phyics, 110 pounds of force, thats damn near equal to the force of a MODERN bullet, maybe even more, musket bullets have about 25. so yah the 110 pounds of force> that of 25 of a musket.
This is not as you put it Bull, The armor is as is stated and the arrows still go through it. Muskets are an Inferior weapon as the war arrow will penetrate most plate steels and breastplates, many test have been done tests have also been done on a modern 9mm bullet proof vest. The vest was penetrated also.....
@BarebowBen not rally infeiour war bows were at thier peak of tech very little advancement has happened since then, a musket was a bastic firearm, massive strides have been made since then and the good thing about a musket is the little ammount of training especially compared to a bow
this seems to be a load of bull, the armor must have been poorly built and hardened because even muskets can't penetrate 18 guage medium temper steel. Yet you say this is 14 guage.
Was it raised or sunk, if it was sunk the metal is probably more like 20 guage.
1) What does the impact does to the arrowheads. From other ballistics tests I remember the arrowheads getting absolutely blunted by the impact.
2) Alot of armor was caged so alot of impact force would be led around the body and actually absorbed in the backplate(only way to survive the blunt impact trauma of a couched lance with half a ton of horse behind it) so how much actual power did still reach the man?
the arrows would be raining down on the enemy from a high arch and in vast numbers not carefully aimed at the breastplate with a flat trajectory. If they were going to aim that carefully and use a flat trajectory close range shot they would have aimed for unprotected areas like the face and neck with no armor.
Good vid guys. Thanks for taking the time, effort, and money! I think you guys did a good comparison of how different tips and weight can affect penetration. Keep up the good work.
Meh, none of those hits were kill shots, as the bodkin barely punched through. They'd also have to go through the coat of maille under the plate and the padded gambeson under the maille (and a linen shirt under the gambeson, lol) before hitting skin. And then the points would have to go deep enough into the torso after all that to even do incapacitating damage.
@Sorflakne True, however, the average English Longbowman would probably have had a stronger draw strength bow and been learning to fire it from as young as 8 years old as a profession. Some of the bows taken from the Mary Rose were believed to have draw strengths exceeding 120lbs! and the skeletons of most Longbowman are believed to have been deformed by the excessive muscle strength built up to use said weapons.
@DavidUmstattd True, but a bowman would shoot the horse from under said knight first... and then have alllllll the time in the world to kill said knight while he is trying to clime out from under his dead mount.
@DavidUmstattd I think we can all guess what happens if the bowmen were standing a bit closer or using actual maxed out historically powered 180 pound warbows. Another thing to consider is how the peircing hits weaken the armour for the next hit there, or next to it. A good bowman, or better yet a score of them shooting at the same target can hit a hole in the plate like that at close range but still just too far away for hand to hand.
Cool vid but I question the quality of that plate. People need to understand that not all metal is equal & when u say carbon steel it encompasses thousands of different metals with radically different strengths. Hell I bet u could make a plat the same size & have it stop rifle rounds if u used ultra strong steels. So to draw any real conclusions u need steel that matches what they used back then.
I think you're exaggerating the strength of steel.
Even ceramic tiles over Kevlar at that thickness couldn't stop a .556 round. That's why our troops wear armor that's several times thicker. It's layered to drop the velocity before attempting to stop the bullet.
@manictiger Well a 3mm thick armor steel plate is rated agains 44 mag and 4.5mm will stop ak 7.62X39 & probly a 5.56 nato using regular FMJ rounds. actual brest plates where about 2mm thick during the 1400 hundreds but the rated thickness will have some safety & brest plates have some curve to them so if one was made of top notch steel it could probably stop some small rifle rounds AK/M4 if they used fmj or soft point ammo but not AP or larger rounds like 308 or 30-06 that would take 6mm+ steel
@Jormungandr69 yes I am aware of the nij ratings. But those are based on zero penetration and cover a range of steels. So I dont think its impossible to make a breast plate around that thickness that could stop some rifle rounds it would not be a 100% safe & Im not betting my life on it. My point was mainly that there are a variety of steels & the high end ones are extremely strong compared to cheap steel. Its just something to consider when you look at armor & weapon performance
@Lovemy1911a1 You do realize that any carbon steel today is iron and carbon. The advances in late 18th century blast furnaces allows silicone to be remove and carbon content to be controlled. Real breastplates were highly impure wrought iron. In short, this steel plate is stronger than any Milanese.
You're partially right, you forgot to mention the temper. Even if that breastplate is made from top quality steel, without proper tempering it can be softer than a well tempered 'impure' steel. Late Milanese and Gothic plates were famed for being less thicker than their predecessors and with a much higher resistance to piercing, thanks to the tempering techniques developed at the time.
@Lovemy1911a1 Hi, I have a question. Which one is more powerful, between modernday rifles bullet and Arrow/Crossbow ? I want to know wether the real medieval plate armor could really stop moder firearms round. Thanks
@MariusThePaladin modern rifles are WAY more powerful take a 50 caliber rifle it will puch through both sides, barly deviating its path, it could stop a .22 as its a small progective(maybe not a .17hmr that round really difes belife pentrating armour bullets vastly larger cannot), but thier stell tech was hugly infirour if this was made with modern steel the experiment is pointless
@MariusThePaladin 7.62 soviet and nato will pass though, 5,56 probably will and if you use the ap rounds the army uses definatly the reason this armour is no longer used is it itsn't bullet proof, when cartrige guns came around this kind of armour was no longer bullet proof(even much thicker and better made breast plate was used by napolians Cuirassier's was not bullet proof to the muskets of the time which wislt being way more advanced than the ones at the time of bows were
@MariusThePaladin far mor primitive than the guns of today and they were rounded so were not good at armour penetration, modern rifle rounds are designed to be good at that
@Lovemy1911a1 you're clearly not an engineer.. generally the stronger the metal the lower the impact properties.. you'll need a material that can absorb a lot of energy so one that has a high toughness/strain..
@PKJohnnyboy It's called a Bullock dagger, it's a typical 15th century archers dagger, but also used by traders and craftsmen for personal protection and show of status. It could perhaps most easily be described as a civilian utility version of a knightly rondel dagger meant to peirce armour.
@BarebowBen In just technological / Power terms what in your opinion is the best bow the English Yew Longbow vs Mongolian re-curved bow or the Japanese long bow?
In respect of the last (Japanese bow) I think it is highly unlikely that the English ever used a bow to bow fight with the Japanese but the possibility of the Mongols reaching England was a strong hypothetical possibility (had it not been for the death of Kubla Khan) - so who would win English longbow or Mongolian bow?
@tavernmancer Of course. It'd make for a much higher survivability than no armour vs warbows. With it you'd have a fighting chance to reach and engage the archer line at Agincourt instead of just being perforated at 200 meters or so. In the end I think what killed the most french knights at Agincourt wasn't the arrows but drowning in the mud, trapped under a dead or wounded horse or slipping and being trampled down by your fellows in the chaos.
Had no doubt the vest would be shredded. My 45 lb recurve bow sent a cedar arrow thru the transom of my aluminum "john" boat after the shaft deflected off of a tree. 500 grain arrow - 165 fps, with a field point.
ehh i dont think the bow would penetrate that deep if the armor was tempered unless the bodkins were temperd to a harder stage but then again only about 20% of the knights had tempered armor that was of high quality
Did the french really win the 100 years war? wow, i was thinking that the 100 years war was AD1300 too AD1415, in that time if im not wrong the french lost at the battle of crecey, poitiers (captured king!) and agincourt. and that makes them the winners? I also think that in each battle archers formed large parts of the english armies. sounds like i need to re-wright the history books so the french dont get to upset.
@robbieatvic the hundred years war was 1347 to 1453, and England lost all their continental possessions except Calais. Normally, when after a war you have less land than when u started, its counted as losing......
I have been hearing a lot about how arrows are useless at a distance, so here is what I know for a fact: Bear 64" 35# Fiberglass/wood recurve bow. (2" overdraw, so 41#) + Easton Eagle 2117 30" Aluminum Arrow(5" vanes) + Zwickey 100g Judo Point + 150m across a buckwheat field + Second band on a whiskey barrel. (30mm x 2mm Steel Hoop) (One inch thick oak staves.) = 3mm x 5mm dent 2mm deep. You do the math...
I suggest that people type: "Agincourt's Dark Secrets - Battlefield Detectives" on youtube and watch it, then people will better understand why the French lost at Agincourt.
These haters just dont get it, you dont have to hit the breast plate, you dont have to hit the viser. You aim for the horse, you aim for any part of a man that has no plate on it and a medieval army is full of such targets. At 12 arrows a min shot by 3 to 5 thousand archers that makes for bodkin rain! Read the books people, english archers won the 100 years war!
@WitheringintheDark Yeah, but I think it was the Battle of Agincourt where a ton of French knights got owned by a small army of archers. I may have the name wrong.
Agincourt was a battle that the French lost badly, mostly due to terrain. All accounts of the battle actually cite that despite being peppered with thousands of arrows, few of the french vanguard were killed or seriously wounded by them. Rather, they were destroyed by the english foot-knights and maul-wielding lowbowmen after trudging through hundreds of feet of knee-deep mud, which completely exhausted them.
This plate is actually not as Rolandbadger said an Indian made 16 or 18 gauge mild steel breastplate. It is made of carbon steel and is 14 - 16 gauge. This video was done for a bit of fun and I think some of you are taking it all a little to seriously.....
Also the arrows are shown at the beginning on the target and you can see them when we are drawing them out at the end. As for the breastplade we have measured this and it is as we stated in the video info. However it may be thicker and thinner in places as all armour was in the day.
I suggest you get a breastplate and a 110Lb@32" bow and try it yourself if you want personal conformation.....
1986bates....I can tell you the arrows are half inch poplar shafts with Hector Cole Type 10s, if you read the credits at the end you would have seen this.
Clearly you cant shoot a Warbow over #90 pounds, clearly you didn't know that 3/4 of the english force was made up of archers, clearly you are french! Saying archers had nothing to do about the french being slapped about a Agincourt is just rubbish. I have a full knights harness (100 years war) and a lovely #90 pound yew bow and i can assure you i would never kit up and stand infront of that bow. and its only #90! not the standard #110 to #140.
Also guys, think of how much energy the arrow from a longbow will have lost just over the first 30 yards! At 100 yards I can't imagine arrows even being a concern for the french knights, heck they'd have to approach to 20 yards or so before arrows became any real concern, a range which they could quickly cover providing the battlefield wasn't a giant mudpool ofcourse.
It's like sending tanks into a city, you just don't do it, they'll just end up destroyed the whole lot of them.
@bellator11 My personal research has showed that a light 35# bow can wound fatally out to 70 yards with an appropriate shot. A 70# bow reached out close to 120 yards, but my skill doesn't follow the bow. I'm a sure 100+# bow could fatally wound past 300 or 400 yards. Penetration of steel at this distance is a different story. With a few hundred archers, minuscule knight armies would be devastated like no one's business.
@dysqsarhut Except that the French knights at Agincourt were wearing full sets of tempered steel plate armour, and archers are useless against this. The exhaustion of navigating the mud, and the fact that once you fell you were stuck, is what cost the French the battle.
That having been said, the archers were no doubt effective against the mounted knights, simply because killing the horse would throw the rider off into the mud where he would be stuck.
@dysqsarhut Also, no bow I know off will send an arrow out to 400 yards. I think the longest range of a 180 lb longbow is around 300 meters, at which range it will be unable to penetrate even a thick leather suit. No doubt it can be lethal though if it his a soft spot.
@bellator11 I'm sure it's possible, but I can't give you any proof as of now. I wasn't thinking about penetrating steel though, just flesh. Steel is a task I usually leave for my rifles.
Yep, few men at arms could afford a breast plate and those that did still run a high risk of an arrow hitting maille or leather. Cracey, poitiers and agincourt all prove the fact that highly trained english archers ruled the battle fields of france! Its called the one hundred years war people and the archers won the lot. great vid boys keep it up
@robbieatvic The British archers had nothing to do with it, the muddy battlefield on the other hand bares the entire blame for the French defeat at Agincourt. The French knights couldn't walk far before exhaustion because their metal boots sucked themselves to the mud, making every step an exhaustive ordeal. And if a French knight fell, he wouldn't get up again, simply because the flat surfaces of the metal plates would suck themselves to the mud.
@robbieatvic At Agincourt very few of the French, less than 5% infact, where killed by arrow shot. The far majority were killed by the tip of a spear or halberd as they lay helpless on the ground stuck in mud. In short: Had the battlefield at Agincourt been a pure grassy field, then the English would've been slaughtered by the French heavy knights = hence why the victory at agincourt was seen as such a miracle by the english themselves, they were sure they were gonna lose, yet instead they won.
In England it was necessary by law to practice archery every Sunday since the age of 7. They became so strong they could pull 180 lb bows. Aswell as that, many people say that arrow heads were made of weak steel. This is not true. During the middle ages arrow making and fletching was in itself a profession. Bodkins were often made from very high grade folded carbon steel. Archers had the skill to hit visors and pierce metal gorgets so Breastplate armour didnt always matter against archers.
Hmm... next question is then, were medieval breastplates not abit thicker than said example? And did knights wear tough leather behind the plate armor ? Finally weren't medieval arrow heads made of rather soft steel compared to the tempered steel armor ?
Scientific testing with period armor and arrow heads, which means using metallurgically correct representatives for both, showed that even at point blank a 180 lb long bow would be unable to penetrate the average tempered steel breast plate.
That was a crap breast plate. A large section of the armor collapses around the arrow strike at 0:45. That means that the metal is very thin. With decent armor, when you DO punch a hole, the armor around it does not collapse like tin foil. All these videos are the same - biased. In the archer videos the arrows penetrate with every shot. In armorer videos, the weapon never penetrates at all.
@needparalegal considering the longbow fell out of use in the mid 1500's that is a patently false statement saying 800 years to start.
secondly, the lack of ability to use a warbow has to do with a few reasons, 1. not alot of bows around 2 noone used them for warfare for more than 400 years, this means the level of training and the seasoned masters arnt available in the numbers that existed back then,
thirdly, in the 1400's more farmland was taken by cities thus reducing that yeoman population
@needparalegal As comparitively barbaric (could be argued, what with weapons able to kill 50 or a hundred thousand people at the push of a button) as the Middle Ages were, their people were far hardier and, despite ailments and poisoning were probably physically healthier too. They lacked the medicine to live as long as we do now, but in their prime then would of probably been worth two modern men.
@needparalegal Considering that archers practiced from an early age in order to develop the strength and skill required to master such monstrous bows, I fail to see how the modern English are different, especially since those who put in the same work as the medieval archers are also able to draw 140 pound longbows.
that not correct, because the bows where founded on the wreck of "Mary Rose" had a about 80# lb. without a lamination on a bow its impossible to reach a natural tiller and pull about more then 100# lb , if u wont believe me, ask some pro bowmakers.
@PeSi2007 Actually some initial scienific evaluations of the Mary rose bows were flawed, because they calculated with a short modern sports draw to the mouth, while the correct historical way to draw a warbow was to the back of the ear. Longer arrows & longer draw equals more pounds out of the same bow. The real Mary rose warbow draw weights are around 120-180 pounds. Also, regarding bowmakers being able to or not, there are 200 lbs hickory self bows on youtube.
@needparalegal If you started training kids again today, from the age of 7, one day a week like they did in the old times, you would have those kids in their teens pulling bows of that weight again now. If anything, nutrition and environmental factors would be in even better favour of young English and Welshmen today than in those days.
I agree that you would not always get a clean shot and we have had arrows glance off. I would love to try a 15th century milanese breastplate ...a little expensive for us to just shoot up. Maybe one day..
hmm try the same bows on a 15th century milanese breastplate (the ones that are hardened and tempered)... i bet you that the arrow wont penetrate then.
btw you also have to take in mind that archers didnt always get a nice clean straight shot as sometimes they would just scrape your sides or maybe their aiming up in which case the arrow comes at an angle. and also when you get shot you jerk back thus the arrow loses a bit of force from that.
It takes about 3 inches of penetration to hit vital organs so one arrow isn't going to do much, but imagine 50 or more arrows at once, that would be terrifying.
@TheCocaineblues trauma from shock accounts for a lot too, warbow arrows are the heaviest arrows to be made giving them a lot more momentum than flight arrows
honestly, what i dont get is, when people like ben here go out of their way to do a good job accurately setting up a test, execute, and show that a bow and arrow can take down the "super elite immortal knight" with relative ease people come up with every excuse in the book to try and disprove it. you saw it with your very eyes. dont you guys get it? forget the hollywood nonsense, if you put any object with enough force, it will penetrate. regardless of what its made of.
Don't forget a 14th century knight/man-at-arms has (riveted) mail AND a think linen gamebeson on underneath the breatplate or coat of pates. If you were at a battle and the knight was this close, you better aim for the horse. If he is dismounted and your own men-at-arms are not there, you had better run!
@voidlogic hardly. to see a fully armored knight with gambesons and chainmaile combined was a rare sight. it was simply too costly. thats why many soldiers often wore just the padded jack, or a shirt of maile and helmet.
and considering what my 90 lb warbow does to riveted maile i doupt it would help. and even my bodkins tore through padded armor without issue. the knight is far from invulnerable. the archer just has to be close enough. these bows are still babies compared to the oldies.
@yourredcomrade2 14th century Knights (and men-at-arms as their retainers and professional soldiers) represent the wealthier segment of society. I would assert that period art, effigies, brasses and inventories do not agree with your assertion. Remember, the knights warhorse alone often costed more than all his other gear and he often had two on campaign. @BarebowBen fantastic work! I would love to see this test with a replica wisby coat of plates + gambeson+ riveted mail underneath! Nice Job!
@voidlogic you just proved my point. the majority of the fighting was done by men of low stature. with little money in their pocket. which means seeing a full high quality breast plate, with maile, a gamebeson and a partridge in a pear tree was not a very common sight. or was done with siege warfare with sappers.
this test is done with the high end of the armor. and the low end of the bow weight scale. and they still penetrated. why cant you just give credit where its due?
@yourredcomrade2 You and I are discussing two different things. You assert a warbow can stop a peasant conscript, and I agree with you. I assert that a war bow has a harder time stopping a knight/man-at-arms and you disagree. My point is that this test, since it lacks mail and gambeson under the breast plate, is not a conclusive test of a warbow against a knight/man-at-arms. As for giving credit where due, I think these guys did a fantastic job and look forward to more tests!
@yourredcomrade2 I can ashore you my bow fan, that this armor is not high end at all. Do you know how much it is to make armor of high end with the standards of the old day which mined you are much better then today on steel armor? A good Gothic front & back plate of high carbon heat treated steel would cost about $1000.oo to $1500.oo depending which armourer makes it today...
It was a bit cheaper to make back then because there was lots of armourers, that was messily available...
@xxTeutonicKnightxx this is high carbon steel and btw its also stronger than medieval plate which is why most of these reenactments use forged steel which has been tempered and heat treated but not nearly as hard as modern carbon steel-the bows are also on the light end so you could safely say they would ALSO go through the middle chain shirt if the plate used was traditional medieval plate
@minxel16 During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:
“...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks”
@minxel16 At the Battle of Byland (1322), Scrymgeour, Robert the Bruce's standard bearer, took a longbow arrow in the arm that did no harm because of his mail hauberk.
Battle of Duazzo (1108 AD), the Byzantines resorted to shooting the Frankish horses because their arrows were ineffective against Frankish mail
@minxel16 This is not stronger then medieval plate, trust me...
But not nearly as hard as modern carbon steel? Many Medieval steels were like modern carbon steel. 1045, 1055 1060, 1065 and 1070 steel alloys are very similar to what they used back then for arms and armor...
Medieval plate armor yes even the helmets to were tempered and heat treated...
@yourredcomrade2 Well there was a lot of troops with quality breast plate, your normal fighting man would have some thing called Munition armour. It was better then what is in this video. Armor standards back in the day were much better then today. Why? Well that is what you used to go to war with not at a Costume party. The Low end of front and back plate mild steel armor to get now, or made by a true armourer would cost about $250.oo to $500.oo depending which armourer makes it today...
@yourredcomrade2 The armor bends as he puts a bit of pressure on it, it wobbles, flexes, as they touch it to remove the arrows. High quality armor was heavy, it was thick, not thin like a Can of pop and highly flexible like this one.
