "powerdraw"?
Thrawn6211 6 months ago
Apparently he didn't have 99 range. =p
VengeanceIV 10 months ago
@VengeanceIV lol obscure runescape reference, aren't you just the little hipster. way to be nonmainstream
wterry00 9 months ago
@wterry00 ikr?!
VengeanceIV 9 months ago
maybe some of you missed the bit where he mentioned that the act of penetrating the armour *flattened* the point of the bodkin. Steel is steel it always acts the same way given it's crystalline structure speed and other factors of physics. they wore the stuff for very good reasons it protected the wearers against the weapons of the day. also the point should be made that a single arrow didn't penetrate armour, it took thousands to finally puncture a dent or previous hole.
LutefiskSavage 10 months ago
Armouring a horse is very expensive and reduces mobility. Only a small percentage of very wealthy lords had destriers. So, after a certain date, knights dismounted and walked into action. Agincourt being the classic example!
kaitimebb 11 months ago
A mounted knight wearing that armour will go down when his horse die from the next arrow.
niceswede 11 months ago
@niceswede horses did have armours too, you know?
AnonAlmostDelivers 11 months ago
@AnonAlmostDelivers Sometimes, yes, often less, much less, than the knight. A thickly padded caparison would be most common, I think, a plate harness for an entire horse is quite expensive, after all. :P
FrisianDude 10 months ago
@niceswede
Not true.
this guy does another video where he falls off of horseback in full armor and jumps back up again as if it were nothing. The armor doesn't even seem to stop his movement at all. That's because a suit of armor is half the weight of a modern marien's equipment.
Why are you so down on ancient technology?
DavidUmstattd 10 months ago 19
@DavidUmstattd My point was hat he would loose his advantage of being mounted if the horse where killed. This would even out the odds a bit for the foot soldiers on the archers side.
niceswede 10 months ago
@DavidUmstattd
BS it is quiet possible to do that and even more in the proper medieval armor, considering there was enough hard training put into that ;-)
Duckzilla123 8 months ago
@DavidUmstattd and going further with that, most of a marines(any soldier on the field on long march) has his equipment concentrated in his back pack and a miniscule amount in the armor/tac vest. whereas the armored medieval soldier would have had it equalized along his whole body thus cutting the poundage considerably. Both will fatigue Obviously but the armored medieval soldier would have had less back problems...unless you can count an axe hit on the back plate
darksamurai2005 8 months ago
@DavidUmstattd I completely agree with what you said, but there is evidence that wearing the armor whil trying to wade through knee deep mud, as well as dead horses and dead comrades for over 100 yards put the french at a serious disadvantage. : )
aaronvespro 7 months ago
@DavidUmstattd
Marine equipment is far more practical and a bullet would penetrate through the armor quicker then a bulletproof vest you don't compare the two they were both specialized for different needs end of discussion
georgef35 6 months ago
I heard that the generals from the crusades after each battle they went to base like hedgehogs...
italok9 11 months ago
Nice but why not ask a couple of warbow archers to shoot on it?
vinsk8er4life 11 months ago
ThIS TEST IS NOT FAIR AS THEY CHANGED THE TYPE OF BODKIN USED FROM THE FIRST TEST,THERE WAS NO WAY ON EARTH THIS TYPE OF HEAD WOULD PENETRATE ARMOUR , THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS PROBABLY THE BODKIN DID PENETRATE THE ARMOUR WITH EASE SO THE SWAPPED IT FOR ONE OF A TYPE THAT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PENETRATE ARMOUR TO PROVE A POINT AND FIT IN WITH THE PLANNED SCRIPT OF THE DOCUMENTARY
etelonlongbows 11 months ago
@etelonlongbows 0/10, next time don't use capslock. it will make your lies more believable.
shinra46 11 months ago
@shinra46 NOT RELEVANT, OPINIONS ARE NOT LIES, SO I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO COME TO ENGLAND TO IMPROVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, BY THE WAY I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY KEYBOARD AT THE MOMENT, SO YOUR COMMENTS ARE TOTAL IRRELEVANT.
etelonlongbows 11 months ago
this test puts it more into perspective why the longbow was supposedly so lethal against knights in battles like agincourt, but in other battles seemingly irrelevant.
In conditions where cavalry was free to maneuver and knights were hit by 1 or 2 of these the archers would be helpless/useless, doing nothing before the knights were upon them.
But if they were slowed/stalled and the archers rained down on them at optimal range, it would be quite hellish, a swarm of bees.
Novantii 11 months ago
I'll admit that against the finest steel plate, an arrow will not pierce the knights breast plate. But that is the heaviest part of the armor. I don't care if I can't penetrate your breast plate, I and theother few thousand guys around me will just hit your arms, or legs, or face, neck, or your horse. If your horse is running and it goes down your dead, I don't even have to hit you, and all those targets add up to alot more area than just thir breast plates.
hannibalninja 1 year ago
This is why the English longbowmen were aiming at the exposed horses of the French knights to slow them down and to cause panic among them. Even a guy in full plate armor can be crushed or suffocate if he is trampled under the hooves of his own cavalry.
TempestDust 1 year ago
@TempestDust Actually, you wouldn't be aiming. Especially at a moving target that is rapid closing distance and changing the point of aim. You would be firing volleys at range. Maybe you would get your chance to aim as they closed to under 50yrds but by then you're retreating. There's a fairly large difference between shooting at a non-moving static target who's range is known vs. a charging knight.
brainplay 1 year ago
penetration doesn't matter, the energy could potentially still kill you. it's like being hit in the chest by a basebasll, it doesn't pierce your chest, but the impact could cause a heart irrithmia and cause death. that's over 150 foot pounds of energy with that type of arrow, enough to cause 50 g's, which when applied to the chest, protected or not, will stop a heart.
drewnickel 1 year ago
@drewnickel ... except for the layers of padding under the armor...
Raithor83 1 year ago
@Raithor83 good point, but your not absorbing all that energy into foam paddin, that'd going to give substantial blunt force trauma, and a heavier arrow would do even worse
drewnickel 1 year ago
@drewnickel The force of the strike first gets dissipated by the armor, then the padded gambeson below that, then the ribs and any fat layers. That's assuming the armor is actually making contact with the skin which it often is not. Some possible bruising but otherwise, there isn't going to be enough to cause any serious damage.
Look at this the video. If there was any mass trauma it would have left a large dent in the clay. It didn't do it here nor the other video where it did penetrate
brainplay 1 year ago
@brainplay keep in mind some of these long bows fired massive 1000gr arrows at 200fps, notably the ones people used at over 200yds, the 150lb long bows. this was maybe at best a 200 or 300gr arrow, but in truth that's nothing like what the big boys fired. 1000gr at that speed would probably penetrate the armor too, if not crack the breast plate through it.
drewnickel 1 year ago
@drewnickel Please keep in mind that the arrow used here is the same type and weight used from the Longbow portion of this series which was fired from a 150lb bow by Archery longbow record holder Mark Stretton and penetrated an unhardened breastplate. Second, also note that the arrow rapidly decelerates. While it may leave the bow at 200fps, it might arrive a 1/10th that speed depending on the range (. Third, 1000gr. is still just 2oz. Search youtube for Weapons that Made Britain - Longbow
brainplay 1 year ago
@brainplay keep in mind though, a 300gr compound bow arrow aat the same speed will pierce light armor, a 1000gr one can kill an elephant, and highly efficient ones will maintain the same speed for hundreds of feet due to the massive inertia. plus if it's a really sharp one it'll go through even easier. theres always a way to defeat armor even with the most primitive weapons.
drewnickel 1 year ago
@drewnickel That's all fine and dandy but we aren't talking about compounds, lightweight aluminum arrows, nor shooting elephants at 30ft away. We're talking about wood yew bows, with inefficient heavy flax string, and iron tipped arrows, attached with rendered hide or milk glue and fired at 300yrds with an armored enemy that will cross 300yrds in 40sec. Seriously, search Weapons that made Britain - Longbow and watch all 8 parts.
brainplay 1 year ago
@brainplay I'm saying that a compound bow shooting at the same speed as a 150lb long bow with a 1000gr arrow can kill an elephant and pierce light armor. as in a longbow at 230fps will pierce about 1/4" of steel with a 1000gr arrow, and will continue to go on and kill whatever's behind it. a 1000gr arrow at that speed could go through the shoulder of an elephant and out the other side. back then instead of speed they relied on sheer weight and power to kill animals and people
drewnickel 1 year ago
@drewnickel I don't get why you're bringing up compound bows. They are more efficient than a longbow ever will be. I don't get where you've come up with the 1/4 steel number either when you have videos of 100lb traditional longbows that can't penetrate 1.5mm high carbon steel at near point blank ranges (1/4 steel is 6mm and the average breastplate was only 2mm). Why are we talking about elephants by the way? They don't wear steel armor and are hunted by 90lb bows.
brainplay 1 year ago
@brainplay I'm saying a long bow of the same power will pierce the same. not the same draw. for example a 150lb long bow is like a 60lb compound bow, and my 60lb compound bow can shoot through 1/4" of steel, just plain steel, as for 2mm high carbon steel it would be no problem, and with the modern broad heads they have for longbows or compound bows, it wouldn't matter cause it would still pierce. I'm talking about steel arrows, not wood, they had steel arrow heads back then too btw
drewnickel 1 year ago
@drewnickel define 'back then'. In medieval times the arrowheads were made of Iron
Istojataachatearme 11 months ago
@Istojataachatearme Iron is the same density if not heavier, and shears rather than making a smooth blade so it's sharp like obsidian. and in medievel times they discovered putting a block of coke in the iron made it stronger, in theory they created the first steels in the middle ages. with a simple 125gr broadhead and a 10.4gr/inch arrow my bow will pierce two of those plates or steel of the same thickness and strength.
drewnickel 11 months ago
@drewnickel even bullets struggle with 1/4 inch of steel you seriously have your facts messed up. The arrows that a composite bow used were much lighter so had less force and penetration than a warbow's heavier arrows but could be shot further and I'd like to see your very biased test where you paint cardboard and call it carbon steel because it would certainly not be 'no problem' if an english 160lbs warbow can do that with ease in comparison
minxel16 9 months ago
@minxel16 steel is basically carbon and iron, coke is impure carbon. put it together you have simple steel. it's all about weight, and the diameter, if you make the arrow head longer, but also thinner, it'll be the same weight, but have more penetration. in theory, you could make an arrow entirely out of steel that weighs 1000gr and was 1/8" in diameter and it would be able to shatter a cinder block, and easily pierce the crude armor that they had in the middle ages.
drewnickel 9 months ago
@drewnickel carbon steel is when steel which has higheer concentrations of carbon which must then be heated to make it more flexible and not brittle. Where does it say that Mike Loades was using the same 1000gr arrows for this test?
minxel16 9 months ago
@minxel16 I'm not saying he did, I'm saying true medieval longbows of that power used heavier arrows to sacrifice speed for penetration and power
drewnickel 9 months ago
@drewnickel yes of course according to momentum which is important for an arrow which punctures then force = mass times velocity
minxel16 9 months ago
@drewnickel Arrows are tuned to the bow. If you shoot an arrow with a spine that's less than the bow weight your accuracy drops. Too low and the arrow just explodes before it leaves the bow (see archers paradox). Unlike modern bows, medieval bows are crude using heavy, inefficient linen string (we use B-50 polymer now). Heavier arrows put more strain on the bow, take more energy to propel, and decelerate faster.
brainplay 9 months ago
@brainplay wrong medieval bows were better than now a days the archers where raised from a young age they developed tremendous muscles and enough to actually deform the bones (good way) to help with the tremendous strain of 200-250 lbs draw weight its so much that you could not even get to that much power if u tried the rest of your life also they used flux and the string was stronger than modern string think about it weaker string holding 4.5 times the weight also the armor was better
minibikerider1 6 months ago
@minibikerider1 They haven't found any nor has there been any mention of a bow over the 200lb mark. Even the Mary Rose bows are iffy past 150lbs. Between 120-150lbs is the norm depending on which source you go to. Flux? You mean flax. You do realize that flax fiber is what's used to make linen? No it was not stronger. B-50 is stronger and lighter. Fastflight blows them all away but is hard on reflex/deflex bows. Yes people use replica warbows of the same pull weights today.
brainplay 6 months ago
@brainplay there has been a mention to 200 lb bows but I forget where I meant flax and I know it isn't as strong but it still works don't it or where did all these old bows use as string grass no they dint I don't care how strong flax can be when fiddled with all I meant was it works fine sorry i did not write clear enough so some body that takes everything so literally can read and understand
minibikerider1 6 months ago
@drewnickel one would use even heavier arrows than 1000gr! The point is although a longbow is slower than a hornbow-its like a slow steam train(slow but powerful) so you can keep adding arrow weight without fearing very slow velocity expecting high penetration
minxel16 8 months ago
@brainplay most bow speeds are taken at ten yards where it stays pretty much the same but it will never be a 'tenth' of the speed it leaves the bow but usually 4/5 eg 200fps at first to 150fps at 20yds
minxel16 9 months ago
@minxel16 Once again, watch the full video (weapons that made Britain: the bow).. They had Mr. Stretton fire an arrow and ballistically tracked it by shortwave doplar radar. The arrow rapidly decelerated and lost 1/5 of it's energy in 0.8 seconds while still decelerating. The fletching and circular motion of an arrow is a constant drag and that kind of deceleration doesn't reduce unless it passes basic terminal velocity which is weak.
brainplay 9 months ago
@brainplay arrows dont move in circles-they fluctuate like a wave because the tip is moving at a slower velocity than the nock causing it to bend-this isn't drag, it's stored and released elastic energy converted to kinetic energy as it bends out again-this doesn't create drag it propels the arrow and although the arrow lost a lot of energy-most speed tests are carried at standard 20yards when the arrow adjusts so speed more or less remains constant
minxel16 8 months ago
@minxel16 First, yes arrow move in circular motions (spin) to improve accuracy and has been documented to do so as far back as a 1578 treatise on archery. You're confusing that with archers paradox. Second, paradox inhibits propulsion and accuracy as it does not conform to the linear path of the arrow.
Where are you going with your speed test? Strettons arrow was tracked by doppler radar for it's ENTIRE FLIGHT, not by a speedometer or amateurs shooting at 20yrds.
brainplay 7 months ago
@brainplay Actually if youve ever shot a longbow-the paradox increases accuracy since it 'bends around the handle'. I was not confusing it with circular motion but just acknowledged that arrows do spin if they are fletched left or right wing. And if you watched the video for speed recording, strettons arrows were only measured for about the first ten yards and they did not say themselves that it came to a tenth of its speed eventually. Paradox is when tip moves slower than the nock
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16 I don't understand where you're going with this. We spine our arrows to bend around the handle to shoot forward. This doesn't increase accuracy but removing it as with compound and composite bows does. The bend has nothing to do with the tip moving slower than the nock, only due to the bending around the bow back.
They recreated Stretton's arrow speed with the air cannon and used it on munitions plate (iron) and hardened plate (steel) at various replicated ranges/speed.
brainplay 7 months ago
@brainplay Yes spine is a degree of an archer's paradox. And yes it does increase the accuracy since if you shot an arrow with a very stiff spine which paradoxed little around the handle it would veer to the side. This is vital for bows like the longbow and flatbow with no arrow rest as it must perfectly bend around the handle avoiding contact so it can create a clear path. And yes again it has EVERYTHING to do with the nock accelerating faster than the tip deforming it (normal reaction)
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
Found an article on the paradox: ww w. texasarchery. o rg/Documents/ArchersParadox/Archersparadox .h tm
remove spaces.
The flexion occurs because the shaft pushes away from the bow at the same time the string is freed to push the shaft toward the front of the bow. The tip get's no sideways push, but since it has mass it resists the forward motion for an instant while the nock is moving forward, and the shaft bends as a result.
This causes the oscillation in the first few meters.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark yes that is basically a more complicated way of saying what i said-it's the normal reaction of the arrows mass that resists causing it to bend but essentially the nock accelerates therefore faster than the tip. However oscillation continues for about 20m before it finally returns to normal straight direction as the energy is lost.
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16 the shaft is the mass resistant object not just the tip and adding weight nto the tip acts like a lever forcing more resistance and thus more bend, however, paradox cannot happen if the arrow is too stiff, thus one must always use the correct spine for the bow.
