[Chris Post]

Little poll: are there any available sources about tests of various weapons against armour?
Has anyone of you ever done that?

I've just done some makeshift tests and I'm planning to do more.

The inspiration was this website:
http://historiavivens1300.at/biblio/beschuss/beschuss.htm
here two sets of maille are targets for bolts fired from a repro crossbow.
The first target is a butted maille of spring steel rings, the second has lighter but welded rings.

My first test:

Weapon: Longbow, 55 lbs; arrow weight 500 gr., 11/32" field tip (similar to armour piercing tip)

Maille #1: rings of V2A steel, welded; external diameter 7mm, wire strength 0,8mm
An area of 1 sq.ft weighs quite exaclty 0,66 lbs

Maille #2: same V2A steel, welded; ext. diam. 10mm, wire strength 1,2mm
An area of 1 sq.ft weighs quite exactly 1,0 lb.

Here is a picture of the maille in relation to a 5 Euro-cent coin:


Setup: maille pieces were placed on a chair's padded backrest; thickness similar to a typical gambeson

Results:
most arrows simply rebounded. Only once was an arrow able to penetrate the 7mm maille, and it went in only about 1" deep. IRL the wearer would have felt little more than a pinprick, and possibly a bruise for each hit. Exactly one ring was burst, the adjacent 4 rings were deformed.

The 10mm maille survived all tests completely intact, no rings were burst or deformed.

[Alexi Goranov]

That is interesting. From how far did you shoot , and can you show a picture of the arrow heads.

More similar tests, albeit using bladed weapons are done during ARMA gatherings.

Alexi

[Chris Post]

[Dan Howard]

There have been a few tests but none were rigorous enough to stand up to scientific scrutiny. The ARS is attempting to redress this by commissioning exacting replicas of both amrour and weapons made from the correct material. Wrought iron has completely different mechanical properties to modern homogenous steel.

[Alexi Goranov]

One of the studies that did similar experiments and got published are in an article by T. Philip Blackburn, David Edge, Alan Williams, and Christopher Adams. The article is named Head protection in England Before the First World War and it was published in Neurosurgery vol 47 #6 December 2000, pages 1261-1286. For at least some of the experiments 1.9mm thick wrought iron plate was used. This is a very informative article and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in metallurgy and armour effectiveness.

Here is a link.

Alexi

[Tim Plourd]

We are doing the same thing at Camlann Dan. Metalurgy is proving to be problematic here too.

Thanks for that link Alexi, this looks like a top draw article.

[Alexi Goranov]

[Greyson Brown]

Chris,

Thanks for sharing your findings. This is a topic that will probably continue to be discussed for some time to come. Even if this doesn't tell us exactly howthings would have worked out on the battlefield, it is always nice to have more information floating around in one's head. Now if I could only recall it when needed.

Just FYI for those that might be wondering, a 5 cent Euro coin, while thinner, is pretty darn close in diameter to a US nickel (just a touch smaller).

Thanks again.

-Grey

[Dominic Dellavalle]

Definately some interesting information there and I hope there will be more to come. I've always wondered just how effective different forms of armor held up under stress (whether an edged weapon or arrow). Unfortunately I haven't been able to find many tests that give great detail on the topic.

I would definately like to see more information on the effectiveness of a historically correct arrow against armor, maille or plate. I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) an episode done on the History channel that revolved around the Battle of Crecy and the effectiveness of archers on plate. One of the points that they made that I was unaware of at the time was how the ineffective arrows were due primarily to the metal they were made of. Since few arrows survived after being loosed there was no need to make the heads out of, say more expensive metals like steel, and so iron was the choice.

They tested this by loosing a few arrows and measuring the force at impact, then taking an arrowhead of iron and setting it into what looked like an oversized press. They set the tension to the same force they had measured and dropped it against a plate that was roughly the same thickness of a typical breastplate of the time period. I believe every arrow head simply bent on impact.

I'd love to find that episode online just to be able to watch it again. Anyway, again thanks for the information

Dominic

[Chris Post]

I'm going to get some plate armour for testing, or at least sheets of a suitable material.

