While searching through the internet, I found this thesis written by Matheus Bane in January 2006.
As the thesis itself isn't "very" recent, some of the members of this forum might have read this before.
It can be read in the following URL.(PDF Reader required.)
: http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/...esting.pdf
The author shot 75lbs yew longbow against jack(deerskin on 15 layers of linen),
both butted and riveted mail, coat of plates, and finally, the plate armour.
The author originally wished to see how an arrow shot from 110lbs bow, at the range of 250 yards would perform, but
he could only have access to one with 75lbs one. However, to earn the performance closest
to his original attempt, he calculated and decided to shoot the 75lbs bow at 10 yard-range, which he thought
would have effect similar to 110lbs bow shot from 250 yards away. Formulas used can be read in details in the thesis.
The author concluded that although jack and coat of plates did manage to reduce the force of the arrow, men in these armour were still at danger, with soldiers in plate armour being much safer. The results on the mail seemed to have disappointed the author fairly much.
Due to my own lack of expertise on this matter, I not sure about the historical accuracy of the materials on the armour(although the author does seem to have paid much attention to it) or the author's assumption on the kinetic energy of 75lbs and 110lbs bows. I'm not even sure about the difference of kinetic energy of the 110lbs bow "according to formulas", and the real ones shot in real world.(I don't mean, however, to degrade the author's effort.)
Although I need furthermore study to have some insight on this matter, the experiment seems probative and useful.
umm i dunno about his result. there are writings if i'm not mistaken about men walking around with arrows hanging from there jacks. i know that i would have been ok had i been inside of my jack we shot lsat year at close range with a70 lb bow
I already posted a link to this paper in Mike's armour piercing thread in the Off-Topic forum. There isn't a single target in this paper that is even close to what was worn in period. The only conclusion worth mentioning is that the author considered Type 16 broadheads to be effective armour-piercers. I have been arguing for some time that the armour-piercers in various English documents is the Type 16 and not the bodkin. IMO the bodkin was for flight arrows, not armour-piercers.
There are only two papers worth reading on this subject. The first can be found in Alan Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace". The second is in the latest issue of the RA's Arms and Armour journal. I did a review here.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=79261
There are only two papers worth reading on this subject. The first can be found in Alan Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace". The second is in the latest issue of the RA's Arms and Armour journal. I did a review here.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=79261
I'm so relectant to open this old crock again.
There are just too many assumptions on the part of the author regarding the archery in this paper. Those assumptions, in my view, invalidate almost any findings.
To give a clearer analogy, consider a test series attempting to test the effectiveness of late 14th Century armour against swords (something I believe that has been discussed on this forum?). Now test the armour using a 16th Century Italian rapier handled by a modern sport fencer. By linear extrapolation, calculate the effect of the sword would have if it had been a Type XVII bastard sword.
This is obviously an invalid test: The sword dynamics cannot simply be extrapolated from one weapon to another; and the modern fencer's technique is incorrect for fighting against harness.
So, give the modern fencer an accurate reproduction of a Type XVII sword and try again. Is this test any more valid? Almost certainly not, since the fencer's technique will not be correct for the type of weapon he is using and it is very unlikely he will be using the sword effectively.
The same is true any bow-based testing. The English war bow is, in fact, a weapons system consisting of three things: The bow (plus string); the arrow; and the archer. All three of these factors must be matched to achieve any validity. One, or two out of three leaves an unbalanced - and therefore less effective - system. It is worth considering each of these components separately:
The bow:
An English war bow is a very different weapon to a Victorian recreational bow (used for the majority of such tests - including the test under discussion). The livery bow was made of taxus baccata (never taxus brevifolia) usually from High altitude sources in Spain, Italy Portugal, etc. This high altitude wood has significantly different characteristics to low-level yew (due to the harsher growing conditions) and yields a bow with a higher draw-weight (dimension for dimension). I have recently seen a high-altitude yew bow made to Mary Rose dimensions with a draw-weight of 202lb! There have been many estimates of bow weights; usually in the 80 - 100lb range. I believe there is enough evidence (based on modern reproductions made in high-altitude yew) to suggest that this figure is far too low, and 140 - 150lb is a conservative average
Also critical is the shape and tillering of the bow. The livery bow typically has a 4/3 width/depth ratio and is designed to 'come compass' - BUT, only at a 32" draw. The design of the bow is such that the full length of the limb is working only when the bow is drawn to 32". Drawing a bow to less will result in a less powerful draw. As an example, based on a non-linear draw-weight model (typical of the MR bow pattern), a bow of 100lb @ 28" is actually 15% less powerful than a bow of 100lb @ 32"
The arrow:
Studies by the FBI, and others, have lead to the conclusion the most effective missile (bullets in the FBI's case; but arrows follow the same trend) is a big, heavy missile travelling fast. The arrow must thus fulfil the following criteria: It must be capable of inflicting damage on the chosen target; it must be sufficiently robust to withstand impact (otherwise energy is lost is deforming the arrow, not the target); it must be travelling with significant speed. The oft-quoted kinetic energy requirements are obviously necessary, but also of importance is transfer of momentum. Light arrows travelling fast may have fatal kinetic energy but they lack the momentum of a heavier missile. They also lack the robustness of the heavier missile.
The criteria to achieve damage lead to one thing: A stiff, heavy arrow. To achieve high impact velocity by necessity requires a powerful bow.
Virtually all medieval (and Tudor) military arrows found are massive - estimates range from 75 - 100g. Shooting a replica arrow from a lightweight bow (that is, having one of the factors correct) is, intuitively, ineffective as the light bow does not have the power to cast the heavy arrow. However, shooting a scaled replica arrow off a scaled draw-weight bow is also invalid as the arrow now does not contain correct energy or momentum. Curiously, shooting a light arrow off a correct-spec bow is also incorrect: The war bow is designed to cast a heavy arrow, not a light one, so it is akin to a dry loose and much of the bow's energy is incorrectly dissapated. Again, the most effective solution is the correct specification arrow being shot from the correct bow.
A final factor, often ignored (especially by those tests with a higer budget!) is the ballistic characteristics of an arrow. In flight and arrow spins and flexes. These characterstics are essentially removed when an air cannon or drop-test is used to simulate arrow impact. It is not known how much these actually influence the penetration ability of the arrow but recent tests by the Defence Academy suggest that it may be a significant feature.
The archer:
This is the most over-looked aspect of the weapons system. The archer must be considered in two ways: The shooting technique employed; and the physical capability of the archer himself.
The shooting technique of the war bow archer is significantly different to that of the modern sport archer (and by extension, the American hunting style). Often, the war bow archer is ridiculed for the 'stuck out bum' posture. This posture is not an affectation, it is a consequence of the archer uses his musculature to maximum benefit to achieve his aims. Considered the purpose of the war bow: to inflict as much damage on an enemy as possible. That means the archer needs to get as much power into the arrow as possible (for range or impact damage). The fabled draw 'to the ear' is a mechanism for bending the bow to its most efficient; that movement being defined by the length of the arrow. Any length of arrow not drawn within the bow is essentially 'dead weight'.
in addition the technique allows the archer to make use of the spring that is his body, adding to the bows power. No formal experiments have been performed on this but estimates range as high as an additional 20% energy in the arrow comes from the archer himself!
The other factor to consider is the capability of the archer. And this does not necessary mean just strength. The phrase 'mastering the bow' is used. It is possible for an archer to draw a bow, of heavy weight, but that does not mean he is achieving anywhere near the potential of the weapon system. It has been demonstrated many times that an archer not 'on top of' his bow can be outshot by a more capable archer; sometimes by 40% or more.
Thus, irrespective of the target characteristics (which is a separate argument) the above criteria must be fulfilled before any valid test can be performed. There is no evidence that producing a proportional model of the bow system (as has been done in all but one set of tests, to my knowledge) then using linear extrapolation to scale up the result gives any sort of valid answer.
