Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > The accuracy of the ARMA warhammer test/Plate vs warhammer Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Ben P.




Location: Your Mind
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 200

PostPosted: Fri 02 Apr, 2010 9:56 pm    Post subject: The accuracy of the ARMA warhammer test/Plate vs warhammer         Reply with quote

Okay I guess the title says all, anyways I got involved in a discussion on the ARMA warhammer test against an armet, here: http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36838#36838

So I need some info about plate (specifically Maximilian) against warhammers.

And, how accurate was the ARMA Armet against warhammer test?

The link is here: http://www.thearma.org/photos/Gathering03/testcutting.htm
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 562

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr, 2010 12:39 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

For one thing the claim that modern steel is just about always better than period steel is just nonsense, modern steels are made in a huge range of qualities some of which are better and some of which are worse than period steels.

As far as armour is concerned the hardness rating is one of the key factors, thetesting done on armour used the Vickers test som the number given is using that scale (VPH). Hardend Italian armour had a hardness range of 300-400 VPH, hardend German armour 400-500 VPH. By comparison modern mild steel rates 100 VPH, unhardend tool steel 250 VPH and hardend tool steel 500-600 VPH. Much, indeed perhaps most reenactment armour is made using mild steel because it is easy to work. Even the armour which is made of better steel is seldom hardend because of the cost and skill that requires. So any test done without a clear description of the steel quality and it's actual hardness is worthless,
all to often this kind of back yard testing involve hitting inferior armour with fairly high quality weapons.

"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
View user's profile Send private message
Artis Aboltins




PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr, 2010 1:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Some nice stuff on the images - I am sure they had ton of fun dooing all that!
However, I noticed something strange regarding to their test pictures:
http://www.thearma.org/photos/Gathering03/tes...ting05.jpg
title on this one says "Tim Sheetz in armor with an arming sword cuts at a bascinet". IMO, the helmet at the picture does not really look like bascinet?
View user's profile Send private message
Sander Marechal




Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 04 Dec 2009
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 671

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr, 2010 2:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nope, that looks very much like a burgeonet.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional



Location: Upstate NY
Joined: 18 Oct 2003

Posts: 1,563

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr, 2010 4:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Its an old Valentine 18 gauge close helmet with no visor. Mr.Valentine sent a few seconds to the event pictured to beat on.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr, 2010 5:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just for reference, this is a common type of "un-galvanized sheet metal" sold in the U.S. http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=m4130r

Strength is roughly half to a third that of many tool steels. It does harden when cold worked, but I don't know what hardness cold plannished armour made of it would be.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Johan Gemvik




Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 10 Nov 2009

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr, 2010 6:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Daniel Staberg wrote:
For one thing the claim that modern steel is just about always better than period steel is just nonsense, modern steels are made in a huge range of qualities some of which are better and some of which are worse than period steels.

As far as armour is concerned the hardness rating is one of the key factors, thetesting done on armour used the Vickers test som the number given is using that scale (VPH). Hardend Italian armour had a hardness range of 300-400 VPH, hardend German armour 400-500 VPH. By comparison modern mild steel rates 100 VPH, unhardend tool steel 250 VPH and hardend tool steel 500-600 VPH. Much, indeed perhaps most reenactment armour is made using mild steel because it is easy to work. Even the armour which is made of better steel is seldom hardend because of the cost and skill that requires. So any test done without a clear description of the steel quality and it's actual hardness is worthless,
all to often this kind of back yard testing involve hitting inferior armour with fairly high quality weapons.


I wouldn't call it exactly nonense. Not being very scientifically exact for this sort of test yes, but usually it's the case today that modern steel is stronger, more resilient and with fewer imperfections than reneissance armour.

Hardness of a steel alone doesn't tell the whole story, they can be overhardened and then the'd be brittle. Look instead at Tensile strength. That factor is way up even in modern low grade plate, not to mention specialised alloys and hardening processes that weren't around back then. Also some steel may harden with age and isn't the same today as it was back then.

Steel today is made with modern electronic control of the furnace process, making every smelting and heating process perfect, that's not what it was like in medieval times, or even the early 1900s when temperature was still gauged by eye with the color of the metal. Even poor quality with modern standards would be far above average even in the high Reneissance and we can do things today in steel production they could only dream of.

"The Dwarf sees farther than the Giant when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on" -Coleridge


Last edited by Johan Gemvik on Sat 03 Apr, 2010 6:51 am; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 562

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr, 2010 6:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

18 gauge= 1.27 mm, I can't recall I've to have read about a helmet skull that thin, closest is in the 1.4-1.5 mm range but those were all made from hardend steel. A helmet in 18 gauge mild stell would preform like low grade munitions armour but not nearly be close to the effectiveness of high quality armour.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
View user's profile Send private message
Johan Gemvik




Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 10 Nov 2009

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Sat 03 Apr, 2010 6:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Daniel Staberg wrote:
18 gauge= 1.27 mm, I can't recall I've to have read about a helmet skull that thin, closest is in the 1.4-1.5 mm range but those were all made from hardend steel. A helmet in 18 gauge mild stell would preform like low grade munitions armour but not nearly be close to the effectiveness of high quality armour.


I could calculate some helmet thicknesses from weights of complete helments I have data on. But 1.27 does seem on the thin side. I'd have guessed most to be between 1.5-2 mm. depends on what type of helm, how exactly it was made. If a helmet is driven into complex shapes it would usually become thinner than otherwise, or thinner is certain spots and thicker in others. When you shape the steel you can control this to a certain degree if you're an accomplished armourer. Modern replicas sometimes lack that finesse and have thin spots where you'd most easily strike it.

Still, I've had similar results with warhammers or poinlty backs of axes as seen in the test, with 2 mm modern steel, even stainless steel. I think it's all just a matter of how hard you hit. I think the point won't necessarily kill a person, but hooking the head with that strike and pulling hard could break someone's neck.

"The Dwarf sees farther than the Giant when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on" -Coleridge
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > The accuracy of the ARMA warhammer test/Plate vs warhammer
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum