| Author |
Message |
|
Thrand Godfrey
|
 Posted: Sun 02 Aug, 2015 1:53 am Post subject: I tested a Claymore against 15th Century Armour and Maille! |
 |
|
I did a test to see what a Claymore could do to a 15th century breast plate and helm as well as earlier period Maille coif and hauberk with proper gambeson. What I wanted to know other than Tourney does any one have references historically to use like this in combat? I know early two handed swords such as 13th century versions with out quatrefoils were supposedly used in armoured combat and this off shoot existed from the 15th century on up and had great weight being heavier than long swords and primarily two handed being know as a great sword. Being any where from 2.2–2.8 kg (4.9–6.2 lb) and 120–140 cm (47–55 in) in length I would not think they would need to be half sworded with to be dangerous to an armoured opponent being akin to ploearms in many ways. If anyone has documentation to the use of against armored or unarmored opponents through the 15th to 17th century please post below. I know niche hunting would be Ideal but this was to see effects to armour it self.
Scottish Claymore 15th Century Armor Tests : Gambeson, Maille and Plate
https://youtu.be/O9eCzG8AAoQ
I am a arms and armour tester and experimental archeologist trying to rediscover ancient and medieval combat methods and tactics.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Aug, 2015 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting tests. I am amazed, most of all, that the sword held up. If it is the sword I am thinking of, and it appears to be, it should have broken, either the blade or the tang should have broken, as a result of the blows you gave the "victim."
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Aug, 2015 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
0.065" is pretty thin for a 15th c. breastplate. Better hike it up to about 0.080" minimum. 0.065" would not be very resistant to arrows, and laughable against a cavalry lance. The rolled edges tended to be a bit bigger, too.
jamesarlen.com
|
|
 |
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Aug, 2015 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | 0.065" is pretty thin for a 15th c. breastplate. Better hike it up to about 0.080" minimum. 0.065" would not be very resistant to arrows, and laughable against a cavalry lance. The rolled edges tended to be a bit bigger, too. |
0.065" sounds about right for thinner parts though, back protection and perhaps the back of the helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Aug, 2015 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
You will see much thinner material in a breasplate where it overlaps the backplate, but that is because you have two layers of metal there. The 'Sigmund gothic' harness only averaged about 0.070" thick in the upper plackart, but it was made from a fully heat treated medium carbon steel. Oh, and the upper breastplate on the test breastplate was flat compared to others of that style. With the right form, it would have been stronger and the geometry would have kept it further from the wearer's body. They're actually designed to clear your pectoral muscles.
jamesarlen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thrand Godfrey
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Aug, 2015 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | 0.065" is pretty thin for a 15th c. breastplate. Better hike it up to about 0.080" minimum. 0.065" would not be very resistant to arrows, and laughable against a cavalry lance. The rolled edges tended to be a bit bigger, too. |
It is about 15 gauge if not a bit thicker last I asked smith who made it which is 0.0703" 1.79mm and slightly hardened by temper. I have tested it against Bodkins with a 50# bow they bounce off leaving small dents. In some areas such as belly it is double metal two sheets as well it is quite resistant.
I am a arms and armour tester and experimental archeologist trying to rediscover ancient and medieval combat methods and tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thrand Godfrey
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Aug, 2015 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lin Robinson wrote: | | Interesting tests. I am amazed, most of all, that the sword held up. If it is the sword I am thinking of, and it appears to be, it should have broken, either the blade or the tang should have broken, as a result of the blows you gave the "victim." |
I am not quite sure it is the same sword you believe it to be. It held up well no problems what so ever even retained most sharpness after hitting armour. This one is from medieval shoppe.
I am a arms and armour tester and experimental archeologist trying to rediscover ancient and medieval combat methods and tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Aug, 2015 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thrand Godfrey wrote: |
It is about 15 gauge if not a bit thicker last I asked smith who made it which is 0.0703" 1.79mm and slightly hardened by temper. I have tested it against Bodkins with a 50# bow they bounce off leaving small dents. In some areas such as belly it is double metal two sheets as well it is quite resistant. |
I don't want to sound like a nitpick or perhaps I have got the terminology wrong myself but the temper is to decrease the hardness of a quenched piece of steel, not the hardening procedure itself. Unless you mean (and I misread) tempered steel which in itself implies prior hardening by quenching.
| Quote: | | You will see much thinner material in a breasplate where it overlaps the backplate, but that is because you have two layers of metal there. The 'Sigmund gothic' harness only averaged about 0.070" thick in the upper plackart, but it was made from a fully heat treated medium carbon steel. Oh, and the upper breastplate on the test breastplate was flat compared to others of that style. With the right form, it would have been stronger and the geometry would have kept it further from the wearer's body. They're actually designed to clear your pectoral muscles. |
Well that's thinner than I expected. I knew the side of the breastplate were thinner and that sometimes the central ridge can be a bit thicker but such a thin piece seems dangerous. Can it be attributed to wear and tear + some museum polishing or does the average also cover areas to the side much thinner than the front?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thrand Godfrey
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Aug, 2015 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | Thrand Godfrey wrote: |
It is about 15 gauge if not a bit thicker last I asked smith who made it which is 0.0703" 1.79mm and slightly hardened by temper. I have tested it against Bodkins with a 50# bow they bounce off leaving small dents. In some areas such as belly it is double metal two sheets as well it is quite resistant. |
I don't want to sound like a nitpick or perhaps I have got the terminology wrong myself but the temper is to decrease the hardness of a quenched piece of steel, not the hardening procedure itself. Unless you mean (and I misread) tempered steel which in itself implies prior hardening by quenching.
| Quote: | | You will see much thinner material in a breasplate where it overlaps the backplate, but that is because you have two layers of metal there. The 'Sigmund gothic' harness only averaged about 0.070" thick in the upper plackart, but it was made from a fully heat treated medium carbon steel. Oh, and the upper breastplate on the test breastplate was flat compared to others of that style. With the right form, it would have been stronger and the geometry would have kept it further from the wearer's body. They're actually designed to clear your pectoral muscles. |
Well that's thinner than I expected. I knew the side of the breastplate were thinner and that sometimes the central ridge can be a bit thicker but such a thin piece seems dangerous. Can it be attributed to wear and tear + some museum polishing or does the average also cover areas to the side much thinner than the front? |
Perhaps my terminology is incorrect it was heat treated to harden it like historical version but this one of the armorers early attempts and not quite as hardened as his newer more refined versions. Sorry hope this helps did not meant o use wrong term.
I am a arms and armour tester and experimental archeologist trying to rediscover ancient and medieval combat methods and tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Aug, 2015 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope he has changed his shape around the arm hole to something more accurate. Collapsing a higher arch with a beefier roll would be more difficult.
jamesarlen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic