| Author |
Message |
|
T. Kew
Location: London, UK Joined: 21 Apr 2012
Posts: 256
|
 Posted: Wed 11 May, 2016 12:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
From a practical perspective, this is one of the best things about BotN: they hit each other very hard, in the head. Consequently we can use it to sanity check ideas about what hitting people in plate armour will do.
If you're swinging a 2kg sword, you need a mere 12m/s to get ~150J of impact energy. It's not hard to deliver far more energy than that.
If clobbering people with ~150J was lethal even 1% of the time, BotN would see a casualty every 2-3 melees.
Another way to look at this is that a punch delivers more energy than this. People do die from being punched, but it's extremely rare - and almost always from hitting something when they fall over.
HEMA fencer and coach, New Cross Historical Fencing
|
|
  |
 |
|
Alec Cawdor
|
| Posted: Wed 11 May, 2016 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So was the main focus of blunt trauma to knock a person down so that another weapon could be used, such as a dagger to find the weak spot in the armor?
Also, this makes me think of another question. Since a full armored man at arms/knight was so difficult to kill, the horse would logically be the easier target (I don't know much about horse armor), but....I am currently reading "The Greatest Knight" by Thomas Asbridge (Very good book) and he goes into great detail about how much the war horses were worth.
So would an opponent have aimed to kill a warhorse even if it was an easy target to bring down a knight, or would they have tried to save the horse for it's value much like capturing a knight for ransom?
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Wed 11 May, 2016 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, Battle of the Nations uses more padding and thicker armour than was used historically, so they could probably survive more blunt trauma to the helmet than a historical suit, so there is that.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
Leo Todeschini
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alec Cawdor wrote | Quote: | So was the main focus of blunt trauma to knock a person down so that another weapon could be used, such as a dagger to find the weak spot in the armor?
Also, this makes me think of another question. Since a full armored man at arms/knight was so difficult to kill, the horse would logically be the easier target (I don't know much about horse armor), but....I am currently reading "The Greatest Knight" by Thomas Asbridge (Very good book) and he goes into great detail about how much the war horses were worth.
So would an opponent have aimed to kill a warhorse even if it was an easy target to bring down a knight, or would they have tried to save the horse for it's value much like capturing a knight for ransom?
|
If you imagine standing and shooting an assault rifle, you don't fall over when you shoot it, and under Newtons law, the bullet imparts the same force to the target, so that shouldn't fall over either. There are lots of other things going on, but that is the raw basis of it. So if you are hit by a mace or arrow blow in principle it won't knock you over. Surprise, a change in balance, a blow to the head that jars it, etc may well take you down in conjunction. Although a blow to the chest of 150j is not that great, I suspect the vertically down onto the crown would transfer and concentrate that 150j directly to the neck vertebrae and that I suspect would be damaging.
War horses were worth money, but ultimately worth less that your life and so were targets and were lightly armoured in comparison to the guy sitting on it, and if the battle was arrayed to be fought by mounted knights and they become dismounted then the best laid plans are disrupted. In essence this was the nature of many of the early victories in the 100 years war. The French came at the English on horses, the English shot the horses, French plans were left in disarray and the battle was finished off by the English on foot. Later the French learned that sending in the knights on foot left them largely immune to the arrows and so they could plan and win using their larger forces on foot.
Tod
www.todsworkshop.com
www.todcutler.com
www.instagram.com/todsworkshop
https://www.facebook.com/TodsWorkshop
www.youtube.com/user/todsstuff1
|
|
 |
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alec Cawdor wrote: | So was the main focus of blunt trauma to knock a person down so that another weapon could be used, such as a dagger to find the weak spot in the armor?
Also, this makes me think of another question. Since a full armored man at arms/knight was so difficult to kill, the horse would logically be the easier target (I don't know much about horse armor), but....I am currently reading "The Greatest Knight" by Thomas Asbridge (Very good book) and he goes into great detail about how much the war horses were worth.