Important question on that note: how thick were historical breastplates?

Of course the field arrows that I used have tips of steel. Whereas the medieval-style ones are certainly of a softer material.
Years ago we fired upon a regular straw target with a war arrow of this style:
[img]https://shop.fletchers-corner.de/catalog/images/spitzenSmall.jpg[/img]
and it truly wreaked havoc upon the poor target. Armour would have worked wonders though.

This is supposed to reproduce a historical maille piercing arrowhead:
[img]https://shop.fletchers-corner.de/catalog/images/maspitzen004(Small).jpg[/img]

Most of these forged arrowheads are very heavy, at 200 to 400 grains. For comparison, a modern Field tip weighs between 75 and 125 grain depending on draw weight; I use 125 grain tips for an arrow weight of 500 grain.

I hope the images display correctly, currently I'm previewing the post and they aren't showing.

[Benjamin McCracken]

Dominic,
I saw the same episode a couple of weeks ago. I think your portrayal of its contents is quite accurate. The show came to the conclusion that the English arrows could not be responsible for the amount of casualties suffered by the French, and if I remember right, the show stated that the mud on the battle field was the biggest factor. I had one problem with their finding in that they seemed to say that no French knight went down from arrows. Now, I think that most of us will agree that such a statement is obviously false. While plate armour offers alot of protection there are still places where a bodkin arrow head could find an opening. I guess that is why it is interesting to see the tests in this forum involving maile. My guess, and mind you it is a guess, is that with the number of arrows in the air more that a few managed to find a gap or two in the armour of the French knights.
My understanding is that butted maile is not historically correct. Again this is something I may be misinformed about, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that historical maile was flat and riveted. I think the outcome of the tests above would be different if riveted maile were used. But all in all great stuff.

Here is a link to some test cutting involving maile done by ARMA. http://www.thehaca.com/spotlight/TestCutting/...Event2.htm

Ben
________________________________________
"Your sword is your Shield!"
Christian Henry Tobler

[Steve Fabert]

We know that archery worked because battles were in fact won with archery. During the Hundred Years War English armies regularly defeated much larger French armies by employing well trained archers. Clearly there were methods for employing archery that overcame, at least some of the time, the inherent strengths of both mail and early plate. The problem is to discover which methods worked, under what circumstances, and which methods did not work.

Because arrows and mail were in use in the same places for a very long time, we know that each must have been reasonably effective within its intended range of uses. The realistic question is not whether arrows could always defeat plate or mail, or never could do so. If matters were so one-sided then the superiority of one of the two would have rapidly caused the other to be abandoned. Rational warriors do not carry around a load of useless weight, or carry a weapon that does not stand a reasonable chance of defeating the enemy. Any other conclusion would imply that the combatants were remarkably stupid.

If shooting arrows straight at the chest of a stationary mannequin wearing mail do not penetrate, the test can prove no more than excluding that most obvious method for using the bow. The question then becomes, what other ways of delivering arrows were effective against armies wearing mail or plate?

There are accounts from the Hundred Years War that describe the use of archery to 1) cause the abandonment of cavalry charges, by aiming at the horses rather than their riders and 2) herd dismounted knights together with harrassing fire, to impede their ability to fight other dismounted knights through overcrowding. Neither of these tactics requires a significant ability to penetrate pieces of plate armor with an arrow. Other applications of archery may also have been effective, but this is what is described in the accounts of witnesses.

[Alexi Goranov]

"The weapons that made britain: Longbow and Armour " series deal with some of the above issues. When shot at short distance and straight to the target (as opposes to volleys) the bodkin arrow could penetrate plate, but only about an inch or so and not every time. The article I linked to in a previous post also deals with bodkin arrows and plate and provides similar evidence. The arrows hitting vulnerable joints and such in the armour is a good point.

