Thank you very much for the thoughtful and constructive critique, Matt! Also, thanks for bringing some new viewers to our channel. We'll be looking to acquire more appropriate arrows for a future test (likely on Qing style brigandine, though we'd would also love a rematch against the lamellar at some future time). -Justin & Blake
@kwanarchive
5 жыл бұрын
Peer review in action.
@dace48
5 жыл бұрын
@@kwanarchive Also serious scholars in action, no internet flame wars, no whining or counter videos. Mature discussion and research.
@sherab2078
5 жыл бұрын
Btw. same phenomenon of fixation on energy and momentum is quite widespread in firearms community too. Obviously those carbon arrows tell us nothing about efficiency of historical arrows against historical armor. Perfectly, arrows should be shot by pneumatic launcher, always at the same point of armor (and for every shot there should be a new armor). But this level of "strictness" is not really achiavable, I guess (both, financialy and practicaly). Still, this tell us something about lamelar armor, I think. It is great against one arrow, but when a warrior is showered by a rain of arrows, repeated hits can dent plates, or cut slacing enough to some lucky arrow pass into a gap.
@sherab2078
5 жыл бұрын
@Hauke Holst , of course you are right. I was thinking mainly in terms of single combat/battle. One can do proper repairs or buy new armor between consecutive encounters. Still, I suppose full plate would have much greater longevity, and bruises are still better than an arrow in your lung. ;) And for example plate cuirass was often made such way, that it wouldn't be in direct contact with wearer's body in such areas, as in front of the chest, hence some dents wouldn't be so painful either. And of course with mail, this is yet another story. Anyway, I was refering to lamelar armor alone - I haven't meant to compare it with other types of armor. I think I'm not western- or european-centric, or something. But I believe plate armor was really superior in terms of actual protection, compared to any other types of armor (medieval or older). Best wishses! :)
@Ssatkan
5 жыл бұрын
To be fair, The Way of Archery's video didn't really pose a strong thesis. You guys just said: "What happens if we shoot X at Y?" And that's what we saw. Yes, maybe another question would have been more historically interesting, but you did what you set out to do. By the way, we did see that multiple shots may very well wear down armour and are not that uncommon as they happened a lot as an accident. In my book that's something to have learned.
@charlesdexterward7781
5 жыл бұрын
Is that a Superdry gambeson I espy beneath thy brigandine armor?
@jeffreyquinn3820
5 жыл бұрын
Can't have your men getting chafing under their armour.
@robgoodsight6216
5 жыл бұрын
Hahahahahahhahah...a Japanese brigandine...very dry indeed!
@jeffreyquinn3820
5 жыл бұрын
@@robgoodsight6216 In hindsight I'm rather embarassed I missed that.
@robgoodsight6216
5 жыл бұрын
@@jeffreyquinn3820 ....don't worry.....the brigandine looks really good! You got distracted!
@duchessskye4072
5 жыл бұрын
Funnily enough it isn't much unlike what you'd wear under that kind of a brig anyway. If you look at mid-late 15th century sources (and that brig is a mid-late 15th century style of brig) the garment worn under is often simply a thick doublet.
@robbikebob
5 жыл бұрын
I dream of the day when someone takes 2 ballistic dummies, dresses one in plate and sits him on a model horse and the other in low quality foot soldier armour and they get an archery club to shoot 100 arrows at each. See if any find gaps, how many would hit the horse, see if any lucky shots would find week spots etc. Not just put some plate against a wall and shoot arrow at middle of plate. Frustrates me soooo much 😣
@PJDAltamirus0425
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah.. the center of the a armored chest is basically the worst place for a archer fire a arrow at.
@louiscyfer6944
5 жыл бұрын
the archery club won't even be able to draw the bows necessary for these kinds of tests.
@robbikebob
5 жыл бұрын
@@louiscyfer6944 as mat says, the bows the least important part. They could use modern bows as long as the arrows have the correct weight and heads.
