Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Oakeshott describes Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next 
Author Message
Maurizio D'Angelo




Location: Italy
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Likes: 3 pages
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 649

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 2:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

taken from an article by ALAN WILLIAMS (Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of Engineering at Reading University)

Ffoulkes relates, quoting many examples, how suits of armour were tested with the crossbow
in the 14th and 15th century and with firearms in the 16th century (Ffoulkes, 1912). Some
customers did not rely only on tests made by the makers of the armour. The Emperor Maximilian
II was recorded as testing his own armour himself “with pistol and arquebus shots” in
1561 (Gamber, 1972). Greenwich armour was apparently expected by Sir Henry Lee, in 1590,
to withstand the impact of a pistol bullet, and suffer little more than a dent. Of course, Greenwich
armour, like that of Innsbruck, was a high quality product made of steel hardened by
quenching and tempering. Large quantities of armour were made in the 17th century, especially
during the period of the Thirty Years’War, and referred to as “pistol proof”. This was
generally armour of modest quality which achieved any success in protection by its thickness.
Ffoulkes quotes an account by the Verney family of 1667: “Richard Hals is choosing some armour for his cousin in London; he has tested it with as much powder as will cover the bullet in the palm of his hand…” (Verney wished to have
the armour tested again, but the armourer refused) “...it is not the custom of workmen to try
their armour after it is faced and filed.”
A Nürnberg wheellock pistol of c1620 had a muzzle velocity of 438 m/sec, and a muzzle
energy of 917 Joule.

a heavy sword, perhaps less than 1 / 3. The tests did with the firearm, not with swords.

Ciao
Maurizio


Last edited by Maurizio D'Angelo on Thu 04 Feb, 2010 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 2:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

FWIW the anecdote about the crane apparently dates to Henry VIII. Later in life he was outfitted in armour and hoisted onto his horse for some pageant or other. It had little to do with the weight of his armour and rather a lot to do with his corpulent obesity. Even if he was naked he would still have needed the crane to get in the saddle. I feel sorry both for his armourer and his horse.

At the other end of the scale, Edward I was renouned for being able to vault over the back of his horse and into his saddle while fully armoured.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Thu 04 Feb, 2010 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 2:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Gottfried P. Doerler wrote:
maybe it also depends on the type and quality of the plate involved, and the size of the sword.

I`ve seen 17th century pikeman-armour, that seems to be rather black-painted paperboard then iron,.


This is the problem with plate thickness. All we have is the PRESENT thickness. It tells us little about its original thickness. If it comes down to us in good condition then it is a result of centuries of polishing. If not then significant amounts iof oxidation was removed during its restoration. In virtually all cases the thickness of the plate when it was used was greater than its current thickness.


There are exceptions, where we can know the original thickness. Just read a paper on such an armour (C. Blair, S. W. Pyhrr, The Wilton "Montmorency" armor: An Italian armor for Henry VIII, Metropolitan Museum Journal 38, 95-144 (2003)). However, this armour is exceptional in that it escaped over-polishing, and is relatively recent (apparently the last armour Henry VIII used in war). But are thicknesses given in the paper when the armour is described? No, I have to be content with 23 kg all up, with some missing pieces (e.g., fingers and thumbs) (and weights of individual pieces in the footnotes).

A further thought (not a reply to the quoted, just in general):

Armour comes at a cost - the money, fatigue, reduced vision. If it doesn't work well enough, it wouldn't be worth it. Well enough doesn't mean perfect (witness the gaps!), so one might expect the most effective anti-armour weapons to be effective. If the sword was the most effective anti-armour weapon, one would expect the sword might be effective. But in an environment populated by bills, halberds, crossbows, pikes, and the like, this isn't the case. If a sword can hole it, a bill will shred it.

What battlefield weapon would have been less effective against armour than a sword? Sling and dagger come to mind, but I suspect it wouldn't be worth wearing armour for protection against these only, ineffective against other weapons.

Compare with armoured vehicles on the modern battlefield - if they aren't even bulletproof, there isn't much point.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Markus A




Location: Germany
Joined: 03 Feb 2010

Posts: 61

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 3:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

i consider an sling most effective against armour.an lead sling lead was able to kill an man even if he wore helmet or at least blind him.
julius caesar reportet of this in his remarks about his warfare
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 3:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Markus A wrote:
i consider an sling most effective against armour.an lead sling lead was able to kill an man even if he wore helmet or at least blind him.
julius caesar reportet of this in his remarks about his warfare


Show me a quote where Caesar said that sling shot could penetrate armour?

Edit: Maybe I missed it but I just searched the entire Gallic Wars and could only find a single relevant passage.

"L.Cotta, the lieutenant, when encouraging all the cohorts and companies, is wounded full in the mouth by a sling." [5.35].