Much of the argument from the war bow community against test such as this one are centred on the above factors. It has very little to do with whether the armour can be penetrated or not (that is merely interesting) and more to do with ensuring the test is a fair reflection of the technologies involved.
Of course, all of these experiments are based on a false underlying axiom: that the bow was used primarily as a weapon to kill individuals. There is no evidence to suggest that was the case. All the evidence points to the bow being used as a tactical weapon for long range engagement. That the bow can penetrate armour defences, or not, is largely moot. In some cases it can; in others, not.
This can be demonstrated by a simple statistic: At Crecy, the English faced 25,000 French with 500,000 arrows. That means 20 arrows for every Frenchman on the field. If 5% of arrows were effective (a typically quoted figure for missile effectiveness) that would mean every Frenchman on the field would have been killed by an arrow! History records that this was not, in fact, the case...
The who-would-win... arguments are largely generated by extremists - either armour or bow. The sad fact is these extremists are largely ignorant of both technologies and rely on myth or historical commonplace for their 'facts'.
There are just too many assumptions on the part of the author regarding the archery in this paper. Those assumptions, in my view, invalidate almost any findings.
To give a clearer analogy, consider a test series attempting to test the effectiveness of late 14th Century armour against swords (something I believe that has been discussed on this forum?). Now test the armour using a 16th Century Italian rapier handled by a modern sport fencer. By linear extrapolation, calculate the effect of the sword would have if it had been a Type XVII bastard sword.
This is obviously an invalid test: The sword dynamics cannot simply be extrapolated from one weapon to another; and the modern fencer's technique is incorrect for fighting against harness.
So, give the modern fencer an accurate reproduction of a Type XVII sword and try again. Is this test any more valid? Almost certainly not, since the fencer's technique will not be correct for the type of weapon he is using and it is very unlikely he will be using the sword effectively.
The same is true any bow-based testing. The English war bow is, in fact, a weapons system consisting of three things: The bow (plus string); the arrow; and the archer. All three of these factors must be matched to achieve any validity. One, or two out of three leaves an unbalanced - and therefore less effective - system. It is worth considering each of these components separately:
The bow:
An English war bow is a very different weapon to a Victorian recreational bow (used for the majority of such tests - including the test under discussion). The livery bow was made of taxus baccata (never taxus brevifolia) usually from High altitude sources in Spain, Italy Portugal, etc. This high altitude wood has significantly different characteristics to low-level yew (due to the harsher growing conditions) and yields a bow with a higher draw-weight (dimension for dimension). I have recently seen a high-altitude yew bow made to Mary Rose dimensions with a draw-weight of 202lb! There have been many estimates of bow weights; usually in the 80 - 100lb range. I believe there is enough evidence (based on modern reproductions made in high-altitude yew) to suggest that this figure is far too low, and 140 - 150lb is a conservative average
Also critical is the shape and tillering of the bow. The livery bow typically has a 4/3 width/depth ratio and is designed to 'come compass' - BUT, only at a 32" draw. The design of the bow is such that the full length of the limb is working only when the bow is drawn to 32". Drawing a bow to less will result in a less powerful draw. As an example, based on a non-linear draw-weight model (typical of the MR bow pattern), a bow of 100lb @ 28" is actually 15% less powerful than a bow of 100lb @ 32"
The arrow:
Studies by the FBI, and others, have lead to the conclusion the most effective missile (bullets in the FBI's case; but arrows follow the same trend) is a big, heavy missile travelling fast. The arrow must thus fulfil the following criteria: It must be capable of inflicting damage on the chosen target; it must be sufficiently robust to withstand impact (otherwise energy is lost is deforming the arrow, not the target); it must be travelling with significant speed. The oft-quoted kinetic energy requirements are obviously necessary, but also of importance is transfer of momentum. Light arrows travelling fast may have fatal kinetic energy but they lack the momentum of a heavier missile. They also lack the robustness of the heavier missile.
The criteria to achieve damage lead to one thing: A stiff, heavy arrow. To achieve high impact velocity by necessity requires a powerful bow.
