[Rod Parsons]

Carl,
Which test are you decribing, where is it documented?
Rod.

[Carl Scholer]

Well, by far the best TV test I have seen is this one by "The Weapons that Made Britain". The ballistics lab actually felt confident enough in the results of the test to stake their reputation on them by posted them on their website. They showed how the breastplates and the arrows were made. They consulted experts in metallurgy and ballistics to get the specifics right. All in all it was very well done. This is for the 150lbs longbow against the breastplate test:

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/W/weapons/longbow.html

These are the results from the University of Reading which were conducted by Dr. Alan Williams,

http://www.rdg.ac.uk/engin/home/material/ancient/armour.htm

If you want more information on the specifics of the test you can write to:

Engineering Building, School of Construction Management and Engineering, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6AY, UK

This is where the bodkin ballistic and archeological testing comes from, I believe the bolt and arrow tests against the wrought iron plate also come from this study:

Peter N. Jones, "The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of
Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages." _Materials_Characterization_,
vol. 29, pp.111-117 (1992). [A periodical published by Elsevier Science
Publishing Co., Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010]

This is the site where the ballistic properties of longbow arrows are analyzed,

http://www.stortford-archers.org.uk/medieval.htm

[Rod Parsons]

The Stortford material is predated by the appendices in Hardy's "Longbow" which in turn utilises the seminal work of Klopsteg and Hickman.
(P.H.Blyth on design and materials of the bow, P.L. Pratt on the arrow and Peter Jones on the target.)

I will waste little time commenting on the Alan Williams programme, since it is the test I made reference to in my earlier post. It is generally regarded here amongst the serious longbow fraternity as a pathetic joke.
On seeing this when it was first transmitted I immediately rang Hector Cole to compare notes on this particular travesty and to ask why he permitted himself to be associated with such nonsense.

This "test" dropped a type 7 of wrought iron onto a plate mounted on a hard surface. Who but a complete idiot or someone with an agenda would have expected anything else but that the point would fail?
Wrong point, wrong tip, and wrong substrate just for starters.
BTW the bow in that programme was Hector's sporting bow.

The "Weapons that Made Britain" programme was better, but still flawed.

If your opinion is formed by such popular TV material then it is past time to reassess the standard of your sources. Even the title is stupid. If anything, if you take the long view, the longbow might be called the "Weapon That Made France".
Rod.

[Carl Scholer]

LOL, what an interesting response So far most of what you have stated is that you think such and such source is stupid, and such and such source sucks, and if you believe in such and such source your an idiot. Your criticisms are welcome, but your attitude is not.

If the Weapons that Made Britain's test is false you are going to have to tell me why you think it is false. The velocities are right, the projectile weights are right. So the energies involved are right. The materials used looked right and were made using the correct processes. I mean that’s all of the major variables.

I've seen the impact tester used before where a hard surface was not used and a simulated lance blow was allowed to achieve full penetration on a simulated mail and textile defense. Is their a video of Williams tests that shows the plates being tested and shows that the plates being are backed by some sort of hard surface, if it's a hard surface what kind of surface was it.

You haven't even commented on the results from Peter N. Jones findings. He based the construction of his arrowheads and armour from archeological findings. The test used a 70lbs longbow against a wrought iron flat plate and found that against 2mm only 11mm of penetration resulted. Even when compared to a 150lbs longbow you should still be getting about 60-70% of the velocity with the same arrow weight when compared to the 150lbs bow.

In any case, I thought I heard that in Hardy's book he mentioned in the appendix that he didn't believe the longbow capable of penetrating the thicker 2 and 3mm sections of the breastplate, while it would have had no problems dealing with the thinner arms, legs, and sides sections of the armour. I'll have to see if my library carries it to check it out.

P.S The show is called the weapons that made Britain because its various segments are made up testing weapons that were used in the critical battles of English history.

