[Randall Moffett]

Rod,

I can ask Thom Richardson when I am there.

Randall

[Rod Parsons]

Thanks Randall,
I will wait to hear your account of the visit.
Rod.

[Rod Parsons]

Dan,
Was your suggestion for using multiple layers of linen based on seeing a coat of this construction defeat a strike from a cross bow bolt?
If so can you expand upon the detail of this event, particularly with regard to the probable weight of the bolt and describe the point geomtery of the head?
I ask because I am beginnig to form an idea about the proposed test of padding and it would be useful if you can provide more detail.
Also was this padding alone or padding over or under maille, or under plate?
Rod.

[Gordon Frye]

According to the tests done in Graz in 1988 of shooting an original 1570's breastplate with a lead ball fired from a ca. 1600 wheellock pistol, it was not the breastplate which defeated the ball, but rather the two layers of linen behind the breastplate. The ball neatly pierced the metal, but was stopped by the linen representing a doublet placed behind the breastplate. However, since the head of either an arrow or bolt behaves much differently than a sphereical lead projectile, it may or may not have a lot of bearing on the subject at hand. But it is interesting to note that the role of the breastplate seems to have been to absorb virtualy all of the energy of the ball, leaving it to be finally stopped by the far thinner textiles behind it. It would be very interesting to discover now much of this phenomenon is applicable to arrows and bolts.

Allons!

Gordon

[Rod Parsons]

Gordon,
The key differences betwen arrows and shot are in velocity and projectile geometry and hardness. Certainly projectile mass is also a factor, but experience with hunting weight bows shooting different types of points indicates that head geometry and sharpness are crucial in the penetration good padding.

As a trivial example, where a field point out of a 60lb bow will penetrate one layer of costume arming jack ( 2 linen/5 fustian) but rebound off 2 layers when the material is pinned to a hard boss, the same shaft with a medium bodkin (long type 9) will go through both layers and be only slightly retarded in it's degree of penetration into the boss.

Naturally with padding alone, point hardness is less of a a factor, which is to some extent true of maille, but this is not so against hardened plate of adequate thickness. With maille it is preferable to find some part of the % of open area and force an opening, which to a considerrable extent defines the tip geometry with a relatively low velocity projectile.

This maille "gap finding" type of tip geometry is well enough suited to piercing padding, but could be less effective against plate. For plate and padding penetration, the ideal tip geometry will most likely be a trade off.

In due course, I intend using a few different types of suitably made heads, then first of all to test various padding constructions.
Only then to see how the padding performs in combination with maille, then hopefully with plate and to form an opinion of which head geometries show the best penetration of which pairings.

I do not think that shot penetration comparison is particularly useful in the context of thinking about arrow penetration,due to the much higher velocities involved with shot and the fact that the typical shot projectile was then usually a blunt object (ball).
Rod.

[Felix Wang]

Dan's suggestion for the construction of a linen jack is based on other evidence that a defence built with the layers of cloth differently oriented is more effective against penetration; it was discussed earlier on this forum ("Effectiveness of leather armour", and referenced to: http://www.romanarmy.nl/rat/viewtopic.php?t=2...5945f2403e ). I do not recall that it was tested specifically against crossbow bolts.

[Rod Parsons]

I am probably less concerned about the orientation of the weave than i am interested in the fact that there are essentially two methods of construction, one consisting of multiple layers of linen, the other using multiple layers of padding between layers of linen.
I can see that there could be some benefit in changing the orientation of the weave, but it this is something that I can test.
My question is concerning the type of head geometry if such a composition as Dan suggests was actually tested.
Rod.

PS. I have just looked at the linothorax topic in question and will say that a number of the opinions on there are speculative and not founded in fact.

> How was this linen supported when it was subjected to the shooting test?

>Dan gives an opinion about the joules that could be generated by a longbow which is very low at 60 to 70 joules.

*** With a heavy bow and shaft 140 joules is not unattainable.

>The trilobate bodkin used is not described in any useful fashion with regard to tip geometry.

*** Trilobate bodkins, such as the Roman type that I have seen are often not the ideal geometry for use against padding.

>The arrow weight at 1000 grains is a bit on the low side for a war shaft, very low for a heavy war shaft (4 oz / 1750 grains).
Indeed it is a little on the low side even for a "flighting" shaft (up to 3 oz / 1312 grains).

> Dan states his opinion "that the bodkin was not designed to penetrate armour. I still think that it's primary purpose was to increase the range of the arrow. if you want to pierce armour the best arrow is a compact broadhead made of hardened steel."

*** This is misinformed in more ways than one, since the later period the type 16 barbed "general purpose" head grew to be more and more like a bodkin, the barbs being reduced as time went by until it became not much more than a bodkin with vestigial barbs (type 16b).

If Dan wishes to discuss arrow flight and distance then that is a separate topic.
True, the "flighting" shaft uses a small bodkin ( rather than a heavy for the reasons following), but leaving aside the power and efficiency of the bow as a factor, the three key determinants in the arrow acting upon range are overall shaft weight (velocity), fletch height more than length (drag), and the balance (FOC%) of the shaft (trajectory).

I won't repeat the tedious and un-necessary argument yet again about why bodkins were used, but bodkins of quality did have steel forged into the business end.

I see that the Williams TV programme was cited yet again as evidence of "failure" to penetrate armour and I will repeat that this point was a Hector Cole replica in wrought iron, of a type 7 long needle bodkin which was not made to "war head" standards, nor is this type intended for use against plate, being a specific for finding chinks in maille or punching through soft armour such as padding.
I was on the phone to Hector within minutes of seeing this programme nor was I not the first or the last to call him for clarification that evening.
This particular head failed first and foremost because it was an inappropriate tip geometry against plate, so let's hear no more about this "test.".

What I would like to know about the linothorax topic is what weight fabric, what thread count and density of weave are suggested? And how rigid was the finished item? Is it supposed to be "formed" like a cuir bouille cuirass?
My linen stock goes from shirt linen you could use to wipe a baby's bottom to 18oz artists canvas that you stand on edge or use to cut cheese. In the "canvas" range the % open area varies somewhat but anything over 10 oz is best described as "stiff" or "hard" and would be uncomfortable if not tailored almost as if it were plate.

Fabric and rotating. The warp and weft are the same thread diameter and strength. The difference is if anything in tension and a primary reason for rotating , as in a quilt, is to equalise the directionality of any shrinking or stretch.
But I can see a potential if small advantage in how this could better directionally spread the tension from a point impact, but the sharper the projectile, the greater the likelihood of failure, which is why padding specific bodkins and other heads are likely to fail on plate and vice versa.

It is probably worth noting that aketons worn over armour in the 13thC appear to have been far thicker than an arming jack to be worn under plate, or the inner layers of a brigandine, not without reason since padding worn over maille performs an essentially different function than padding under plate.
Rod.

[Dan Howard]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

[Randall Moffett]

It seems like in the book the great Warbow they state the use of hardened bodkins. It states the bodkins heads were case-hardened.(p.277), those tested from 120-400 VHN have 350, which is higher than most hardened metals of the day from what I can tell in the Knight and the Blast Furnace. There are also as stated in the other post numerous complaints by the civic council in both the Calendar letter books and Calendar memoranda rolls of the city of london claiming that 'all' arrows need to be hardened. If I have some time perhaps I will type one complete one out as they can be funny almost as they usually state somethign to the effect, 'the poor arrows have been sold to the damage of the city." That's always funny as you would think the lack of damage to someone the issue . Henry IV had a kingdom wide statute passed that arrowheads were to be hard in 1405. Dan there is plenty of information from the era of this hardened arrow heads but I have only come up a few modern tests on it, the section in the Great Warbow being P.N. Jones's work. I think it highly unlikely from the histoical tests that people would keep selling inferior arrowheads judged by the punishments of the time, (my favorite example from the LEtter Books is a stringer, who sold inferior bow strigns and had a few days in the stocks and had his strings burned underhim.The only example of an arrow maker being punished is them fining him an absorbinent amoutn of money for bad work.) That is not to say it did not happen, hard to regulate medieval village blacksmith A outside of Selby and as long as the levy comes with something hopefully you have to provide less. I assume it happened but there had to have been a great many that were hardened as some of the numbers of the best hardened in the port records are in the tens of thousands.

[David Ruff]

[Rod Parsons]

Dan,
I did not intend the comment about inner layers to mean anything other than "between", not the "innermost". My apologies for carelessly chosen wording.
At the Royal Armouries padding on a brigandine can be seen between the carrying fabric and the plates themselves.

Rod.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Just for fun, here's French military writer Fourquevaux's opinion on bows and crossbows, taken from the 1589 translation:

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Nathan Quarantillo]

I know that this doesn't immediately pertain to the current discussion, but the title of the thread has me posting this question here. please correct me if I am mistaken. during the transition from the 17 to 18 cent, armour was dropped as it was proven ineffective defense agianst firearms. firearms replaced longbows & crossbows (for the mostpart) for this exact reason. not because of rate of fire or range, but armour penetration. so,(18th cent. after armour isn't in common use (maybe by cuirassers and other specialized troops) and the flintlock takes 15 sec. to load, misfires, has a max effective range of 50-100 yards, why not train another force of longbowman? they could perform the same function as musketeers, except viciously outrange them and whoop their butts with rate of fire. (and good luck getting a longbow to misfire) I realize the prospect of artillery, but they toasted the standard musketeers too, so that doesn't count. and with armour gone, penetration's no longer a problem. so i dont see why not? someone plz correct me if im wrong. i realize that these people werent stupid, so someone tell me what im missing here. (btw, this is all purely speculatory. there, to my knowlege and experience, is no evidence to support use of the longbow in the 17, much less 18 cent.) thanks for your help people. (i might be on to something) (although i do remember (forgot source) evidence that Ben Frabklin hit upon the exact same idea, but his plan never went into fruition)

[Alain D.]

I've wondered this exact same thing Nathan. I think, assuming there were trained longbowmen and bow makers around, I think it could potentially have worked. The problem was, these things weren't around. It took years to properly train to use a bow and there weren't really good bow makers around anymore that could properly supply an army. Just look at how hard it is to find, for example, a proper medieval crossbow today. I think they ran into the same sort of trouble then, especially when there wasn't really a market for people looking for such weapons. Muskets had been developed into fairly reliable weapons and they could be mass produced to supply an army. The ammunition was also much easier and cheaper to produce and carry. Tactics had been developed for musketry and armies were trained to use those weapons. During the French and Indian war, for example, it was quite an ordeal just to adjust to using different tactics for backwoods warfare as opposed to using European tactics with lines of soldiers firing volleys. Converting portions of the army to a completely new weapon would have been an extreme change in tactics and would probably have been viewed as incredibly risky. It also would have taken years just to train small groups of soldiers to use bows.

I do agree, if there were trained longbowmen, I think they could potentially have been more effective than muskets in certain conditions.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Nathan: I agree and if you go back to the first post and read all the posts over the 9 pages of post you will probably find good arguments for this and good rebuttals like the post by Alain.

Basically your two posts sort of recap in a few words a lot of the ideas in the previous posts but these long Topic threads are challenging in that reading all the posts becomes a long haul but sometimes worth the trouble.

( Actually I going from memory here as I haven't re=read all the posts before this reply but I think I remember some of your points being touched on. ).

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I think what made armor obsolete was cannon more than firearms.