| Author |
Message |
Jean Thibodeau
|
 Posted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 2:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | I wish that people who are doing these modern tests would simply stay within the context of what they are doing. I want to see the stopping of definitive statements of what was done historically, how things performed throughout history, etc. The simple fact is this: such definitive statements cannot be made by shooting a modern-made projectile from a modern-made weapon into a modern-made target without significant research, understanding, and effort to faithfully recreate materials, conditions, and constructional details.
So what? There is a lot of other things that can be learned from doing such tests, including knowing what possibly could have happened historically. It can't answer that question, but it can answer others. The tests will be interesting nonetheless.
All I ask is that people doing such testing stay within the context of the tests and stop making definitive conclusions without a proper scientific method. There is a lot of value to such tests. Why make them controversial by trying to make them something they are not? |
Nathan, at the moment I agree that avoiding historical conclusions stated as proven fact as it's just getting people upset and cranky. But speculating on possibilities or probabilities i.e. opinion ? It's just that the line between the two can become blurred in heated discussion between interested amateurs. ( But we should make every effort to NOT get heated. )
Now what David is telling us currently is very interesting and I think he is trying to phrase thing in a way that avoids saying he has, at the moment " historically valid " proof. The standard of proof that are acceptable for academics is not the standard I need to form a personal " best guess " opinion: But I wouldn't expect or insist that others arrive at the same conclusions ! And after all, I'm not an academic authority on the subject so I' m not going to write a Thesis on it that academics would debate or fight over.
When David has finished his tests, and I think he intends to get some genuine experts to look at the validity of his testing methods and the materials used. Now, even then, it can become an unproductive my expert is better than your expert argument. So maybe at that time he could make statements about what his conclusions are and the experts can either reject, support or argue between themselves about what it all means.
Oh, yesterday's infallible academics are today's dated and erroneous secondary sources and the current theories are either going to get stronger or themselves be amended as tests and hopefully undiscovered period sources are found.
I'm giving general comments in the above paragraphs about the evolution of what is considered TRUE by academics over long periods of time and not an opinion just aimed at this topic thread: Academics in the 19th century said man would never fly and had mathematical proof that bumble bees couldn't fly in spite of obvious contrary evidence of flying bumble bees. Call me a chronic unrepentant sceptic then.  
Finally, I don't think we are actually in disagreement about anything fundamental but I will personally TRY to keep opinion and absolute statement of proof carefully separated.  I hope. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
  |
 |
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | I wish that people who are doing these modern tests would simply stay within the context of what they are doing. I want to see the stopping of definitive statements of what was done historically, how things performed throughout history, etc. The simple fact is this: such definitive statements cannot be made by shooting a modern-made projectile from a modern-made weapon into a modern-made target without significant research, understanding, and effort to faithfully recreate materials, conditions, and constructional details.
So what? There is a lot of other things that can be learned from doing such tests, including knowing what possibly could have happened historically. It can't answer that question, but it can answer others. The tests will be interesting nonetheless.
All I ask is that people doing such testing stay within the context of the tests and stop making definitive conclusions without a proper scientific method. There is a lot of value to such tests. Why make them controversial by trying to make them something they are not? |
Natthan
I can understand what you are saying and i understand the reasons behind it. However to say:
The simple fact is this: such definitive statements cannot be made by shooting a modern-made projectile from a modern-made weapon into a modern-made target [i]without significant research, understanding, and effort to faithfully recreate materials, conditions, and constructional details
Is like saying no amount of testing can be done that will proove, disprove or create questions without the use of period plate and weapons - which can not be done by me, nor i doubt there are many willing to use such period survivors.
Its a fact that modern steels and ways of heating and treating very closely mimics yesterdays latestest and greatest. hardness, thickness and quality can be had and even better then the finest smiths of 700 years ago.
For me to say "i put a bolt through 1050 carbon steel that was harden and tempered and it was shy of 3mm thick" brings up the question and the discussion of "ok, thats modern, *IS* modern steel stronger then wrought? Should a test now be started on period type wrought? should we go through the investment to make a front plate that closely matches a period example and shoot it? IS the test worth carrying on OR will we prove what dan and others are saying and the labor would be for not?
Steel is steel is steel, and the best thing i see over the 500 to 700 years that we are talking about is steel got stronger due to being able to purify the process and the plate is uniform in strength which by my calculation means it would be harder to punch modern carbon steel then it would to punch wrought iron steel. Therefore a test is in need to see IF there is a difference, if so (either way - punch or not) why there is a difference AND it give a lot of good people here that have never seen a heavy crossbow fire on plate the ability to see it first hand and draw conclussions.