Source: http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html

-----------


Last edited by Dan Howard on Thu 04 Feb, 2010 3:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Artis Aboltins




PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 3:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Indeed, considering that Roman infantry helmets where open-faced, a lead bullet hitting the face of the man would surely put him out of the fight...
View user's profile Send private message
Markus A




Location: Germany
Joined: 03 Feb 2010

Posts: 61

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 3:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

great
i do not think caesar would have been impressed when he had seen an sling shot crush the nose of one of his men.......i think he was surely impressed when such sling shots hit an helmet and the wearer was insured severly
otherwise he would have not spoken about
if i throw an man an brick to the head and see those nose crumbling i think not that i would mentioned this effect as something stunning
but only normal
but if one sees such an nimble thing hitting the helmet plate-Not the face-and the man drops dead then i would think this is worth to mention
seems logic
but this happend only towards the end of an military encounter
at this the romans had surely-because of their drastic military drill-already polished away so much metal from their helmets that they where vulnerable to such sling shot projectiles
thats surely the explanation
i think this is really an stunning thing
if i could only stop but its making to much fun
fingers itch





WTF?! Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 5:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Markus A wrote:
great i do not think caesar would have been impressed when he had seen an sling shot crush the nose of one of his men.......i think he was surely impressed when such sling shots hit an helmet and the wearer was insured severly otherwise he would have not spoken about
if i throw an man an brick to the head and see those nose crumbling i think not that i would mentioned this effect as something stunning
but only normal
but if one sees such an nimble thing hitting the helmet plate-Not the face-and the man drops dead then i would think this is worth to mention
seems logic
but this happend only towards the end of an military encounter


Do you have a cite for this? Book number? passage?
View user's profile Send private message
Gregory J. Liebau




Location: Dinuba, CA
Joined: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 669

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 7:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Citation or not, it is very likely that a sling stone could kill a man through a helmet, after doing some rough, comparative math on the subject.

Roman infantry and auxiliary alike wore helmets that would not have exceeded 2mm or so thickness at any particular place on the skull. The padding worn under these helmets is debatable, but based on the size of originals and mounting methods, as well as the materials available for padding, it was likely not too much more than a couple of layers of material with batting stuffed into it for comfort and to add some give to them.

A sling stone could fly through the air at speeds exceeding 50 meters per second if tossed properly, and that's not even an exaggerated figure. A professional baseball player can throw a baseball roughly 3/4 of that speed. Sling stones dating back to ancient times are also often in excess of 1/2 kilo in weight. Heavy little suckers.

Now for a modern comparison to the effects this may have caused. I turn the Society of Creative Anachronism. I've read a couple eye-witness accounts given of tests that were conducted in the combat sport trying to get padded hardwood weaponry integrated into the society game. When these hardwood weapons were used against society-regulated helmets (i.e. at least 16 gauge thickness, or 1.25mm, and 1/4" of foam or comparable padding secured around the skull) there were concussive results. In the few trials that were made men were stunned, vomited and shaken by the impact. Because of the lack of give in the wood, even with padding on the weapon, under the helm and with the steel between the two, it was still damaging. These tests were, of course, not done at full force.

Now, take a 1/2 kilo sling stone, throw it at an even less protected helmet at a velocity exceeding 200 kilometers per hour, and the results may easily cause such a concussion that death could ensue depending on the circumstances of the blow's location. I'm sure of it.

So, even if Caesar did have such a citation, there's no need to think that the large stone would pierce the armor. That's not logical to suspect, given the size of a sling stone - even small ones! It would be like taking a large bullet, slinging it at a steel plate and expecting it to pierce it. I cannot imagine a single instance in history where this was likely to happen, and that boast of a theory is made in earnest.

-Gregory

My Flickr Galleries - Travel, Nature & Things
View user's profile Send private message
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 9:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Gottfried P. Doerler wrote:
maybe it also depends on the type and quality of the plate involved, and the size of the sword.

I`ve seen 17th century pikeman-armour, that seems to be rather black-painted paperboard then iron,.


This is the problem with plate thickness. All we have is the PRESENT thickness. It tells us little about its original thickness. If it comes down to us in good condition then it is a result of centuries of polishing. If not then significant amounts iof oxidation was removed during its restoration. In virtually all cases the thickness of the plate when it was used was greater than its current thickness.


It does tell us something, it sets the lower margin. But other than me spliting hairs 4 ways, you are obviously correct.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 9:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:
Citation or not, it is very likely that a sling stone could kill a man through a helmet, after doing some rough, comparative math on the subject.


A sling can be an effective weapon, but it isn't a superweapon. Personally, I could never exceed 50m/s with a 500g shot, using a sling short enough to use in a vetical plane. With stones of about 200-300g, perhaps about 35m/s. (That's about 100J of energy.) A bit faster with smaller stones, even better with smaller metal shot.

OK, modern records are speeds of about 70m/s, but with shot of about 50-60g, with long slings (about 150J).

Definitely potentially lethal without armour, capable of penetrating flesh.

To what can we compare the anti-armour effect of a sling?

(a) To firearms. Weight of shot and energy (or speed) -> armour penetration. The sling shot won't penetrate like a bullet, to slow.

(b) To pointy projectile weapons. An arrow can be of similar weight (100g?) and speed (from a high draw weight bow, much faster than from a short sling). So, similar energy, perhaps more, and a point. What does a longbow arrow or crossbow bolt do to a human target if it fails to penetrate armour? What about on a helmet? Perhaps heavier (but slower) shot are significantly different in effect?

(c) Impact weapons. Put a stone/shot in a (long) sock, and use as an impact weapon, and it should hit as hard as a sling shot. Perhaps a heavy sling shot can be comparable in effect to a light mace? Doesn't have a rigid handle to help. What's the ideal mass of a mace for use against armour? How light is too light?

When originally considering the effectiveness of a sling against armour, I was thinking along the lines of (a) and (b). I don't know what (c) really says.

A staff sling will throw heavy shot at high speed, 500g at perhaps 45m/s (so about 700J). A good staff slinger with a good staff sling might do much better than this; this is just my experimental estimate.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 10:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My physics isn't good enough to remember exactly how momentuntum and kenetic energy relate to armour ( too buisy drawing pictures of knights in armour during science...stupid irony) but I believe that they do play diferent roles, that a heavier but slower projectile might not have as much energy (1/2 mass times velocity squered yeah?) but might be able to impart more of that energy to a target (and shaking a brain around isn't a good thing, why boxing gloves are considered worse than bare knuckles by some medicos)
Of course this has not that much bearing on the "penetrate plate" discussion, since a heavy sling affecting a man in armour by concusive force is not equivelent to "penetrating". The melee weapon that relies on that principal would be the mauls I have been lead to believe the english bowmen used during some of the 100 years war as a knight masher.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 10:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This thread is about plate penetration with swords. I'm not sure how we started discussing sling shot but I suppose it could be relevant. It would be less frustrating if completely off-topic subjects (e.g. 500 g rocks) were in another thread. Unless someeone is going to claim that one of these could punch through plate armour. Blunt trauma is a completely different matter.
View user's profile Send private message
Gregory J. Liebau




Location: Dinuba, CA
Joined: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 669

PostPosted: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 10:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Timo, thank you for the much more experienced analysis. As I said, I was just doing some rough math. I literally didn't even write any of it down. Not bad for guessing, 'eh?

Dan, I only made the point based on the premise that the elusive citation of Caesar was probably not talking about penetration of armor, and rather blunt force trauma.

Cheers!

-Gregory

My Flickr Galleries - Travel, Nature & Things
View user's profile Send private message
Markus A




Location: Germany
Joined: 03 Feb 2010

Posts: 61

PostPosted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 12:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

asked can i quote an source for this sling story
yes i can
in the Books by german historian Marcus Junkelman this aspects are commented heworte severall in regards to german infnatry cavalry and roman gladiatos ecteven an roamn cooking book-
this man did not work in grey theorie he walked in the field with weapons and armour,in daily field use he tried to clear out the daily question like
we know thy used an carrying starp for their shield on march how could this have been looke to work in daily routine cet
maybe this books are available in english too-i do not know.
this sling shots where more dangerous than arrows.the blunt impact force on an helmet even if padded can create bones crushing ect
no pun intented
you may believe it or not
here one sees mail split open by javelins even the helmet strengthened with curled hair imitattaion or flutings worn by cavalry troopres is seen penetrated by an triangulary arrowhead....again if hit in the right spot as angle.i hasten to add this
View user's profile Send private message
Markus A




Location: Germany
Joined: 03 Feb 2010

Posts: 61

PostPosted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 12:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

by the way
roman sling shots are not stone they are made from lead and fomed like an loafe of bread
so they are small but heavy
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 2:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Junkleman didn't test anything that had much in common with Roman or any other type of historical mail. In any case it has nothing to do with punching through plate

Nobody doubts that a sling shot on a helmet will cause problems for the wearer. That is not the same as punching through the plate. It is completely off topic.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 2:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:
Dan, I only made the point based on the premise that the elusive citation of Caesar was probably not talking about penetration of armor, and rather blunt force trauma.

I went through the whole book. There is only one sling injury mentioned in the entire text.
View user's profile Send private message
Felix R.




Location: Germany
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Reading list: 25 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 555

PostPosted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 7:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 7:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Felix R. wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)


Not helpful, Felix. If you feel someone's behavior is out of bounds, use the tools we've created to report things to a moderator.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Oakeshott describes
Page 3 of 5 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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