Regarding period accounts of mail stopping arrows, one thing to keep in mind is that the arrows tested in AvA 2 hit rather harder than many (though not all) historical arrows. I don't see the distance mentioned anywhere, but it looks like 10m. I also don't see chronograph data; previously Joe Gibbs delivered 123 J at 10m with that 160lb bow & 80g arrow. (In another video, Gibbs did 139 J with a 75g arrow at 1m or so from a 160lb bow.) While archers may have delivered some shots at such close range, whether as a final shot before turning to melee weapons or from an advantageous position, most arrows on historical battlefields would have come from farther away.

At 100m, which is a very plausible distance to face arrows, Gibbs's 160lb bow would deliver more like 80-90 J. This similar to what a typical 110lb Turkish cavalry bow would manage as initial kinetic energy because of the extremely light arrows that Turkish military archers apparently used. At moderate range, such a Turkish bow would deliver perhaps half the KE as the bow in AvA 2.

Bertrandon de la Broquière wrote that Turkish archers might be able to defeat light mail. That's an example of historical support for the notion that arrows at less than 80-90 J could pierce some types of mail. This is broadly consistent with modern tests.

Among period English archers, many good ones probably did deliver about as much KE as Gibbs. A few surely managed more. A fair number likely delivered rather less because they used lighter bows, used poorer-quality bows, used bows adversely affected by field conditions, used lighter arrows, failed to fully draw their bows because of sickness &/or fatigue, & so on.

Lots of historical heavy infantry or heavy cavalry wore 60-70+lbs of armor. I suspect that weight of mail & padding would be enough to prevent serious injury from many historical bows at the most common engagement ranges. It'd be interesting to see further tests.

That circa-1453 Italian military treatise described by Augusto Boer Bront strikes me as a particularly high showing for mail for the 15th century. I haven't gotten the impression from any 15th-century text I've read that mail offered good protection against crossbows. De la Broquière recommended light plate armor to defend against the Ottoman arrows he considered rather weak. Pietro Monte noted how points often got through a single layer of mail defending the throat & indicated that crossbows (like the couched lance & firearms) were potentially a threat to the man-at-arms in white armor. We know from Andreas Bichler's replica that cranequin-spanned crossbows with horn prods could deliver nearly 200 J at rather high velocity up close. (& originals may have performed even better than Bichler's replica.) That's quite a bit more than the 130-140 J of initial KE that Gibbs shoots from a 160lb yew warbow.

Of course, maybe there was some sort of heavy & high-quality 15th-century mail capable of protecting against all the weapons mentioned (even handgonnes). I'm curious how mail of hardened medium-carbon steel performs. It seems to have been rare but a thing, at least in the 16th century.

As an aside, a 82lb@32" Manchu bow supposedly managed almost the exact same performance as the 160lb yew bow used in AvA. & many Manchu bows were probably drawn at least a few inches farther, with around 80lbs considered the minimum military draw weight. If that one test is accurate, strong infantry archers armed with Manchu-style bows would have performed significantly better against armor than English archers with yew bows did. We know for sure that Manchu military arrows could reach 122g (100g was the average for one type of Qing military arrow). Given the substantial evidence that 80-100lbs was the most common draw weight for Qing cavalry (the primarily soldiers who used bows), either their bows performed along the lines of the test or they accepted sluggish velocities.

For a later source on the inability of mail to resist arrows from powerful bows, see Garcilaso de la Vega's account of Hernando de Soto's expedition to Florida. De la Vega wrote decades after the fact & wasn't a participant, but probably had access to members of the expedition & records. He described how Spaniards conducted a test of their highly prized & expensive polished hauberks after a notable shot in battle defeated one of these. The test resulted in penetration of even two coats of mail together. The Spaniards then laughed at the fine & polished hauberks they'd previously valued, finding "thick and quilted" hauberks more effective. De la Vega wrote that they found quilted cloaks "three or four fingers thick" made from blankets most effective of all against Native arrows. It's not clear from the text, but I believe the Native archers in question had little if any access to iron/steel arrowheads. De la Vega's text has multiple examples of arrows defeating mail. In one case de la Vega did specify that an arrow with a tip only of sharpened fire-hardened reed/cane broke through mail breeches.

Thanks Benjamin

We have another film coming where we look at the speed out to 70m and this will give some better numbers to consider, but in the case of these tests it was 15m

We also have a document coming that lists all the kit and test parameters and that will be available here in due course, but is not yet compiled https://todtodeschini.com/youtube-projects/arrows-v-armour-2/documents/



Tod

I've been reluctant to bring this up because I think it might be silly but...I just can't resist making a fool of myself apparently since I can't stop thinking about it after binge watching everything the day it was posted.

What about the eye slits? I know this is a one in a billion (or more) shot. I know it would be unreasonable to ask anybody to actually make that shot. But weren't they worried about getting an arrow in one of those?

Is it because they were wide enough to let an arrow straight through? Or are they narrow enough that you can't simply slide an arrow through. If that's the case, I'm wondering if the arrow would split the eye slots apart and penetrate into the man inside or if those raised slots would be robust enough to prevent this...

P.S. Thank you so much for this Tod. It was wonderful!

Edit: These are by far the best tests of arrows against armour I have ever seen, and I have no criticisms of the armour or the mail (just some things about the bow and arrow I am not sure about, but they all lean in the same direction). Look forward to seeing the writeup when all the authors have finished their shares!

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:

For example, Augusto Boer Bront on Facebook a year ago described a circa-1453 Italian military manual that recommends good-quality hauberks for light cavalry over brigandines because they stop crossbows, bows, spears, swords, & handgonnes while covering more area.

Are you thinking of Orso degli Orsini, Del governo et exercitio de la militia (1475) Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits, MS Italien 958 fol. 11r, 11v? https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8478964h.image

Italians seemed to think that the bows in England were different than the bows they were familiar with (even though many of those bows were made of Italian yew). Older and nationalist scholars imagined a secret national weapon, whereas newer research says that people in England, Scotland, Flanders, and northern France used more or less the same types of self bow by the 15th century and the only difference was that the English kings could recruit more and better archers than other princes. So a writer in Italy might envision a different type of bow (or different expectation about draw weight) than a writer in England, but the types of crossbow are probably similar.

My understanding is that also there was nothing magically different about English bows, it is just that on average the English were able to field more strong archers than other nations presumably because it was favoured and also that they were very competent at using them to their best advantage and perhaps for social or whatever reasons rated them higher than other nations.

This meant that large bodies of very effective shooters could be assembled easily from England and then lead well.

Dan Howard wrote

Quote:

Arrows don't travel in a straight line; they have a trajectory. The helmet in that video had ridges around the eye slots, which prevents any arrows but those travelling in a straight line from entering. A knight would have to be looking up to align the eye slot with the arrow's trajectory for an arrow to go through. Great video, Tod. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Thanks Dan, appreciated.

I do however have to disagree with you about your statement. Arrows of course do have a trajectory, but out at 70m the plunging angle of an arrow is really quite slight, maybe 5 degrees off flat (this is a guess, but we have a video coming out soon that shows the whole flight in slo mo so we can all watch). Lets assume that the eye slit is 8mm high, which is wider than the arrow head anyway, if the knight looks top it is 8mm wide as axially aligned to the arrow flight, if he looks straight ahead, the slit appears to be very marginally narrower. without distortion of the slit the head won't go through in either instance and the difference between the two is very small. Even out to 140 m which was a.shot Joe did with me recently, I would estimate his shot was not likely more than 15 degrees and still this would make little difference to the eyeslit.

I would however agree with you that at distances where arrows plunge on steeper angles say 20 degrees plus (also a guess) that it would start to make more significant difficulties, but with Joes bow and arrow combo this would be at distances in excess of 140m

Regards

Tod

Another video released, Another piece of amazing work from Tod.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DMf7KCqQLw78&ved=2ahUKEwjYuovaraf8AhXk-yoKHRx3D4oQwqsBegQICRAE&usg=AOvVaw0bZWWcmPdPyDVrfO62xzJT

Couple of fascinating things going on here.

Visor shot is some amazing mayhem, and something interesting is going on with an aventail.

Sometimes, it's defeated pretty significantly, it seems, while some shots seem to be stopped dead.

One was pretty glancing, and one probably hit the breastplate too, thus the bounce. But one was dead on, right under the visor and it too bounced off.

Hit multiple rings? Overlap at bulkiest point? Or something else.

When the aventail is pierced all the way through, it's usually when the aventail has already been pierced before, so when the rings are already damaged.

The same thing happened in the first video. Where the mail was fresh, basically everything bounced, or at least didn't reach the mail collar underneath.

Bartek, you are correct, all previous damage had been repaired this time around.

Hard too say why some and some do not, but it is perfectly possible for an arrow to strike the intersection between two rings and so effectively have to split two, sometimes it lands on the wire, sometimes in the hole and then the padding is seamed so where on this it strikes will also be relevant as well as how supported it is behind, how freely it hangs, angle of incidence and so on.

So that is at least 8 variables just off the top of my head, each one having an effect on the penetration.

Tod

Was mending as strong as original weave though? Maybe it was kind of a factor too?

Anyway, you guys obviously have way better idea.

But from few shots landing on aventail, shown in the video, it does seem like it's performing fantastically when it has some empty space behind it. It acts like a curtain that moves and absorbs most of energy. Penetration is extremely minor.

When it has shoulders or something else behind it, where arrow can gain purchase, it seems like it kinda lands on an anvil and can be nailed pretty well.

Though I may be wrong. But most harmless shots definitely seemed to be mostly the ones right under the helmet rim.

HI Bartek,

I think you are pretty much right and this is true of any armour type (at these velocities - I am sure it is different for supersonic projectiles). If the armour can move and slow the deceleration of the projectile, more of energy is absorbed by moving the armour and so less is left for penetration, so yes, where the arrow strikes the individual would have been important even if the actually physical nature of the armour is otherwise identical.

Tod

I wonder, does anyone of thoughts on how riding on horseback would affect arrow penetration? For example, would a knight charging on horseback be hit harder because he is moving in the opposite direction as the arrow?