| Author |
Message |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
 Posted: Thu 03 May, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
I'd second that recommendation too--maybe we in myArmoury could start talking about cooperating between ourselves to set such a test up?
|
|
  |
 |
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Thu 03 May, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What about using a reproduction harness with appropriate padding and a test dummy. I think shooting at shaped armor has lots of benefits vs. just shooting at a metal plate. Also, this might better show how blunt force is distributed to the person underneath.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Doernhoefer
Location: Reston, VA Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu 03 May, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It might be worth your while to invest in some of the Mythbusters' personal favorite: ballistics gel. I do believe that an experiment of this nature would require some serious investment in both time and energy though. Not to mention the pieces we'd be ruining 
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 03 May, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The test I cited is actually pretty good. There would be no point duplicating the excellent work that is already being done. As I already said, I only have two real problems with the above test: 1. the arrowheads were too hard and 2. nothing was used to simulate padding. The above test gives a very good idea of what munitions plate would have been capable of. The next test apparently will investigate different ranges. A later test using the same parameters as the above test (so long as they correct for my 2 complaints) could also be performed on hardened steel plate. The data from all this in conjunction with the data in Dr Williams' book will be enough to draw some general conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 03 May, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Glennan Carnie wrote: | Dan,
Your tenacious belief in the invunerability of plate to arrows obviously winds some people up. What is it about archers that disagrees with you so much? There's a definite feeling in your writing that you believe the archer was very much a second-class citizen on the battlefield |
I don't know how many times I have to say this. Never in the last 10 years have I ever said on any forum that plate was invulnerable to arrows. My contention has always been that the chances of a man being killed from an arrow punching through his plate under battlefield conditions is so low as to be statistically negligible (i.e. it has no influence on the outcome of a battle). Never have I denied the effectiveness of the longbow. My contention has always been that its effectiveness had nothing to do with its ability to punch through armour.
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Auer
|
| Posted: Thu 03 May, 2007 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Folks !!!
i think we have to take the factor "quality" into any calculation...otherwise armours would not have been tested against bolts and "bullets"(don't know the right term in english sorry)...i only know of armour tests with crossbow bolts and firearms, but none with bows...
my 2 cents...killing or disabling a knights infrastructure (say unarmoured or badly armoured knappen servants and even flank protection, is very important. and i as a commander would like to make the life of my enemys best weapon as bad as possible...(i hope you understand my bad english...:-) )
Andreas Auer
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 06 Sep, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just discovered that this paper can now be downloaded for free.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/a...1/art00005
As far as I'm concerned, dispite their flaws, this paper and Williams' book are the only two currently published tests that can be used to study this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the heads up Dan! I've wanted to read that. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic