|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 16, 2016 21:06:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by g2knee on Nov 17, 2016 2:12:01 GMT
Nice! If I was wearing that helm I'd be a happy customer.
Sweet crossbow too.
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Nov 17, 2016 16:49:17 GMT
Nice! If I was wearing that helm I'd be a happy customer. Sweet crossbow too. not against a modern crossbow, that bow wouldn't achieve 20ftlbs of ke, and such a small power stroke you loose fps, a modern bow will hit with over 100ftlbs of ke and destroy that helmet
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 17, 2016 20:13:18 GMT
not against a modern crossbow, that bow wouldn't achieve 20ftlbs of ke, and such a small power stroke you loose fps, a modern bow will hit with over 100ftlbs of ke and destroy that helmet I guess it's a good thing no one had modern crossbows back in 700 AD.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Nov 17, 2016 23:07:10 GMT
I'd say that just hitting the helmet would be an achievement.
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Nov 21, 2016 20:28:42 GMT
not against a modern crossbow, that bow wouldn't achieve 20ftlbs of ke, and such a small power stroke you loose fps, a modern bow will hit with over 100ftlbs of ke and destroy that helmet I guess it's a good thing no one had modern crossbows back in 700 AD. right, i just hear a lot of misinformation about old crossbows being so powerful because of their draw weight when in reality draw weight means nothing
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Nov 21, 2016 21:16:59 GMT
I don't know about that. I used to have a crossbow that I think might have been manufactured by the Whamo Corporation in the 1950s. I was in junior high school at the time. The steel bow was, I think, less than eighteen inches, probably closer to fifteen inches. I only had target arrows for the thing. With those, it would make a hole in corrugated steel building material but would not actually penetrate. The draw weight, though, was at least light enough for me to manage it but I couldn't say what it was. It had a pistol grip and no shoulder stock. So, a heavier draw and better arrow heads would almost certainly have produced something that would fully penetrate that same metal, which I suspect was heavier than the helmets in the video.
In situations like this, however, just as in a tank gun projectile striking another tank, there is a lot in the details. The projectile itself and the angle of attack make a lot of difference and it applies equally to a little crossbow bolt against metal body armor which has no flat surfaces. The penetration, or rather, holing of the metal , that I mentioned would not be sufficient to cause injury to whatever was on the other side, provided that the skin was not directly touching the metal on the other side. There would probably be no blunt force trauma inflicted, either.
There were larger crossbows used, too, with much larger projectiles, but you might call them siege weapons. I don't know how heavy or powerful the portable ones were but the most powerful ones required mechanical assistance to cock. The projectiles would invariably been heavier than the ones I was using, too.
The first requirement is still hitting the target. A helmet isn't very big at fifty yards. I was shooting at a barn.
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Nov 22, 2016 4:27:09 GMT
I don't know about that. I used to have a crossbow that I think might have been manufactured by the Whamo Corporation in the 1950s. I was in junior high school at the time. The steel bow was, I think, less than eighteen inches, probably closer to fifteen inches. I only had target arrows for the thing. With those, it would make a hole in corrugated steel building material but would not actually penetrate. The draw weight, though, was at least light enough for me to manage it but I couldn't say what it was. It had a pistol grip and no shoulder stock. So, a heavier draw and better arrow heads would almost certainly have produced something that would fully penetrate that same metal, which I suspect was heavier than the helmets in the video. In situations like this, however, just as in a tank gun projectile striking another tank, there is a lot in the details. The projectile itself and the angle of attack make a lot of difference and it applies equally to a little crossbow bolt against metal body armor which has no flat surfaces. The penetration, or rather, holing of the metal , that I mentioned would not be sufficient to cause injury to whatever was on the other side, provided that the skin was not directly touching the metal on the other side. There would probably be no blunt force trauma inflicted, either. There were larger crossbows used, too, with much larger projectiles, but you might call them siege weapons. I don't know how heavy or powerful the portable ones were but the most powerful ones required mechanical assistance to rooster. The projectiles would invariably been heavier than the ones I was using, too. The first requirement is still hitting the target. A helmet isn't very big at fifty yards. I was shooting at a barn. the ones today are very powerful, lots of kinetic energy, the difference is you have compound crossbows today with larger power strokes and matched bolts set with heavier tips, and shafts and better foc of the bolts, check this out
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Nov 23, 2016 12:46:33 GMT
Against a modern crossbow, the enemy would probably be wearing a modern helmet.
I see there are lots of videos of helmets both modern and otherwise being tested with just about everything and also body armor as well. None were exactly scientific but all were interesting. Tests of old Roman and Medieval helmets are a little suspect because reproductions are being used and which may not equal the originals in quality or thickness. All the projectile weapons used were at short range, which should be taken into account, too. One of the best things you can do to increase projectile effectiveness no matter what your shooting at is to try to get the target to hold still.
I also wonder about the historical accuracy of more or less contemporary illustrations of battles during the Middle Ages. So many illustrations show helmets being cleaved by a sword or other bladed weapon. There are probably YouTube videos of someone testing that idea, although I didn't go look for any. I had also mentioned in some other thread that in some illustrations (from the Morgan Bible) of mounted warriors being stabbed in the face with a dagger by another mounted warrior, which seems a little far-fetched. But in all these cases, allowance has to be made for artistic conventions, whatever they might have been.
It's ironic that there are so many good illustrations of knightly battles found in old Bibles.
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Nov 23, 2016 17:30:25 GMT
Against a modern crossbow, the enemy would probably be wearing a modern helmet.
I see there are lots of videos of helmets both modern and otherwise being tested with just about everything and also body armor as well. None were exactly scientific but all were interesting. Tests of old Roman and Medieval helmets are a little suspect because reproductions are being used and which may not equal the originals in quality or thickness. All the projectile weapons used were at short range, which should be taken into account, too. One of the best things you can do to increase projectile effectiveness no matter what your shooting at is to try to get the target to hold still.
I also wonder about the historical accuracy of more or less contemporary illustrations of battles during the Middle Ages. So many illustrations show helmets being cleaved by a sword or other bladed weapon. There are probably YouTube videos of someone testing that idea, although I didn't go look for any. I had also mentioned in some other thread that in some illustrations (from the Morgan Bible) of mounted warriors being stabbed in the face with a dagger by another mounted warrior, which seems a little far-fetched. But in all these cases, allowance has to be made for artistic conventions, whatever they might have been.
It's ironic that there are so many good illustrations of knightly battles found in old Bibles. true of course today we have harder steels and better broadheads, the one he used here was a blunt head so that makes a huge difference along with the kinetic energy and power stroke of the bow. but even modern helmets wouldn't fair well against a 3 bladed broadhead from a modern crossbow, they aren't really made to be bullet proof just shrapnel proof
|
|