Virtually all medieval (and Tudor) military arrows found are massive - estimates range from 75 - 100g. Shooting a replica arrow from a lightweight bow (that is, having one of the factors correct) is, intuitively, ineffective as the light bow does not have the power to cast the heavy arrow. However, shooting a scaled replica arrow off a scaled draw-weight bow is also invalid as the arrow now does not contain correct energy or momentum. Curiously, shooting a light arrow off a correct-spec bow is also incorrect: The war bow is designed to cast a heavy arrow, not a light one, so it is akin to a dry loose and much of the bow's energy is incorrectly dissapated. Again, the most effective solution is the correct specification arrow being shot from the correct bow.
A final factor, often ignored (especially by those tests with a higer budget!) is the ballistic characteristics of an arrow. In flight and arrow spins and flexes. These characterstics are essentially removed when an air cannon or drop-test is used to simulate arrow impact. It is not known how much these actually influence the penetration ability of the arrow but recent tests by the Defence Academy suggest that it may be a significant feature.
The archer:
This is the most over-looked aspect of the weapons system. The archer must be considered in two ways: The shooting technique employed; and the physical capability of the archer himself.
The shooting technique of the war bow archer is significantly different to that of the modern sport archer (and by extension, the American hunting style). Often, the war bow archer is ridiculed for the 'stuck out bum' posture. This posture is not an affectation, it is a consequence of the archer uses his musculature to maximum benefit to achieve his aims. Considered the purpose of the war bow: to inflict as much damage on an enemy as possible. That means the archer needs to get as much power into the arrow as possible (for range or impact damage). The fabled draw 'to the ear' is a mechanism for bending the bow to its most efficient; that movement being defined by the length of the arrow. Any length of arrow not drawn within the bow is essentially 'dead weight'.
in addition the technique allows the archer to make use of the spring that is his body, adding to the bows power. No formal experiments have been performed on this but estimates range as high as an additional 20% energy in the arrow comes from the archer himself!
The other factor to consider is the capability of the archer. And this does not necessary mean just strength. The phrase 'mastering the bow' is used. It is possible for an archer to draw a bow, of heavy weight, but that does not mean he is achieving anywhere near the potential of the weapon system. It has been demonstrated many times that an archer not 'on top of' his bow can be outshot by a more capable archer; sometimes by 40% or more.
Thus, irrespective of the target characteristics (which is a separate argument) the above criteria must be fulfilled before any valid test can be performed. There is no evidence that producing a proportional model of the bow system (as has been done in all but one set of tests, to my knowledge) then using linear extrapolation to scale up the result gives any sort of valid answer.
Much of the argument from the war bow community against test such as this one are centred on the above factors. It has very little to do with whether the armour can be penetrated or not (that is merely interesting) and more to do with ensuring the test is a fair reflection of the technologies involved.
Of course, all of these experiments are based on a false underlying axiom: that the bow was used primarily as a weapon to kill individuals. There is no evidence to suggest that was the case. All the evidence points to the bow being used as a tactical weapon for long range engagement. That the bow can penetrate armour defences, or not, is largely moot. In some cases it can; in others, not.
This can be demonstrated by a simple statistic: At Crecy, the English faced 25,000 French with 500,000 arrows. That means 20 arrows for every Frenchman on the field. If 5% of arrows were effective (a typically quoted figure for missile effectiveness) that would mean every Frenchman on the field would have been killed by an arrow! History records that this was not, in fact, the case...
The who-would-win... arguments are largely generated by extremists - either armour or bow. The sad fact is these extremists are largely ignorant of both technologies and rely on myth or historical commonplace for their 'facts'.
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| I already posted a link to this paper in Mike's armour piercing thread in the Off-Topic forum. There isn't a single target in this paper that is even close to what was worn in period. The only conclusion worth mentioning is that the author considered Type 16 broadheads to be effective armour-piercers. I have been arguing for some time that the armour-piercers in various English documents is the Type 16 and not the bodkin. IMO the bodkin was for flight arrows, not armour-piercers. |
My belief is that the Type16 was a general-purpose warhead used predominantly from around the first quarter of the 15th Century. However, not the type16 shown in this paper (which I believe is a different type) but the one shown in much 15thC artwork, with the flared-outward barbs. I suspect it would be effective against armour (to a degree) but also very effective against horses and lightly protected infantry.
Bodkin is a bit of a catch-all term. The needle-like long bodkin (type 7) is demonstrably poor against hard armour (plate) but is very effective against linen and maile armours.
Against plate, experiments have shown the lozenge head (sometimes referred to as a heavy war, or heavy type 10) is most effective (but less so against linen armours). These are sometimes referred to as bodkins, also (although we prefer the term 'plate cutter'!)
The heavy war lozenge is just too heavy for a flight arrow, where you want to keep the centre of gravity close to the geometric centre. This means a light head, whether that be a needle bodkin, a small type10 or even just a simple cone of metal.
I was interested to come across this thread - not for the unanswerable questions about how to standardise tests for arrow impact etc and thus the penetration effect on armour but rather on arrowheads. I have been doing research for the last eighteen months on the distribution of arrowhead types from the 14th-15th centuries in the UK. I must stress UK only since I do not have data for Europe and suspect the situation there to be different in any case.
My preliminary findings are that type 16 heads are the dominant form (with derivatives/variations thereof) on battlefield locations. Bodkins of various types are conspicuous in their absence from such sites other than a few very heavy pieces which are just as or indeed more likely to be quarrel heads than arrowheads. Bodkins etc are however more commonly found around fortifications and in domestic settings (e.g. village greens). The growing hypothesis is that bodkins were actually more likely to be practice points than war points.
The aim is to present this as a formal paper on completion of my research but I would welcome any feedback that people may have. Remember I am looking at distribution of heads and I am not overly concerned with whether a bodkin can pierce plate etc. We've all shot arrows through armour but that is not necesarily a good scientific test. So if anyone is aware of site reports, PAS reports etc showing find locations for arrowheads in the UK that they can direct me to that would be very welcome indeed.
Unfortunately (or should that be fortunately) archery is a subject that arouses great passions. Trying to get to basics is very difficult and anecdotal evidence is often overwhelming be it from original sources or modern experience. I am keen to stay as objective as possible on this subject and hope people will consider this study in that light.
On a related subject I am also keen to find the earliest firm evidence for horn nocks on medieval bows - again primarily from the UK. An archaeological example is more than we could hope for but a good period illustration that can push this back earlier than the end of the fifteenth century would be very helpful. Please note I have seen many pictures that "could" be horn nocks but I am in search of an illustration that is very clearly a horn (or antler) nock.
Thanks for your help.
My preliminary findings are that type 16 heads are the dominant form (with derivatives/variations thereof) on battlefield locations. Bodkins of various types are conspicuous in their absence from such sites other than a few very heavy pieces which are just as or indeed more likely to be quarrel heads than arrowheads. Bodkins etc are however more commonly found around fortifications and in domestic settings (e.g. village greens). The growing hypothesis is that bodkins were actually more likely to be practice points than war points.
The aim is to present this as a formal paper on completion of my research but I would welcome any feedback that people may have. Remember I am looking at distribution of heads and I am not overly concerned with whether a bodkin can pierce plate etc. We've all shot arrows through armour but that is not necesarily a good scientific test. So if anyone is aware of site reports, PAS reports etc showing find locations for arrowheads in the UK that they can direct me to that would be very welcome indeed.
Unfortunately (or should that be fortunately) archery is a subject that arouses great passions. Trying to get to basics is very difficult and anecdotal evidence is often overwhelming be it from original sources or modern experience. I am keen to stay as objective as possible on this subject and hope people will consider this study in that light.
On a related subject I am also keen to find the earliest firm evidence for horn nocks on medieval bows - again primarily from the UK. An archaeological example is more than we could hope for but a good period illustration that can push this back earlier than the end of the fifteenth century would be very helpful. Please note I have seen many pictures that "could" be horn nocks but I am in search of an illustration that is very clearly a horn (or antler) nock.
