| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Fri 29 Jul, 2016 3:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The intent is to determine which armouring material weighs more than the other. In order to do that you need to select items that both provide similar coverage and similar protection. None of these kinds of questions can be answered unless you address one variable in isolation; in this case it is weight. Everything else needs to be remain unchanged through all of the test samples.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
  |
 |
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Timo.
Sorry Dan I'm not sure I completely understand what your saying. I proposed comparing the weights of a one foot squared section of the appropriate thicknesses of steel vs 30 layers of quilted linen, so area of coverage isn't an issue. As for the level of protection offered by these two types of armour. I see this as a separate issue.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | Thanks Timo.
Sorry Dan I'm not sure I completely understand what your saying. I proposed comparing the weights of a one foot squared section of the appropriate thicknesses of steel vs 30 layers of quilted linen, so area of coverage isn't an issue.. |
The level of protection is very similar. The difference is that the steel is two-thirds the weight and one-tenth the thickness.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | The difference is that the steel is two-thirds the weight and one-tenth the thickness. |
Ahh see this is the kind of info I was looking for. Thank you. If it isn't any trouble, would you mind telling the weights and thicknesses you used to come to this conclusion.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eirik R. F.
Location: Norway Joined: 08 Nov 2015
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mario M. wrote: |
There is not even a shred of evidence of anyone purposefully abandoning the practice of wearing armor during the Hundred Years War, that alone states that it at least justified its own weight and cost.
|
I have heard this many times before. It's a straw-man argument. I didn't say armor is completely useless. I'm interested in the nuances.
Even if the archers shooting with 150 lbs bows, just for the sake of argument, plowed through both plate and padding every time, abandoning armor would never happen. The longbow was a deterrent. If the French all of a sudden abandoned the us of armor, the English could field everyone able to shoot with a 85 lbs bow as a reaction. By using armor they forced the English to be selective when recruiting and use their resources on training and heavy bows etc. Likewise, the English used bows and therefor prevented the French from using anyone but the best armored men-at-arms (as seen at Nájera and Agincourt). Much of a weapon's ability is to prevent the enemy from acting in a certain way or using a specific weapon or setup. At this time period plate armor was starting to see widespread us in different configurations, so strapping on enough armor to keep all arrows out was not a problem. The main concern is the weight it adds and thus how effective you are as a fighter. There's a trade-off.
Then you have castles and walled towns under siege and the inevitable melee that followed such an even, together with arrows aimed at people on elevated walls and towers, significantly reducing their ability to penetrate armor. There you have another reason for why people hold on to armor.
One thing we know is how reluctant the French were when the English offered battle. That's something people shouldn't forget in all of this.
| Mario M. wrote: |
In fact, how about we use the usual list of French named persons who walked into the storm of arrows at Agincourt and remained unscathed just to still it up;
|
It would have surprise me if the most important and wealthiest of Nobles in France didn't have the best armor available to them during the battle of Agincourt. But this was a luxury not everyone could afford. Sir Guillaum de Saveuses, the leader of one of the cavalry charges was not so lucky.
Medium steel armor, 2mm at the front of the breastplate - that takes astonishingly 192.5 joule to penetrate, according to Alan Williams. You can't do that with a longbow. Further more, the arrowstorm at the front was not as intense as it was on the wings. On the wings the arrows would often strike the side of the breastplates, and they are often 1.5-1.7 mm. That takes 126,5-152.9 joule, according to Alan Williams. A point blank shot in this area will leave you bruised or wounded, or in a worst case scenario, dead. If you have mail underneath this you will probably survive. But not everyone had.
| Mario M. wrote: |
In fact, how would you explain the 2000 or so prisoners the English took if the arrows just plowed through the "miserable French"?
|
I do not believe the arrows plowed through the miserable French. Arrows probably found their way through gaps in the armor, struck them in the back, or they penetrated thinner parts of armor covering the limbs of inadequately armored men. Armor with 1 % slag and less than 0.3 % carbon don't have a Vickers Plate Hardness sufficient enough to prevent penetration if the armor is of the thinner sort we see on surviving samples.
According to Alan Williams, a 1.6mm plate of this type at ninety degree angle requires 95.25 joule for an arrow to penetrate. 1.4mm at thirty degree angle requires 92.7 joule and 1.3mm at forty five degree angle requires 97.2 joule. However, Mark Stretton found the difference between ninety degree angle and fourth five degree angle to be less than this when shooting heavy arrows. He also penetrated deeper than Alan Williams did with his drop test and he did it with a bigger arrowhead with a lozenge shaped cross section. Because arrows do best at point blank to 40 yards, 80-100 yards and 200-220 yards, and a heavy arrow will strike with almost 100 joule at these distances when shot form a 150 lbs bow, I believe most of the men-at-arms ended up wounded and bruised and died when the archers attacked them with melee weapons.
Let's make an estimation to show how the numbers can be distributed. - and remember, this is just a thought experiment. If the French attacked on foot with 11 000, some fled the field in small numbers when they ended up wounded and/or lost heart (2000), 4000 died from arrow wounds after being severely wounded. The majority of these were inadequately armored Valets and miscellaneous troops (3/4 or 3000). 3000 men-at-arms ended up wounded and died in the melee because they were unable to protect themselves against the advancing archers. 2000 men, a good part of them wounded, surrendered themselves. 2000+4000+3000+2000= 11 000. You do not have to kill everyone with arrows to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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