Mythbusters request made - arrows / bolts / armor

[blackbow]

and the thousand-dollar question: what was the mannequin made of?
I've put arrows right through the same shirt that was bulletproof mounted on a mannequin...

Russ: would you expect a bulletproof shirt to stop a knife blade?

Different principle. For instance, it's been said that bullets won't travel fast enough through water to injure a person, while a crossbow bolt will.

For the record though, I agree with Alaric - it's not necessarily the first sword blow that gets you; it's the fourth or fifth, but when it comes to arrows, unless it hits a vital (or sensitive, like an eye) organ, it's just not going to matter in time to make a difference.

At this stage, though, I'm in favor of skipping the Mythbusters guys in favor of simply declaring knights to be wearing plate that's good enough to be proof vs. arrows except for face shots. It gives them a measure of protection concurrent with their real-world status which they currently lack because of the "across the board" definition we're currently using. I have accordingly so emailed the SEM.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[knoch]

The show was Battle Field Detectives at Agincourt. as stated above by a previous quote. A really neat documentary. the only thing I had questions on was the size of the flat rivited chain mail sample was? it was about 8 or nine inches square and taped to the gambison. Knda small and seemed to move more than if it was a full shirt. But there testing devices were state of the art from the Leeds Museum.

from knoch

[Russ Mitchell]

Sorry, I meant "bulletproof," in the colloquial sense. No gunpowder in my ballistic tests... seriously, the mannequin material made a difference, and a profound one.

[blackbow]

Sorry, I meant "bulletproof," in the colloquial sense. No gunpowder in my ballistic tests... seriously, the mannequin material made a difference, and a profound one.

I'll bet it did. Hollow mannequin? department store mannequin? The mannequin they use on CSI to show bullet tracks? Or ballistic gel mannequin? hehe...ok, that last one is probably just a pipe dream.

JB

[Turalyon Gilnea]

M'lord Alaric. In a tournament situation i see nothing wrong with your response in explanation of SCA's mindset for the sword against armor. However in a melee situation, agreed a blow can be delivered that stuns a fighter and could leave him exposed, however consecutive sword slash, will still not penetrate the plate. If the next few blows are aimed at unarmoured areas that cant be defended because the fighter is dazed from the ratan blow, then very well. However i see most Fighters "dieing" from blows that would not inflict any leathel wound, other then a ringing in the ear for a few minutes or more. I guess what im getting to is you are correct, but in a real fight, I would see a knight go down from such a blow as you describe, and either be finished by blade point through armour gaps, taken for ransom, or regain his witts and rejoin the battle. In most sca fights the fighter is killed end of story.

Now however i understand your point about archery in the sca, especially in the hard hitting world you play in, being called out by something you cant even confirm you were struck with must be very frustrating.

[BdeB]

While I agree that the average sword cut might not "kill" on a single stroke, there are plenty that are either hard enough, or in the right spots (like a butt wrap from Cuan) that it just doesn't matter if the sword is rattan or real- the fighter is incapacitated.

Alaric

Consider the armour that we are suppose to be wearing. If you are wearing a normal conical with just chain on the side of your head (and foundation garments) I have no doubt that I can strike your lower head/neck with a weapon hard enough to kill or knock you unconicous.

I'm game to try with anyone that wants as long as I get to go first!

[blackbow]

While I agree that the average sword cut might not "kill" on a single stroke, there are plenty that are either hard enough, or in the right spots (like a butt wrap from Cuan) that it just doesn't matter if the sword is rattan or real- the fighter is incapacitated.

Alaric

Consider the armour that we are suppose to be wearing. If you are wearing a normal conical with just chain on the side of your head (and foundation garments) I have no doubt that I can strike your lower head/neck with a weapon hard enough to kill or knock you unconicous.

I'm game to try with anyone that wants as long as I get to go first!