@louiscyfer6944
5 жыл бұрын
rob, he says it doesn't matter what you shoot it with as long as the velocity is right. a modern bow will not shoot a heavy war arrow with the right speed. you do need 100+ lbs draw weight bows. especially if you are trying to test how the arrows work in a more realistic battle scenario.
@robbikebob
5 жыл бұрын
@@louiscyfer6944 well, why don't you just shoot a 100 underweight arrows using vastly inferior bows at my hopes and dreams!!
@ryddragyn
5 жыл бұрын
Often overlooked: the effects of arrows on horses. Both physical and psychological.
@gg2fan
5 жыл бұрын
That's a really, really good point. I've often wondered why arrows continued to even be used when they seem rather ineffective against armor, but I never thought about them as an anti-cavalry thing.
@ryddragyn
5 жыл бұрын
Skylitze The Agincourt primary sources prominently mention how the French horses had become "unmanageable" as a result of the arrow storms, and the whole army was "thrown into disorder".
@PolluxA
5 жыл бұрын
@@ryddragyn Of the 10,000 men-at-arms at Agincourt, only 1200-1800 were, according to plan, mounted. 600 of those were in the rearguard. Only 270-420 participated in the attack, because of the English surprise attack. Either way, only a small fraction of the army fought mounted. Most of them were dismounted.
@ryddragyn
5 жыл бұрын
@PolluxVarangir Speaking from personal experience, an out-of-control horse affects more than just the rider. It affects everyone in the immediate vicinity. A terrified, rampaging half-ton animal in a crowd is an incredibly bad situation. Hence the Agincourt chronicler's words: "The others had their horses so severely handled by the archers, that, smarting from pain, they galloped on the van division and threw it into the utmost confusion, breaking the line in many places. The horses were become unmanageable, so that horses and riders were tumbling on the ground, and the *whole army was thrown into disorder*" deremilitari.org/2013/02/battle-of-agincourt-1415/
@PolluxA
5 жыл бұрын
@@ryddragyn I do not disagree with that at all. Thomas Walsingham said it too "things turned out other than they had hoped. The archers simultaneously shot arrows against the advancing knights so that the leading horses were scattered in that great storm of hail." Likewise did Pseudo Elmham "“But there, the warlike bands of archers, with their strong and numerous volleys, darkened the air, shedding as a cloud laden with a shower, and intolerable multitude of piercing arrows, and inflicting wounds on the horses, either caused the French horsemen to fall to the ground, or forced them to retreat, and so defeated their dreadful purpose.” The continuation of Brute had this to say: “Then the French came pricking down as if to override all our men, but God and our archers made them stumble. Our Archers shot no arrow off target; all caused death and brought to the ground both men and horses.” The Religieux (Monk) of Saint-Denis, had this to say: “Between nine and ten in the morning the admiral of France, Clignet de Brabant, Louis Bourdon and the lord of Gaule were charged to go with 1,000 crack men at arms who had the best mounts to disperse the English archers who had already engaged in combat. But at the first volley of arrows which the archers caused to rain down upon them they turned and fled, to their eternal shame, leaving their leaders stranded in the midst of danger with only a small number of brave hearts.” Many people believe the French men-at-arms at the battle of Agincourt were predominately mounted. They weren't. That's all. Here Sir John Smythe talk about this in 1590. “Besides all which it is to be noted, that horses in the field being wounded, or but lightly hurt with arrows, they through the great pain that upon every motion they do feel in their flesh, vein and sinews by the shaking of the arrows with their barbed heads hanging in them, do presently fall a-yerking, flinging and leaping as if they were mad, in such sort, as be in in squadron, or in troop, they do disorder one another, and never leave until they have thrown and cast their master.”
@BossBattle21
5 жыл бұрын
Matt, are you saying that arrows in most tests ... get the shaft?
@bryceeldridge2741
5 жыл бұрын
Please flag for top comment
@SiriusMined
5 жыл бұрын
:-)
@penzancepirate
5 жыл бұрын
I believe a simple yet very effective similitude to underline the importance of the arrow would be thinking of modern day firearm ammunition. The difference that different types of ammunition make is absolutely enormous (even with same muzzle velocities)
@jacobstaten2366
5 жыл бұрын
Excellent point. "But that AR15 is more deadly than that mini14 because it's not made of wood!"
