Couldn't find any old topics on this, so I started a new one.
I know many of you know of this test, but I figured not all of you have read it:
http://www.medievalproductions.nl/files/forsh...robat7.pdf
Quite an interesting read I have to say. Gives you quite a good idea of what different things you have to think about when doing destructive testing. Any comments?
Thanks for posting that, Risto! I hadn't seen it before (as it is rather new, I must admit!). Looks to be an interesting read, and well worth further study.
In 1988 the curators at Graz did a destructive test on a breastplate made in Augsburg in 1570 or so, using period firearms. Not sure as of yet if this thesis contains that information, but it's a rather interesting study as well, along the same lines. (The wheellock pistol ball punctured the 1570 breastplate easily, BTW, though it was stopped by the heavy linen backing. Interesting.)
Cheers!
Gordon
In 1988 the curators at Graz did a destructive test on a breastplate made in Augsburg in 1570 or so, using period firearms. Not sure as of yet if this thesis contains that information, but it's a rather interesting study as well, along the same lines. (The wheellock pistol ball punctured the 1570 breastplate easily, BTW, though it was stopped by the heavy linen backing. Interesting.)
Cheers!
Gordon
| Gordon Frye wrote: |
| Thanks for posting that, Risto! I hadn't seen it before (as it is rather new, I must admit!). Looks to be an interesting read, and well worth further study.
In 1988 the curators at Graz did a destructive test on a breastplate made in Augsburg in 1570 or so, using period firearms. Not sure as of yet if this thesis contains that information, but it's a rather interesting study as well, along the same lines. (The wheellock pistol ball punctured the 1570 breastplate easily, BTW, though it was stopped by the heavy linen backing. Interesting.) Cheers! Gordon |
Well if a bullet spends all of it's energy punching through the armour I'd say that the armour has done it's job reasonably well. It'd also explain why troopers needed to replace armour a lot more often in the "Age of the Pistol" than before, I've seen Swedish documentation from 1627-1628 which shows how 40-70% of the troopers recieved new armour each year. Whiel soem must have been lsot due to carelessnes or ordianry wear and tear the destructive effects of comabt must have accoutned for a fair amount of armour which was at best of mid-level quality.
/Daniel
It is quite an interesting paper. I wish that the author had collected a little bit more data on the energy remaining in the projectile after perforating the breastplate(s). It would be interesting to then compare that to (presumably available) data on the energy needed to inflict damage on a human body.
It's interesting to note that a breastplate obeying the findings (Figure 35) of this paper would have to be about 6-8mm thick to survive a shot with a .22 caliber bullet at close range (~300 m/s). That's actually a bit better than what I would have expected, though I still don't believe I'll be chasing down too many gun-toting bad guys in my field plate...
:0)
It's interesting to note that a breastplate obeying the findings (Figure 35) of this paper would have to be about 6-8mm thick to survive a shot with a .22 caliber bullet at close range (~300 m/s). That's actually a bit better than what I would have expected, though I still don't believe I'll be chasing down too many gun-toting bad guys in my field plate...
:0)
| Quote: |
| It's interesting to note that a breastplate obeying the findings (Figure 35) of this paper would have to be about 6-8mm thick to survive a shot with a .22 caliber bullet at close range (~300 m/s). That's actually a bit better than what I would have expected, though I still don't believe I'll be chasing down too many gun-toting bad guys in my field plate... |
Hmm... I guess it depends on exact round in question. I know the M-16 round used many years back could only penetrate 1mm of RHA. How does RHA compare to the steel used in plate armour? I know I've heard of people testing handguns against plate armour and supposedly the armour often does rather well. According Bert Hall, a 2.8-3mm breastplate from 1570 stopped a pistol shot going 436 m/s and with 907 joules of energy (the same test Gordon mentioned). That's quite a bit more punch than many modern handgun rounds.
| Gordon Frye wrote: |
| Thanks for posting that, Risto! I hadn't seen it before (as it is rather new, I must admit!). Looks to be an interesting read, and well worth further study.
In 1988 the curators at Graz did a destructive test on a breastplate made in Augsburg in 1570 or so, using period firearms. Not sure as of yet if this thesis contains that information, but it's a rather interesting study as well, along the same lines. |
I somehow thought some of you lads would find this interesting :D I´m not that intersted of guns, but I know some of you are. And yes there is information about the Graz test in this thesis.
It would indeed have been interesting to know how much power the penetrating shots had after passing through the breastplate. And it is really a shame that the second breastplate used in the test (BP2) is a 19th cent fake :mad:
Page 1 of 1
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