It's a shame we did away with bread and circuses. Personally I think anybody on death row or in prison for life would do just fine in an arena, and we wouldn't have to sit here and WONDER any more. hehe

regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[Eban Littlebrother]

I read an artical about a dead guy found at Agincourt that said he had an arrow through both legs and his horsey. I believe the pattern of penetration was plate, leg, plate, saddle (presumably leather, though I don't remember exactly), horse, saddle, plate, leg (including femur), and plate again. The arrow was still in the wound, so nobody else got hit. I have no idea how accurate the artical was (I remember thinking at the time "this guy's English, so naturally the longbow is God"), but it sounded good at the time. As I recall, the range was 200 yards. Maybe mythbusters should take this on.

Eban

[Josh W]

Littlebother, it sounds like you are half-remembering an account given by Gerald of Wales, not something from Agincourt. In which case, it was mail that was penetrated, not plate, since Gerald wrote in the 12th century. In any case, many feel that Gerald is not to be trusted as a source, given his penchant for hyperbole.

[St. George]

M'lord Alaric. In a tournament situation i see nothing wrong with your response in explanation of SCA's mindset for the sword against armor. However in a melee situation, agreed a blow can be delivered that stuns a fighter and could leave him exposed, however consecutive sword slash, will still not penetrate the plate. If the next few blows are aimed at unarmoured areas that cant be defended because the fighter is dazed from the ratan blow, then very well. However i see most Fighters "dieing" from blows that would not inflict any leathel wound, other then a ringing in the ear for a few minutes or more. I guess what im getting to is you are correct, but in a real fight, I would see a knight go down from such a blow as you describe, and either be finished by blade point through armour gaps, taken for ransom, or regain his witts and rejoin the battle. In most sca fights the fighter is killed end of story.

Now however i understand your point about archery in the sca, especially in the hard hitting world you play in, being called out by something you cant even confirm you were struck with must be very frustrating.

Turalyon, Your suggestion is correct regarding well armed knights, but in the SCA, once our opponent's have "decided that they have taken a telling blow" they leave the field. People in the SCA accept a shot as good, i.e. that it would have taken them out of combat- and it is over- for the sake of sport we do not act out the ransoms or killings on the ground which the masses would have inflicted on fallen knights.

For the sake of the way in which we play the game, we all know when we are "dead", and since we are only playing at medieval styled combat we have chosed to forego the acts of actually slying our oponents or taking them prisoner in lieu of havig a faster smoother tunning "game."

Howver, there are instances and planned battles, such as the Battle of the 30 at Pennsic, where these rules are altered somewhat.

Alaric

[Turalyon Gilnea]

M'lord Alaric. I am familiar with how the SCA works, I was simply comenting on if Arrows were to work the way a previous poster suggested then should not other weapons. I saught a system that was more telling of true medieval warfare (the capturing etc etc.) but respect and enjoy SCA and its members. Was just voicing an opinion and have enjoyed the discussion.

[Dave Womble]

We've gone over and over this on Arador...destructive testing is completely useless in the study of arms and armour and how they react vs one another unless you use historically accurate examples, made with period materials and methods of manufacture, use period techniques and tactics, AND are able to simulate the human body AND its movements...as has been said, laying a butted or Indian riveted mail shirt on a stump and whacking it with a sword or axe (al la Conquest) does nothing but prove what happens when you lay a butted or Indian riveted mail shirt on a stump and whack it with a sword or axe. It speaks nothing on how a mail shirt worn by a soldier in period defended against contemporary battlefield threats.

Putting helms and breastplates on a post and shooting at them is equally useless...they tell us nothing viable as far as what ranges, angles, ballistics, and conditions needed to be present in order for said armour to fail.

All the backyard tests many of you Archive members (and Arador members too, we're just as guilty) have no doubt undertaken are all completely pointless. Until someone is allowed to borrow extant pieces from a collection or museum, suit up, and let themselves be shot at with extant weapons and ammo while running around, ducking, dodging, fending off another attacker on foot thats harassing them with extant melee weapons similarly armoured, we will continue to have these arguments.

Even if the above conditions were met, purists would still argue the test is fallible because the metallurgy may not be consistent after so many centuries with what it was "back in the day"...metal fatigue and oxidation among other things would certainly throw a few other variables into a test.

