The Armour Archive

Get a copy of Alan Williams Knight and the Blast furnace on interlibrary loan. Plenty of data on scientific testing of armour in there as well as the metalurgy necessary to recreate period materials. With the "ammunition" contained therein you should be able to confidently "shoot" down the specious arguments the archers are making. Alternatively, you can just read the conclusions which are that plate armour offered very good but not absolute protection against arrows.

Josh Warren wrote:
Their claim just now is that, even if an arrow fails to penetrate armour, it would inflict enough blunt trauma to kill or incapacitate the wearer. I'm not sure I believe this one.

Not sure I'd believe it, either. Newton's laws apply to archers, too; if there's enough energy going forward to "kill or incapacitate" regardless of penetration, then an equal amount of energy is going back into the bowman with every shot.

And his armor's probably not as good.

I've got access to Kansas State University Library's copy of The Knight and the Blast Furnace just two blocks from here. Why they have a copy, I don't know, but I'm grateful that they do.

The longbow guys reject Williams' findings on the subject in that book. Apparently, Williams used too light a bow (75lbs?).

Armour piercing is very much a function of velocity and an arrow is moving much faster than a lance.

And those bullets mentioned earlier were certainly moving much faster than an arrow from even the heaviest bow, yet they failed to penetrate 14ga steel. Velocity is certainly important, but mass may be even more so in this case. I know that the longbow fellows rejected the results of this German test vs. a very powerful crossbow because the weight of the projectile was too light:

http://www.plattnerwerkstatt.de/beschuss.html

d'Antioche wrote:

Josh Warren wrote:
Their claim just now is that, even if an arrow fails to penetrate armour, it would inflict enough blunt trauma to kill or incapacitate the wearer. I'm not sure I believe this one.

Not sure I'd believe it, either. Newton's laws apply to archers, too; if there's enough energy going forward to "kill or incapacitate" regardless of penetration, then an equal amount of energy is going back into the bowman with every shot.

And his armor's probably not as good.

Actually, the only thing that involves Newton's laws would be the bow. The arrow pushes against the string, not the archer. Really, the bow handle balances against the sting/archer, and arrow pushes against the string.

d'Antioche wrote:

Josh Warren wrote:
Their claim just now is that, even if an arrow fails to penetrate armour, it would inflict enough blunt trauma to kill or incapacitate the wearer. I'm not sure I believe this one.

Not sure I'd believe it, either. Newton's laws apply to archers, too; if there's enough energy going forward to "kill or incapacitate" regardless of penetration, then an equal amount of energy is going back into the bowman with every shot.

And his armor's probably not as good.

By this theory the use of firearms is deadly to both target and party pulling trigger. I'm reasonably certain it doesn't work that way.

Gavin

The longbow guys reject any findings which conflict with their preconcieved notion that longbows were invincible. No matter how convincing the evidence they will always find some fig leaf to cover up with.

I beleive sooo strongly that the evidence is coprrect that hardened steel (like my BP) will stop a medieval style arrow (i'll even buy the arrows from HE myself)

i have made the offer to actually stand there in the rig (with certain saftey precautions so that it hits the bp) and be shot.





The catch is.....

After i'm shot i get my turn..


When i survive unharmed i get to hit the archer in the nuts with an aluminum baseball bat.

Oddly no one will take me up on it.

I'd think that the female archers would be lining up...

well while the specific target might not be the same



i imagine that the experience would be none to fun for them either

Even though I have never performed any such test, or have any experience with metallurgy, I think that the angle is key here. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't arrows fired in arcs en-masse, being more of an annoyance than deadly? If an arrow hit a round piece of armor on a downward angle, wouldn't the arrow just bounce off? If that's the case, would that mean that armour was not made for defeating arrows so much as things like crossbows, early guns, and warhammers?

BUMP

Does anyone have any idea how many joules one of those jousters generates on impact?

Josh: penetration is strongly affected by the geometry of the penetrator. That's why my friend in Kansas who's a fencer is seriously worried about the effects of hitting somebody in the head with mechanically-correct cuts with a fencing sabre, but the Dog Brothers can break sticks on each other to their hearts' content. There is a vast literature on the study of ballistics on this study (none of which is precisely applicable to us here, sadly).

Though Wiliams' metallurgical data is priceless, if he did indeed use a 75-lb bow (I have chapter 9 photocopied, but not with me, as I'm on the road), then there is no question that his results require a beady eyeball, as a 75-lb longbow would be exceeded in almost all respects by a typical 10th-century magyar composite warbow, let alone anything relevant to the final stages of the HYW.

