| Author |
Message |
|
Ralph Grinly
|
 Posted: Sun 03 Jun, 2018 9:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
That cross shaped blade looks something like an old French Lebel bayonet cross section.  So there is a historical precedence for such a blade shape.
|
|
  |
 |
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 03 Jun, 2018 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ralph Grinly wrote: | | That cross shaped blade looks something like an old French Lebel bayonet cross section. So there is a historical precedence for such a blade shape. |
Against flesh, not steel.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Mon 04 Jun, 2018 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | So-called "armour-piercing" blades were designed to slip between plates or bust open mail, not penetrate the plate itself. The reinforced thrusting points we see on some weapons was not to make it easier to penetrate armour but to stop it breaking when incidentally hitting armour or bone. |
Ok, since going through plate seems almost pointless, what would be the ideal spear head design to burst open mail or go through fabric?
In this video they go through mail quite easily (as you said earlier, it's not moving and against heavy backing, but I say easy, because I would expect more):
About the mail (which doesn't look right):
https://youtu.be/42NDuagLd4k?t=53
Going through:
https://youtu.be/42NDuagLd4k?t=192
Here's another video, with the larger leaf going through mail:
https://youtu.be/FOgpEW7N_8Q?t=178
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Mon 04 Jun, 2018 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wanna know why wire cutters are not shaped like spearheads or bodkin points? Because mail is REALLY HARD to get through! Sure, if you get your weapon going at the speed of sound, you'll get through. And like any armor, it's not completely impenetrable. It's just a really dangerously risky waste of time and energy to *try* penetrating mail. Go around it.
Getting through fabric armor is a whole different set of physics.
There are thousands upon thousands of surviving spearpoints from all over the globe. Heck, probably millions. Ranging from less than an inch long to over 3 feet. A few are spikes. The vast majority are flattish, 2-edged and pointy. I've never seen any suggestion that a warrior would select one spear over another simply because of what his opponent was wearing. So the blade shapes could safely be decided by local fashions, and they all worked just fine.
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
Paul M. Bardunias
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 03 Apr 2018
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Mon 04 Jun, 2018 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Wanna know why wire cutters are not shaped like spearheads or bodkin points? |
Wire snips are blades. Bodkins are not really superior at penetrating mail because of the shape. They seem so because they usually have finer points. But a square or cylinder essentially defeats a ring by stretching it open almost uniformly, which is the best a ring of mail could hope for. A very fine blade with a mid-rib for stiffening imparts force through the narrow edges of the blade to two sections of the ring. At the least this deforms it and weakens it, at best it cuts through the wire like one side of a metal shear.
The key though to penetration, here and in plate as well, is the rate of the lateral spread of the material. At one extreme you have something like a half-moon blade, where the work being done is divided between moving inward and spreading the cut laterally somewhat evenly. The other extreme is a nail, where, once the tip is through there is almost no energy spent on lateral spread. So from this it is easy to see that a long narrow blade will penetrate easier. with a high length to width ratio, it is almost like gearing or the physics behind block and tackle, the lateral force needed to expand a given distance is spread over a longer period of time as the blade moves in. This in turn takes less energy.
What I described above about metal sheet penetration is covered in a paper by Blyth- the Bomarzo shield guy. Email me if you want to see. One thing to remember about blade shape is that the weapon has to do substantial damage after it penetrates, or it is useless anyway. Punching a nail hole in someone is great if you have the time to watch them die of sepsis, but not so good if they hit you in the face with an axe.
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | | One thing to remember about blade shape is that the weapon has to do substantial damage after it penetrates, or it is useless anyway. Punching a nail hole in someone is great if you have the time to watch them die of sepsis, but not so good if they hit you in the face with an axe. |
Yep. Virtually no wounds are immediately fatal. Any wound that doesn't incapacitate your foe is giving them the opportunity to fight back. A successful attack is one that causes immediate incapacitation. It is irrelevant whether the wound proves fatal or not. You can round up all the wounded after the battle and decide then whether to kill them or not. An attack to the foot or hamstring or face or throat or hand or groin will stop someone from fighting much more surely than a spear in the chest.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | | The square or triangular awl is the best blend of features. |
For more on the science behind this (both theory and experiment), see Tony Atkins, Chapter 8, "Punching Holes: Piercing and Perforating, Arms and Armour", in The Science and Engineering of Cutting, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2009, pages 189-220, ISBN 9780750685313, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-8531-3.00008-0. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...5313000080
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoffroy Gautier
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Square and triangular (preferably slightly hollowed) are best at punching the largest hole for a given amount of energy. Not at optimizing penetration. Optimizing penetration implies keeping metal displacement and deformation as low as possible, while still maintaining rigidity and stiffness of the penetrator (having the lowest "diameter"/length ratio).
Thus my cross shaped, four sided chisel cross-section, that only "cuts" four narrow petals as it penetrates, and leaves the rest unscathed. I ran some calculation, and to achieve similar second moment of area, the cross only needs to be 30% bigger in diameter, but even so the compared surface of the cross-section is also about 30% less, and the "cutting surface" in contact with the steel is constant (only the end cutting edge of the four arms), and very low compared to a square or triangular owl, which has 100% of its perimeter constantly dragging against the opening petals as the opening gets wider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul M. Bardunias
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 03 Apr 2018
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoffroy Gautier wrote: | Square and triangular (preferably slightly hollowed) are best at punching the largest hole for a given amount of energy. Not at optimizing penetration. Optimizing penetration implies keeping metal displacement and deformation as low as possible, while still maintaining rigidity and stiffness of the penetrator (having the lowest "diameter"/length ratio).
Thus my cross shaped, four sided chisel cross-section, that only "cuts" four narrow petals as it penetrates, and leaves the rest unscathed. I ran some calculation, and to achieve similar second moment of area, the cross only needs to be 30% bigger in diameter, but even so the compared surface of the cross-section is also about 30% less, and the "cutting surface" in contact with the steel is constant (only the end cutting edge of the four arms), and very low compared to a square or triangular owl, which has 100% of its perimeter constantly dragging against the opening petals as the opening gets wider. |
It is an interesting shape. Perhaps if the tip were wider than the rest of the cruciform blade it would be better, otherwise you will have friction along those large flat sections of the cross and probably trap and compress the metal within the angle of the cross if the spear goes in at anything other than an unrealistically exact perpendicular. Also, consider that with anything but the best steel, your cross shape will have to be much thicker and wider than a simple square in order to stave off deformation.
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right now I'm looking for a spear that does well against both mail armor and fabric (armor).
Because it's against fabric as well, I don't think a bodkin type would do well.
It should be able to stand up against plate as well, without too easily being bent.
It would help greatly if the design is close to anything around the roman empire (and before 450 AD).
As of now, I have two designs I think might work, but if you have a better suggestion that would be much appreciated.
And nr 1 or 4 here, which I fear might be a little too thin?
I can make a new thread if it's inappropriate to keep asking questions on the same thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tor G. wrote: | | Right now I'm looking for a spear that does well against both mail armor and fabric (armor). |
There isn't one because the properties you need for both are mutually exclusive. A narrow spike is good against mail but it bounces off or gets stuck in felt and quilted textiles. A flat spear-head with cutting edges is good against felt and textiles but not against mail. That's one of the reasons why the combination of mail and padding was such an effective defence.
You should read this before proceeding any further.
http://myArmoury.com/feature_mail.html
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
Last edited by Dan Howard on Tue 05 Jun, 2018 4:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Tor G. wrote: | | Right now I'm looking for a spear that does well against both mail armor and fabric (armor). |
There isn't one because the properties you need for both are mutually exclusive. A narrow spike is good against mail but it bounces off felt and gets stuck in quilted textiles. A flat spear-head with cutting edges is good against felt and textiles but not against mail. That's one of the reasons why the combination of mail and padding was such an effective defence. |
I guess I'm looking for a trade off then, a design that wouldn't be horrible on either.
Neither of these designs probably work very well against mail, but do you think one of these would be substantially better than the other, or do you think the difference is negligible?
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tor G. wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | Tor G. wrote: | | Right now I'm looking for a spear that does well against both mail armor and fabric (armor). |
There isn't one because the properties you need for both are mutually exclusive. A narrow spike is good against mail but it bounces off felt and gets stuck in quilted textiles. A flat spear-head with cutting edges is good against felt and textiles but not against mail. That's one of the reasons why the combination of mail and padding was such an effective defence. |
I guess I'm looking for a trade off then, a design that wouldn't be horrible on either.
Neither of these designs probably work very well against mail, but do you think one of these would be substantially better than the other, or do you think the difference is negligible?
|
Depends on the mail. You should read this before proceeding any further.
http://myArmoury.com/feature_mail.html
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I actually read that earlier today, to the best of my abilities.  It's a lot to take in, when you've only been looking at weapons and armor for 3 months without much prior knowledge.
I'd say late roman empire mail (hamata).
The amount of forum posts I've seen you post on pretty much all equipment forums.. Let's just say I very much respect your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Neither of them would be any use against the Roman mail uncovered at Arbeia.
People have been trying to optimise spear heads for thousands of years. If there was one design that was more effective than the others, they all would have used it. The fact that we see so many different designs over such a long period of time suggests that what you want to do can't be done. If you optimise performance for one task, you reduce performance for others. The only real solution is to design a weapon with multiple protuberances for use against different targets, which is what we see in many historical polearms.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | Neither of them would be any use against the Roman mail uncovered at Arbeia.
People have been trying to optimise spear heads for thousands of years. If there was one design that was more effective than the others, they all would have used it. The fact that we see so many different designs over such a long period of time suggests that what you want to do can't be done. If you optimise performance for one task, you reduce performance for others. The only real solution is to design a weapon with multiple protuberances for use against different targets, which is what we see in many historical polearms. |
I'm gonna take that as little difference or difficult to say. But I honestly have a little trouble believing that it's not much difference, simply because one of these are very similar to a common viking design and the other a celtic broad leaf, probably used against little armor.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2018 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tor G. wrote: | | I'm gonna take that as little difference or difficult to say. But I honestly have a little trouble believing that it's not much difference, simply because one of these are very similar to a common viking design and the other a celtic broad leaf, probably used against little armor. |
Viking spears were not intended to be used against mail either. No spears were. The only real chance you have of penetrating mail with a spear is if it is couched and you are charging at them from horseback, and even that is far from guaranteed. I've been looking for twenty years for a primary account claiming that an unmounted spear thrust penetrated mail armour and can't find any. I'm sure that it must have happened to someone but the chances are so low as to be statistically negligible. Why waste your time on an attack that will only succeed on the wildest of flukes? There are plenty of less-well protected parts of the body to aim for.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2018 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Viking spears were not intended to be used against mail either. No spears were. The only real chance you have of penetrating mail with a spear is if it is couched and you are charging at them from horseback, and even that is far from guaranteed. I've been looking for twenty years for a primary account claiming that an unmounted spear thrust penetrated mail armour and can't find any. I'm sure that it must have happened to someone but the chances are so low as to be statistically negligible. Why waste your time on an attack that will only succeed on the wildest of flukes? There are plenty of less-well protected parts of the body to aim for. |
The reason I am trying to fit things where they don't belong is because I'm making a video game. I want there to be different kind of spears that have different stats, and that works better at certain things.
Now, I want to make it as realistic as possible, so if you're telling me there really isn't any point of having more than one type of spear (I don't want to incrase length), then there will only be one type (javelins would be in a different category).
But if there is considerable difference in how they react to different targets, then it might be worth adding them. Players surely will attack each others mail or plate armor, even if that's not what they should be doing. I also don't want to add more than two types, simply because the player can't change it out during battle.
I got from your article that, depending on the type of mail used, a very strong person might be able to pierce it with a spear. In the game, you will be able to play extraordinary strong characters (not fantasy strong).
Or that an arrow could (probably) penetrate, again, certain types of (historical) mail, if it were a heavy arrow with a high draw weight and close range.
My initial thought were one that had a broader head that would do more damage against bare skin. And one that could penetrate armor. And now, that the second one could at least do it substantially better than the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2018 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The best spear against mail would be one light and fast enough to strike where the mail is NOT. That lets each culture decide whether they prefer long straight narrow triangular blades, for instance, rather than shorter leaf blades or something else. They all work.
Whether a spearhead bends on impact with something hard depends a lot on its cross-section, but also on the metallurgy.
For gaming purposes, why not just go with a little more realism, and let the players discover that jabbing at armor is a good way to get killed? It doesn't have to be automatic suicide, since I think we all agree that it may be *possible* to penetrate armor if you are really strong and really lucky and have a really good weapon.
An additional benefit to that is that you can just offer a selection of known weapons from whatever time and place, rather than spend a lot of energy looking for specialities that are not really there.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2018 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | The best spear against mail would be one light and fast enough to strike where the mail is NOT. That lets each culture decide whether they prefer long straight narrow triangular blades, for instance, rather than shorter leaf blades or something else. They all work.
Whether a spearhead bends on impact with something hard depends a lot on its cross-section, but also on the metallurgy.
For gaming purposes, why not just go with a little more realism, and let the players discover that jabbing at armor is a good way to get killed? It doesn't have to be automatic suicide, since I think we all agree that it may be *possible* to penetrate armor if you are really strong and really lucky and have a really good weapon.
An additional benefit to that is that you can just offer a selection of known weapons from whatever time and place, rather than spend a lot of energy looking for specialities that are not really there.
Matthew |
For this game, it's not really important where they are from, only that the equipment can accomplish different things.
I've also found very little meaningful standardization in weapons (especially spears) from this time period. If there actually were standardization then I would probably use those, and use those that differed the most. In stead, I have to make those myself.
Even if the purpose of a spear is not to stab someone in their armor (that no spear is designed to do that, is something I learned here), one will inevitably be better than another. That difference and how much it is, is all I'm looking for at this point.
That difference might also be the speed, the weight and the power a spear can output.
If there is no noticeable difference in armor penetration, then there's probably little point in adding anything more than one spear, for the simple reason that players will inevitably be more heavily armored than what would be normal at that time. They will bash each others armor and shields a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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