The best we can manage is examining extant pieces for damage, read contemporary accounts, examine sites such as Wisby, and use the limited knowledge we gain from current tests....factor it all together and you get a passing knowledge on how these arms and armour worked. It's not concrete, but it's certainly better than basing your opinions and knowledge on a show the History or Discovery Channel produces...most of them are garbage, and do far more harm than good in the arms and armour community.

We have a bunch of threads on destructive testing over on Arador, just use the search feature in the forums to find the relevant threads if anyone cares to read more on the subject.

[knoch]

Whille I was watching the show Battfeild Detective there was a passing coment which was this "there has never been any Plate found on the battle site, Some buckles and very nice spurs {very nice Spurs the type to make any clolecter jump} but no plate". They did uncover durring during the story A arrow head and was found the the Head was Made out of Iron not Steel such as the plate would have been. So if we take into acount the Softer Iron versus plate Steel with flute's and rolled edges would be very tough plate. Also take into acount the Range and trajectory of arrows. Max range would be launched at a 45 degree angle this would use up most of the energy before it hit. So the Idea of a softer Point Punching through Steel plate would be nothing more than a Chance or week spot, Visor or and unarmord place. Remebr that the French were the cream of the pot. they were the richest people in France they could aford the best and did so. I like the Idea of the archers running among them and killing them, also the Idea of the King comanding there deaths Just another masacue to the Fog of war

From Knoch

Also dont give me that a Rifle and lead bullet would punch through plate because they could but the power REQ could not be generated by a long bow with a 120lb pull to match a Rifle or pistol.

[x]

Dunno if this matters or not...but...

On the mythbusters shown last night, they had a crossbow and shot it into some ballistics gel.

Admittedly, since they were comparing forces with a thrown playing card, there wasn't any armor or anything involved...but really...I'd bet they'd play with this if it was phrased well.

[Strongbow]

Whille I was watching the show Battfeild Detective there was a passing coment which was this "there has never been any Plate found on the battle site, Some buckles and very nice spurs {very nice Spurs the type to make any clolecter jump} but no plate". They did uncover durring during the story A arrow head and was found the the Head was Made out of Iron not Steel such as the plate would have been. So if we take into acount the Softer Iron versus plate Steel with flute's and rolled edges would be very tough plate. Also take into acount the Range and trajectory of arrows. Max range would be launched at a 45 degree angle this would use up most of the energy before it hit. So the Idea of a softer Point Punching through Steel plate would be nothing more than a Chance or week spot, Visor or and unarmord place. Remebr that the French were the cream of the pot. they were the richest people in France they could aford the best and did so. I like the Idea of the archers running among them and killing them, also the Idea of the King comanding there deaths Just another masacue to the Fog of war

From Knoch

Also dont give me that a Rifle and lead bullet would punch through plate because they could but the power REQ could not be generated by a long bow with a 120lb pull to match a Rifle or pistol.

First off, let me say that I think an arrow penetrating PLATE would be a rare occurance at best.

Having said that, it is difficult to determine exactly how bodkin heads were manufactured. No doubt iron was the base substance, but it is possible to crate a thion layer of hard steel on an iron object by covering it with carbon powder in crucible and heating it. Apparently, this was not an uncommon technique, at least in Italy, and would be most effective on small objects. This technique was described in one of the papers that used to be on the Mail Research Institute website... I have a copy, I'll try to dig it up if someone wants. The paper was trying to determine if this technique was used with mail. The author determined it wasn't, but it would be logical technique to use if you wanted to harden bodkins.

Also, it is entirely possible for soft iron to penetrate hard steel. I have done so myself using an iron nail and an 18G mild steel plate. The force applied must be sudden and violent.

My personal belief is that bodkins were used to penetrate mail and lighter armor. The occasional arrow strike on an eyeslot, or gap in the plate is the best that could be hoped for against the fully armored types.

I simply do not believe that mail was "proof" against arrows. Very good protection, perhaps, but not proof. Even a 5% penetration chance would be hugely significant against the thousands of archers seen inlate-medieval English armies. And the bodkin was developed to do SOMETHING.