I'm not familiar with the longbowmens' experimental setups and data, but if you email me copies, I'll run through it and give it my Mark 1-A1 Official Beady Eyeball.

Also, I have a response to your other question in private mail. The answer is yes, if you allow me to up the ante on you. How far is up to you and other Archivers.

Hi,

Another factor in the "arrow-proof" breastplate idea is the concept of being a "hard target".

Shiney steel makes you more noticeable. But that shine also lets the enemy archer know that you are well armoured. More than likely the archer won't waste an arrow on you and probably go for a less armoured target.

That arrow is going somewhere, and given a choice between a target that is armoured and one that isn't, I bet most archers would fire on the easy, unarmoured targets first.

This might be some of the reason why arrows DID penetrate armour during the historical times. The shine itself was such an avoidance defense that it is quite possible that some of the suits were thin to promote mobility and shiney to scare archers away. Then an archer takes a shot at an over thin suit...

Just an idea.

The "hard target" idea is something that is used in anti-terrorism. The best example I've seen is the PETA example. PETA was out looking to throw blood on people who are wearing animial skins. They have two possible targets:

a. Little, frail, old ladies in furs by themselves.
b. Biker bars full of burly, mean, nasty bikers all dressed in leather.

Both targets wear animal skins. But the second target has numbers, protection and means for quick retaliation against the PETA blood thrower (and would enjoy it).

PETA went for the little old ladies by themselves instead of walking into biker bars and spraying blood on drunk, armed bikers.

What I'm trying to say is that if you are armoured and shiney, it is quite likely that historically you were not a target because the chance of success in killing you was less than the unarmoured person next to you...or your horse.

Lets say the horse and knight are a little over a ton and going about 30mph. That would be close to 100k joules. Now a 2 ton horse going 60 mph will be about 900kj. I have no clue what m and v are so I just picked some. Its very easy to do if you know what the numbers are. Its just 1/2*kg*m/s^2 soooo 1 j =2k*1m/s. 1kg is about 2.2 lbs and 1m/s is about 2mph. I am sure if I am wrong some one will jump in and corect me.

Now all that is great but its totaly worthless. A knight has no hope of transferring all that energy to his target. A lot more has to go into this then just joules.

The fellow says that was a 120-pound bow shot at 2mm high-carbon steel. He does note that his first shot glanced off and did no harm, but his second (pictured) went 4" into the target.

That plate didnt look like it was hit just 2 times, it looks like it was hit over 20 times. Maybe an arrow had already hit that spot before. Maybe its dented like that because he picked it up from the junk yard but then I dont think it would be a high carbon steel

The "helmet" on top of the dummy is 3mm steel, and the dents in it are from a 100-pound bow that failed to penetrate. The man is certain that his 120-pounder would pierce it, though.

Ok so why didnt he test it with his 120 then? I mean he was right there, he could have at least tried but he was so sure it would, he didnt even need to test it. This stuff just doesnt add up so I would rate the test from untrustworthy to somewhere around total bs.

The Williams article shows that you can mathematically predict the amount of energy needed by each type of projectile to penetrate armor. He then goes on to show how experimental data validate the mathematical predictions. The energy applied to the armor can therefore be scaled up and down at will without any further need for reduntant testing on different size bows. This is how cars, airplanes, modern body armor, sky scrapers, etc. are designed. As a mechanical engineer I rely on data and calculations of this type frequently. Actual testing is reserved for double checking calculations, not for basic design. Based on Williams analysis we can clearly see that only impacts of very heavy bows and cross bows at very favorable anges on poor quality metal and/or on the thinner pieces of armor are likely to penetrate far enough to cause serious injury. The idea that these things can only be estimated by experimental results with ever increasing sizes of bows belongs to an era before we could calculate these effects with a high degree of certainty. In short, plate armor was very good but not invulnerable to longbows. If we are allowed to closely examine the tests that seem to show otherwise gross flaws will inevitably be found.

In general, Lorenzo, this is true. However, here are numerous small factors allowing for significant hedging around the edges. One of which is the odd calculations given for padded garments and leather of various types (and unfortunately, materials science almost completely neglects non-sexy materials like wood and leather (and, often, concrete). Experimentally, the theory requires refinements here and there, for when you have materials with an easily determinable modulus combined with those that don't... which is most medieval armor.

Don't get me wrong: Chapter 9 is the most important and valuable part of the book, and it's a godsend for those of us doing experimental archaeology. But that doesn't mean it's perfect, and additional experimental data will continue to either validate, or else refine, said predictions. No scholar will have a problem with that.

Josh Warren wrote:http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n258/nick1346/100_1311449x600.jpg

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n258 ... 49x600.jpg

The fellow says that was a 120-pound bow shot at 2mm high-carbon steel. He does note that his first shot glanced off and did no harm, but his second (pictured) went 4" into the target. The "helmet" on top of the dummy is 3mm steel, and the dents in it are from a 100-pound bow that failed to penetrate. The man is certain that his 120-pounder would pierce it, though.

Fooey.

I'm looking at those pictures right now. They don't look like high carbon steel to me. They look like roof flashing. I've never seen any grey armour anywhere.

Also, a few questions for the guy who posted those pics. What is behind the metal? It matters. You can punch a hole in a sheet of metal pretty easily with a screwdriver, if you have it on an anvil and hammer on it. If it's on a pile of pillows, it becomes impossible. So what's behind those metal pieces?

How close was he standing to the target? Two feet, or two hundred? Remember - it's called archery for the arch of the projectile. Did he shoot this arrow up at an arc towards the target like an archer would, or did he stand toe-to-toe with it and let her rip? Again, there is a difference. I think very few medieval archers would wish to be toe-to-toe with an armoured foe.

Russ, what you say is correct. Any model is just a representation of the real world and cannot incorporate every variable present in an actual situation. Still, is vey unlikely that the minor variations caused by the extra variables that you mention will cause the basic conclusion that plate armor was good but not perfect protection from arrow to be altered.

Lorenzo, on that we agree 100%.

Luis: that's some real spiffy pop-etymology you've got going there...

Minotaur wrote:That plate didnt look like it was hit just 2 times, it looks like it was hit over 20 times.

That is true. In looking at that photo, I hadn't noticed that before, so intent was I on the arrow that actually did penetrate. It does indeed appear that the wanna-be breastplate was shot unsuccessfully an awful lot of times before any penetration was achieved. Well spotted. My faith in 14ga steel is somewhat restored.

16 ga mild

it's soft

it's thin

it's not real great as the current state of armour goes.


I have a 60 something lb recurve bow.

I've shot modern arrows at 16 ga mild flat sheet steel at damn near point blank range.

Not one arrow penetrated. They left little dings that were pointy on the back of the steel.

But NONE of the arrows went through steel that lil ole me can dent with my fist.

And i'm not big,

with rattan i can collapse 16 ga stuff....and again....i'm not that big a buy and i don't hit all that hard.


There is again no way in hell that a medieval arrow from even a 120 lb bow willpenetrate 2mm temperd spring. Much les 3

Russ Mitchell wrote:Luis: that's some real spiffy pop-etymology you've got going there...

Well, correct me then. I'd welcome that. What's the real reason?

Josh,

The account is monsrelet I believe but I could not find it in the translations I had so I will go back when I have some time to relook at it. I will look for some pictures of 15th century knights with them if you like. There are quite a few, usually a few peppered throughout a battlefield. It was suggestion to avoid alot of perhaps not needed changed to a very nice harness.


As far as Dr. William's testing. It is good. And what Louis says is I think important as well as the Factors that Russ mentioned that were not part of the test. it is important to be familiar with the test the shortcomings as well as the benefits of it. (HE did use terribly low draw weights, anyone who read it and had an understanding of them thinks so, 75 for a bow 200 for a crossbow, he should have used a slingshot.... The RMC is starting their testing with a 400 pound crossbow and i believe it is a composite bow!)

16-14 gauge (1.5-2mm) plate is actually quite thick in medieval standards. Most breastplates are usually around the 1.6mm from the ones I have measured. IT is not until after 1500 from what I have measured where 2mm is exceeded often (usually cavalry armour I think)

I think that the test shown earlier does have some interesting items to pull out but it is by no means difinitive but I am impressed the arrows did the damage to such thicknesses (although the quality and type of metal is more or less unknown).

RPM

Murdock wrote:16 ga mild

it's soft

it's thin

it's not real great as the current state of armour goes.


I have a 60 something lb recurve bow.

I've shot modern arrows at 16 ga mild flat sheet steel at damn near point blank range.

Not one arrow penetrated. They left little dings that were pointy on the back of the steel.

But NONE of the arrows went through steel that lil ole me can dent with my fist.

And i'm not big,

with rattan i can collapse 16 ga stuff....and again....i'm not that big a buy and i don't hit all that hard.


There is again no way in hell that a medieval arrow from even a 120 lb bow willpenetrate 2mm temperd spring. Much les 3

Murdock, get your hands on a bodkin, or use a hunting arrow with the bone splitting tip. A target tips are not a good shape to get penetration on steel as they are round. something square or triangular makes cutting edges, Like one of those old can opener type things that puts a triangular shape hole in a juice can to make a pourable spout.
I used my compound bow and shot at a car door, target points just made a small hole, not even enough to hold the arrow, the 4 sided chisel cut of a bone splitting hunting head was far more impressive as the 4 sided nature provided and "edge" that was able to "cut" the steel.
Not saying any of the above is some type of armour piercing test at all, only an experiment at what it took to get decent penetration on a car door with a compound bow. Round target tips dont dont do it well, a chisel cut head much like a bodkin does.

Louis de Leon wrote:

Russ Mitchell wrote:Luis: that's some real spiffy pop-etymology you've got going there...

Well, correct me then. I'd welcome that. What's the real reason?

Actually, I don't know. =) I would suggest the curve of the bow, though, rather than the arching of the arrow in long-distance flight...

" used my compound bow and shot at a car door, target points just made a small hole, not even enough to hold the arrow, the 4 sided chisel cut of a bone splitting hunting head was far more impressive as the 4 sided nature provided and "edge" that was able to "cut" the steel."

Car doors are dang near tin foil, again like my snow shovel I can poke a scewdrive in it with minimal effort.

Whats the effective poundage of your compound btw.


annnnnndd there was something else i was gonna ask but i can't think of it now.

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Archer

1297, from O.Fr. archier, from L. arcarius, from arcus "bow" (see arc). Also a 17c. name for the bishop in chess. Archery is c.1400, from O.Fr. archerie.

Arc

c.1386, from O.Fr. arc, from L. arcus "a bow, arch," from PIE base *arqu- "bowed, curved" (cf. Goth. arhvazna "arrow," O.E. earh, O.N. ör). Electrical sense is from 1821.

I wonder what they called it before 1400, and archers before 1297?

Marshal wrote:From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Archer

1297, from O.Fr. archier, from L. arcarius, from arcus "bow" (see arc). Also a 17c. name for the bishop in chess. Archery is c.1400, from O.Fr. archerie.

Arc

c.1386, from O.Fr. arc, from L. arcus "a bow, arch," from PIE base *arqu- "bowed, curved" (cf. Goth. arhvazna "arrow," O.E. earh, O.N. ör). Electrical sense is from 1821.

I wonder what they called it before 1400, and archers before 1297?

As many medieval accounts were written in Latin: sagittarius.

Murdock wrote:" used my compound bow and shot at a car door, target points just made a small hole, not even enough to hold the arrow, the 4 sided chisel cut of a bone splitting hunting head was far more impressive as the 4 sided nature provided and "edge" that was able to "cut" the steel."

Car doors are dang near tin foil, again like my snow shovel I can poke a scewdrive in it with minimal effort.

Whats the effective poundage of your compound btw.


annnnnndd there was something else i was gonna ask but i can't think of it now.

A 53 Pontiac is not like a modern car door Murdock. My point was not about material thickness thickness, my point was about the shape of the arrow head, A round target head does not work as well as a head with "sides" as it does not cut.
I have an awl i made by grinding a point on a round phillips screwdrivet. I
have another made from an 3 sided bayonette, With some effort i can push the round alw through a trashcan, with almost no effort i can push the 3 sided bayonette through the same material.
My point is that an arrow head with edges will cut through its target a target point will not. So I am not supprised you did not get any penetration with your test.
The compound bow is set at 60 lbs

Kel Rekuta wrote:As many medieval accounts were written in Latin: sagittarius.

And that's why I can't give the answer, either. Sagitarii and balestarii doesn't help us with the "arc" root. A Dictionary won't help you there... we'd need a philologist.

White Mountain Armoury wrote:My point is that an arrow head with edges will cut through its target a target point will not. So I am not supprised you did not get any penetration with your test.

And Taybugha advises, when shooting at heavily-armored foes, to break off the tip of bodkin-type arrowheads to form a square-sectioned surface.

Does this imply that the bodkin typology was not specifically designed to penetrate heavy armour? If so then we come back to the theory that the bodkin's primary purpose was to increase range.

I bet you could get a modern cross bow close to the effective poundage of the merry rose bow, build a hybrid arrow and give it a test.

-+G

Bodkin could have been developed to face Maille.
The breaking of the tip if used against white armour, should give the arrow more "grip" and more edges that could crack che metal... is something about statistic i think.

One of the other issue's I have is the 'bodkin' arrow has become a catagory with a large variation of types inside it. There are some that look like foursided long picks and some look more like crossbow heads or chisels. I cannot think they all served the same purpose. Other cultures, the mongols for example have a number of arrow types some for range and harrasment others for close fighting.

RPM