Thanks for your help.
I have a theory that horn nocks are related to the increase in bow performance around the end of the 14thC.
To increase the cast and power of a bow you need to make the limbs as light as possible, so that as little energy is lost accelerating the limb rather than the arrow. This means making the limb tips smaller. As bow weights increased, to launch heavier arrows against better-protected targets, there comes a point where a 'naked' limb tip is just not strong enough to take the power of the bow. Therefore reinforcement, in the form of a horn nock, becomes more common place.
A difficulty in distinguishing horn nocks in medieval art is the fact that cow horn would be used (unlike the buffalo horn used today - not a lot of buffalo in medieval England!) which is often a creamy white colour, rather than an (artisticly distinct!) black. Hence all the 'could be's...'
My favourite early 'could-be's': The two archers shown in the margin of the Romance of Alexander (c. 1338 - 44). See The Great Warbow, Strickland and Hardy, p189. The archer on the right has black marks top and bottom of his bow; his colleague (on the left) has white nocks.
Also, the archer from the Luttrell Psalter (c.1330) as shown in The Great Warbow p172 - a definite black mark on the top of the bow
To increase the cast and power of a bow you need to make the limbs as light as possible, so that as little energy is lost accelerating the limb rather than the arrow. This means making the limb tips smaller. As bow weights increased, to launch heavier arrows against better-protected targets, there comes a point where a 'naked' limb tip is just not strong enough to take the power of the bow. Therefore reinforcement, in the form of a horn nock, becomes more common place.
A difficulty in distinguishing horn nocks in medieval art is the fact that cow horn would be used (unlike the buffalo horn used today - not a lot of buffalo in medieval England!) which is often a creamy white colour, rather than an (artisticly distinct!) black. Hence all the 'could be's...'
My favourite early 'could-be's': The two archers shown in the margin of the Romance of Alexander (c. 1338 - 44). See The Great Warbow, Strickland and Hardy, p189. The archer on the right has black marks top and bottom of his bow; his colleague (on the left) has white nocks.
Also, the archer from the Luttrell Psalter (c.1330) as shown in The Great Warbow p172 - a definite black mark on the top of the bow
I read that report after following Dan's link in the other thread.
I think it is interesting, but had several immediate questions myself. I know relatively little to nothing about bows or linen armours, so I'll leave that to others.
But in regards to the Coat of Plates and so called Plate testing, I saw some immediate flaws (at least in my opinion).
The first was the mounting of the armor used as a target. It was mounted to insure an exact 90 degree/90 degree impact to the armor, allowing maximum transfer of energy and penetration. An occurence that would be quite rare in real life. Even just 10 degrees from perpendicular would create a much higher "relative" thickness. And increase the possibility of deflection.
Additionally, when a piece of armor is three dimensional it is much stronger, and techniques such as fluting, overlaping plates, and other techniques also introduce strength. And indeed increase the chance of deflection.
Another question is in regards to the steel itself. What was the thickness? I may have missed that in my reading. Is it hot rolled or cold rolled? And I severely doubt that it was work hardened in any appreciable manner, or even less likely heat treated. And I own "The Knight and the Blast Furnance", so I'm aware of the percentages of heat treating during the period.
Of course I'm not sure why I'm sitting here typing this, as most if not all of you already know this ! ;)
The author had good intent, but could have increased the validity of his tests somewhat.
I think it is interesting, but had several immediate questions myself. I know relatively little to nothing about bows or linen armours, so I'll leave that to others.
But in regards to the Coat of Plates and so called Plate testing, I saw some immediate flaws (at least in my opinion).
The first was the mounting of the armor used as a target. It was mounted to insure an exact 90 degree/90 degree impact to the armor, allowing maximum transfer of energy and penetration. An occurence that would be quite rare in real life. Even just 10 degrees from perpendicular would create a much higher "relative" thickness. And increase the possibility of deflection.
Additionally, when a piece of armor is three dimensional it is much stronger, and techniques such as fluting, overlaping plates, and other techniques also introduce strength. And indeed increase the chance of deflection.