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
Yep, nice video showcasing it here: watch?v=WzWrcpzuAp8
The way it was always explained to me was that a majority of the arrows mass was in the tip, so the tip resisted going forward for just a fraction of a second, which makes the shaft flex around the bow instead of the fletching hitting it and causing it to veer off target(as is the case with too stiff spine) or exploding and putting shards through your hand(in the case of too weak spine)
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark heres a link suggesting that thinner arrowheads which were of higher quality may have been used to penetrate higher quality armour
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
I'm not saying that arrows couldn't penetrate any plate armor at all. Just stating that the thickest portions of it, the breastplate and helm, places on the limbs were the plates overlap ect. would prevent most if not all penetration depending on thickness.
That publication I linked showed that 3mm of wrought iron withstood a hardened long bodkin(which actually performed worse on the armor then the short bodkin and lozenge arrow) supporting that position.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark can you show me which link because a few have been posted to me about the topic-go check royal armouries site for arrow types-your tests prove otherwise but they concluded that the hardened long bodkin was more effective-maybe just coincidence, but too needle-like and it would have bent rather than penetrated
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
Honestly I and several others are beginning to doubt the bodkin was designed to penetrate plate at all, considering it doesn't perform as well as short bodkin or lozenge heads in any tests recorded so far.
From looks it seems as if it was more designed to pierce maille at short range.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark yes thats the needle bodkin which was designed to pierce rings in chainmail, however, professional organisations like the royal armouries have only found a dozen arrowheads to test and that shows that more specualtion has to be done on which is best. Needke bodkins are useless against plate-but I have seen ones in between a quarrel head bodkin and a barbed head that apparently performed the best but it is just called a bodkin despite it being different.
minxel16 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark another point is that steel bodkins were usually quenched and tempered not usually done in tests and that would make them equal hardness to the armour which i believe only mark stretton has done being an excellent fletcher
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
It certainly merits more research. I would like to point out though, the article I linked you to was performed by the Royal Armoury, and the archer that did the test firing Was Mark Stretton.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark good link although the posters in the forum are notably armour biased ;) Theres a lot to be researched more than tested in my opinion-on top of my reply to the test i think that more bodkins and arrowheads needed to be recovered and a bow used. What was interesting was that usually a smaller fraction of arrows were used for long ditance -in the mary rose-type 8 bodkin but the majority were type 16 broadheads(quenched for hardness) which suggest they would be used for armour
minxel16 7 months ago
wait how do you copy links on youtube?
minxel16 7 months ago
@brainplay he said it wnet from 200fps to 160fps-thats not a fifth of the speed!
minxel16 7 months ago
@brainplay still keep in mind that an extra 1000grains counts for A LOT in impact and thus penetration otherwise warbows would not have been invented
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
Again, it is here:
htt p ://ww w .tforum. i nfo/forum/index .p hp?act=attach&type=post&id=13822
remove spaces. They also conclude that against thicker armor short bodkins and lozenge arrows were significantly better then long bodkins.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark fter the findings were originally presented at the International Medieval Congress in Kalamazoo, Michigan,
Through this and other routes, the previously widely held view that bodkin points were the main type of armour piercing warhead has gradually given way to greater acceptance of type 16s in this role.
This is from the royal armouries proving that the barbed points may have been used for plate-who knows? I heard of arrow research in Townsford which could lend insight
minxel16 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark the link doesnt seem to work-also are you russian?
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
Odd, linking directly to the .pdf doesn't seem to work. Oh well. Go here:
ww w .swordforum. c om/forums/showthread. php?79261-New-Warbow-testing-publication
It's a forum post discussing the info in the test, the link to the test .pdf is in the first post by Dan Howard.
More discussion on the findings is here:
ww w .myarmoury .c om/talk/viewtopic .p hp?t=9953
As before remove ALL spaces in the text string.
And no, i'm not Russian. Why?
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark i thought you were russian because the link you gave me was in russian-odd
minxel16 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark thanks for that very interesting-a few things i would improve; keep arrow hardness same,test all thicknesses(they missed out a few) USE A BOW this is most important for me because like a drill an arrow spins, it paradoxes and perhaps the elastic energy in it from a bow provides extra energy. And use harder arrowheads as they were documented by the royal armoury as being quenched to harden the outside like armour-oh and use broadheads type 16 found on the mary rose..
