Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search


Please help our efforts with a donation. This site requires ongoing funding and your donations are crucial to our future.
Last 10 Donors: Neil Eddiford, Chad Arnow, Jean Thibodeau, Robert Morgan, Adam Rose, Jerry Otahal, Michael P. Smith, Mikko Kuusirati, Eric Bergeron, Daniel Staberg (View All Donors)

Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Arrows vs armour Reply to topic
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 
Author Message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Wed 11 Apr, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

R. Kolick wrote:
unless we do a tests like the ones sugeted now and before (still wont beable to test what an arrow would do to a charging knight because that would involve puting the target on a horse and im against that for obvious reasons or youd need to set up a rig that could match a charging horses speed)


The latter option has been done; Mark Stretton's tests are presented in Hugh Soar's "Secrets of the English War Bow". Alas, the test uses a 1.6mm breastplate.

While a moving target is hard to do in the typical laboratory setup, you can just increase the speed of the arrow (if using something like an air-gun rather than a bow to launch it). For a 100g arrow delivering 100J to the target, you have an arrow speed of 45m/s. Using Stretton's "charging" rig speed of 20mph (which is 9m/s), that's an arrow speed of 54m/s relative to the target, so 146J. If the archer was managing 150J to a stationary target, the moving target would get over 200J.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Till J. Lodemann





Joined: 15 Jan 2007

Posts: 97

PostPosted: Thu 12 Apr, 2012 3:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

... And then again, one could argue that this speed would only be reached very close to the archer's line, and for a very short moment in the entire charge. I get it now Wink
And I want to add that I really would like to see a basinet with a hounskull visor pestered with arrows Happy
@ R. Kolick: How armoured persons get killed or wounded by arrows has been told here already, I think: Open faces, aventails, luck, limbs.
And the guys with less armour have problems, too.
But I guess we all want to see more and better tests on a professionel level Exclamation
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 17 Apr, 2012 11:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think one thing that is also not given thorough enough research on tests, even with the better ones, is how many joulles penetrate armour based on the type of arrowhead (or javelin head for that matter).

I think this has been argues to death, but I wonder how many joulles would be needed to penetrate mail with a needle nose bodkin, a short bodkin and various other types of arrows.

And also how these arrow types fare against plate.

Might also help also in the equation of determining if needle nosed bodkins were effective against mail or were they more flight arrow types.

The few tests that have compared penetration of different types of arrowheads also had what I think were serious flaws favoring the arrows over armour, such as the tests done by Bane.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,454

PostPosted: Wed 18 Apr, 2012 6:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
I think one thing that is also not given thorough enough research on tests, even with the better ones, is how many joulles penetrate armour based on the type of arrowhead (or javelin head for that matter).

I think this has been argues to death, but I wonder how many joulles would be needed to penetrate mail with a needle nose bodkin, a short bodkin and various other types of arrows.

And also how these arrow types fare against plate.

Might also help also in the equation of determining if needle nosed bodkins were effective against mail or were they more flight arrow types.

The few tests that have compared penetration of different types of arrowheads also had what I think were serious flaws favoring the arrows over armour, such as the tests done by Bane.


i support this notion as well because a 'plate cutter head' will transfer energy and penetrate a target of plate in a way thats very different to a needle nosed bodkin assaulting maile.
but i think based in the parlimentary reissuing of the law during henry V's time,
would i be too ambitios to assume that we mostly use hardened arrows? but maybe throw in unhardened versions of the same heads and shoot THEM at the target as well.



also, what were shields like in the days near to agincourt. what was their shape like compared to the shields of the time of crecy and poltiers
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Arrows vs armour
Page 21 of 21 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 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 2003-2019 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum