Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Makers and Manufacturers Talk > Arrows vs Armour2 is released Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Fri 25 Nov, 2022 5:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anthony Clipsom wrote:
Quote:
82 grams is heavier than Ascham's "quarter-pound arrow" which I thought was generally seen as old man's talk?
82 g is less than a quarter pound in UK weights (4oz = 114g) but 82gm is slightly on the higher side of your typical Mary Rose reproduction (the EWBS Mary Rose arrow has a maximum weight of 63.5g, for example and Hardy in Weapons of Warre suggests 70-75g as typical).

You are right, my mental math was wrong.

I hope Dr. Capwell will write up a footnoted version of the background research for Arms & Armour or similar.

www.bookandsword.com
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Fri 25 Nov, 2022 6:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Regarding period accounts of mail stopping arrows, one thing to keep in mind is that the arrows tested in AvA 2 hit rather harder than many (though not all) historical arrows. I don't see the distance mentioned anywhere, but it looks like 10m. I also don't see chronograph data; previously Joe Gibbs delivered 123 J at 10m with that 160lb bow & 80g arrow. (In another video, Gibbs did 139 J with a 75g arrow at 1m or so from a 160lb bow.) While archers may have delivered some shots at such close range, whether as a final shot before turning to melee weapons or from an advantageous position, most arrows on historical battlefields would have come from farther away.

At 100m, which is a very plausible distance to face arrows, Gibbs's 160lb bow would deliver more like 80-90 J. This similar to what a typical 110lb Turkish cavalry bow would manage as initial kinetic energy because of the extremely light arrows that Turkish military archers apparently used. At moderate range, such a Turkish bow would deliver perhaps half the KE as the bow in AvA 2.

Bertrandon de la Broquière wrote that Turkish archers might be able to defeat light mail. That's an example of historical support for the notion that arrows at less than 80-90 J could pierce some types of mail. This is broadly consistent with modern tests.

Among period English archers, many good ones probably did deliver about as much KE as Gibbs. A few surely managed more. A fair number likely delivered rather less because they used lighter bows, used poorer-quality bows, used bows adversely affected by field conditions, used lighter arrows, failed to fully draw their bows because of sickness &/or fatigue, & so on.

Lots of historical heavy infantry or heavy cavalry wore 60-70+lbs of armor. I suspect that weight of mail & padding would be enough to prevent serious injury from many historical bows at the most common engagement ranges. It'd be interesting to see further tests.

That circa-1453 Italian military treatise described by Augusto Boer Bront strikes me as a particularly high showing for mail for the 15th century. I haven't gotten the impression from any 15th-century text I've read that mail offered good protection against crossbows. De la Broquière recommended light plate armor to defend against the Ottoman arrows he considered rather weak. Pietro Monte noted how points often got through a single layer of mail defending the throat & indicated that crossbows (like the couched lance & firearms) were potentially a threat to the man-at-arms in white armor. We know from Andreas Bichler's replica that cranequin-spanned crossbows with horn prods could deliver nearly 200 J at rather high velocity up close. (& originals may have performed even better than Bichler's replica.) That's quite a bit more than the 130-140 J of initial KE that Gibbs shoots from a 160lb yew warbow.

Of course, maybe there was some sort of heavy & high-quality 15th-century mail capable of protecting against all the weapons mentioned (even handgonnes). I'm curious how mail of hardened medium-carbon steel performs. It seems to have been rare but a thing, at least in the 16th century.

As an aside, a 82lb@32" Manchu bow supposedly managed almost the exact same performance as the 160lb yew bow used in AvA. & many Manchu bows were probably drawn at least a few inches farther, with around 80lbs considered the minimum military draw weight. If that one test is accurate, strong infantry archers armed with Manchu-style bows would have performed significantly better against armor than English archers with yew bows did. We know for sure that Manchu military arrows could reach 122g (100g was the average for one type of Qing military arrow). Given the substantial evidence that 80-100lbs was the most common draw weight for Qing cavalry (the primarily soldiers who used bows), either their bows performed along the lines of the test or they accepted sluggish velocities.

For a later source on the inability of mail to resist arrows from powerful bows, see Garcilaso de la Vega's account of Hernando de Soto's expedition to Florida. De la Vega wrote decades after the fact & wasn't a participant, but probably had access to members of the expedition & records. He described how Spaniards conducted a test of their highly prized & expensive polished hauberks after a notable shot in battle defeated one of these. The test resulted in penetration of even two coats of mail together. The Spaniards then laughed at the fine & polished hauberks they'd previously valued, finding "thick and quilted" hauberks more effective. De la Vega wrote that they found quilted cloaks "three or four fingers thick" made from blankets most effective of all against Native arrows. It's not clear from the text, but I believe the Native archers in question had little if any access to iron/steel arrowheads. De la Vega's text has multiple examples of arrows defeating mail. In one case de la Vega did specify that an arrow with a tip only of sharpened fire-hardened reed/cane broke through mail breeches.
View user's profile Send private message
Leo Todeschini
Industry Professional



Location: Oxford, UK
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,723

Feedback score: 100%
(3 total ▮ 100% positive)
PostPosted: Sun 27 Nov, 2022 11:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks Benjamin

We have another film coming where we look at the speed out to 70m and this will give some better numbers to consider, but in the case of these tests it was 15m

We also have a document coming that lists all the kit and test parameters and that will be available here in due course, but is not yet compiled https://todtodeschini.com/youtube-projects/arrows-v-armour-2/documents/



Tod

www.todsworkshop.com
www.todcutler.com
www.instagram.com/todsworkshop
https://www.facebook.com/TodsWorkshop
www.youtube.com/user/todsstuff1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Kary





Joined: 12 Dec 2017

Posts: 196

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Mon 28 Nov, 2022 7:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I've been reluctant to bring this up because I think it might be silly but...I just can't resist making a fool of myself apparently since I can't stop thinking about it after binge watching everything the day it was posted.

What about the eye slits? I know this is a one in a billion (or more) shot. I know it would be unreasonable to ask anybody to actually make that shot. But weren't they worried about getting an arrow in one of those?

Is it because they were wide enough to let an arrow straight through? Or are they narrow enough that you can't simply slide an arrow through. If that's the case, I'm wondering if the arrow would split the eye slots apart and penetrate into the man inside or if those raised slots would be robust enough to prevent this...

P.S. Thank you so much for this Tod. It was wonderful!
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Tue 29 Nov, 2022 10:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Edit: These are by far the best tests of arrows against armour I have ever seen, and I have no criticisms of the armour or the mail (just some things about the bow and arrow I am not sure about, but they all lean in the same direction). Look forward to seeing the writeup when all the authors have finished their shares!

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
For example, Augusto Boer Bront on Facebook a year ago described a circa-1453 Italian military manual that recommends good-quality hauberks for light cavalry over brigandines because they stop crossbows, bows, spears, swords, & handgonnes while covering more area.
Are you thinking of Orso degli Orsini, Del governo et exercitio de la militia (1475) Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits, MS Italien 958 fol. 11r, 11v? https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8478964h.image

Italians seemed to think that the bows in England were different than the bows they were familiar with (even though many of those bows were made of Italian yew). Older and nationalist scholars imagined a secret national weapon, whereas newer research says that people in England, Scotland, Flanders, and northern France used more or less the same types of self bow by the 15th century and the only difference was that the English kings could recruit more and better archers than other princes. So a writer in Italy might envision a different type of bow (or different expectation about draw weight) than a writer in England, but the types of crossbow are probably similar.

www.bookandsword.com


Last edited by Sean Manning on Tue 29 Nov, 2022 5:14 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Tue 29 Nov, 2022 2:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Kary wrote:
I've been reluctant to bring this up because I think it might be silly but...I just can't resist making a fool of myself apparently since I can't stop thinking about it after binge watching everything the day it was posted.

What about the eye slits? I know this is a one in a billion (or more) shot. I know it would be unreasonable to ask anybody to actually make that shot. But weren't they worried about getting an arrow in one of those?

Is it because they were wide enough to let an arrow straight through? Or are they narrow enough that you can't simply slide an arrow through. If that's the case, I'm wondering if the arrow would split the eye slots apart and penetrate into the man inside or if those raised slots would be robust enough to prevent this...

P.S. Thank you so much for this Tod. It was wonderful!


Arrows don't travel in a straight line; they have a trajectory. The helmet in that video had ridges around the eye slots, which prevents any arrows but those travelling in a straight line from entering. A knight would have to be looking up to align the eye slot with the arrow's trajectory for an arrow to go through.

Great video, Tod. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Tue 29 Nov, 2022 5:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Manning wrote:
Edit: Are you thinking of Orso degli Orsini, Del governo et exercitio de la militia (1475) Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits, MS Italien 958 fol. 11r, 11v? https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8478964h.image

Italians seemed to think that the bows in England were different than the bows they were familiar with (even though many of those bows were made of Italian yew). Older and nationalist scholars imagined a secret national weapon, whereas newer research says that people in England, Scotland, Flanders, and northern France used more or less the same types of self bow by the 15th century and the only difference was that the English kings could recruit more and better archers than other princes. So a writer in Italy might envision a different type of bow (or different expectation about draw weight) than a writer in England, but the types of crossbow are probably similar.


Yes, that's the one. Augusto Boer Bront in the aforementioned Facebook post wrote that this treatise says sappers should be armed with English longbows or Turkish bows. If that's accurate, the author seems to have been familiar with English bows & considered them appropriate for Italian soldiers to use. It is still possible the author had a different idea about draw weight compared with English sources.
View user's profile Send private message
Leo Todeschini
Industry Professional



Location: Oxford, UK
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,723

Feedback score: 100%
(3 total ▮ 100% positive)
PostPosted: Tue 29 Nov, 2022 9:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My understanding is that also there was nothing magically different about English bows, it is just that on average the English were able to field more strong archers than other nations presumably because it was favoured and also that they were very competent at using them to their best advantage and perhaps for social or whatever reasons rated them higher than other nations.

This meant that large bodies of very effective shooters could be assembled easily from England and then lead well.

Dan Howard wrote
Quote:
Arrows don't travel in a straight line; they have a trajectory. The helmet in that video had ridges around the eye slots, which prevents any arrows but those travelling in a straight line from entering. A knight would have to be looking up to align the eye slot with the arrow's trajectory for an arrow to go through.

Great video, Tod. I thoroughly enjoyed it.


Thanks Dan, appreciated.

I do however have to disagree with you about your statement. Arrows of course do have a trajectory, but out at 70m the plunging angle of an arrow is really quite slight, maybe 5 degrees off flat (this is a guess, but we have a video coming out soon that shows the whole flight in slo mo so we can all watch). Lets assume that the eye slit is 8mm high, which is wider than the arrow head anyway, if the knight looks top it is 8mm wide as axially aligned to the arrow flight, if he looks straight ahead, the slit appears to be very marginally narrower. without distortion of the slit the head won't go through in either instance and the difference between the two is very small. Even out to 140 m which was a.shot Joe did with me recently, I would estimate his shot was not likely more than 15 degrees and still this would make little difference to the eyeslit.

I would however agree with you that at distances where arrows plunge on steeper angles say 20 degrees plus (also a guess) that it would start to make more significant difficulties, but with Joes bow and arrow combo this would be at distances in excess of 140m

Regards

Tod

www.todsworkshop.com
www.todcutler.com
www.instagram.com/todsworkshop
https://www.facebook.com/TodsWorkshop
www.youtube.com/user/todsstuff1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Anthony Clipsom




Location: YORKSHIRE, UK
Joined: 27 Jul 2009

Posts: 308

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Wed 30 Nov, 2022 12:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
this is a guess, but we have a video coming out soon that shows the whole flight in slo mo so we can all watch


Look forward to that. Was looking recently for information on how far a reasonably flat trajectory was for a longbow so your tests with Joe will be useful hard evidence.

A couple of thoughts for future tests. Period French art shows that kettle helmets were worn by some men-at-arms. Having watched the video, the immediate thought is that this would be suicidal but, if we consider the head-down posture, perhaps less so. Particularly if we consider the down swept brim and more steep sided crown of the later kettle helmet. Might be one to consider for a future test.?

I also wondered about arrow heads. As I understand it, a lot of livery arrow heads in the early 15th century were Jessop type M4 - a narrow broad head, sometimes steel edged. I doubt these would have done any better against the main plates but would they have still been a threat to the weak points?

Anyway, I suspect these will join your ever growing heap of "helpful" suggestions for the future Happy In the meantime thanks for the work already done.

Anthony Clipsom
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Wed 30 Nov, 2022 9:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Yes, that's the one. Augusto Boer Bront in the aforementioned Facebook post wrote that this treatise says sappers should be armed with English longbows or Turkish bows. If that's accurate, the author seems to have been familiar with English bows & considered them appropriate for Italian soldiers to use. It is still possible the author had a different idea about draw weight compared with English sources.

It looks like that passage is on 14v "And the said bows fossero or rather of long timber in the English fashion" https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8478964h/f34.item

www.bookandsword.com
View user's profile Send private message
Bartek Strojek




Location: Poland
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Likes: 23 pages

Posts: 496

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Sun 01 Jan, 2023 10:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Another video released, Another piece of amazing work from Tod.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DMf7KCqQLw78&ved=2ahUKEwjYuovaraf8AhXk-yoKHRx3D4oQwqsBegQICRAE&usg=AOvVaw0bZWWcmPdPyDVrfO62xzJT

Couple of fascinating things going on here.

Visor shot is some amazing mayhem, and something interesting is going on with an aventail.

Sometimes, it's defeated pretty significantly, it seems, while some shots seem to be stopped dead.

One was pretty glancing, and one probably hit the breastplate too, thus the bounce. But one was dead on, right under the visor and it too bounced off.

Hit multiple rings? Overlap at bulkiest point? Or something else.
View user's profile Send private message
Augusto Boer Bront
Industry Professional



Location: Cividale del Friuli (UD) Italy
Joined: 12 Nov 2009

Posts: 294

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Sun 01 Jan, 2023 8:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

When the aventail is pierced all the way through, it's usually when the aventail has already been pierced before, so when the rings are already damaged.

The same thing happened in the first video. Where the mail was fresh, basically everything bounced, or at least didn't reach the mail collar underneath.

Armourer-Artist-Blacksmith
www.magisterarmorum.com

Pinterest albums to almost all existing XIVth century armour.

Pinterest albums on almost all existing XVth century Italian armour.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bartek Strojek




Location: Poland
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Likes: 23 pages

Posts: 496

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Tue 03 Jan, 2023 4:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Augusto Boer Bront wrote:
When the aventail is pierced all the way through, it's usually when the aventail has already been pierced before, so when the rings are already damaged.

The same thing happened in the first video. Where the mail was fresh, basically everything bounced, or at least didn't reach the mail collar underneath.


Tod says that aventail had been mended since the previous video, and it doesn't seem that all that many shots hit the same spots, so it appears that some undamaged sections are pierced too. But it's very hard to see for sure.
View user's profile Send private message
Leo Todeschini
Industry Professional



Location: Oxford, UK
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,723

Feedback score: 100%
(3 total ▮ 100% positive)
PostPosted: Tue 03 Jan, 2023 6:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bartek, you are correct, all previous damage had been repaired this time around.

Hard too say why some and some do not, but it is perfectly possible for an arrow to strike the intersection between two rings and so effectively have to split two, sometimes it lands on the wire, sometimes in the hole and then the padding is seamed so where on this it strikes will also be relevant as well as how supported it is behind, how freely it hangs, angle of incidence and so on.

So that is at least 8 variables just off the top of my head, each one having an effect on the penetration.

Tod

www.todsworkshop.com
www.todcutler.com
www.instagram.com/todsworkshop
https://www.facebook.com/TodsWorkshop
www.youtube.com/user/todsstuff1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bartek Strojek




Location: Poland
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Likes: 23 pages

Posts: 496

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Wed 04 Jan, 2023 9:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Was mending as strong as original weave though? Maybe it was kind of a factor too?

Anyway, you guys obviously have way better idea.

But from few shots landing on aventail, shown in the video, it does seem like it's performing fantastically when it has some empty space behind it. It acts like a curtain that moves and absorbs most of energy. Penetration is extremely minor.

When it has shoulders or something else behind it, where arrow can gain purchase, it seems like it kinda lands on an anvil and can be nailed pretty well.

Though I may be wrong. But most harmless shots definitely seemed to be mostly the ones right under the helmet rim.
View user's profile Send private message
Leo Todeschini
Industry Professional



Location: Oxford, UK
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,723

Feedback score: 100%
(3 total ▮ 100% positive)
PostPosted: Wed 04 Jan, 2023 9:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

HI Bartek,

I think you are pretty much right and this is true of any armour type (at these velocities - I am sure it is different for supersonic projectiles). If the armour can move and slow the deceleration of the projectile, more of energy is absorbed by moving the armour and so less is left for penetration, so yes, where the arrow strikes the individual would have been important even if the actually physical nature of the armour is otherwise identical.

Tod

www.todsworkshop.com
www.todcutler.com
www.instagram.com/todsworkshop
https://www.facebook.com/TodsWorkshop
www.youtube.com/user/todsstuff1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ryan S.




Location: Germany
Joined: 04 May 2012

Posts: 353

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Mon 09 Jan, 2023 6:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I wonder, does anyone of thoughts on how riding on horseback would affect arrow penetration? For example, would a knight charging on horseback be hit harder because he is moving in the opposite direction as the arrow?
View user's profile Send private message
Augusto Boer Bront
Industry Professional



Location: Cividale del Friuli (UD) Italy
Joined: 12 Nov 2009

Posts: 294

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Mon 09 Jan, 2023 11:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ryan S. wrote:
I wonder, does anyone of thoughts on how riding on horseback would affect arrow penetration? For example, would a knight charging on horseback be hit harder because he is moving in the opposite direction as the arrow?


Of course, it's simple physics.

You just need to add the speed of the horse to the speed of the arrow.

Thing is, good luck hitting anything.

So yes, the arrows would hit marginally with more energy, IF you it anything.

Armourer-Artist-Blacksmith
www.magisterarmorum.com

Pinterest albums to almost all existing XIVth century armour.

Pinterest albums on almost all existing XVth century Italian armour.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Anthony Clipsom




Location: YORKSHIRE, UK
Joined: 27 Jul 2009

Posts: 308

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Tue 10 Jan, 2023 12:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ryan S. wrote:
I wonder, does anyone of thoughts on how riding on horseback would affect arrow penetration? For example, would a knight charging on horseback be hit harder because he is moving in the opposite direction as the arrow?


While the simple answer is yes, the complicated bit is working out how much and whether it is significant. Take how the knight is moving in relation to the path of the arrow. The chance of the arrow hitting at precisely 180 degrees to the direction of travel is quite low, and some sort of vector analysis would be needed. Obviously, the angles of the glancing surfaces and how they are affected by motion would also come into play. I think there may be some more complex physics around rate of energy transfer from arrow to target that would be affected by a moving target too, but it is well beyond my knowledge of such things.

Anthony Clipsom
View user's profile Send private message
Ryan S.




Location: Germany
Joined: 04 May 2012

Posts: 353

Feedback score: None
PostPosted: Thu 12 Jan, 2023 6:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Augusto Boer Bront wrote:
Ryan S. wrote:
I wonder, does anyone of thoughts on how riding on horseback would affect arrow penetration? For example, would a knight charging on horseback be hit harder because he is moving in the opposite direction as the arrow?


Of course, it's simple physics.

You just need to add the speed of the horse to the speed of the arrow.

Thing is, good luck hitting anything.

So yes, the arrows would hit marginally with more energy, IF you it anything.


Do you mean that an archer would have a hard time hitting a horse and rider charging him, or that the archer would have a hard time hitting the rider in a place where it would count?

According to the first google result I found, a horse gallops somewhere around 25-35 mph. I took the low end and converted it into m/s and got 11.176 m/s. In one of Tod´s videos, Joe was shooting around 55 m/s with an 85 g arrow. That should have an effective speed of about 66 m/s. If my calculations are correct, that is an increase from 128 joules to 185. That seems to be a significant increase to me. I think, though, one should also take into account the mass of the rider. Of course, if 128 joules is enough to penetrate mail, and 185 is not enough to penetrate plate, then it would make no practical difference.

Maybe the more interesting question, is what about with horse archers shooting backwards? The loss of 11 m/s is probably more of a game changer than a gain of the same amount. Of course, the role of angles is important because archers probably don’t ever shoot the exact opposite direction that their horse is going.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Makers and Manufacturers Talk > Arrows vs Armour2 is released
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  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