Now regarding Cresy.....there is more than a single factor that impacted the outcome. To simply state that the rain and mud alone determined the outcome is a great (and inaccurate IMO) over-simplification. The history channel programs are not so good every once in a while. Again I recommend the WTMB: longbow and Armour (2 separate episodes). To trow few books that deal with Cresy at some length at those interested : Michael Prestwich : Medieval warfare the English Experience; J. Verbruggen The Art of Warfare in Medieval europe (more broad but very well researched); deVries Infantry warfare in 14th century (If you care to know how infantry managed to defeat the Chivalric charge even without the use of longbow and later with the help of the longbow. Very nice but repetitive every once in a while)

The use of longbow is a misunderstood affair. The simple presence of a large number of longbowmen is not sufficient to grant victory. The "strategic" use of such force however may greatly aid in attaining victory.

The use of longbow had several effects the severity of which varied from battle to battle depending on numbers organization, etc.

1) It crippled and killed the oncoming opponents. This is often exaggerated or completely denied but it did happen to some extent. This is not the most important direct effect, but it did lower the stamina and enthusiasm of the oncoming cavalry.

2) It killed and crippled the horses of the cavalry. Horses represent larger targets, very often not protected. This is a more important effect

3) Proper positioning of the longbowmen allowed them to control the path of the oncoming cavalry thus preventing it form outflanking the defensive line and simultaneously narrowing the width of field that the cavalry had available for the charge (bottlenecking).

4) the combination of the above three effects leads to disorganization of the attacking line and loss of momentum. This renders the charge ineffective. I do not remember the exact number of charges at Cresy but each of them failed due to the loss of organization, or the lack of such due to the over-confidence of the French.

Even these few factors do not get at the whole issue. Morale, exhaustion, leadership capability of the generals, etc all had an effect on the outcome of the battle.

Most of the killing on a battlefield was done during the pursuit then one of the forces routs. My guess is that is when most french knights were killed, and not during the charges, even though it is granted that some men were lost then as well.

Alexi

[Chris Post]

A lot of good points there.

Some more random thoughts:

- Cavalry usually had the heaviest armour available. Of course these were nobles whose equipment depended on what they were able to afford. Frankish knights before Charlemagne wore scale armour.
- Depending on time and place, footmen very often had only light armour or none at all.
- Maille was very expensive. Around the year 1000 in Hedeby, one set cost as much as 6 cows or 27 pigs, or simply 820 grams (30 oz) of silver.
- at the time of plate armour, a Field Captain must have known if iron arrows were ineffective, and equipped his troops with higher quality arrows.
- there's also an account of a battle in Germany, I'd have to look up when and where, in which of about 6.000 participants only some two dozen slain were recorded. However, it is not known how many died at a later time from their injuries.

- maille was typically both rivetted and welded, in alternating rows. Several different wire strengths and sections are recorded, external diameters varying from 4 to 17mm. The typical size seems to have been 8 to 10mm.

The maille that I used for testing is completely welded, but I figure it comes reasonable close to rivetted/welded historical maille. Except for the steel quality, which of course is better today.

Personally, I think maille has several advantages over plate armour:
- it is flexible. The Norman cut fits very nicely to the body, and can easily be fastened to a snug fit.
- also because it's flexible, combined with a gambeson, it can cushion a blow somewhat. That may result in some bruises for the bearer, but overall it might take a larger beating than rigid plate.
- with typical ring sizes, the weight of an area of maille of a certain wire strength is quite exactly half the weight of an area of plate of the same thickness. This applies for a diameter-to-wire ratio of about 8,5 : 1.

So much for now,
Chris

[Alexi Goranov]

[Dan Howard]

[Chris Post]

[Erik D. Schmid]

[Chris Post]

Okay, not a hobby enterprise then. I'll keep it on a Fun level I guess.

[Jesse Smithers]

Has anyone tried to make and test the best mail that is possible to make today? What were the results?

I know hardening makes the rings snap in half when hit. What about a spring temper?

Aluminum is horrible for swords. Is any composition of aluminum good for mail? How did it compare to steel or iron? I know people made some for costumes. Surely someone must have tested at least the cheap costume version.

Thanks.