| Author |
Message |
Felix R.
|
 Posted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 8:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
I am sorry!
|
|
  |
 |
Gottfried P. Doerler
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
maybe archeological findings can help in our question ?
does anyone know about pieces of plate armour having been found with penetration marks ?
shortly thinking over i can`t, but not having a proof is no disproof.
whats with the excavations from visby ? are there any pierced coat-of-plates ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markus A
Location: Germany Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 61
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
sure
go to graz styria zeughaus dozends of them but while say pierced by panzerstecher others say again no crossbow
visby are three totaly deterioated
and if there is an square hole who shall say its from an diamond balde or the spike of an bill
this will lead not further
one should face the fact this will not come to an end with an pleasing result
which does not bother me to much
i know it can thats enough to me
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
knowing that the Earth is flat does not make it so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markus A
Location: Germany Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 61
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well surely on your nice golden armour an tin opener would be enough
over and out
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Feb, 2010 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Markus A-
Perhaps this is an issue of language and culture disconnect, but I need to state as this site's administrator that the manner in which you are contributing to this forum is most certainly a disconnect with this site's culture. In the future, you are expected to conduct yourself more professionally and with respect to others.
Should you have any questions or comments about this, you are expected to message me privately about it.
Thank you.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
  |
|
Gottfried P. Doerler
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
well, then i will simply stay as an agnostic in this matter until further arguments come up.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no need to be agnostic. If you use the search function you'll see that the overwhelming majority of available evidence all points in one direction.
Nobody has found anything to suggest that a sword can punch through solid plate armour. If you read the linked article you'll see that it is hard enough to thrust a sword through mail.
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_mail.html
The whole point of the article was so we didn't cover the same ground over and over every time this subject came up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ahh, the Horsfall article was the one I saw that had the energy required to thrust through mail and the energy output of a human 1handed thrust. Anyone happen to have a figure on how much energy required to thrust through even a munition grade breastplate? coz then all we have to do is look at whether x>y or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nat Lamb wrote: | | Ahh, the Horsfall article was the one I saw that had the energy required to thrust through mail and the energy output of a human 1handed thrust. Anyone happen to have a figure on how much energy required to thrust through even a munition grade breastplate? coz then all we have to do is look at whether x>y or not. |
Possibly that is "all" that is required. Especially if (energy required) > (energy available). One needs to look at the details of the test.
If the armour is rigidly mounted, less energy will be lost in moving it, so better penetration will be achieved. If the armour is hanging loosely, the opposite. But who does armour tests like this? The converse is far more common. However, if you want to test what you can really do to an armoured opponent, don't mount it rigidly; hang with added weight. If you want to test for propaganda purposes, to show off what your favourite weapon can do, irrespective of practical reality, then by all means, mount it as rigidly as possible.
On what kind of thrust is that energy available? Or, if just testing with a piece of armour and a sword at home, under what conditions can you thrust like that? Should be easy enough to deliver over 300J by the simple expedient of jumping onto a fallen opponent sword-point first (probably a very good idea to wear good armour yourself if trying this one at home, since it sounds like a good way to impale oneself on a broken sword blade). If the absolute maximum thrust one can achieve, regardless of practicality in combat, fails to penetrate, then one can safely conclude that penetration is not practically possible.
It was mentioned earlier in the thread that very low chances of penetration are negligible. 1%, 0.1% were mentioned, but I think even a much higher (but still low) chance would be practically too low to bother trying. Imagine, in a fight, using the opening when you can get a good clean attack in to try to thrust through your opponent's plate, hoping to make that 6% chance. Sounds more like asking to end up on your back with a dagger in your visor or your nether gaps.
In summary, extreme test results - either no significant chance of penetration even when biased against the armour, or easy and major penetration, when not biased against the armour - are pretty conclusive, but the in-between tests don't provide as much of an answer as one might wish. Although it might be argued that the biased-against-armour test is bad, it's potentially the most useful, if the armour is still effective (if the armour fails, then, alas, the test tells very little).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Bodorics
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One more thing to consider is that most modern tests use "modern" thicknesses. Only a few in our group have breastplates with 1.5mm as a MINIMAL thickness - with enough conditioning and proper construction, 3.5-5mm is still wearable (I mean like for a day with faulds, arms, partial legs and backplate - now of course not all that is 3.5-5mm). Now there's no way on Earth that you can penetrate even 3mm mild steel, much less HTHC. At least I can't do so with a poleaxe and I strike hard. You can't even BEND 3mm steel with a sword unless it's an overweight bidenhander.
On the other hand, I can defeat 1.2mm plate with a singlehander (IF I can make a perfect strike and IF I can generate enough force and IF the target is stationary) - but I'd only use that for gauntlets or gorget lames. Possibly for a backplate. It's still possible that some very low-end armours were only as strong as modern 1.2mm mild steel, in which case yes, it can be penetrated but it takes way too much effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While looking for some numbers relevant to penetration, I found some thicknesses given by [1]: cuisses (1390) 1.27-1.70 mm, breast plate (1470) 2.03-2.79mm, helmets (1370-1380) 1.27-4.57. Jones tested penetration of annealed wrought iron plate, 1, 2, and 3mm thick, by arrows, 70lb bow, 28" draw, 10m range. 1mm penetrated, 11mm penetration through 2mm at normal incidence (not penetrated at 20 degree incidence), no penetration of 3mm plate. Plate rigidly mounted, bodkins of hardened carburised wrought iron.
[1] P. N. Jones, The metallography and relative effectiveness of arrowheads and armor during the Middle Ages, Materials Characterization 29, 111-117 (1992).
|
|
|
|
|
Maurizio D'Angelo
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do tests with modern armor? Why do tests with simple steel plates?
The old armor had a shape that tended to deflect the blow, had different thicknesses, would be a good test if done with the old armor. Otherwise, as someone says here, just trash.
We have documents that tell us that these tests have been made.
In 1901, Buttin, published his work, remained classic test of armor.
Notes sur les armures à l'épreuve (Annecy, 1901)
Misaglia, but also other famous manufacturers of armor, in Milan, used to prove the most important pieces of armor. Depending on tests, were classified. One brand, if the test was done with a normal crossbow, a double brand, if it was made with crossbow, loaded with winch.
Alfonso d'Este, he sent two of his best crossbowmen to the test. The armor to be considered good, should not be perforated.
G. L. Boccia, Le armature di S. Maria delle Grazie di Curtatone di Mantova e l'armatura lombarda del '400, Arte e Tecnica. pag. 280
I think that a crossbow has a power 500 lbs. a longbow 100 lb.
If it is demonstrated that these weapons do not pierce, what remains?
Only, pollaxes, warhammers and firearm.
Ciao
Maurizio
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | While looking for some numbers relevant to penetration, I found some thicknesses given by [1]: cuisses (1390) 1.27-1.70 mm, breast plate (1470) 2.03-2.79mm, helmets (1370-1380) 1.27-4.57. Jones tested penetration of annealed wrought iron plate, 1, 2, and 3mm thick, by arrows, 70lb bow, 28" draw, 10m range. 1mm penetrated, 11mm penetration through 2mm at normal incidence (not penetrated at 20 degree incidence), no penetration of 3mm plate. Plate rigidly mounted, bodkins of hardened carburised wrought iron.
[1] P. N. Jones, The metallography and relative effectiveness of arrowheads and armor during the Middle Ages, Materials Characterization 29, 111-117 (1992). |
Doesn't tell anything useful about the ability of swords to punch through plate.
The best arrows vs plate test was done by the Defense Academy a few years ago. It is published in the Royal Armouries' Arms and Armour Journal vol 4 no 1.
"A report of the findings of the Defence Academy warbow trials Part 1 Summer 2005." By Paul Bourke and David Whetham. pp.53-82.
Even this was biased against the armour but it is the only test that has useable data.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=9953
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: |
[1] P. N. Jones, The metallography and relative effectiveness of arrowheads and armor during the Middle Ages, Materials Characterization 29, 111-117 (1992). |
The best arrows vs plate test was done by the Defense Academy a few years ago. It is published in the Royal Armouries' Arms and Armour Journal vol 4 no 1.
"A report of the findings of the Defence Academy warbow trials Part 1 Summer 2005." By Paul Bourke and David Whetham. pp.53-82.
Even this was biased against the armour but it is the only test that has useable data.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=9953 |
The similarities and differences between Jones (above) and Bourke and Whetham (as you reported):
Similarities: Extremely short range, flat sheet of armour, similar/same thicknesses, both tests ignore under-armour (but this is really a factor for the conclusions to be drawn, not the plate penetration per se).
Differences:
Jones: Victorian wrought iron / B&W: charcoal-rolled iron
Jones: 350 Hv arrowheads (Jones writes that this is typical of the hardness of tested arrowheads, no reference given) / B&W: range of hardnesses, including softer and harder than this.
Jones: 70 lb bow / B&W: 150 lb bow.
Results: about the same in both tests.
I've not read B&W; is there a short answer why they say that contemporary (what nominal date?) armour was better than VWI? Jones considered VWI to be the best (readily available) modern equivalent, in terms of hardness and slag inclusions. Is this wrong?
Jones writes that the "most impressive finding" was the scale and quality of arrow manufacture - over 400,000 in stock in the Tower in 1356.
| Quote: | | Doesn't tell anything useful about the ability of swords to punch through plate. |
No, it doesn't. But it does tell us something about the thickness of arrow-resistant armour, and what a hypothetical armour-penetrating sword would need to penetrate.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Feb, 2010 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: |
is there a short answer why they say that contemporary (what nominal date?) armour was better than VWI? Jones considered VWI to be the best (readily available) modern equivalent, in terms of hardness and slag inclusions. Is this wrong?. |
Yes Jones is wrong. Williams goes into detail in The Knight and the Blast Furnace. Victorian puddled iron (so-called wrought iron) is way inferior to anything that medieval armourers had to work with (Williams has tables showing the differences). According to Williams even charcoal rolled iron would only be equivalent to munitions plate so B&W doesn't tell us anything useful about the capacity of, say, Milanese plate to resist arrows.
FWIW the main aim of B & W was to update the work done by Jones. In this goal they succeeded and this paper should be cited instead of Jones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
My thinking was that if the energy required to peetrate the minimum thickness of a breastplate, rigidly mounted, exceeds the max for a thrust then it would be "busted" in the mythbusters parlence. If it possible with 1.2mm plate rigidly mounted then this remains a contentious issue, but if a test highly biased toward the penetration side cant do it, pretty much case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nat Lamb wrote: | | My thinking was that if the energy required to peetrate the minimum thickness of a breastplate, rigidly mounted, exceeds the max for a thrust then it would be "busted" in the mythbusters parlence. If it possible with 1.2mm plate rigidly mounted then this remains a contentious issue, but if a test highly biased toward the penetration side cant do it, pretty much case closed. |
Yes, a biased test can be a conclusive test!
Williams, The Knight and the Blast Furnace, has some numbers of the type you asked for (pg 928, available in the google books preview), for arrows and bullets. The arrows are bodkin points, which are fairly optmimum for penetration; a sword would require at least the same, or more, energy. For normal incidence, 1mm = 55J, 2mm = 175J, 3mm = 300J.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: |
is there a short answer why they say that contemporary (what nominal date?) armour was better than VWI? Jones considered VWI to be the best (readily available) modern equivalent, in terms of hardness and slag inclusions. Is this wrong?. |
Yes Jones is wrong. Williams goes into detail in The Knight and the Blast Furnace. Victorian puddled iron (so-called wrought iron) is way inferior to anything that medieval armourers had to work with (Williams has tables showing the differences). According to Williams even charcoal rolled iron would only be equivalent to munitions plate so B&W doesn't tell us anything useful about the capacity of, say, Milanese plate to resist arrows. |
Alas, the relevant pages of Williams didn't make the google books preview, and my library doesn't bless me with a copy; this will take time to look up. Thanks for ref.
But B&W (and even Jones) does tell us something very useful about arrow-resistance of armour - it sets a lower bound. If the arrow is stopped in these tests, then munition plate of the same thickness is arrow-proof. And sword-thrust proof, given the energies involved, if there was still any question about that.
While there are many specific questions it says nothing about - resistance of a particular armour, minimum weight of arrowproof hardened steel armour, etc. - it's a pretty conclusive result that 2mm plate, of all available qualities, is arrowproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: |
it's a pretty conclusive result that 2mm plate, of all available qualities, is arrowproof. |
Yep. You should read all the weasling the authors do to try and avoid admitting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 standard topic