Back to our regularly scheduled p1ssing contest.

Strongbow

[Josh W]

Evan (Siggy on the AA) forwarded this to me. Apparently he has been having a correspondence with certain people at the RA dealing with this very subject...

"Dear Evan,
As a metallurgist this is a question which interests me greatly. Some
early studies were done by Peter Pratt and Peter Jones, involving a
current member of RA staff but before he joined us. Some of these
experiments are recorded in an appendix to Robert Hardy's book. However I have
been concerned that the published version of these experiments used
heat-treated steel bodkin points, for which we have no evidence. By
contrast it would appear that other types of arrowheads: the compact tanged
and barbed (London Museums Type 16), did indeed have steel edges/points
welded to them and these were quenched and tempered. The metallurgical
work is in progress but some of the information is due to be published
by Ashgate in a collection of papers from the International Medieval
congress, Kalamazoo (The volume will be titled de re Metallica).
Unfortunately I haven't seen any results on the testing of such weapons.
Hope this helps,

David Starley PhD
Science Officer

Royal Armouries Museum
Conservation Department"

Nope, no hardened steel bodkins.

I am of the persuasion that an archer could shoot at a man fully-clad in plate (and if he can afford to be fully-clad in plate, then he can likely afford to have *good* plate) all the live-long day and do him no harm, unless he were using a very powerful Crossbow and managed to land a bolt very squarely. Bows suck. Plate rocks.

[Russ Mitchell]

That was my understanding, as well as a general disappearance of bodkin arrowheads from English inventories in the early fifteenth centuries. Hopefully this comes out: my biggest problem getting anybody to touch my arrowhead needs (from my custom smithing classifieds thread) has been the number of smiths who seem to think that medieval arrowheads were made like crap.


Plate rocks. Bows rock. Little purple dinosaurs with arrows in their foreheads? Priceless.

[Lloyd]

At our Return to Camelot Medieval Harvest Faire in October, we did a "destructive testing" show using a 16ga mild steel breastplate from mercenary tailor armoury (http://albion-swords.com/armor/mercenary/tailor.htm).

I did two full passses at it with a "sharpened lance" (using the MRL Greek Spearbutt) and managed to only put two small holes in it (unfortunately, we were unable to secure it adequately at the time). Then Ed from Horsebows.com, who had a booth at the faire, hit it with three bodkin point arrows from a 50# horsebow. One glanced, one hit and bouncec (producing a very small hole) and one exploded (I kid you not) causing another slight hole and a bent double bodkin point.

Ed was sure that he could have penetrated it well with his "war bow" which he did not have at the time (a 60# draw, I believe). Since Allan's plate was barely damaged, we have developed a shock quintain to attach it to do hit it with lance and mass weapons (from horseback) and arrow (both from ground and horseback). We plan on taping these sessions and have them available for anyone who would like to see it.

Just my 2 pence.

[Russ Mitchell]

Pretty similar to our results against the same... lots of denting and creasing of the breastplate, but nothing that would do more than inconvenience its wearer's wallet. Plenty of broken shafts, too. We had one spectacular penetration on the sallet, right at the temple... otherwise, nothing.

[Thomas Powers]

Ashgate has been a bit slow in publishing proceedings. I was at that ICMS, (37th IIRC) and am eagerly waiting for the proceedings to be published.

iron bodkins, iron armour---btw mild steel is *not* "hard steel" but rather soft, "mild" steel.

Thomas

[Strongbow]

Ashgate has been a bit slow in publishing proceedings. I was at that ICMS, (37th IIRC) and am eagerly waiting for the proceedings to be published.

iron bodkins, iron armour---btw mild steel is *not* "hard steel" but rather soft, "mild" steel.

Thomas

I know that of course... my point was that a softer material can penetrate a harder material using the appropriate mechanics.

Strongbow

[Strongbow]

Evan (Siggy on the AA) forwarded this to me. Apparently he has been having a correspondence with certain people at the RA dealing with this very subject...