So would an opponent have aimed to kill a warhorse even if it was an easy target to bring down a knight, or would they have tried to save the horse for it's value much like capturing a knight for ransom? |
Most modern historians suggest that the main purpose of the English longbow men against the French knights was to slay the horses. At Agincourt, most of the horses would not have had any form of armour, meaning they were extremely vulnerable to a rain of arrows pouring down. Besides the fact that injured and dying horses might throw their rider, the bodies of dead horses would have also contributed to the bottleneck that crippled the French's ability to effectively attack the English.
To my knowledge, people did not try to actively save horses during war because the horses could prove valuable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
As has been said, modern soldiers from Western nations receive shots on helmets and body armour and not only survive but also continue to operate. Modern comparisons are not terribly helpful usually but I think it is worth pointing out that weapons producing many many times more joules don't necessarily stun let alone damage struck soldiers. I personally know two people who were shot (one several times in body armour and one to the head through a helmet) and while they don't recommend it managed to carry on fighting.
Here is a man being struck by a baseball estimated at 140 joules of energy, he just looks miffed. Blunt force trauma, though possibly had some effect on specific individuals in certain conditions is wildly over stated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0U_1TIBzY0
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
|
|
|
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The number of heavy cavalry involved in the battle of Agincourt was negligible. Out of the 1400 or so heavy cavalry intended to flank the English (most had wandered off as the day went by with no sign when the battle would commence), only a tiny number actually made the charge.
jamesarlen.com
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Its bollocks. The only way to deliver enough energy to inflict blunt trauma through armour is with firearms, which deliver 10-20 times more energy than the heaviest longbow. |
Dan, are you really saying that no part of the human body would suffer ANY blunt force trauma simply by wearing armor???
| Quote: | | Blunt trauma>the term refers to the initial trauma, from which develops more specific types such as contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and/or bone fractures. Blunt trauma is contrasted with penetrating trauma, in which an object such as a bullet enters the body. |
I find this statement to be unbelievable, you are saying that if for example I smashed you ANYWERE on your body with a solid steel mace while you were wearing armor that you would suffer no blunt force trauma, we are talking about your foot, ankle, shin, leg, hand, wrist, arm, shoulder, torso, neck, head etc....armor is not a force field, if for example I rode up behind you and smashed you in the head with a mace while you were wearing a helmet you really think that there would be no chance of suffering ANY blunt force trauma???
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Todeschini
Industry Professional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
there seems to be a fair bit of ambiguity in this discussion about the term "blunt force trauma". Some people seem to be using the term to mean the very specific form of injury caused by high velocity projectiles that are prevented from entering the body but still cause bruising, broken bones and hydrostatic shock. Others seem to be using the term to mean any effect that gets through armour. If I am wearing a great helm and you grab the sides and shake vigorously I might well become disoriented, this would seem to fit the later description, but not the first. I am no forensic pathologist, what exactly do we mean for the purposes of this discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Its bollocks. The only way to deliver enough energy to inflict blunt trauma through armour is with firearms, which deliver 10-20 times more energy than the heaviest longbow. |
| Leo Todeschini wrote: | Eric S wrote | Quote: | Dan, are you really saying that no part of the human body would suffer ANY blunt force trauma simply by wearing armor???
|
I have a feeling that Dan was referring to projectile weapons specifically in this context, just that he did not state this.
Tod |
Tod, you may be right but words have meanings and we can not be expected to read minds so Dan can clear this up by saying if his statement referred to arrows only or to any type of weapon. When we read this statement ...... "the only way to deliver enough energy to inflict blunt trauma through armour is with firearms"....... what should we think that Dan meant, you know this is not an accurate statement and anyone here who has studied this subject at all should know that this is not an accurate statement, it needs to be amended / corrected etc. If Dan was referring to damage by an arrow this would be different.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nat Lamb wrote: | | there seems to be a fair bit of ambiguity in this discussion about the term "blunt force trauma". Some people seem to be using the term to mean the very specific form of injury caused by high velocity projectiles that are prevented from entering the body but still cause bruising, broken bones and hydrostatic shock. Others seem to be using the term to mean any effect that gets through armour. If I am wearing a great helm and you grab the sides and shake vigorously I might well become disoriented, this would seem to fit the later description, but not the first. I am no forensic pathologist, what exactly do we mean for the purposes of this discussion? |
Definitions:
Blunt force trauma: Injuries resulting from an impact with a dull, firm surface or object. Blunt force trauma may cause external contusions and lacerations, damage of the internal organs and soft tissues, as well as fractures and dislocations of bony structures. The major types of cutaneous blunt force injuries are as follows:
Abrasion: A scraping injury to the superficial layers of the skin (epidermis and dermis) that results from friction against a rough surface.