[David Ruff]

[Clinton Harris]

David you owe me 250 for the chain maile coif you damaged. I own the materials Jodi did the labor. It was not rivited chain simply butted (poor knight's chain) so maybe~maybe not, none the less chain I believe will fail double or triple, king's maile, 6 in 1, 4 in 1 or what ever (at this point 10 people are ralling about scietific test, and niffty TV shows)

The material being worked are pending we are in combat jousting season and I am mending or building armor for these guys & girls. As I have said before this is business to me. On that note I paid for material, I am paying for labor to construct the weapon and armor. I get to determine the test structure and type. Anyone else want to do this they are more then welcome to A. throw in on this and have a say or B. do there own test.

Lets talk reality for a second, if knights in plate mail were safe from crossbows, longbow, javelins, spears, pikes, and another other pointed staffed weapon, then what killed them? I want 50 of these powerhouse knights because I will rule Europe inside of two weeks in period (minus transport time). I know I sound like a jerk but I broke metalsmith rule #1 D NOT NOT NOT hit the fleshy colored part. broke my thumb and two fingers, during the busy time of year of course. In a bit of pain. and seems this dead horse keeps getting beaten?? why?? Let do some real testing and cal it good minus the finight hair splitting, what happened in ren and mid combat? none of know for sure none of us were there to witness or be involved and the good old, ourside is amazing, factor is present in many winess accounts.

[Rod Parsons]

Read it again Carl, especially the part about the Williams TV programme. You have to ask why a test against plate would be performed with an unhardened type 7 replica representing a bow 70 lb draw weight.
The type 7 long needle bodkin is not a point that would be intended for use against plate, even if hardened.
The tip geometry is entirely unsuitable for such use.
More respect would be offered this TV item if a steel tipped heavy bodkin had been used representing a force of in excess of 150 lb. I do not attribute the stupidity to any particular person, since I am not privy to the decision making process during the making of this farrago.
I do know that the point was made by Hector and that he reports that he was unaware of the use to which it would be put and had little or no involvement in the content.
And yes, I do know why the other programme was so named and it has more to do with national self image than political realities. It is however one of only two offerings on TV that made a respectable effort to represent proper practice as it is understood by those who shoot the heavy shaft out of the heavy bow.
Rod.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Well there are scientific valid controlled tests and then there are semi-educational, semi-entertainement T.V. where part of what is shown might be the actual tests ( valid or not ) and faked shot to sex-up the program shooting or cranking up something very fake and then cutting to a real test impact. Just entertainment, good editing, who knows ? I haven't seen any of these programs so I have zero opinion about their validity.

I did work in industrial T.V. for 25 years and did video editing among a few things as well as being a film buff, so i can guess that you can't believe that the close up you just saw of someone shooting and the hit on target you just saw after was actually what really happened and the same one event.

Oh, just a comment: I've noticed some crosstalk between this topic thread and the other topic thread also dealing with crossbows and I'm getting confused when I answer something said on this thread while having in mind what was said in the other.

Oh, and I can see better what Nathan may have been getting at on the other topic that may also apply to this one: Focussing on first hand observation might be more productive than arguing about second hand information of variable and unverifiable quality. There is lots I find interesting in the debates but we are not curing cancer here.

[Clinton Harris]

[Clinton Harris]

[Clinton Harris]

[Rod Parsons]

[quote="Dan Howard"]

[Dan Howard]

[Rod Parsons]

I reckon it comes to what you mean by "rare". I would suggest not so rare as you might think, but that is just the opinion of a dyed in the wool English longbowman. :-)
As I said before, I think we are more in agreement than not.
Rod.

[David Ruff]

[Dan Howard]

How many tinmes do I have to say that armour tests are a waste of time unless an attempt is made to replicate the arming garment worn underneath. Even Rod acknowledges that this is a crucial part of any testing process. Hay bales are hardly acceptable. I have also previously said that your proposed tests will produce some useful results (so long as your arrowheads are made from the same wrought iron). That doesn't mean that any test you have done so far is even remotely useful. Please stop bringing these up.

[Rod Parsons]

Part of the issue with arming garments is that IMO the usual re-enactors garment is not up to the standard of a real arming garment, jack or aketon. The number of layers and weight of fabric is important, and it seems that if there is "doubling" then resistance is most likely increased over a single sandwich layer of padding of the same total thickness.

This is an area of investigation that I currently find more interesting than shooting at plate, but it is too soon to come to a definite conclusion.

Another element is that whilst the ideal point for penetrating properly made padding is perfectly adequate for maille, the ideal point for puncturing plate alone is probably less than ideal for penetrating padding.

I would say that Mark Stretton is on the right track, having moved away from the short nosed heavy bodkin pattern to a type replicating a head found at Towton, which is a useful compromise in shape between the heavy pattern and a longer point, though not nearly so long as the type 7 which would be prone to collapse on striking hardened plate of any great thickness.

This head is very like an extremely large type 9, with steel forged into the tip and cutting edges. It also appears important that the head is securely glued to the shaft with glue solidly filling any voids in the end of the socket, since it appears that the shaft is capable of forcing open the rolled socket of an insecurely mounted head upon impact, thereby reducing the momentum of the shaft beyond the initial shock of impact.

Whilst it may well be effective to have a barbed head come off easily in a soft target, it would seem to be inefficient to have the same fitting on a shaft intended to penetrate plate.

On the other hand, that the old plate was hand beaten and would have more impurities than modern steel may work against it, particularly if the ductility of the metal varies from area to area along with variations in thickness.
Obviously emphasis was placed upon greater strength in certain locations and with the corollary that other areas would be less strong, then shot placement and the angle of the strike are very important.

Finally, it would also be wrong to make uninformed conclusions about the variability of quality from suit to suit, though it stands to reason from an economical viewpoint that not everyone on the field would benefit from protection of the same quality.
Rod.

[Rod Parsons]

Dan,
Is there a published work comparable to the analysis of plate by Alan Williams for the Wallace Collection or the appendix in "Longbow" by Peter Jones which looks at the construction options, hardness and ductility of the rings in 14th/15th C maille? I will put the same question to Pekka and Erik et al. on the rivetedmaille site.
Rod.

[Randall Moffett]

Something that also comes to mind is the importance of distance in the equation. At a good distance a heavily armoured knight would be fairly secure from most projectiles from infantry but one up close this changes. I would assume that at over 100 yards a fully armed man would be generally OK from most things but the other 90% of the army not very likely. Now something else is why the importance at keeping the horsemen from the archers. Their kill ratio likely goes up closer and closer they come (distance) but the horse can cover a good amount of distance in just seconds so now they have to keep stakes or men at arms between them or Patay happens. I think the armour had to have been strong enough that the men felt it would protect them from most danger or they would have abandoned it. The same goes for the longbow and the crossbow. If useless they would have been discarded which in the end they were but liekly more to sloth and the expense of the crossbow. I doubt that men dying from the longbow was rare but I do not think the knight was a sitting duck either. There likely was the equilibrium we do not see in their battles for them to coexist as they did.

Rod,
Is their anything at the end of the Knight and The Blast Furnace on this? I do not own a copy here but thought there was.
Also do you have any details on padded garments from the medieval period still in existance? I know of a few (three) and have an article on the black princes but would be interested in more infor if you could spare it.

Randall

[Jean Thibodeau]

Layered protection makes great sense to maximise the protective qualities of the whole defense system: After all what one wants it to not be killed or even wounded, and if wounded, as little as possible: Not getting a hole in one's plate is just a bonus considering that replacing or repairing one must have been costly if we are talking of the best available plate.

A point that is ideal in design to pierce plate might be the exactly worse choice for piercing maille or cloth and a compromise point would loose some effectiveness against the first layer of protection it has to defeat.

The only other factor I see with the padding is in taking away energy from getting through the plate by wasting energy on compressing the cloth.