"Dear Evan,
As a metallurgist this is a question which interests me greatly. Some
early studies were done by Peter Pratt and Peter Jones, involving a
current member of RA staff but before he joined us. Some of these
experiments are recorded in an appendix to Robert Hardy's book. However I have
been concerned that the published version of these experiments used
heat-treated steel bodkin points, for which we have no evidence. By
contrast it would appear that other types of arrowheads: the compact tanged
and barbed (London Museums Type 16), did indeed have steel edges/points
welded to them and these were quenched and tempered. The metallurgical
work is in progress but some of the information is due to be published
by Ashgate in a collection of papers from the International Medieval
congress, Kalamazoo (The volume will be titled de re Metallica).
Unfortunately I haven't seen any results on the testing of such weapons.
Hope this helps,

David Starley PhD
Science Officer

Royal Armouries Museum
Conservation Department"

Nope, no hardened steel bodkins.

I am of the persuasion that an archer could shoot at a man fully-clad in plate (and if he can afford to be fully-clad in plate, then he can likely afford to have *good* plate) all the live-long day and do him no harm, unless he were using a very powerful Crossbow and managed to land a bolt very squarely. Bows suck. Plate rocks.

Thanks for that great info. However, I would like to point that if the bodkins were hardened using such a thin layer method, significant surface corrosion (existant on every surviving bodkin I seen, including my own) would likely destroy any evidence of it. I'm not saying it was done (or that it was even likely), but I do consider it a possibility.

Also, as I said, I think it unlikely arrows or bolts penetrated plate armour often enough to be a concern, but there are always gaps.

Strongbow

[Josh W]

If bodkins were hardened at all, it was likely with the same method used to harden armour. After five centuries, enough of the hardened casing is left on plenty of armours that we can measure it. I don't see how it would be any different with bodkins; the outer surface isn't going to deteriorate any more quickly than that on armour.

[Thomas Powers]

Strongbow; perhaps the structure of the metal could reflect if it had been heated to high temps for a considerable ammount of time *after* forging was over---grain growth.

Josh, most armour is found in armouries, nicely storred. most arrowheads are found in the ground well corroded. I don't recall any ground finds of armour that had enough surface left to give information on case hardening theough armours of a higher carbon level could be determined.

Thomas

[knoch]

So for those of you who have atempted to pentrate armor you found that you had A hard time securing it. KNow lets think about the battle you are the french your mother Baought you the best harnes available. Lets Say german. It usualy consits of 3 layers on the out side Plate, next layer chain, and then under that a Joupon or Gambison of either Linen or leather. Ok you are walking across about oh 2 to 3 miles open country with arrows raining down like sleet. The entire time you are moving your armor and flat angles change ther for there is never quite one area for it to take a hold of and penatrate the 3 layers. You might dent the outer layer or if very lucky punch through to the chain and then you still have to take into acount next layer. IF i was there I would be more afraid of the terain than the archers. Mudy soggy feilds, that if I fall down more than likely the person behind me will step on me and trample me in to the Mud.
Dont get me wrong I respect the heck out of Archers it takes a lot of practise to hit a bail of hay at 100 yards.

Until you wear all the layers of armor it is hard to under stand just how invincable you feel. It is like being inside a M1 Abrahm tank and your oponets have Winchesters. When I fight in the SCA under full harnes I take every blow that comes in just about.

From Knoch

[Russ Mitchell]

Agreed, Knoch. Our sallet kill was a DEFINITE fluke.

[Dan Howard]

Strongbow; perhaps the structure of the metal could reflect if it had been heated to high temps for a considerable ammount of time *after* forging was over---grain growth.

Josh, most armour is found in armouries, nicely storred. most arrowheads are found in the ground well corroded. I don't recall any ground finds of armour that had enough surface left to give information on case hardening theough armours of a higher carbon level could be determined.

Thomas

But according to Dr Starley, arrowheads have been found with evidence of hardening, just no bodkins. He specifically mentions the Type 16 broadhead. Primary sources indicate that contemporaries considered hardened arowheads to be more capable of penetrating armour. Based on current evidence one could conclude that the type 16 broadhead was considered more capable of penetrating armour than the bodkin. If the bodkin was not intended to penetrate armour then what might be its use?