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
"USE A BOW"
What are you talking about? They used a 32in draw 140lb long bow for that test.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark I meant the lab tests-because thats when they tested the more 'realistic' thicknesses-the arrow went slower in the tube they admitted and it didnt paradox or spin which may provide extra energy-who knows, a drill seems better for cutting metal than if you stabbed it in. Also test one used a hickory backed yew bow-hickory is known to have a sloppy cast in comparison to excellent yew sapwood as it gains moisture very quickly
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
They tested All of the thicknesses in the outdoor tests, they simply selected those specific thicknesses for further testing, there is nothing inherently more 'realistic' about them. The thickness varied between 1.2-4.57mm, though no more then 2.5-3mm for serviceable Field plate.
Also the english longbow was a straight self bow, not a reflex bow those were the types of bow used by the Mongols, and require a composite construction to withstand the stresses.
No, im not a member.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark also i respect the test as the most valid one that i have seen thus far but bows of the time werereflexed(adding velocity) adding reflex to a warbow! You've got yourself a much more deadly weapon and the tips tended to be thinner also increasing the velocity-getting as close to the construction of the mary rose warbows would be ideal if you dont mind me pointing out but thanks for the link VERY USEFUL-are you a member of my armour?
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
Not to mention every little additional advantage you try and squeeze out of the bow and arrow, so too can the armor be squeezed, by testing them against a wrought iron plate of the highest hardness found instead of one of the lowest.
And perform a similar test vs. mild steel, which is considerably tougher, and medium steel, which is tougher still. If 2mm wrought iron prevents 'lethal' penetration on that test, 2mm of hardened med. steel would take almost anything thrown at it.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@minxel16
I can see that type 16 has a tip reinforced enough to be a good potential piercer, and the barbs at the end, if the arrow managed to penetrate deeply enough, would make extraction from the armor impossible without taking it off. It does seem kind of wide compared to the other types tho, which hurts penetration.
On another note, they almost never test plate with proper padding such as felt or leather with linen backing, which helps limit penetration and bounce the arrow out.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark The arrow wont necessarily 'bounce out from padding but it definetely hinders the last killing inches -it was proven that padding or chainmail too close to the armour would be useless as in an experiment using paper: first the paper was poked with a pencil separately but they noticed that this took more force than if it was rested on an object (the chainmail in the armours case) Also surface area defines pressure and thus penetration but barbed arrows being thinner have less
minxel16 7 months ago
@minxel16
I also recall a test that shown the type 16 to be the most effective vs. jack coats but the needle bodkin was more effective versus any type of armor, but it used really thin plates and didn't confirm the hardness or make of any of the materials, so it's findings are dubious at best.
Naturally a harder arrow will always perform better against any given piece of metal, provided it's got a good point.
I don't think we can do more then guess until better evidence comes out in any case.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
Comment removed
vgyu8gf68EatShit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
♦♦♦ ATTENTION ♦♦♦
@CaptainCheap21 = Taiwanese SHIT-EATER
A 27-year-old Unemployable Taiwanese suffers from Psychiatric Disorder in Canada. The sicko has problem with social interaction with people, so he has to channel his desire for communication in a perverted way and becomes a psycho on YouTube 24 x 7 x 365.
Without a job, he eats shit for a living and bullshits like an idiot in weird Taiwanese English on YouTube to seek attention and boast his extremely low self-esteem. Haha!
DxMamaEatShit 1 year ago
@CaptainCheap21
Kiddo, someone as completely fucktarded as you've proven yourself to be isn't scary. The only person you'd ever injure with a gun would be yourself. You're not scary. You're not important. You're just pathetic. A pathetic, cowardly little piece of shit that can't do anything but spew mindless insults and childish threats over the internets. If you little cocksucker ever met me in real life, you'd piss and shit yourself and cry for your mommy.
Magni56 1 year ago
Comment removed
vgyu8gf68EatShit 1 year ago
Armor/Metal Working has come a long way since then however
unsf8518 1 year ago
not to mention that 80% of the arrows would have slid off the armour
fdr100100 1 year ago
Hmmn... Ok here's a fair test. We'll take this longbow arrow made to period spec. and we'll take this modern hardened rolled steel breastplate...What? Why is everyone looking at me? You can't expect me to pay a blacksmith to pound out metal this thin and this large. It would take a year and be full of imperfections.
Lukiel666 1 year ago