| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| David Ruff wrote: | | My 450 goats foot puts holes in plate, we will test tempered plate on it, but i know for a FACT it would not defeat plate backed with chain. |
I wish you would stop saying this. You know no FACTS at all since, by your own admission, you have yet to test your weapons against a replica of an historical piece of armour.
The first thing to do is narrow down a time period. Once this is done, then a suitable armour combination and crossbow can be chosen. I still say that unless caburised wrought iron is used then no new data can be contributed to the body of previously published work.
I have a question though. Have you done an metallurgical anaylsis of extant crossbow bolt heads? What makes you think that the majority of missiles were made of hardened steel?
Last edited by Dan Howard on Fri 02 Jun, 2006 10:34 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
  |
 |
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
need a date to decide on the crossbow to be built/used....
Last edited by David Ruff on Fri 02 Jun, 2006 10:49 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nitpick? I would think that the chance of penetrating plate would depend heavily on whether the head was hardened steel or not. It is a fundamental factor. I will provide metallurgical properties of any armour that is to be tested. I would expect the same to be done with the missile.
Which museums might I find the crossbows that you are replicating? I see on your website that you have reproduced crossbows dating as early as the 12th century with steel prods. Where is your evidence that steel crossbows were used this early? The earliest instance I can find dates to the 15th century. Before that time, they were composites of wood/horn/sinew. And before the 13th century they were simply made of wood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | Nitpick? I would think that the chance of penetrating plate would depend heavily on whether the head was hardened steel or not. It is a fundamental factor. I will provide metallurgical properties of any armour that is to be tested. I would expect the same to be done with the missile.
Which museums might I find the crossbows that you are replicating? I see on your website that you have reproduced crossbows dating as early as the 12th century with steel prods. Where is your evidence that steel crossbows were used this early? The earliest instance I can find dates to the 15th century. Before that time, they were composites of wood/horn/sinew. And before the 13th century they were simply made of wood. |
I create target bows with the optional steel prod. Steel prods hit the scene in about and around 1320 to 1350's if memory serves, this seems to be the widely accepted date range for steel prods. They were not widely used until 100 years later as it took some time to get the spring steel down and right. Heavy crossbows started showing up around 1450's with the real heavies being in the mid to later 1500's. Any musieum collection will show you and tell you that, or you can search the web for the steel prod showing up in history.
My medieval build crossbows follow more to time and period then my target bows do. This test will be a medieval reconstruction copying a medieval bow for the time we select. Armor and bow should be about the same timeline. I need a date range to find a bow to copy......
David
Last edited by David Ruff on Fri 02 Jun, 2006 10:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I need a citation or at least can you direct me to a collection that has a crossbow dated to 1320 to 1350 that has a steel prod?
Lets say we settle on the 15th-16th century (c.1480-1520) as a period to focus on (I'll find specs of a few breastplates from this era and we'll go from there).
Here is a well known example (dated to c.1510).
http://www.wallacecollection.org/i_s/conserva...armour.htm
We have plate thickness, hardness, and metallurgical content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | I need a citation or at least can you direct me to a collection that has a crossbow dated to 1320 to 1350 that has a steel prod?
Lets say we settle on the 15th-16th century (c.1480-1520) as a period to focus on (I'll find specs of a few breastplates from this era and we'll go from there).
Here is a well known example (dated to c.1510).
http://www.wallacecollection.org/i_s/conserva...armour.htm
We have plate thickness, hardness, and metallurgical content. |
The wallace collection will work great, the forge has the books in the shop. When i go in two weeks to drop off stuff i will search for the time period and such. I am finding a reference to steel prods from the 1320 to 1350 area, i have seen time tables that list the first instance of the steel lathe being used as about 1320/1350. You can do a google search on it. Other refences can come from "European Crossbows: a Survey by Josef Alm" or Payne Gallway, "The Crossbow" or W.F. Paterson, "A Guide to the Crossbow" should tell you all you ever wanted to know about the weapon. Including references to pull weights and the like. Heck there is plenty of reference to the 1200lb gallwey find and my friend robin has played with that bow. That siege bow will set a standard for lathes used as far as poundage ect.
BUT
My goal is to recreate a period example using the same shape, weight and firing so we will have to find a good example. 1480-1520 should be easy to find.
edit
http://knackered.knackered.org/angus/archery/faq/crossbow.html
this lists a time line about crossbows that is wide accepted as fact based on finds, collections and experts, which btw your time period puts me into being able to use a cranqine. This should be fun.
Tell you what i will do.... nathen asked me if i would be willing to send a bow for a review. why don't i build and test this bow and then send it to nathen for a review and testing as he wants for afew weeks? then i'll have the bow sent back here, do some shows and then sell it.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jun, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Payne-Gallwey dated his crossbow to the 15th century. I can't find any steel crossbows dating much earlier than this. Shouldn't you be looking for a crossbow that was intended to be used from the battlefield and not from a fortification? A typical example, not the heaviest one on record.
Find out whether your armourers can make a breastplate from heat treated spring steel - something that is capable of producing a hardness of around 370 VPH. There are not many who do. Historic Enterprises is probably the most well known commercial supplier who deal in spring steel armour.
http://www.historicenterprises.com/cart.php?m...t&c=44
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jun, 2006 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | Payne-Gallwey dated his crossbow to the 15th century. I can't find any steel crossbows dating much earlier than this. Shouldn't you be looking for a crossbow that was intended to be used from the battlefield and not from a fortification? A typical example, not the heaviest one on record.
Find out whether your armourers can make a breastplate from heat treated spring steel - something that is capable of producing a hardness of around 370 VPH. There are not many who do. Historic Enterprises is probably the most well known commercial supplier who deal in spring steel armour.
http://www.historicenterprises.com/cart.php?m...t&c=44 |
Wild wolf forge will be handling the forging. They sport the largest non commercial forge in texas and the head smith has 35 years experiance. They also happen to be where i make my steel prods.
The chain mail maker (jody) has years of experiance making chain for collectors, sca use and silver and gold wire chain for jewelry, he can handle making period chain.
I will be handling the crossbow and the 90lb longbow and the 140lb longbow for the testing. Jody happens to fire a 127lb longbow and i have a 107lb. So we will have longbows to choose from. The crossbow i plan on using will be in the 700 to 1200lb range and we might actually use a low and high lb prod to give a scope of tests. More detail the better i think.
as far as crossbow power - nope, i am going to use the crossbow that was used in the period. A siege crossbow was used on the battle field, it would be silly to think they were not. In the 1480 to 1520 area crossbows in the 1200 to 1500lb range exsisted and have been documented (like the gallwey bow) I will look for a better build however as i have built the galwey siege bow - BORING!!!!!!!......
If i can get access to the neighbors house i may actually fire from the 2nd story roof top down on the plate to simulate a shot from a castle wall as well, and becuase i think that would be fun to do hehe.
This is why i asked you directly to name a period. I will use the bows in use in that time and being knights had access to chain and plate then, i will make sure i have access to a nice powerful crossbow (within the scope of period) to kill it with..... Crank bows and windlass bows were used on the ground behind pavices and from battlements, would have been silly to use light bows in the mist of armor - don't you think? and with all the tempering, hardening, armor, and such these people were not dumb.... But thats an assumtion on my part. I will crack my books this weekend and choose a bow....
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jun, 2006 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
What you want to get hold of is a velocity chronograph, to measure the initial velocity of the bolt...
These can be borrowed/rented from Ye Local Paintball Shoppe, or home reloading enthusiast...
Alternately, the cost less than 100$ new...
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
  |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jun, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Ruff wrote: | | Wild wolf forge will be handling the forging. They sport the largest non commercial forge in texas and the head smith has 35 years experiance. They also happen to be where i make my steel prods. |
Find out whether they can handle making a breastplate from spring steel. The task is far more difficult than making a crossbow prod. And far more difficult than making a breastplate from mild steel.
| Quote: | | The chain mail maker (jody) has years of experiance making chain for collectors, sca use and silver and gold wire chain for jewelry, he can handle making period chain. |
Post a photo of his work (a closeup showing individual link characteristics). Provide details of the type of riveting as well as wire diameter and link diameter. As I said, just because the mail is riveted doesn't mean that it resembles historical mail. I have been making mail for years and don't consider myself capable of replicating an historical example.
What will be used to simulate an arming doublet (for the plate) and an aketon (for the mail)?
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jun, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Think about it, why do you think armor got thicker and heavier as we rolled into the 1600's??? because the weapons coming out got more potent, heavy crossbows and gunnes began showing up in masses, this carried on until armor was to heavy to wear and it got phased out. The day of the knight in armor was over. Bows, crossbows and gunnes won the day and carried onto into history. IT WAS NOT because swords, daggers, pikes or spears got deadlier. |
As I said, I've never read accounts of crossbows doing much of anything in the 16th century. The same goes for longbows. They could be effective at times, but not against plate armour. Just look at the battle of Flodden Field. Guns did indeed do a lot to bring about the decline of armour, but it was the pistol, more than the arquebus or musket, that caused horsemen to switch to lighter gear. Even after that happened, it took a very long time for armour to completely disappear.
I'd like to know more about the rates of fire for different types of crossbows. A while back, a poster on netsword.com did a test with couple of kinds of crossbow and came up with fairly fast numbers. Something like twelve shots a minute with 12th or 13th century style crossbow, and six a minute with a steel crossbow, if I recall correctly. I know I've read other things suggesting the crossbows used in the Crusades could compete with hand bows in speed or at least come close, but I've never seen any really solid numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jun, 2006 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Quote: | | Think about it, why do you think armor got thicker and heavier as we rolled into the 1600's??? because the weapons coming out got more potent, heavy crossbows and gunnes began showing up in masses, this carried on until armor was to heavy to wear and it got phased out. The day of the knight in armor was over. Bows, crossbows and gunnes won the day and carried onto into history. IT WAS NOT because swords, daggers, pikes or spears got deadlier. |
As I said, I've never read accounts of crossbows doing much of anything in the 16th century. The same goes for longbows. They could be effective at times, but not against plate armour. Just look at the battle of Flodden Field. Guns did indeed do a lot to bring about the decline of armour, but it was the pistol, more than the arquebus or musket, that caused horsemen to switch to lighter gear. Even after that happened, it took a very long time for armour to completely disappear.
I'd like to know more about the rates of fire for different types of crossbows. A while back, a poster on netsword.com did a test with couple of kinds of crossbow and came up with fairly fast numbers. Something like twelve shots a minute with 12th or 13th century style crossbow, and six a minute with a steel crossbow, if I recall correctly. I know I've read other things suggesting the crossbows used in the Crusades could compete with hand bows in speed or at least come close, but I've never seen any really solid numbers. |
This really depends on the crossbow being used. Personally i can do the following.......
8 - 9 shots per 30 seconds - crossbow is a 65lb steel prod - hardly enough to do any damage to anything other then small game. Might cuase a nasty wound at under 40 yards to bare flesh.
6 to 8 shots in 30 seconds with a 120lb steel prod crossbow. Again - this is enough to kill, but not do anything including to leather, MIGHT (have never tested it) poke a hole in thin leather - but again never tried. I do know a well placed shot at this power will kill deer at 35 yards.
Both above figures are hand spanning using my hip against the butt of the crossbow. These numbers are bests i have done within the SCA and competitive shooting. Shooting was done within the barony of the steppes (dallas tx) during 2002/2003 and 2005. Both crossbows were roller nut type bows. the 65lb was a western style stock and the 120lb was an italian type stock. Both had tickler triggers and both were used in competitive shooting.
Now if a prod was pulling under say 175lbs (taking into account in period they were STOUT) i would say they could ****MAYBE**** come close to rates of fire on a longbow, but the power of the bolt would not do much damage eccept maybe leather. Cloth would be toast however - i have fired at cloth and padded cloth with bows that are handspanned and war type tips - bodkin, sinew twisters and swallowtails = bad day on cloth.
Belt hook..... best of 3 rounds a minute - however this was FLYING. Did this on a 265lb steel prod crossbow. Range hits to 75 yards. bow was capable of hitting to 90yards accurately, after that it was to much of a drop off to make it worth trying.
Goatsfoot..... best of 3 rounds a minute, you MIGHT be able to get 4 rounds off a minute, but this would be pushing it. The goatsfoot is very easy to load and cock. The device lines up fast. Bow shot is a 450lb and has range to about 130yards. Accurate shots to about 90 yards altho i have hit things farther.
Windlass - 1 to 2 rounds a minute - DEPENDING....... i would go more for 1 round every minute, but i have done 2.... while doing two i was too pressured to really take aim at what i was shooting at. The crossbow was a 450lb to 500lb. Outter range on it accurately was about 120yards. At this range the crossbow still had a good punch as well due to the heavier bolts used with this bow. This bow was a tad light in prod pull for a windlass bow. typical windlass bows should be in the 750 to 900lb range altho i have heard to 1300lb too. This 1300lb is backed up by payne Gallweys find at 1200lbs in a windlass bow and he estimated it pulled 1500lbs in period.
Cranqline...... knowing the construction of these and knowing the ratios of these and taking into account what they can span.... 1 round every 3 to 5 minutes. Cranqlines were used on the OH MY GOD heavy crossbows. Rumors to 2000+ lbs. Again due to Gallwey's find of the siege bow that drew 1200lbs on the windlass, cranklines were made for heavier bows. I have heard that there were 3000lb HAND crossbows, but never have seen a period copy. If this is correct that would explain the cranqlines ratio of 145:1 being needed. But again i have no solid facts that support a hand crossbow to 3000lbs.
Perhaps we have a good math person in here. Prods i have seen were spring steel. 30" tip to tip. 1/2" thick at the center and tapered to 3/8" at the tip. tall wise they were 1.75" tall at the center and tapered to 3/4" at the tip. They drew about 5 to 6.5". I have heard all sorts of estimates. This is one of the prods we are building for the heavy build and guess 1500+lbs out of it. Gallwey also gives his measurements on the 1200lb he found but guesses it lost poundages due to being cocked for hundreds of years.
Lastly there is an italian company that reproduces a multi spring type prod - i believe taken from period examples that draws 3300lbs at about 5.5" draw. But my italian isn't that good to determine if they are copying something from history.
Thats my results, I have never seen what the other person was able to do. What did he/she come out with? When i shoot video i will do some speed firing as well and video it. Will give you an idea of how each is used and the speed to it.... was actually enjoying some fun shooting this evening with a nice and mellow 300lb german crossbow. Was punching holes in some rawhide (about 1/4" thick) leather at 45 yards (complete pass through and into the backstop) showing off for the neighbors. That bow is a goatsfoot bow and while i have never speed fired it, i would say 2 to 3 rounds a minute is about what i could do on it if motivated. The bolts used are 1/2" tapered to 3/8" at the butts. The bolts are 13" long and fletched with feathers. The tips are steel bodkins. No idea on the weight of them.
Edit,
One last thing i forgot to add. When shooting today i used some of my 3/8" shafts hiting the same leather with modern target tips. I could not get a pass thru. I do not know the physics of the tapered shaft, i have read it is believed the taper helps flight. I do know it helps penetration. I can bury a 3/8" shaft armed with a bodkin to about the last 1" of the normal shaft while a taper blows thru. I believe this is due to the fact the bodkin first cuts the material, the taper then spreads it and the last 3/4 of the bolt sails thru with no resistance. So in essence i only have to bury the first 2" of the bolt and the rest is smaller then the hole. But then agin i need to run tests on that. I just know it works well with tapers + bodkin and not so well with bodkin + straight shaft. This is what i am also counting on in the tests vs the plate armor. Crack the armor, get the large taper thru and the rest should follow OR the bolt will shatter on impact and sail the bodkin through. From time to time i get a shatter on soft steel and the bodkin keeps going like a bullet.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jun, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
FWIW the last I heard about Dr Starley's research at the RA, he had yet to find a single extant bodkin that was made of hardened steel. So unless someone has contrary data, you are limited to mild steel if you are going to use bodkins. However, he has found some examples of other types of broadheads made of hardened steel (Type 16 for example).
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jun, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | FWIW the last I heard about Dr Starley's research at the RA, he had yet to find a single extant bodkin that was made of hardened steel. So unless someone has contrary data, you are limited to mild steel if you are going to use bodkins. However, he has found some examples of other types of broadheads made of hardened steel (Type 16 for example). |
I guess the question would be then,
If heating steel up to form it and then quenching it adds hardness to it. I am not sure of any other way to form a bodkin. Will heat the steel up, form it with a hammer and then quench it.
I would also find it VERY hard to believe that if they knew that tempered steel was hard that they would have used the same steels and processes to harden a tip they knew would slam into things. But we will have to find solid research on it before one is made or fired.
Heck i have about 7 period tips sitting here, anyone know how to tell if they are hardened... they look pitted and rusty to me 
David
|
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jun, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I post this not as anything conclusive, simply adding it to the mix of discussion relating to armour, bodkins and hardness. I have a hard time with anyone saying "I heard", or something to that effect.
This is not a barb thrown directly at Dan, because I respect his knowledge and research. I would, though, rather be reading; "This is what I've read and here's a web reference". I'm posting the source link for this last, only because I'd rather not have to defend it. I'm simply submitting it as evidence that tested hardness of bodkins seems harder than tested armour.
| Quote: |
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]
To summarize the relevant points, Jones and his colleagues have examined surviving arrowheads (broadheads and bodkins) and armour to ascertain their construction and hardness. He mentions that Robert Hardy demonstrated in _Longbow_ that mail was ineffective against the longbow, and that mail was the "principal protection worn by the French cavalry at Crecy" in 1346, but that plate armour was in wide use by the time of Agincourt in 1415, the last great victory of the longbow.
The hardness of plate armour samples from the period improves steadily through the Hundred Years War and into the sixteenth century, which Jones suggests contributed to the demise of the longbow. He gives tables of samples which show the Vickers Hardness Number of some armour pieces increasing from 100-140 early in the 1400s to 240-250 by 1550. By contrast, the bodkins studied were typically 350 Vickers Hardness Number.
Furthermore, plate was distributed on the body economically, thickest in the faces of helms, and thinnest in arm and leg armour. Thicknesses from 1.2 mm up to 4.5 mm were found in armour pieces from the late 1300s.
Mr. Denis Gotts fabricated some bodkin arrowheads with the methods and materials determined earlier, and these were assembled into arrows by Mr. John Waller, who then shot them at samples of wrought iron rolled down to thicknesses of 3 mm, 2 mm, and 1 mm, using a 70 pound self yew bow (28 inch draw, 10 meter range). Penetration was achieved on the 1 mm sheet at angles of up to 20 degrees from straight on. No useful penetration was achieved on the 2 or 3 mm plate. One straight-on trial on the 2 mm plate penetrated 11 mm (less than half an inch).
Jones concludes: "These results indicate that the pattern of damage inflicted on an advance of armored infantry at the Battle of Agincourt would have been one of many disabling wounds [esp. to the arms and legs] and few fatalities. ... It also shows that in the earlier battles (Crecy in 1346 and Poitiers in 1356) the longbow would have been extremely lethal and that in later battles, when armor had been further improved, it would become marginal."
He also points out, along the way, that "the records of the holdings of arrows in HM Tower of London for 1356 indicate there were over 400,000, and enormous stock and procurement problem," and calls this "perhaps the most impressive finding from this investigation."
|
Now, I could have a misunderstanding about the Vickers hardness scale and this doesn't really say anything new other than that. I do know I have a hard time taking any single source as gospel and am continually grateful that this day and age sees so much information being exchanged.
Listing types of bodkins might be appropriate as well. I can see where a needle bodkin, meant for a longbow flight might benefit from being unhardened. Are the Royal Armoury "lack of hardened bodkins" comments relating to crossbow, or longbow?
I know assumption is an awfully lonely trail but the arms race did seem to be a bit of give and take, stay one step ahead and all that. I have a hard time believing gonnes and polearms were the only reason plate was improved. That it worked seems less of a question.
Now this, I have to go back and re-read to put into proper context but does seem to lead back to the same old "which came first" circular argument.
| Quote: |
Originally posted by Dan Howard
I can't find much info regarding short bodkins. I was under the impression that these were used mainly on crossbow bolts. The battlefield use of crossbows and longbows differed considerably. I don't doubt that a short-bodkin crossbow bolt, fired at fairly close range, could punch through plate. Otherwise you wouldn't have the existence of plate specifically proofed against this weapon.
|
source
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=343239
Cheers (with true sincerity)
GC
now don't be just gufawing, here's the link for the first quote
http://www.florilegium.org/files/COMBAT/armor-msg.text
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jun, 2006 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Glen A Cleeton wrote: | I post this not as anything conclusive, simply adding it to the mix of discussion relating to armour, bodkins and hardness. I have a hard time with anyone saying "I heard", or something to that effect.
This is not a barb thrown directly at Dan, because I respect his knowledge and research. I would, though, rather be reading; "This is what I've read and here's a web reference". I'm posting the source link for this last, only because I'd rather not have to defend it. I'm simply submitting it as evidence that tested hardness of bodkins seems harder than tested armour.
| Quote: |
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]
To summarize the relevant points, Jones and his colleagues have examined surviving arrowheads (broadheads and bodkins) and armour to ascertain their construction and hardness. He mentions that Robert Hardy demonstrated in _Longbow_ that mail was ineffective against the longbow, and that mail was the "principal protection worn by the French cavalry at Crecy" in 1346, but that plate armour was in wide use by the time of Agincourt in 1415, the last great victory of the longbow.
The hardness of plate armour samples from the period improves steadily through the Hundred Years War and into the sixteenth century, which Jones suggests contributed to the demise of the longbow. He gives tables of samples which show the Vickers Hardness Number of some armour pieces increasing from 100-140 early in the 1400s to 240-250 by 1550. By contrast, the bodkins studied were typically 350 Vickers Hardness Number.
Furthermore, plate was distributed on the body economically, thickest in the faces of helms, and thinnest in arm and leg armour. Thicknesses from 1.2 mm up to 4.5 mm were found in armour pieces from the late 1300s.
Mr. Denis Gotts fabricated some bodkin arrowheads with the methods and materials determined earlier, and these were assembled into arrows by Mr. John Waller, who then shot them at samples of wrought iron rolled down to thicknesses of 3 mm, 2 mm, and 1 mm, using a 70 pound self yew bow (28 inch draw, 10 meter range). Penetration was achieved on the 1 mm sheet at angles of up to 20 degrees from straight on. No useful penetration was achieved on the 2 or 3 mm plate. One straight-on trial on the 2 mm plate penetrated 11 mm (less than half an inch).
Jones concludes: "These results indicate that the pattern of damage inflicted on an advance of armored infantry at the Battle of Agincourt would have been one of many disabling wounds [esp. to the arms and legs] and few fatalities. ... It also shows that in the earlier battles (Crecy in 1346 and Poitiers in 1356) the longbow would have been extremely lethal and that in later battles, when armor had been further improved, it would become marginal."
He also points out, along the way, that "the records of the holdings of arrows in HM Tower of London for 1356 indicate there were over 400,000, and enormous stock and procurement problem," and calls this "perhaps the most impressive finding from this investigation."
|
Now, I could have a misunderstanding about the Vickers hardness scale and this doesn't really say anything new other than that. I do know I have a hard time taking any single source as gospel and am continually grateful that this day and age sees so much information being exchanged.
Listing types of bodkins might be appropriate as well. I can see where a needle bodkin, meant for a longbow flight might benefit from being unhardened. Are the Royal Armoury "lack of hardened bodkins" comments relating to crossbow, or longbow?
I know assumption is an awfully lonely trail but the arms race did seem to be a bit of give and take, stay one step ahead and all that. I have a hard time believing gonnes and polearms were the only reason plate was improved. That it worked seems less of a question.
Cheers (with true sincerity)
GC
now don't be just gufawing, here's the link
http://www.florilegium.org/files/COMBAT/armor-msg.text |
Looks like some good reading. Thank you for the post!!!!! 
One thing i would like to point out and something i am going to try and stay away from when i do the testing is:
Testing weights seem low, a 70lb longbow is a decent pull but if im not mistaken the average weights for a longbow were higher - i have read 90 to 150lbs. The bows we will be using will be in the 90 to 127lb range.
Draw weights on the bows are short. IF i am not mistaken the english draw was to the ear. This would put the actual draw in the area of about 31 to 33" approx. This too adds power to the shot.
Test ranges at close range do not mean a thing. If the accual testing is not with period type weights and such the arrows and bolts come off the bow slow in the first place. This is why it is critical to me to use actual weights in the bows and crossbows so i can fire typical weighted missiles.. I will also be testing from 30 to 60 yards or the area in which a shot was likely to have been taken. 10 yards is close and was only used to most likely make up for a weaker bow.
THIS ALL SAID - i thank you for the post and links, this is positive news. What i am really enjoying is that a crossbow (what we are running the tests for) will have about two times the energy as this 70lb longbow that was tested and if it is pierceing 1/2" the crossbow should blow thru - however - we will see.
I am completely worried about blowing a hole thru plate + chain + arming cloth and having enough energy to do damage to the body. However as i have said before, a crossbow is fully capable to take shots aimed at visors, throats, limbs or any exposed or weak link out to 90+ yards. A good longbow shooter can do this (i have witnessed) to about 40 to 50 yards hitting the gold center on a 60cm target face (about 5" circle) shot after shot with very few misses. So again it makes sence the archers would have choosen there shots when not volleying and crossbows having more power would have done the same knowing they can punch harder at longer ranges AND being able to hold and aim for the shot to expose itself.
Thank you again for the post, i am doing research and compiling the notes for when we run our tests if you find more please let me know
David
|
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jun, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh yes, I do agree that one needs to count apples as apples. My main reason for linking that was in regard to hardness testing of both armour and arrow heads. It is also a reference that had come up in earlier disscusions about the subject but remained elusive.
I still have no more than that paraphrased quote of the Jones paper but what was said about hardness is somehwat insightful.
Other discussion about case hardening and what remains have been similarly inconclusive. There sure have been a lot of them though.
One real problem I continue to see
(and am often guitly myself) is relating evidence that has nothing to do with the the test at hand. The bodkins tested in the Jones reference were not crossbow bodkins. It is simply an indication those points were harder than the plate tested.
Again, I'm not really championing it, just regurgatation from a bit of time reading today. Search terms like testing bodkin hardness leave me with a lot yet to read.
Cheers
GC
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jun, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | FWIW the last I heard about Dr Starley's research at the RA, he had yet to find a single extant bodkin that was made of hardened steel. So unless someone has contrary data, you are limited to mild steel if you are going to use bodkins. However, he has found some examples of other types of broadheads made of hardened steel (Type 16 for example). |
Ermmm a type 16 is a warhead/sinew twister used on arrows. I am going to be using a type 10 bodkin or a type 9 bodkin. I will be using a type 7 needle bodkin on the arrows. Where i get my bodkin shapes and referances from is http://www.hectorcoleironwork.com/Arrowheads.html hector cole, He is an international reconized expert in the arrow heads used in medieval times and i am trying to contact him or his associates to put an end on the question of "if bolt heads" were hardened. I still stand behind the common sence that ALL heads were produced the same of very alike, but we need to tie up that loose end for testing. I might actually get the heads i test from this man as he worked in the tower and produces heads that pass for the real thing.
Further more, if bodkins and arrowheads WERE hand crafted under forge heat and shaped with a hammer and made from the same iron/steel as the armor being produced during the time - it is a easy assumution that the arrowheads and bolt heads WERE hardened due to the manufacturing ways. Heat, shape and quench.
But again
We will get an experts opinion. The fact that i will, or will not punch a hole in plate armor is not the goal, im not even remotely interested in it, i have shot some many heavy bows at steel, wood and leather its not interesting to me. I already know what the crossbow will do, i have seen it, now its a mere get the metal to spec and do it again but more importantly HOPEFULLY we all can learn something from it and get a solid test that people for years to come will look at and learn from it.
Below is some qoutes directly from Hector Cole's site. I have written him an email asking some questions and directed this thread for him to review if he wishes as well. I have done the same with the smith that will be making the plates we will be firing at and the maille maker that will be making the 12" sheets we will be firing at.
Type 12 Triangular Bodkin.
This arrowhead was used against knights in plate armour and would penetrate the armour if shot at close range.
Type 10 War Bodkin.
This was one of the most common war bodkins. It could be either the long form or the short form and the socket size varied between 5/16" diameter to1/2" diameter. It would penetrate chain and plate armour at long and short range.
Type 9 Bodkin.
This war arrowhead was used in the Roman period as well as in the medieval period and was designed to penetrate most types of body armour.
Type 7 Needle Bodkin.
This war arrowhead was popular in the early medieval period and was designed to penetrate mail. It is a direct development of the Viking leaf shaped war arrowheads used throughout that period. Tests carried out have shown that it was very effective and would pierce right through a body clad in mail. Tests have also shown that it will easily penetrate the modern flak jacket. The needle bodkin was made in a number of different sizes from small two inch long ones with 1/4"diameter sockets, to one eight inches long found in a castle moat in the Midlands. Other bodkin arrowheads that have been found are the Square, Conical, and Fluted Bodkins, all designed to pierce the body armour that was worn at that time.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Junco
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Jun, 2006 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi, everybody.
I made that test in www:/cotasdemalla.com, with my mail and a 50 pound bow. I know it is low range so I want to do a new test with more potency.
David said " It was with an arrow too heavy ( 250-350 gr.)" Well, the arrow was about 65-70 gr. and somebody told me that is a light arrow.
My interest is the mail, and now the resistent of the mail against the longbow. If the mail donīt resist the longbow, why did they use for 2000 years?. I think the mail is good against arrows. But in the battlefield, not with siege crowbows so slow. When the crossbowman are cracking, you can go to eat and came back. I am looking test mail with usual situation in the battlefield, with quick weapons.Specially the longbow. But I canīt get a 100-150 longbow so Iīd like to test mail with a 200-400 crowbow. I donīt know if Iīll get one but Iīm looking where to get one.If that test works, I can send you, David, a 50x 50 mail for your test. But... for the longbow or usual crowbow, not fot that monster with 1200 pound. The mail can be penetrated, of course. And with that potency, Iīm sure.If the test donīt work and the mail is weak, the test is finished for me.
Iīm too curious about the mail that you tested. Can you post a pic and ring dates, please? Wire, what kindf of rivet, measure,...
Your crowbows are very nice. And with that potency, dangerous now and in the middle ages.
Regards
Julio
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Jun, 2006 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julio Junco wrote: | Hi, everybody.
I made that test in www:/cotasdemalla.com, with my mail and a 50 pound bow. I know it is low range so I want to do a new test with more potency.
David said " It was with an arrow too heavy ( 250-350 gr.)" Well, the arrow was about 65-70 gr. and somebody told me that is a light arrow.
My interest is the mail, and now the resistent of the mail against the longbow. If the mail donīt resist the longbow, why did they use for 2000 years?. I think the mail is good against arrows. But in the battlefield, not with siege crowbows so slow. When the crossbowman are cracking, you can go to eat and came back. I am looking test mail with usual situation in the battlefield, with quick weapons.Specially the longbow. But I canīt get a 100-150 longbow so Iīd like to test mail with a 200-400 crowbow. I donīt know if Iīll get one but Iīm looking where to get one.If that test works, I can send you, David, a 50x 50 mail for your test. But... for the longbow or usual crowbow, not fot that monster with 1200 pound. The mail can be penetrated, of course. And with that potency, Iīm sure.If the test donīt work and the mail is weak, the test is finished for me.
Iīm too curious about the mail that you tested. Can you post a pic and ring dates, please? Wire, what kindf of rivet, measure,...
Your crowbows are very nice. And with that potency, dangerous now and in the middle ages.
Regards
Julio |
I sure will post pics and specs on the maille and plate that will be tested. Its going to be some time as two of the crossbows are being made for this test and they will take about 2 to 4 months to build as this is the fair season and everything is slow at this time of year for me and the forge. I was talking more in depth with the maille maker last week and he was talking about ring thickness and ring size ect, all latin to me. I simply asked him what did he think of it getting hit with his 127lb long bow and then the crossbows. He seems pretty confidant about the riveted stuff but said the butted mail will fail. Altho he has heard that even a longbow will tear the riveted stuff up enough to cause some serious damage and possibly death on a longbow using a long and thin bodkin. However he didn't want to speculate and looks forward to some shooting.
My speculation on why they wore armor/maille is a simple one. It stopped sure injury and cut damage down. No armor is fail proof and no armor is 100% effective. The race for better armor and weapons that will defeat it was (and is) a game we as humans have played for centuries. But the times that armor did deflect a blow or a shot that would have otherwise been fatal or incaptacitating sure proved to those on the field of battle that it was worth its weight in gold - especially if you were the one on the receiving end of a incoming missile or weapon.
You are right, to crank a heavy crossbow up takes time and i sure wouldn't want to be the one cranking as a war is going on. This is why i think there is some confusion to whether armor could stop a bolt. I have been POURING through books and sites this weekend looking for more references to armor and crossbows and i have found about a 50/50 mix of yes/no.
If you want to send me the sheet of maille i will test it. But please make sure that it is to spec and is not to much trouble to send. I will let you know when we are close to testing as again - the bows are here and ready - the crossbows need to be finished and tested which will take months.
It seems that i have found some interesting stuff however. War bows seemed to have really been limited to about 200 to 500lbs. These bows were cranked with three types of things, hands, belthooks or rarer goatsfoots. All were designed to have a fair amount of speed - 2 to 6 shots a minute. The higher the rate of fire the less power. A 500 lb crossbow is going to have roughly the same impact/power of your average heavy longbow pulling 125lbs. Speed and power being roughly the same on these the longbow is ahead due to rate of fire, but accuracy will goto the crossbow at ranges over 50 yards. Infact i dare say outer range (max range will goto the longbow as i know what my 450lb crossbow is able to do) However this is a matter of some 5 to 30 yards. Admittedly i am worried that while my 450lb CAN punch a hole clean through a soft steel 12 ga thick plate, tempered steel - i do not know, this will be the first thing i check. So it makes complete sense to me that it was reported that these bows can not kill plate - the power was to low to do so at battle field type ranges. Altho a longbow at close quarters is fearsome - a shot would have to be well placed. A crossbow that is equal to power of the longbow at close quarters - that is a gamble as it is a one shot deal - you miss and fail to kill, your going to hand weapons - not something i would do as chances are the crossbowman was not well trained in hand weapons.
Enter the siege crossbows.
When battles were taken to the castle or in defence of the castle heavy crossbows could be employed. These monsters WERE two to 3 times the power of your average longbow, they shot heavy bolts and were able to be loaded at the shooters whim due to cover and protection of pavises or embattlements etc. The shooter could choose his target without to much pressure. Accuracy out to 100+ yards was not hard to get and once that bolt was on its way, it was going to hit hard and not much was going to stop it short of earth itself - IM TELLING YOU, i know these heavy bows, they are next to impressive and they hit freaking hard. The only thing that scares me more would be a siege engine. I have not found one reference to cranqline being used in battle thus far - this takes out all the real ultra heavies that did exsist. However it does leave crossbows in the game of 1200 to 2000lbs. A windlass is a 45:1 type lever while a crankline is a 145:1, a crankline is VERY slow but could cock very heavy bows - so heavy infact you were limited to the rope and to the materials of the bow, like ropes, wood and the steel. Gallwey reported that the bow he tested pulled 1200lbs and thought it to be MUCH heavier however the bow was left cocked for 100's of years. It was a windlass bow and it cast a bolt in excess of 350 yards - i believe he said 450 yards - but i am not referencing the book and i have not had my coffee yet this morning. This leaves a question of how much a windlass can take as my testing and thinking is i would not want to try and span a 1200+ lb bow with a windlass, but it looks like they CAN infact span quite abit more weight with a windlass. This thinking (and if this is a fact) makes me wonder what a cranqline could do.
So now armor is facing roughly 4 times the pull and about 2 times the power. Would a breastplate deter a shot now - im not so sure it would have repelled a heavy seige type bow. AND THAT is what we are going to test.
Am i saying that everyone walked around with heavy crossbows? no, they were expensive, they took months to build and they were reserved and had a specific role. JUST like plate armor did. Not everyone walked around in it, not everyone had it and not everyone could afford it. It was reserved for the wealthy or the well to do, or the just plain lucky to survive another battle - lets glean some armor from the field before the area stinks to much to get close to.
It is really my hope that i run these tests BEFORE i goto england at the end of this year. As i have said, i will be viewing after hours crossbows in england, germany and italy and sitting for 3 days with medieval historians and filling in the blanks of were my knowledge stops and their wisdom starts. Hopefully when i come back i will be somewhat of an expert, but for now i am merely armed with the ability to fire heavy crossbows, to build said bows and know what i have personally done with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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