Another question is in regards to the steel itself. What was the thickness? I may have missed that in my reading. Is it hot rolled or cold rolled? And I severely doubt that it was work hardened in any appreciable manner, or even less likely heat treated. And I own "The Knight and the Blast Furnance", so I'm aware of the percentages of heat treating during the period.
Of course I'm not sure why I'm sitting here typing this, as most if not all of you already know this ! ;)
The author had good intent, but could have increased the validity of his tests somewhat.
At least per legend and traditional interpretation of the Bayeux tapestry , King Harold Godwinson died of an arrow through his eye. Two other subjects in the tapestry show victims with arrows in their face. Harold supposedly had three horses killed out from under him during the battle that day. It seems to imply to me that the mail was pretty good protection against bows of that era.
Has anyone used test simulations of heavy draw weight longbows, that match the common trajectory of a heavy war bow? I know this would require tedious numbers of shots to get hits on the target, but that is the tactical nature of mass volleys from longer ranges (lets just say ranges of around 100 meters.) A practical simulation might be shooting from a lateral angle, with a lighter bow, at closer range... Many arrows should have been arcing down at a fairly steep angle (something on the order of 30 to 45 degrees.) Direct perpendicular hits (as many of these tests simulate) were probably not the historically most common type of "warbow" - arrow impact.
Has anyone used test simulations of heavy draw weight longbows, that match the common trajectory of a heavy war bow? I know this would require tedious numbers of shots to get hits on the target, but that is the tactical nature of mass volleys from longer ranges (lets just say ranges of around 100 meters.) A practical simulation might be shooting from a lateral angle, with a lighter bow, at closer range... Many arrows should have been arcing down at a fairly steep angle (something on the order of 30 to 45 degrees.) Direct perpendicular hits (as many of these tests simulate) were probably not the historically most common type of "warbow" - arrow impact.
| Glennan Carnie wrote: |
| Bodkin is a bit of a catch-all term. The needle-like long bodkin (type 7) is demonstrably poor against hard armour (plate) but is very effective against linen and maile armours. |
This is speculation that I have yet to see demonstrated on a decent reconstruction of either of the above armour types. I have been bugging Erik about this for a while since I can't think of anyone else who could make a good enough mail replica using period materials and period tools and techniques.
| Quote: |
| Against plate, experiments have shown the lozenge head (sometimes referred to as a heavy war, or heavy type 10) is most effective (but less so against linen armours). These are sometimes referred to as bodkins, also (although we prefer the term 'plate cutter'!) |
I don't think anyone's seriously considered type16's as armour piercing heads.
John's statistics have piqued my interest. I've got a Hector Cole type16 head sat here waiting for a shaft. I think some - very unscientific, admittedly - tests are in order.
We've got some thin (16 guage), curved, mild steel plate and also some 2.2mmm high carbon steel armour-substitutes. Not period in any way, but a reasonable analogue for prelimary tests. And besides, I can't be certain of the metallurgy of the heads themselves.
I'll do a like-for-like comparison with a Hector Cole heavy war bodkin (so, presumably, the metallurgy of the heads should be similar).
All this will test, then, is the relative performance of arrow-head types. Nothing more.
John's statistics have piqued my interest. I've got a Hector Cole type16 head sat here waiting for a shaft. I think some - very unscientific, admittedly - tests are in order.
We've got some thin (16 guage), curved, mild steel plate and also some 2.2mmm high carbon steel armour-substitutes. Not period in any way, but a reasonable analogue for prelimary tests. And besides, I can't be certain of the metallurgy of the heads themselves.
I'll do a like-for-like comparison with a Hector Cole heavy war bodkin (so, presumably, the metallurgy of the heads should be similar).
All this will test, then, is the relative performance of arrow-head types. Nothing more.
This would be wonderful. Test relative ranges too. Bodkin typologies should outrange any broadhead you use.
Something that we often leave out of these discussions - how many guys actually had full plate armor?
Even if you couldn't get those guys you could get their horses. That makes them a whole lot slower and more vulnerable to lighter armored guys with things like hammers and pollaxes. You would also be impaling anything that wasn't armored too - including more lightly armored fighters on their side.
Even if you couldn't kill everyone on the battlefield with arrows, you could kill enough to make the sure your enemy was no longer combat effective.
Even if you couldn't get those guys you could get their horses. That makes them a whole lot slower and more vulnerable to lighter armored guys with things like hammers and pollaxes. You would also be impaling anything that wasn't armored too - including more lightly armored fighters on their side.
Even if you couldn't kill everyone on the battlefield with arrows, you could kill enough to make the sure your enemy was no longer combat effective.
We haven't forgotten it. The problem is that so long as longbow enthusiasts have the misconception that longbows can punch through solid plate armour, they pay no attention to any other fact.
Dan,
I think a more subtle problem is that a war bow CAN punch through plate armour - under the right circumstances. The question then becomes: how often did those circumstances occur? Probably far less than the extremists would have us believe.
I think there are elements within both factions who - ignorantly - believe that the combat raison d'etre of the warbow was to kill men in plate armour. The bow was a tactical weapon
I think a more subtle problem is that a war bow CAN punch through plate armour - under the right circumstances. The question then becomes: how often did those circumstances occur? Probably far less than the extremists would have us believe.
I think there are elements within both factions who - ignorantly - believe that the combat raison d'etre of the warbow was to kill men in plate armour. The bow was a tactical weapon
I see.
That is a different issue.
But still, its good to remember in general that one soldier by himself rarely decides anything. He's really just a part of a machine.
Anyhow, this is why I watch this forum. At any given time I usually don't even have a sword (although I do now!). But this kind of stuff still interests me. At least these debates keep educating us all a little more every time we disagree. ;)
That is a different issue.
But still, its good to remember in general that one soldier by himself rarely decides anything. He's really just a part of a machine.
Anyhow, this is why I watch this forum. At any given time I usually don't even have a sword (although I do now!). But this kind of stuff still interests me. At least these debates keep educating us all a little more every time we disagree. ;)
John,
Do you think there is any real way to determine the types of arrows used when our idea of where many english battles took place is usually so blurry. Seems like a very difficult task. It also may be how fragile bodkins are, we have found loads of 'metal fragments' down this way that look like bodkins and just recently are being classified so. Just a few thoughts for you. Good luck with your project. Keep us posted. Where are you studying at?
RPM
Do you think there is any real way to determine the types of arrows used when our idea of where many english battles took place is usually so blurry. Seems like a very difficult task. It also may be how fragile bodkins are, we have found loads of 'metal fragments' down this way that look like bodkins and just recently are being classified so. Just a few thoughts for you. Good luck with your project. Keep us posted. Where are you studying at?
RPM
here is part 2 of Weapons That Made Britain - longbow .At the end it shows that a 100lb longbow could fully puncture armor at a range of only 20 meters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m746lj90izs&feature=related
and at 20 meters while your shooting at this 1 guy, his buddy has already ridden you down and killed u with his lance. :) scary when u think about it. hehehe at 20 meters i would think the bows would be laid down and the pole arms or even the sword and bucklers would be out.
Aaron,
I do not think anyone regards the Weapons that Made Britain as conclusive in anyway anymore. It is flawed in more than one way and I think the fact he fails to tell you what his 'munitions' grade breastplate stats leaves me even more doubtful as it looks rather hefty to my eyes as well as no one has done adaquate examinations of historic medieval armour thickness to make a decent average up in my opinion.
The article Dan posted in the RA journal is likely the best testing out right now on this subject.
RPM
I do not think anyone regards the Weapons that Made Britain as conclusive in anyway anymore. It is flawed in more than one way and I think the fact he fails to tell you what his 'munitions' grade breastplate stats leaves me even more doubtful as it looks rather hefty to my eyes as well as no one has done adaquate examinations of historic medieval armour thickness to make a decent average up in my opinion.
The article Dan posted in the RA journal is likely the best testing out right now on this subject.
RPM
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum