Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2008 3:55:32 GMT
The topic has been gone over mulitiple times, I'm sure. My short amount of research on the net has yielded a couple of useful, if short, articles, but I'm hoping some of you here can direct me to articles of substance on the subject of
The efficacy of various types of armour against arrows.
Range, bow/arrowhead type, pull weight, etc., as well as armour type are all some of the variables I need addressed.
I cannot use opinion, so if an article/note begins "I think" then I don't want to read the rest of it. Research is what I'm after.
Any assistance you guys can render in this respect will be greatly appreciated and noted.
Thanks!
-- Richard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2008 15:36:49 GMT
The problem with this debate is that a definitive test has never been done. Most of the tests I've seen or read about are either biased towards the arrows, or biased towards the armour.
The ones that aren't suffer from lack of accurate testing materials, either armour or bows and arrows.
There are of course, practical reasons for this.
#1: Accurate plate armour and quality riveted maille is expensive. Some tests just use a flat plate of steel 2-3 mm thick.
#2: Many times testers neglect to place appropriate padding under the armour, creating inaccurate results.
#3: The chief problem arises with the bows used. English warbows pulled at a weight of between 120-180 pounds, usually on the lower end of the scale. Very few human beings can fire these bows accurately without training for years. As a result, modern bows are sometimes substituted, with lower draw weights. Calculating the impact energy and velocity, they move the targets closer to adjust. This also makes it easier to hit the target, since bows can be inaccurate past a hundred yards.
#4: The other big inaccuracy involves the arrowheads, which is what I believe your interested in. I've seen modern arrow heads used, I've seen bodkins, broadheads. But I've never seen them used accurately. Of all the bodkins that have been discovered and excavated, (and there are quite a few) close to none of them have been hardened. The majority are made of softer iron. Broadheads on the other hand, were often hardened. This points to the conclusion that bodkins were not used to pierce armour. They would bend upon impact with steel, prventing them from penetrating. It is thought by some that bodkins were used as flight arrows, since arrows with bodkin heads can fly further then ones with broad heads. However, this has been by and largely ignored by testers, who seems to like using hardened bodkin heads.
So, until someone performs a test that meets all this criteria, the answers will always be inconclusive.
|
|
|
Post by jpfranco on Jan 25, 2008 15:46:28 GMT
If you ever have the chance to watch a tv series called:" Weapons that made Britain", the British small arms center preformed test and proved that a short bodkin head could perforate plate armour, gambeson and the flesh at a distance of 20 meters(66 feet) and this with a 90lbs draw longbow. Imagine having to aim and shoot at a charging mounted knight coming full tilt This series is hard to find I may be able to load this part of the show onto you tube before tomorrow. Keep your eyes open.
|
|
|
Post by swordboy bringer of chaos on Jan 25, 2008 15:56:50 GMT
dark.... man that was really good ...... and your right all the tests I've seen where clearly half-assed ...... wich kinda amazes me since groups like the sca pride them selves on historic accuracy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2008 15:58:25 GMT
20 meters is quite short range for a longbow.
I'd also like to know what kind of plate they were using, and the hardness of the arrowhead.
Well, I wouldn't say half-assed. It's just that doing an accurate test is both expensive and difficult. So shortcuts are made. Throw in bias's towards armour and it becomes even harder to get a good test.
|
|
|
Post by jpfranco on Jan 25, 2008 16:07:03 GMT
20 meters is quite short range for a longbow. I'd also like to know what kind of plate they were using, and the hardness of the arrowhead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2008 20:16:27 GMT
If you ever have the chance to watch a tv series called:" Weapons that made Britain", the British small arms center preformed test and proved that a short bodkin head could perforate plate armour, gambeson and the flesh at a distance of 20 meters(66 feet) and this with a 90lbs draw longbow. Do you know if the bodkin points used were hardened? Discipline!! Nerves of steel!!!! Be secure in the knowledge that the pits in front of you will halt that mounted tank!!! Hope your commanders had the smarts and the time to prepare such!!! Lacking these things, run like sheol!!!! That would be useful and I'd be tickled. What I'm getting so far, from the above and from what else I found, is that it appears that plate armour (and probably mail and other types as well) was essentially arrow-proof at distance, less so up close and personal. Does that seem a reasonable assumption?
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 25, 2008 21:29:36 GMT
Don't know if you've seen this test Michael Edelson did on SFI. I found it to be interesting and informative. It seems to be about as well planned as we could expect anyone to afford. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but pretty thorough for what is tested. Riveted Maille and Padded Jack Tests
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2008 21:36:00 GMT
The sword testing is fine, it's the archery that's off. Modern field points fired from a modern bow do not match a bodkin fired from an English warbow.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 25, 2008 21:51:43 GMT
The sword testing is fine, it's the archery that's off. Modern field points fired from a modern bow do not match a bodkin fired from an English warbow. But weren't bodkin tips developed to combat plate armour? I didn't think they were around during the "age of maille"? Am I just confused?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2008 22:15:47 GMT
Most of the bodkins that have been found weren't made of hardened steel. They were just soft forged iron, whereas many broadheads were hardened.
This, coupled with the fact that bodkins seem to travel further then arrows with broadheads, supports the theory that they were used primarily as flight arrows. They could travel further, and would have been used to harass the enemy from long range.
Since they were unhardened, they would deform on plate, reducing their effectiveness. So it stands to reason that if they were used against plate, they would have been hardened.
I am of the opinion that any arrows fired from a medieval longbow could not pierce full plate except under the very best circumstances. The thickness of the plate combined with the fluting and rounded sections would cause the arrows to ricochet off.
Arrows could probably penetrate armour joints, or pierce visors, but not the breastplate.
Maile is an entirely different matter. I would think that bodkins would penetrate, but broadheads would not. But then, I haven't performed any tests and don't have a great deal of experience with bows. So you can take this anyway you want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2008 23:02:56 GMT
The sword testing is fine, it's the archery that's off. Modern field points fired from a modern bow do not match a bodkin fired from an English warbow. But weren't bodkin tips developed to combat plate armour? I didn't think they were around during the "age of maille"? Am I just confused? Well, that's the issue. Seems all bodkin points found are made of iron, not hardened steel. So it is questionable as to whether or not they would penetrate armour at a distance. Close in, very likely, especially if launched from a long bow with a 120 lb + pull weight. But at range?? That is the unanswered question. However, they have found hardened steel points of another type (London Museums Type 16) which are long, narrow, barbed and socketed. These were also carefully made of relatively expensive materials, and are put forth as a more probable anti-armour point. Type 16 point discussed above and in article linked below.(see www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view.jsp?sectionId=3006) If that is the case, then it would appear that plate armour-piercing arrows were used, but what is not yet known is to what extent they were used and how effective they were. I don't think there is any doubt that bodkin points were quite effective against chain mail. Thanks for all your references and input, gents. Keep it coming! I'm not yet done with this subject. In case you are wondering what I'm doing with this, it is some basic research for a novel my wife and I are writing. Epic fantasy, not historical. Yet these issues do apply. -- Richard
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 26, 2008 0:03:37 GMT
As for the show "Weapons That Made Britain"....if its the series im thinkin of, i really enjoyed it, but when demonstrating the penetrating power of an arrow fired from an English Longbow into plate armor, the steel was a flat plate, 14 guage i think....as DI points out this test is somewhat inconclusive as most parts of a suit of armor are curved or fluted to deflect arrows and swordblows. It was also at close range, but it does show what a well aimed or lucky shot would do. As for Bodkin arrows, they were around in the age of maille.... the norse (vikings) had a broad variety of arrow heads, including extremely broad barbed arrows for firing at horses, regular broad heads for soft armor, bodkins for chain-mail, y-shaped heads possibly fired at sails or rigging, and an arrow head that was split behind the point to hold flammable material. I too have heard that bodkins were used in long range to harass troops...it makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 26, 2008 8:45:45 GMT
The part about the Viking arrows is new info to me. Thanks for the input Jak. It's a good day, I learned something new.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 26, 2008 14:29:01 GMT
Typically the term armour piecrcing is meant for maille and not plate. I've yet to see any real evidence to convince me that arrows could kill a man in plate.
Case in point (which I've said frequently). If 1% of the arrows fired at crecy killed a man, then the french would have been massacred before they reached the english line. It was english fighting superiority and tactics that won these battles, not the physical effects of arrows.
|
|
|
Post by jpfranco on Jan 26, 2008 14:46:22 GMT
I agree with you somehow Ramm but don't forget that knights had a true advantage while mounted. The horse was as much a target as the knight. Unmount a knight and you take away some of his advantage away.
As far as Crecy goes, you are right, the French army(and the mercs fighting for them) had developped plate capable of resisting arrows(they still lost the battle when the British pushed them back towards a ditch where most knights drowned). However, I think that at a short distance it was still possible to defeat plate at a higher rate than 1%.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 26, 2008 23:11:16 GMT
Apparently the cannon manned by the English at Crecy had quite an effect on the French armor though....firing grape shot as well as large arrows.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 26, 2008 23:21:10 GMT
The part about the Viking arrows is new info to me. Thanks for the input Jak. It's a good day, I learned something new. This was my source for that info. search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=075663203X&itm=63 I also have "Battle" by the same publisher, and there is a third called "Weapons". They are a very interesting collection. Ranges from Ancient Greece to modern times (including 9/11). Full of pictures of weapons, armor, tactical maps, clothing, artwork, etc.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 27, 2008 0:37:10 GMT
There is no evidence of the cannon doing anything other than making smoke and stench at crecy.
At the battle of Castilon (almost 100 years later) many english knights were killed by the french cannon. But cannons were frequently found in the battles of the hundred years war. Mainly as stylistic siege engines (trebuchets did the job much better but lacked the "coolness" factor of the cannon [mystique, awe, and bling was just as prevelent in the middle ages as it was today]). Unfortunately, they seemed to be rather ineffectual jokes among the rank and file.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2008 3:18:54 GMT
Does it matter when the report was made? There are several instances of reports from Crusaders, referring to knights "turning into porcupines, anable to move their arms, or swing their swords, due to the amount of arrows in them". They would retreat, have squires pull out the arrows, and then re-join the battle. They were completely unharmed. I think the chronicle of De Joinville refers to laying a hauberk over an injured soldier to protect from missile fire.
Another decent book (though a bit biased towards English Longbows) is "Arrows Against Steel".
You might want to check at the Armourarchive.org, Just ignore any reference to combat archery and the SCA. They just went through an 8 month "poof" incident, so some of the threads might have disappeared.
|
|