@sacr3 Well I'm sure their breastplates weren't more than 80lbs, so it's unlikely it was more than 1/3 in thick, but I have no idea what steel replicates old French armor.
@dysqsarhut Breastplates are actually a fair bit thinner than that. To put it mildly. A complete full plate weights perhaps 35kg if its very heavy. A US marine actually carries more weight than a knight in full plate for example. That armour is heavy as such, is a myth.
@RuerlKhan It just so happens that i was reading a article which talks about this. While true that it is relatively "light" compared to what some modern soldiers chug around it is the weight distribution which makes it a much bigger pain to move with. I dont think that i can post links on youtube but you can check it out on the BBC's site, it's called "Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles"
@a97013 I checked it out, thank you for the reference. Now, that being said: The lead researcher got the armour weight (somewhat) wrong, unless you also wear chainmail underneath your plate you won't hit those (upper) weight ranges mentioned in the tests. I also noted that the person in the video of the test wore sabatons and plated feet.
-Something that has a heavy impact. However here is the thing: you don't wear those unless your mounted on a horse. Still, good test.
@RuerlKhan Another thing about that BBC test is they mention the shape of the armour forcing the wearers to take shallower breaths rather than deep breaths - but everyone I know who wears armour seems to have no such problem, so I think the test is influenced by the armour not fitting the wearer well.
@yourredcomrade2 Yah no doubt, Lets not even bring into the equation the hand cranked crossbow which carried many times the power and was created to solve any problems warbows had in penetration...
@givemeanameman1 This would be true at close range, where the trajectory would be flat. But at distance, the arrow would be coming from above, and so the knight would not be moving straight against it. Also, the arrow loses speed as it travels, and the energy loss will be exponential to that.
@Gilmaris the arrow may lose velocity, but its not the velocity that makes arrows deadly, its mass and inertia. and warbow arrows weigh as much as a quarter pound in alot of cases. so imagine a hardened steel point coming down on you from 300 feet in the air with the aid of gravity.
Okay, now do it with the suit of armor on a mounted lancer charging at you full speed. Just kidding - awesome video, you guys should do more. :)
doggonemess1 1 day ago
Besides if the arrows went through that easy back then why did the knights wear plate armor?
LordVader1094 2 days ago
I didn't know medieval archers listened to Smooth Jazz during battle?
SCBUAD 4 days ago 2
I am craving to know if you can also pierce chainmail armour with 8mm rings? My bow probably isn't powerful enough to pierce it.
WALKERLucian 5 days ago
Clearly you destroyed the breastplate. Did you destroy most of those arrows as well?
Iliumin 1 week ago
phyics, 110 pounds of force, thats damn near equal to the force of a MODERN bullet, maybe even more, musket bullets have about 25. so yah the 110 pounds of force> that of 25 of a musket.
spartanprodigy 1 week ago
Yet again this is being take to seriously...... It was just a bit of fun to see if it would go through the metal plate..
BarebowBen 1 week ago
Its a little bs because when you wear that breast plate you wear a thick quilt wool vest which helps spread the impack of the arrow or shot.
bowhunterxxx 1 week ago
This is not as you put it Bull, The armor is as is stated and the arrows still go through it. Muskets are an Inferior weapon as the war arrow will penetrate most plate steels and breastplates, many test have been done tests have also been done on a modern 9mm bullet proof vest. The vest was penetrated also.....
BarebowBen 1 week ago 2
@BarebowBen not rally infeiour war bows were at thier peak of tech very little advancement has happened since then, a musket was a bastic firearm, massive strides have been made since then and the good thing about a musket is the little ammount of training especially compared to a bow
TheAlexagius 1 week ago
this seems to be a load of bull, the armor must have been poorly built and hardened because even muskets can't penetrate 18 guage medium temper steel. Yet you say this is 14 guage.
Was it raised or sunk, if it was sunk the metal is probably more like 20 guage.
zachr121 1 week ago
hahah he broke a arrow
youdafroob 1 week ago
you'd be well pissed off if you were the person who forged the armour
alienheadhahaha 2 weeks ago
they suck unless theyre like a mile away
chronicdisease35 2 weeks ago
two points I would have found interesting:
1) What does the impact does to the arrowheads. From other ballistics tests I remember the arrowheads getting absolutely blunted by the impact.
2) Alot of armor was caged so alot of impact force would be led around the body and actually absorbed in the backplate(only way to survive the blunt impact trauma of a couched lance with half a ton of horse behind it) so how much actual power did still reach the man?
kMondrakken 2 weeks ago
i used to be an archer, then i took an arrow to the chest.
TheParadiseGreek 3 weeks ago
what kind of breastplate was that? made it of a paper sheet? if it is made it of a strong piece of steel plate arrows will broke againt it
carloko08 3 weeks ago
Considering the following:
1. The bows are strong.
2. They are using the medieval equivalent of Armour piercing rounds.
3. They don't actually penetrate deep engouf to kill a Knight wearing multiple layers of armour.
I agree with the outcome of the video.
1169Timothy 4 weeks ago
what was the power of the test chest armor?
Feg006 4 weeks ago
Song!? =D
EddoMundo 1 month ago
Song!? =D
EddoMundo 1 month ago
So now you know why the English won at Argincourt ^^ just saying...
SCLRDO 1 month ago
the arrows would be raining down on the enemy from a high arch and in vast numbers not carefully aimed at the breastplate with a flat trajectory. If they were going to aim that carefully and use a flat trajectory close range shot they would have aimed for unprotected areas like the face and neck with no armor.
TheSonsofThunder2010 1 month ago
Very intresting
bolasdefraile 1 month ago
thats gotta hurt
Nosondakar 1 month ago
i have the same amour like in the video. I knew this whoul happen because thats are longbows
RockmeHellsing 1 month ago
Good vid guys. Thanks for taking the time, effort, and money! I think you guys did a good comparison of how different tips and weight can affect penetration. Keep up the good work.
twinwolfproduction 1 month ago
Chris Brown? heheh
2s2bs 1 month ago
Meh, none of those hits were kill shots, as the bodkin barely punched through. They'd also have to go through the coat of maille under the plate and the padded gambeson under the maille (and a linen shirt under the gambeson, lol) before hitting skin. And then the points would have to go deep enough into the torso after all that to even do incapacitating damage.
Sorflakne 1 month ago
@Sorflakne True, however, the average English Longbowman would probably have had a stronger draw strength bow and been learning to fire it from as young as 8 years old as a profession. Some of the bows taken from the Mary Rose were believed to have draw strengths exceeding 120lbs! and the skeletons of most Longbowman are believed to have been deformed by the excessive muscle strength built up to use said weapons.
Voltaire152 1 month ago
You shouldve left the arrows in, it was a silly taking them out. At least see how deep in went
irishbboy 1 month ago
You guys realize it takes about 3 inches of penetration to kill right? Looks like the armor did its job.
DavidUmstattd 1 month ago
@DavidUmstattd True, but a bowman would shoot the horse from under said knight first... and then have alllllll the time in the world to kill said knight while he is trying to clime out from under his dead mount.
Voltaire152 1 month ago
@DavidUmstattd I think we can all guess what happens if the bowmen were standing a bit closer or using actual maxed out historically powered 180 pound warbows. Another thing to consider is how the peircing hits weaken the armour for the next hit there, or next to it. A good bowman, or better yet a score of them shooting at the same target can hit a hole in the plate like that at close range but still just too far away for hand to hand.
Fargbollen 1 month ago
Cool vid but I question the quality of that plate. People need to understand that not all metal is equal & when u say carbon steel it encompasses thousands of different metals with radically different strengths. Hell I bet u could make a plat the same size & have it stop rifle rounds if u used ultra strong steels. So to draw any real conclusions u need steel that matches what they used back then.
Lovemy1911a1 1 month ago 7
@Lovemy1911a1
I think you're exaggerating the strength of steel.
Even ceramic tiles over Kevlar at that thickness couldn't stop a .556 round. That's why our troops wear armor that's several times thicker. It's layered to drop the velocity before attempting to stop the bullet.
manictiger 1 month ago
@manictiger Well a 3mm thick armor steel plate is rated agains 44 mag and 4.5mm will stop ak 7.62X39 & probly a 5.56 nato using regular FMJ rounds. actual brest plates where about 2mm thick during the 1400 hundreds but the rated thickness will have some safety & brest plates have some curve to them so if one was made of top notch steel it could probably stop some small rifle rounds AK/M4 if they used fmj or soft point ammo but not AP or larger rounds like 308 or 30-06 that would take 6mm+ steel
Lovemy1911a1 1 month ago
@Lovemy1911a1 ballistic steel used to stop rifle rounds (7.62*51 nato, 5.56 steel core, 7.62*39 ap, 30-06 sjsp ) is 6mm thick (nij lvl 3). Lvl 3A steel ( .44 magnum jhp, 9 mm +p fmj smg) would be 3mm thick.
Hope you find the data useful. There's no ballistic standard for arrows since the arrow heads penetrate by cutting, while bullets use brute force.
Jormungandr69 2 weeks ago
@Jormungandr69 yes I am aware of the nij ratings. But those are based on zero penetration and cover a range of steels. So I dont think its impossible to make a breast plate around that thickness that could stop some rifle rounds it would not be a 100% safe & Im not betting my life on it. My point was mainly that there are a variety of steels & the high end ones are extremely strong compared to cheap steel. Its just something to consider when you look at armor & weapon performance
Lovemy1911a1 2 weeks ago
@Lovemy1911a1 2mm steel may be enaugh for nij 2 rated ammunition.
Jormungandr69 1 week ago
@Lovemy1911a1 You do realize that any carbon steel today is iron and carbon. The advances in late 18th century blast furnaces allows silicone to be remove and carbon content to be controlled. Real breastplates were highly impure wrought iron. In short, this steel plate is stronger than any Milanese.
TheCFTube 2 weeks ago
@TheCFTube
You're partially right, you forgot to mention the temper. Even if that breastplate is made from top quality steel, without proper tempering it can be softer than a well tempered 'impure' steel. Late Milanese and Gothic plates were famed for being less thicker than their predecessors and with a much higher resistance to piercing, thanks to the tempering techniques developed at the time.
Eodweard 2 weeks ago
@Lovemy1911a1 Hi, I have a question. Which one is more powerful, between modernday rifles bullet and Arrow/Crossbow ? I want to know wether the real medieval plate armor could really stop moder firearms round. Thanks
MariusThePaladin 2 weeks ago
@MariusThePaladin modern rifles are WAY more powerful take a 50 caliber rifle it will puch through both sides, barly deviating its path, it could stop a .22 as its a small progective(maybe not a .17hmr that round really difes belife pentrating armour bullets vastly larger cannot), but thier stell tech was hugly infirour if this was made with modern steel the experiment is pointless
TheAlexagius 1 week ago
@TheAlexagius What about assault rifle rounds like 5.56 nato and 7.62 then ? Can the two layers of armor , plate mail and chainmail, stop them ?
MariusThePaladin 1 week ago
@MariusThePaladin 7.62 soviet and nato will pass though, 5,56 probably will and if you use the ap rounds the army uses definatly the reason this armour is no longer used is it itsn't bullet proof, when cartrige guns came around this kind of armour was no longer bullet proof(even much thicker and better made breast plate was used by napolians Cuirassier's was not bullet proof to the muskets of the time which wislt being way more advanced than the ones at the time of bows were
TheAlexagius 1 week ago
@MariusThePaladin far mor primitive than the guns of today and they were rounded so were not good at armour penetration, modern rifle rounds are designed to be good at that
TheAlexagius 1 week ago
@Lovemy1911a1 you're clearly not an engineer.. generally the stronger the metal the lower the impact properties.. you'll need a material that can absorb a lot of energy so one that has a high toughness/strain..
DJRoksor 4 days ago
hey whats that sweet knife the guy shooting the 110 # bow on your belt and the pouch for
PKJohnnyboy 1 month ago
@PKJohnnyboy It's called a Bullock dagger, it's a typical 15th century archers dagger, but also used by traders and craftsmen for personal protection and show of status. It could perhaps most easily be described as a civilian utility version of a knightly rondel dagger meant to peirce armour.
Fargbollen 1 month ago
They are 3/8 bullets to act as a comparison against the medieval bodkins. If you read the credits at the end it states the types of arrows used.
Thankyou for watching our video.
Cheers Ben
BarebowBen 1 month ago 3
@BarebowBen In just technological / Power terms what in your opinion is the best bow the English Yew Longbow vs Mongolian re-curved bow or the Japanese long bow?
In respect of the last (Japanese bow) I think it is highly unlikely that the English ever used a bow to bow fight with the Japanese but the possibility of the Mongols reaching England was a strong hypothetical possibility (had it not been for the death of Kubla Khan) - so who would win English longbow or Mongolian bow?
infokemp 3 weeks ago
why do i see some practice dull arrow heads.. i know somes are trad armor piercing diamond heads.
jack99889988 1 month ago
whatever the results of a test like this are I'd still much rather have the armour than not.
tavernmancer 1 month ago
@tavernmancer Of course. It'd make for a much higher survivability than no armour vs warbows. With it you'd have a fighting chance to reach and engage the archer line at Agincourt instead of just being perforated at 200 meters or so. In the end I think what killed the most french knights at Agincourt wasn't the arrows but drowning in the mud, trapped under a dead or wounded horse or slipping and being trampled down by your fellows in the chaos.
Fargbollen 1 month ago
Looks like it would be safer to wear a straw target.
Silverswordfish 1 month ago
Well, none of these arrows would have killed the bearer... They only penetrate like 1cm and the body is like 2-3 cm away from the plate..
Litzen2k 1 month ago
Had no doubt the vest would be shredded. My 45 lb recurve bow sent a cedar arrow thru the transom of my aluminum "john" boat after the shaft deflected off of a tree. 500 grain arrow - 165 fps, with a field point.
briargoatkilla 2 months ago
What is the thickness of the Breastplate?
SpiridonovRU 2 months ago
ehh i dont think the bow would penetrate that deep if the armor was tempered unless the bodkins were temperd to a harder stage but then again only about 20% of the knights had tempered armor that was of high quality
hellwolf882 2 months ago
Did the french really win the 100 years war? wow, i was thinking that the 100 years war was AD1300 too AD1415, in that time if im not wrong the french lost at the battle of crecey, poitiers (captured king!) and agincourt. and that makes them the winners? I also think that in each battle archers formed large parts of the english armies. sounds like i need to re-wright the history books so the french dont get to upset.
robbieatvic 2 months ago
@robbieatvic the hundred years war was 1347 to 1453, and England lost all their continental possessions except Calais. Normally, when after a war you have less land than when u started, its counted as losing......
lordflay 2 months ago
Wouldn't the arrow heads be made out of iron and not steel?
mojothemigo 2 months ago
trollforge 2 months ago
I suggest that people type: "Agincourt's Dark Secrets - Battlefield Detectives" on youtube and watch it, then people will better understand why the French lost at Agincourt.
bellator11 2 months ago
These haters just dont get it, you dont have to hit the breast plate, you dont have to hit the viser. You aim for the horse, you aim for any part of a man that has no plate on it and a medieval army is full of such targets. At 12 arrows a min shot by 3 to 5 thousand archers that makes for bodkin rain! Read the books people, english archers won the 100 years war!
robbieatvic 2 months ago
@robbieatvic
Funny, the French actually won the Hundred Years War, not the English, and certainly not their archers.
WitheringintheDark 2 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Yeah, but I think it was the Battle of Agincourt where a ton of French knights got owned by a small army of archers. I may have the name wrong.
dysqsarhut 2 months ago
@dysqsarhut
Agincourt was a battle that the French lost badly, mostly due to terrain. All accounts of the battle actually cite that despite being peppered with thousands of arrows, few of the french vanguard were killed or seriously wounded by them. Rather, they were destroyed by the english foot-knights and maul-wielding lowbowmen after trudging through hundreds of feet of knee-deep mud, which completely exhausted them.
WitheringintheDark 2 months ago
@dysqsarhut
Also, most of the French deaths were not from battle itself. The English executed thousands of prisoners after their surrender.
WitheringintheDark 2 months ago
This plate is actually not as Rolandbadger said an Indian made 16 or 18 gauge mild steel breastplate. It is made of carbon steel and is 14 - 16 gauge. This video was done for a bit of fun and I think some of you are taking it all a little to seriously.....
BarebowBen 2 months ago 14
Its an Indian made 16 or 18 gauge mild steel breastplate.
Rolandbadger 2 months ago
Also the arrows are shown at the beginning on the target and you can see them when we are drawing them out at the end. As for the breastplade we have measured this and it is as we stated in the video info. However it may be thicker and thinner in places as all armour was in the day.
I suggest you get a breastplate and a 110Lb@32" bow and try it yourself if you want personal conformation.....
BarebowBen 2 months ago
1986bates....I can tell you the arrows are half inch poplar shafts with Hector Cole Type 10s, if you read the credits at the end you would have seen this.
BarebowBen 2 months ago
is it me or does that armor look rather thin and the arrow length seems shorter... they say they are using bodkins but they didn't show the tips.
the English long bow was extremely effective, enough so that they didn't get replaced for some 400 years (by cannons and early match locks)
1986bates 2 months ago
Clearly you cant shoot a Warbow over #90 pounds, clearly you didn't know that 3/4 of the english force was made up of archers, clearly you are french! Saying archers had nothing to do about the french being slapped about a Agincourt is just rubbish. I have a full knights harness (100 years war) and a lovely #90 pound yew bow and i can assure you i would never kit up and stand infront of that bow. and its only #90! not the standard #110 to #140.
robbieatvic 2 months ago
Also guys, think of how much energy the arrow from a longbow will have lost just over the first 30 yards! At 100 yards I can't imagine arrows even being a concern for the french knights, heck they'd have to approach to 20 yards or so before arrows became any real concern, a range which they could quickly cover providing the battlefield wasn't a giant mudpool ofcourse.
It's like sending tanks into a city, you just don't do it, they'll just end up destroyed the whole lot of them.
bellator11 2 months ago
@bellator11 My personal research has showed that a light 35# bow can wound fatally out to 70 yards with an appropriate shot. A 70# bow reached out close to 120 yards, but my skill doesn't follow the bow. I'm a sure 100+# bow could fatally wound past 300 or 400 yards. Penetration of steel at this distance is a different story. With a few hundred archers, minuscule knight armies would be devastated like no one's business.
dysqsarhut 2 months ago
@dysqsarhut Except that the French knights at Agincourt were wearing full sets of tempered steel plate armour, and archers are useless against this. The exhaustion of navigating the mud, and the fact that once you fell you were stuck, is what cost the French the battle.
That having been said, the archers were no doubt effective against the mounted knights, simply because killing the horse would throw the rider off into the mud where he would be stuck.
bellator11 2 months ago
@dysqsarhut Also, no bow I know off will send an arrow out to 400 yards. I think the longest range of a 180 lb longbow is around 300 meters, at which range it will be unable to penetrate even a thick leather suit. No doubt it can be lethal though if it his a soft spot.
bellator11 2 months ago
@bellator11 I'm sure it's possible, but I can't give you any proof as of now. I wasn't thinking about penetrating steel though, just flesh. Steel is a task I usually leave for my rifles.
dysqsarhut 2 months ago
Yep, few men at arms could afford a breast plate and those that did still run a high risk of an arrow hitting maille or leather. Cracey, poitiers and agincourt all prove the fact that highly trained english archers ruled the battle fields of france! Its called the one hundred years war people and the archers won the lot. great vid boys keep it up
robbieatvic 2 months ago
@robbieatvic The British archers had nothing to do with it, the muddy battlefield on the other hand bares the entire blame for the French defeat at Agincourt. The French knights couldn't walk far before exhaustion because their metal boots sucked themselves to the mud, making every step an exhaustive ordeal. And if a French knight fell, he wouldn't get up again, simply because the flat surfaces of the metal plates would suck themselves to the mud.
bellator11 2 months ago
@robbieatvic At Agincourt very few of the French, less than 5% infact, where killed by arrow shot. The far majority were killed by the tip of a spear or halberd as they lay helpless on the ground stuck in mud. In short: Had the battlefield at Agincourt been a pure grassy field, then the English would've been slaughtered by the French heavy knights = hence why the victory at agincourt was seen as such a miracle by the english themselves, they were sure they were gonna lose, yet instead they won.
bellator11 2 months ago
In England it was necessary by law to practice archery every Sunday since the age of 7. They became so strong they could pull 180 lb bows. Aswell as that, many people say that arrow heads were made of weak steel. This is not true. During the middle ages arrow making and fletching was in itself a profession. Bodkins were often made from very high grade folded carbon steel. Archers had the skill to hit visors and pierce metal gorgets so Breastplate armour didnt always matter against archers.
Sibrand1189 2 months ago
Hmm... next question is then, were medieval breastplates not abit thicker than said example? And did knights wear tough leather behind the plate armor ? Finally weren't medieval arrow heads made of rather soft steel compared to the tempered steel armor ?
Scientific testing with period armor and arrow heads, which means using metallurgically correct representatives for both, showed that even at point blank a 180 lb long bow would be unable to penetrate the average tempered steel breast plate.
bellator11 2 months ago
That was a crap breast plate. A large section of the armor collapses around the arrow strike at 0:45. That means that the metal is very thin. With decent armor, when you DO punch a hole, the armor around it does not collapse like tin foil. All these videos are the same - biased. In the archer videos the arrows penetrate with every shot. In armorer videos, the weapon never penetrates at all.
MWCharke 2 months ago
Looks like a Knight's best chance is when 2 people are shooting at him :)
boardgamenerd 3 months ago
my god, it is just a video and nobody can see you and the target so just step closer so you hit it more often
Vyppaaa11 3 months ago
English Longbows were 140-170 lb pull. Not many humans today could even shoot them. A rapid de evolution of the British over the last 800 years.
needparalegal 3 months ago 16
@needparalegal considering the longbow fell out of use in the mid 1500's that is a patently false statement saying 800 years to start.
secondly, the lack of ability to use a warbow has to do with a few reasons, 1. not alot of bows around 2 noone used them for warfare for more than 400 years, this means the level of training and the seasoned masters arnt available in the numbers that existed back then,
thirdly, in the 1400's more farmland was taken by cities thus reducing that yeoman population
elgostine 3 months ago
@needparalegal As comparitively barbaric (could be argued, what with weapons able to kill 50 or a hundred thousand people at the push of a button) as the Middle Ages were, their people were far hardier and, despite ailments and poisoning were probably physically healthier too. They lacked the medicine to live as long as we do now, but in their prime then would of probably been worth two modern men.
ChainsawGutsFuck 3 months ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck The middle class was definitely stronger. Longbowmen were able to pull 150 lb with one arm.
needparalegal 3 months ago
@needparalegal Which is insane when you think they used to - run away* from knights and other men-at-arms, how brutally must they of been?!
ChainsawGutsFuck 3 months ago
@needparalegal Considering that archers practiced from an early age in order to develop the strength and skill required to master such monstrous bows, I fail to see how the modern English are different, especially since those who put in the same work as the medieval archers are also able to draw 140 pound longbows.
Procrastinatron2000 3 months ago
@needparalegal I was about to say bullshit, but I did some research and you're right. Those bows had an insane LB pull.
sacr3 2 months ago
@needparalegal
that not correct, because the bows where founded on the wreck of "Mary Rose" had a about 80# lb. without a lamination on a bow its impossible to reach a natural tiller and pull about more then 100# lb , if u wont believe me, ask some pro bowmakers.
PeSi2007 1 month ago
@PeSi2007 according to wikipedia, the draw weights of the various mary rose longbows are estimated at between 100 and 185lbs
gr4tuitou5 1 month ago
@PeSi2007 That's completely wrong.
equiums1 1 month ago
@PeSi2007 Actually some initial scienific evaluations of the Mary rose bows were flawed, because they calculated with a short modern sports draw to the mouth, while the correct historical way to draw a warbow was to the back of the ear. Longer arrows & longer draw equals more pounds out of the same bow. The real Mary rose warbow draw weights are around 120-180 pounds. Also, regarding bowmakers being able to or not, there are 200 lbs hickory self bows on youtube.
Fargbollen 1 month ago
@needparalegal If you started training kids again today, from the age of 7, one day a week like they did in the old times, you would have those kids in their teens pulling bows of that weight again now. If anything, nutrition and environmental factors would be in even better favour of young English and Welshmen today than in those days.
Rikitocker 1 month ago 2
Nothing is said about the heat treatment of the plate, which is much more important than steel itself. It seems not to be heat treated at all.
Here a test on a heat treated plate: -- watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
A huge difference.
Protherium 3 months ago
did any of thsoe arrows penetrate through to the vitals?
aaronrushton1 3 months ago
I agree that you would not always get a clean shot and we have had arrows glance off. I would love to try a 15th century milanese breastplate ...a little expensive for us to just shoot up. Maybe one day..
BarebowBen 4 months ago
hmm try the same bows on a 15th century milanese breastplate (the ones that are hardened and tempered)... i bet you that the arrow wont penetrate then.
btw you also have to take in mind that archers didnt always get a nice clean straight shot as sometimes they would just scrape your sides or maybe their aiming up in which case the arrow comes at an angle. and also when you get shot you jerk back thus the arrow loses a bit of force from that.
k00lguy00 4 months ago
@k00lguy00
With 140 lb warbows the milanese plate would not fare that well.
Also forging bodkins is good, but additional 'heat-treatment' is needed to puncture through the best plate armour...
WatchRyder 4 months ago
I use my own bows from my company ..
barebowarchery.co.uk
BarebowBen 5 months ago
It takes about 3 inches of penetration to hit vital organs so one arrow isn't going to do much, but imagine 50 or more arrows at once, that would be terrifying.
What bowyer do you use?
TheCocaineblues 5 months ago
@TheCocaineblues trauma from shock accounts for a lot too, warbow arrows are the heaviest arrows to be made giving them a lot more momentum than flight arrows
minxel16 4 months ago
honestly, what i dont get is, when people like ben here go out of their way to do a good job accurately setting up a test, execute, and show that a bow and arrow can take down the "super elite immortal knight" with relative ease people come up with every excuse in the book to try and disprove it. you saw it with your very eyes. dont you guys get it? forget the hollywood nonsense, if you put any object with enough force, it will penetrate. regardless of what its made of.
yourredcomrade2 5 months ago
Don't forget a 14th century knight/man-at-arms has (riveted) mail AND a think linen gamebeson on underneath the breatplate or coat of pates. If you were at a battle and the knight was this close, you better aim for the horse. If he is dismounted and your own men-at-arms are not there, you had better run!
voidlogic 5 months ago
@voidlogic hardly. to see a fully armored knight with gambesons and chainmaile combined was a rare sight. it was simply too costly. thats why many soldiers often wore just the padded jack, or a shirt of maile and helmet.
and considering what my 90 lb warbow does to riveted maile i doupt it would help. and even my bodkins tore through padded armor without issue. the knight is far from invulnerable. the archer just has to be close enough. these bows are still babies compared to the oldies.
yourredcomrade2 5 months ago
@yourredcomrade2 14th century Knights (and men-at-arms as their retainers and professional soldiers) represent the wealthier segment of society. I would assert that period art, effigies, brasses and inventories do not agree with your assertion. Remember, the knights warhorse alone often costed more than all his other gear and he often had two on campaign. @BarebowBen fantastic work! I would love to see this test with a replica wisby coat of plates + gambeson+ riveted mail underneath! Nice Job!
voidlogic 5 months ago
@voidlogic you just proved my point. the majority of the fighting was done by men of low stature. with little money in their pocket. which means seeing a full high quality breast plate, with maile, a gamebeson and a partridge in a pear tree was not a very common sight. or was done with siege warfare with sappers.
this test is done with the high end of the armor. and the low end of the bow weight scale. and they still penetrated. why cant you just give credit where its due?
yourredcomrade2 5 months ago 13
@yourredcomrade2 You and I are discussing two different things. You assert a warbow can stop a peasant conscript, and I agree with you. I assert that a war bow has a harder time stopping a knight/man-at-arms and you disagree. My point is that this test, since it lacks mail and gambeson under the breast plate, is not a conclusive test of a warbow against a knight/man-at-arms. As for giving credit where due, I think these guys did a fantastic job and look forward to more tests!
voidlogic 5 months ago
@yourredcomrade2 I can ashore you my bow fan, that this armor is not high end at all. Do you know how much it is to make armor of high end with the standards of the old day which mined you are much better then today on steel armor? A good Gothic front & back plate of high carbon heat treated steel would cost about $1000.oo to $1500.oo depending which armourer makes it today...
It was a bit cheaper to make back then because there was lots of armourers, that was messily available...
xxTeutonicKnightxx 4 months ago
@xxTeutonicKnightxx this is high carbon steel and btw its also stronger than medieval plate which is why most of these reenactments use forged steel which has been tempered and heat treated but not nearly as hard as modern carbon steel-the bows are also on the light end so you could safely say they would ALSO go through the middle chain shirt if the plate used was traditional medieval plate
minxel16 3 months ago
@minxel16 During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:
“...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks”
xxTeutonicKnightxx 3 months ago
@xxTeutonicKnightxx
You are aware that Saladins forces used bows of very limited armour piercing capability.
Horse archer bows are no good for distance armour penetration.
The are for a different climate and fighting forces...
WatchRyder 3 months ago
Comment removed
xxTeutonicKnightxx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@minxel16 At the Battle of Byland (1322), Scrymgeour, Robert the Bruce's standard bearer, took a longbow arrow in the arm that did no harm because of his mail hauberk.
Battle of Duazzo (1108 AD), the Byzantines resorted to shooting the Frankish horses because their arrows were ineffective against Frankish mail
xxTeutonicKnightxx 3 months ago
@minxel16 This is not stronger then medieval plate, trust me...
But not nearly as hard as modern carbon steel? Many Medieval steels were like modern carbon steel. 1045, 1055 1060, 1065 and 1070 steel alloys are very similar to what they used back then for arms and armor...
Medieval plate armor yes even the helmets to were tempered and heat treated...
xxTeutonicKnightxx 3 months ago
@yourredcomrade2 Well there was a lot of troops with quality breast plate, your normal fighting man would have some thing called Munition armour. It was better then what is in this video. Armor standards back in the day were much better then today. Why? Well that is what you used to go to war with not at a Costume party. The Low end of front and back plate mild steel armor to get now, or made by a true armourer would cost about $250.oo to $500.oo depending which armourer makes it today...
xxTeutonicKnightxx 4 months ago
@yourredcomrade2 The armor bends as he puts a bit of pressure on it, it wobbles, flexes, as they touch it to remove the arrows. High quality armor was heavy, it was thick, not thin like a Can of pop and highly flexible like this one.
sacr3 2 months ago
@sacr3 Well I'm sure their breastplates weren't more than 80lbs, so it's unlikely it was more than 1/3 in thick, but I have no idea what steel replicates old French armor.
dysqsarhut 2 months ago
@dysqsarhut Breastplates are actually a fair bit thinner than that. To put it mildly. A complete full plate weights perhaps 35kg if its very heavy. A US marine actually carries more weight than a knight in full plate for example. That armour is heavy as such, is a myth.
RuerlKhan 2 months ago
@RuerlKhan It just so happens that i was reading a article which talks about this. While true that it is relatively "light" compared to what some modern soldiers chug around it is the weight distribution which makes it a much bigger pain to move with. I dont think that i can post links on youtube but you can check it out on the BBC's site, it's called "Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles"
a97013 2 months ago
@a97013 I checked it out, thank you for the reference. Now, that being said: The lead researcher got the armour weight (somewhat) wrong, unless you also wear chainmail underneath your plate you won't hit those (upper) weight ranges mentioned in the tests. I also noted that the person in the video of the test wore sabatons and plated feet.
-Something that has a heavy impact. However here is the thing: you don't wear those unless your mounted on a horse. Still, good test.
RuerlKhan 2 months ago
@RuerlKhan Another thing about that BBC test is they mention the shape of the armour forcing the wearers to take shallower breaths rather than deep breaths - but everyone I know who wears armour seems to have no such problem, so I think the test is influenced by the armour not fitting the wearer well.
Railstarfish 1 month ago
@yourredcomrade2 Yah no doubt, Lets not even bring into the equation the hand cranked crossbow which carried many times the power and was created to solve any problems warbows had in penetration...
TheReven1 2 months ago
something that I never see taken into account.
Knights were on a horse traveling at an extra 35-45km an hour this is an extra 39-40feet per second added to the impact velocity.
This is about 15% faster... however its equal to about 30% MORE energy.
givemeanameman1 7 months ago
@givemeanameman1 This would be true at close range, where the trajectory would be flat. But at distance, the arrow would be coming from above, and so the knight would not be moving straight against it. Also, the arrow loses speed as it travels, and the energy loss will be exponential to that.
Gilmaris 6 months ago
@Gilmaris the arrow may lose velocity, but its not the velocity that makes arrows deadly, its mass and inertia. and warbow arrows weigh as much as a quarter pound in alot of cases. so imagine a hardened steel point coming down on you from 300 feet in the air with the aid of gravity.
yourredcomrade2 5 months ago
Equiums, I can guarantee the plate is 2mm carbon steel. Although it is impossible for me to tell you that it is exactly 2mm all over the Plate.
BarebowBen 7 months ago
@BarebowBen Fair enough, nice video.
equiums1 7 months ago
@BarebowBen what are your arrow shafts made from?
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
Good vidéo ! Thanks you.
fredericluneau100 7 months ago
The plate hasn't responded like 2mm carbon steel. It looks more like 1.2mm mild.
equiums1 7 months ago
Equiums, I dont know who made this Breastplate but it is 14 Gauge High Carbon Steel Plate.
Cheers
Ben
BarebowBen 7 months ago
Great video Ben!
heavybows 8 months ago
Hi Ben can we have some specs on the plate, who made it how thick, cheers
equiums1 8 months ago