Contusion (bruise): Hemorrhage into the dermis, subcutaneous tissues, deep soft tissues, and internal organs as a result of rupture of blood vessels following impact with a blunt object or surface .
Laceration: A bursting of the skin or other tissues resulting from compression or stretching associated with impact by a blunt object or surface.
Avulsion: A more severe form of laceration in which the soft tissues, musculature, and/or bone are torn away from the normal points of attachment.
Fracture: A break, rupture, or separation of tissue (most often bone) resulting from an impact.
These injuries are often seen in combination with one another. For example, abrasions are often found at the margins of lacerations. Abrasions, lacerations, and contusions are often noted adjacent to fractures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ok, would falling on an outstretched arm while in plate harness and dislocating your elbow count as an example of BFT? Ground is firm, and would be considered a break using the definition provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alec Cawdor
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nat Lamb wrote: | | Ok, would falling on an outstretched arm while in plate harness and dislocating your elbow count as an example of BFT? Ground is firm, and would be considered a break using the definition provided. |
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Blunt Force Trauma - Medieval Arrows |
|
|
From the blog post: "if a fragment/missile strikes a vital area with a kinetic energy of 80 Joules or more, then it is considered to be a fatal blow".
Energies of about 80J are typical of many less-than-lethal munitions (e.g., beanbag rounds). Delivering that much energy to an unprotected torso or limbs is considered relatively safe - it will very rarely cause death, and rarely cause any serious injury. Deaths do occasionally occur, but most deaths from such munitions are from hits to the head and neck.
The higher-energy rounds (e.g., rubber bullets and plastic bullets, which can have energies of 300-400J at point-blank range) are more likely to cause serious injury or death, especially with hits to the head. Still, they are used against unprotected human bodies, and usually don't kill.
In comparison to weapons like those, an 80J arrow, against armour which stops penetration, doesn't look very dangerous.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
| Posted: Thu 12 May, 2016 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From our perspective surely the only traumas that count are the ones that stop a person from fighting either short term, thereby disrupting the formation, or long term. Scrapes and bruises just aren't significant. If BFT was as big an issue as people are making out casualties and deaths in sports as gentle as cricket or baseball would be common, while boxing and MMA would be profoundly hazardous.
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 13 May, 2016 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leo Todeschini wrote: | | I have a feeling that Dan was referring to projectile weapons specifically in this context, just that he did not state this. |
I didn't think I had to repeat what is already in the subject header. I think Eric needs to lie down for a while.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 13 May, 2016 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Leo Todeschini wrote: | | I have a feeling that Dan was referring to projectile weapons specifically in this context, just that he did not state this. |
I didn't think I had to repeat what is already in the subject header. I think Eric needs to lie down for a while. |
| Dan Howard wrote: | | There is no reliable data for medieval weapons and armour. If you want to study the effects of blunt trauma then look at modern tests against ballistic armour. It is pretty clear that muscle-powered weapons cannot deliver anywhere near the energies required. |
Dan, you made a second statement about blunt force trauma were said that...... "muscle-powered weapons cannot deliver anywhere near the energies required"....it is fairly clear that you were not just talking about arrows, "muscle powered weapons" include axe, warhammer and mace as well as arrows.
Either you believe that some types of weapons were capable of delivering blunt force trauma through armor or not, which do you believe???
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 13 May, 2016 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
No muscle powered weapon can deliver blunt trauma injury to someone wearing a steel cuirass.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 13 May, 2016 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neal Matheson wrote: | | From our perspective surely the only traumas that count are the ones that stop a person from fighting either short term, thereby disrupting the formation, or long term. Scrapes and bruises just aren't significant. If BFT was as big an issue as people are making out casualties and deaths in sports as gentle as cricket or baseball would be common, while boxing and MMA would be profoundly hazardous. |
Exactly
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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