Sir John Smythe recommended that a fourth sheaf of arrows be carried by archers to harass the enemy at long range. i.e. around a quarter of an archer's arrows should be for long-range firing. Compare this to the arrows found on the Mary Rose - the majority of these were fitted with type 16 broadheads while only a small percentage were type 8 bodkins. One would expect the arrows intended for ranged firing to be in the minority as recommended by Smythe. Also, one would not expect armour piercing arrows to be used at long range. Therefore, based on the current available evidence, one has to conclude that the bodkin was not intended to penetrate armour but to harass the enemy at long range.

Mr Mitchell, has anything in your experience suggested that the bodkin allowed an arrow to be fired to a greater distance than a broadhead?

[Chris Gilman]

Hey anybody know who killed Kennedy?
You guys have beaten this horse so much it's been canned and labeled barge!
My tests where so far from being successful (see other post), I’d wager, a modern tool steel bodkin made from c-674 Ttitanium coated Osmium wouldn’t go through crap sheet steel from my dads old Datsun if fired from a petrified yew long bow.
Just because one person is killed in a Volvo, does not make all Volvos death traps.
Although, no on has shown me a single eye witness account in a period source claiming a serious injury or death caused by an arrow through plate (Or mail for that matter). If arrows went through armour with any ease, why would archers be needed in such huge numbers and with so many arrows? I have read numbers of 5000 archers with 120 arrows each. That’s 600,000 arrows! (Even 12 arrows each is 60,000!) “One shot, one killâ€Â

[Russ Mitchell]

I'm hesitant, Dan: compared to what? The amount of mass forward aids in directional stability over long distances. But the total mass steals from range. It's a mixed bag, I think... Ron has done more true long-range shooting than I have, so he would know better than I. I will, however, have him fletch up several long-bodkin points, once I get them, as flight arrows, so that we can do a test...

[Adriano]

Even if the above conditions were met, purists would still argue the test is fallible because the metallurgy may not be consistent after so many centuries with what it was "back in the day"...metal fatigue and oxidation among other things would certainly throw a few other variables into a test.

I guess that about sums it up; I bet people will still be arguing about this after we're all dead. Unless we develop wormhole technology that lets us look into the past, say France in 1415...

[DarkApprentice]

Even if the above conditions were met, purists would still argue the test is fallible because the metallurgy may not be consistent after so many centuries with what it was "back in the day"...metal fatigue and oxidation among other things would certainly throw a few other variables into a test.

I guess that about sums it up; I bet people will still be arguing about this after we're all dead. Unless we develop wormhole technology that lets us look into the past, say France in 1415...

I heard of a guy on Art Bell who has some time travel technology.

I think that we all know where this is really going: I bet if we used Katana's launched from Ballistas, they would penetrate armor and Datsun engine blocks.

The Darke One

I know a samurai with a jetpack could beat a flying shark.

[Dark Victory]

I know a samurai with a jetpack could beat a flying shark.

That would be SO COOL!



"Next on Fox, "When Flying Sharks ATTACK!"

[Dan Howard]

Hi Russ,

I'm not sure what you are asking. What I was wondering was whether there is enough evidence to enable one to assemble a reasonable reconstruction of two arrows typically carried by English longbowmen. One fitted with a Type 8 and one fitted with a Type 16 - with appropriate shafts and fletching. If so, which would travel futher if both were fired from the same bow? If there is an appreciable difference then it supports my previous argument.

[Russ Mitchell]

Ah... that's easy. Send me some money, and I can have that experiment done a week from when they arrive...

(that's the down side: I've got four EXCELLENT experiments waiting to go, an they all take money... got a hundred guys willing to be shot at by forty archers?)

[Dan Howard]

Hi Russ, I thought you might say something like that. I was hoping that one of the longbow enthusiasts might have already some something similar so that we might use existing data rather than fund a new experiment.