Like dan (for example) and his arguement about plate, he has a passion for it. I too have the same passion for the crossbow and bow and HATE it when i see people dismiss it so fast. Whether learned behavior or misguided fact, it is wrong without looking into it and drawing questions.
In closing - If this place is not for drawing questions and discussing the who, what where, why and how - then i will quietly leave and go else where. However if this place is for discussion and looking into possibilities and how the modern possibilities fit into medieval - then my prelim testing is valid and a point can be made that my results on modern materials draws a question to what will happen on lesser grade materials.
David
[/b]
|
|
 |
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | [I'm giving general comments in the above paragraphs about the evolution of what is considered TRUE by academics over long periods of time and not an opinion just aimed at this topic thread: Academics in the 19th century said man would never fly and had mathematical proof that bumble bees couldn't fly in spite of obvious contrary evidence of flying bumble bees. Call me a chronic unrepentant sceptic then.
|
Hi Mr Thibodeau
The bumblebee thing has achieved modern mythical status, as a convenient shorthand for saying 'aren't scientists silly', being attributed to a variety of sources, including Heinkel, but I think all of them were 20th Century, not nineteenth. If you're interested, the link below is the best discussion I've ever been able to find on the origins of the 'proof'.
http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees
regards
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a case where some kind of period bolt or arrow has pierced a helm:
Of course, we don't know what kind of bow was fired at what range.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoff Wood wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | [I'm giving general comments in the above paragraphs about the evolution of what is considered TRUE by academics over long periods of time and not an opinion just aimed at this topic thread: Academics in the 19th century said man would never fly and had mathematical proof that bumble bees couldn't fly in spite of obvious contrary evidence of flying bumble bees. Call me a chronic unrepentant sceptic then.
|
Hi Mr Thibodeau
The bumblebee thing has achieved modern mythical status, as a convenient shorthand for saying 'aren't scientists silly', being attributed to a variety of sources, including Heinkel, but I think all of them were 20th Century, not nineteenth. If you're interested, the link below is the best discussion I've ever been able to find on the origins of the 'proof'.
http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees
regards
Geoff |
Thank, I guess I used that example because it's so well known that it popped into my head as an illustration that scientific thought can be wrong or too conservative. ( Sometimes stiflingly so. ) That the story is a maybe a Myth is good to know.
I think, at the time of Louis Pasteur the surgeons of the time where very reluctant to accept that disease could be caused by tiny invisible germs and continued operating without washing their hand: It took a long time for the idea to become accepted. I remember this from a very old Biographical film on the life of Louis Pasteur from the 1930's I think, and this too might be a myth.
Will come back later and have a look at that link and learn how much is myth, thanks again.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Chad: a very nice find. As you noted, we don't know the circumstances of the penetration; however the location of the find in a moat certain raises the possibility that some very heavy siege crossbow was used against this "pate defense". Intererestingly, the writer studiously avoids calling this a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | [Thank, I guess I used that example because it's so well known that it popped into my head as an illustration that scientific thought can be wrong or too conservative. ( Sometimes stiflingly so. ) That the story is a maybe a Myth is good to know.
I think, at the time of Louis Pasteur the surgeons of the time where very reluctant to accept that disease could be caused by tiny invisible germs and continued operating without washing their hand: It took a long time for the idea to become accepted. I remember this from a very old Biographical film on the life of Louis Pasteur from the 1930's I think, and this too might be a myth.
Will come back later and have a look at that link and learn how much is myth, thanks again. |
Hi
Well, someone did the calculation using 'conventional' aerodynamics, so there is a basis to it. It is the subsequent use of the minor calculation to 'prove' poliitical/philospophical points that is more problematic. As for hand washing, Semmelweiss was probably the pioneer on that one, but I'm going wayyyyyy off topic now so I'd better shut up.
regards
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, found a painting by Hans Holbein the Elder showing a crossbowman using a crank to cock his crossbow.
Just a little eye candy: http://www.wga.hu/art/h/holbein/hans_e/sebastia.jpg
Any technical comments about the crank and crossbow and technique used ? Oh, the bolt held in the crossbowman's teeth is of an obviously oval cross section. Any estimate of bolt weight by the size of the bolt in the picture ? Perspective does make the point away from the viewer look fairly small and the end of the bolt look about the thickness of one's thumb.
Oh, I have a much enlarged version of this painting in one of my books that make seeing the size and details of the bolt easier to see. Page 73 THE RENAISSANCE AT WAR, Thomas Arnold, Cassell's History of Warfare series Text copyright © Thomas F, Arnold 2001 and Design and layout © Cassell & Co. 2001, Bristish Library ISBN 0-304-35270-5
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Thu 22 Jun, 2006 9:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Oh, found a painting by Hans Holbein the Elder showing a crossbowman using a crank to cock his crossbow.
Just a little eye candy: http://www.wga.hu/art/h/holbein/hans_e/sebastia.jpg
Any technical comments about the crank and crossbow and technique used ? Oh, the bolt held in the crossbowman's teeth is of an obviously oval cross section. Any estimate of bolt weight by the size of the bolt in the picture ? Perspective does make the point away from the viewer look fairly small and the end of the bolt look about the thickness of one's thumb.
Oh, I have a much enlarged version of this painting in one of my books that make seeing the size and details of the bolt easier to see. Page 73 THE RENAISSANCE AT WAR, Thomas Arnold, Cassell's History of Warfare series Text copyright © Thomas F, Arnold 2001 and Design and layout © Cassell & Co. 2001, Bristish Library ISBN 0-304-35270-5 |
The bolt looks much like the ones i have put up - they are copies of bolts found in the tower of london. The tip is hard to see (put it on a photo editor and brightened it up and enlarged it) but looks to be a bodkin - altho i can not see a difinitive tip, it also maybe a broadhead.
The crankqline was typically used for ultra heavy crossbows. The bow pictured looks to be a german/italian, the top is very swiss/italian. Note the shape just infront of the nut. Thats a german cut and the swiss and italians used it as well. The lack of a bolt gutter - rather a bolt rest is german and italian as well. They (in my playing with them) were easier to tune the bow to hit pointblank at range. It also kept the builder from having to encorperate a upward sweep in the tiller of the bow.
Note the crossbowman on the left shooting the man, on the top of his bow is a very clear shot of the bolt clip!!! this is cool, as clips were not used until later period. Also note the lack of foot stirrups, definate HEAVY siege bows in action here. They did not put foot stirrups on heavy siege bows. Its interesting however that they are firing on a bare man with them.
Note the man in the right back ground holding a crossbow. That is a pure italian bow - possibly swiss. The way the bow sweeps under his hand is typical of an itailian or swiss bow.
I am not sure if it was the painters way to show shadow - but the hand bow.... ITs shorter then a longbow AND the belly of the bow is white. This could be a laminate bow or a backed type bow. Also note that he is firing it half cocked and not a full draw type hold.
To answer bolt length - the man on the left has a bolt in his bow. Typical draw lengths were 6" and the brace of a bow was 4". So this would mean 10" from back of the prod to the teeth of the nut. **IF** this is correct those bolts are about 13 to 14" long. If that is correct the tips are 2.5" to 3.5" long. The bolts are about 1/2" thick and the tips most likely are the same.
One last interesting note. - the one man is aiming. This most likely means that the man having a bad day was a long way off. The painter paints the people around him to portray a scene. The bolts in the man i do not understand as - a heavy bow like these should pass through, perhaps this was for drama, but maybe not. Also judging by the size of the lathes (bows) these are well into the 1500+ lbs. They could very well be over 1/2" thick at the center and most likely 26 to 29" tip to tip. My expericance with steel in this range is in and around that weight figure. Also they would not take the time it took to use a crank when it was faster to windlass a heavy bow - unless the bow was over the use of a windlass. PG said he cranked a 1200lb bow with a windlass... Cranks were reserved for over that.
Those bows there most likely weighed 15 to 20lbs and had 1500+ lb prods. They took about 3 to 6 minutes to crank and had a ton of power. These were obviously noble men or men with money as those bows were expensive to build and 2 of the 3 have veneer tops - ivory most likely. one has very difinitive carving in it.
Just my opinion of the picture........
David
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Jun, 2006 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think one main reason that not much damaged armour remains is the fact metal was very useful and could at the damaged stage be either repaired or.... recycled. Where is that page from Chad? That is a very interesting find that does indicate some of what we are looking for. Does it state the thickness ever of the pate? A Missaglia, very quality armour I thought.... poor guy.
Randall
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Jun, 2006 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Where is that page from Chad? That is a very interesting find that does indicate some of what we are looking for. Does it state the thickness ever of the pate? A Missaglia, very quality armour I thought.... poor guy.
Randall |
Randall,
That page is from another thread someone posted. It's from the Higgins Armory Museum's armour catalogue. That's the entire page and all the text devoted to this helm. Museum catalogues are great resources, but often lack really detailed info that many of us would love to see. It does bear the Missaglia mark, and if so, can be asumed to be of good quality if it's genuine.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 9:22 am Post subject: Crossbow test |
|
|
Hey whatever happened to the test which was supposed to have been done ? Did it ever take place?
EDIT: nevermind I read the thread again. Would be interesting to hear from David though if he had done any more experiments.
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Mon 30 Apr, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: Re: Crossbow test |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | Hey whatever happened to the test which was supposed to have been done ? Did it ever take place?
EDIT: nevermind I read the thread again. Would be interesting to hear from David though if he had done any more experiments. |
One of the people who was to be involved in the test is no longer an active member of this site. After numerous reports from his customers who have paid him money without receiving a product, I've removed his ability to post on this site and pitch his wares. There is no room for unscrupulous vendors to use this site's resources to improve their business.
I ask that any further discussion surrounding this person be kept from this site. This would save me a tremendous amount of trouble. I'd prefer to let it rest, but if anyone has any questions that they cannot hold back, they can email me directly.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garry James
Location: Los Angeles, CA Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jan, 2009 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Notice replys/messages about those who fabricate seriously powerful crossbows. I currently have a couple with 200 lb. pulls, but would be very interested in obtaining a proper period piece with considerably more puissance. Any contact suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jan, 2009 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Garry James wrote: | | Notice replys/messages about those who fabricate seriously powerful crossbows. I currently have a couple with 200 lb. pulls, but would be very interested in obtaining a proper period piece with considerably more puissance. Any contact suggestions? |
Look here: http://www.flarcheveque.com/#
Click on " English " and then on " Products " then " Weapons " ( No direct link to the crossbow ) and there is a heavy pulley crossbow shown for sale. I think 400 pounds of draw.
I've seen his work up close and it's first class.
There is also Todd Stuff: http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/crossbows.php
Another good maker with a good reputation.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garry James
Location: Los Angeles, CA Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jan, 2009 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Many, many thanks. I'll check them out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johnn Schroeder
Location: Minnesota Joined: 08 Aug 2009
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Aug, 2009 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I spent 15 years as a mechanical designer, and dealt with may forms of metal penetration. For the armor in question used to test bolt penetration one needs some information on both the bolt tip and the breastplate,
**Metal hardness (Rockwell testing will give you this.)
**Metal composition (Need some metallurgical testing here in a lab of some actual armor and bodkins.)
**Shape of tip
**Typical curvature of breastplate (Curved surfaces are stronger because of the rounded form which acts as a sort of support system for the point impacted.)
The harder the tip is tempered, the better it penetrates, until you reach the point of the tip becoming so hard it becomes brittle. Also one has to take into account that armor that is used by a soldier or knight would receive many knocks and impacts, and these tend to (over time) work harden the metal which is capable of making it actually more fragile in some spots.
Be aware that if a bolt hits well supported armor, the effect can be like a punch press die which creates a circular stress on metal, and even before the die actually punches through the metal, the fracture disc (circular slug) is literally 'popped' from the parent metal. This is the effect one sees in punching operations quite often. The harder the metal, the more this is seen.
A bolt can potentially put a hole in armor and not not drive its way through, but create a fracture point and the bolt simply follows through. This is why more data is required to see what is actually happening.
The actual shape of the tip is critical here, as shape determines how small an area is actually under stress, and that can have a huge effect on penetration ability. As a bolt begins falling the moment it clears the bolt guide, the shot is fired above the intended aiming point and that has the effect of having the bolt descending at an angle. If the tip impacts the armor in a line such that the full weight of the bolt and its speeding mass is in a straight line, (tip to nock, and perpendicular to the armor surface), you have the best chance of penetration. A shot falling on the upper curve of the breast plate would be such a situation. A bolt shot horizontally is in fact falling, even as it impacts, and you have introduced a downward component to the impact forces, which wastes some of the energy of the impact. this lessens the chances of creating structural failure and getting penetration.
Another thing to consider, any surface roughness, (due to weathering, old scrapes of even minor dents), all work in favor of the bolt tip not glancing off and thus increasing penetration potential. If the wearer was not too careful with the armor, such damage and weathering will occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin S.
|
| Posted: Tue 25 Aug, 2009 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi, I'm a new member here. I just need to ask some questions.
Below is the equation for the range of the arrow:
http://www.stortford-archers.org.uk/medieval.htm
To save your time, please skip everything else and go to a section called "MAXIMUM RANGE OF THE ARROWS".
Here are my questions:
1. In the equation, there is something called an arrow constant (c). For a 60 grams arrow, the arrow constant is 10 to the power of -1. I am not sure what an arrow constant is or how he reached that number. This is why I need to ask you guys.
What would be the "arrow constant" of a bolt that weighs 0.5 lb and is 19-21 inch long?
2. In the "Distance Through Which the Arrow Is Drawn Back", did he meant the draw-length or did he meant the powerstroke?
Please guys, I really need these answers. I'm very close to solve a problem and is very excited. I need clear and helpful answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a