@Ssatkan
5 жыл бұрын
@Jon Goat Yes, and with bows and arrows the equivalent of that is in the arrow itself, not in the weapon (well the bow kind of provides a maximum length, but...), which makes the arrow the more important part.
@tlsgrz6194
5 жыл бұрын
Well, the quality of your armor doesn't really matter because you're not wearing a helmet. #helmetssavelives
@wazupwolf
5 жыл бұрын
@Радован Кубурић Damn nice, I love this community man.
@chana-ms2cq
4 жыл бұрын
Right. Screw the swordsmiths, the armorers, and the battle-hardened and smart teachers; I put my faith in the playwright and the screenplay and shooting script writer.
@chana-ms2cq
4 жыл бұрын
And if I want to look good while surviving, get me a good post-production editor.
@Cyotis
5 жыл бұрын
I thought he was going to do some tests. Maybe in the future.
@ozlozano9470
5 жыл бұрын
All talk and no blow
@davekingrey1009
5 жыл бұрын
This was a great response video. Not demeaning or harsh criticism and encouraging others to support the channel that made the original video. Matt you are a classy guy.
@IZokoraI
5 жыл бұрын
Everytime I hear the word 'archers', I expect a bunch of bowmen instantly appearing out of the nowhere.
Will they immediately shoot at the Greeks whenever John Rhys Davies calls for them
@mitcharcher7528
5 жыл бұрын
We do that, from time to time.
@pd4165
5 жыл бұрын
I was going to say... Zulus... Fahzands of 'em
@pd4165
5 жыл бұрын
Maybe, one day, I will.
@morallyambiguousnet
5 жыл бұрын
I'm reminded of the Mythbusters' experiment in which they were firing bullets into water. Rather remarkably the larger, slower rounds penetrated more deeply into the water than did the high velocity ones, which essentially exploded on contact with the water. You can deliver the same kinetic energy in different ways and have widely varying results on the target, based on how that energy gets transferred.
@pd4165
5 жыл бұрын
I saw that episode and thought So you're fine taunting a company of riflemen, but NEVER, EVER, rile a British officer enough for him to get out his Webley* *not a euphemism ;-P
@nirfz
5 жыл бұрын
There was a site once called "theboxotruth.com" where a retired guy and his friend tried out different things with firearms. They made a wooden frame in which they put sheets of drywall and filled the room between them with different things. (The spacing was around 10-12 cm if i remember correct.) And they found out through how many of "chambers" different bullets would go. With sand they only needed 1 such "chamber" and everything from .223 to .308 out of rifles as well as 9mm or 45ACP were stopped by not even 15cm of sand. The pistol rounds made it to the back of the chamber and made dents into the sheet of drywall, while the high velocity rifle rounds desintegrated pretty early.
@EthanPDobbins
5 жыл бұрын
But fast bullets penetrate steel better than slower heavier bullets.
@kevingooley9628
5 жыл бұрын
@@nirfz yep! I suppose that why we still use sandbags. Dirt is a real b***h to try and shoot through.
@nirfz
5 жыл бұрын
@@kevingooley9628 Yes, and they are cheap and versatile. ;-)
@ValendianCrafts
5 жыл бұрын
With that Leeds black brigandine, you remind me of Runt from Kingdom Come Deliverance. :)
@CoffeeSnep
5 жыл бұрын
This changes the game right here.
@petersmythe6462
5 жыл бұрын
"I myself don't have a heavy bias." That's not true. You are biased in favor of *context.*
@chengkuoklee5734
4 жыл бұрын
Positively biased.
@MisterKisk
5 жыл бұрын
Justin Ma is an awesome archer. He can ambidextrously shoot a 115 lb bow (specific one he shot in a video was a bow based off of frescoes in Serbian monasteries). Look up The Way of Archery on Facebook, and look for the video he posted on March 10th of this year.
@TheAegisClaw
5 жыл бұрын
Spot on Matt, as an archer for almost 30 years (all disciplines), most people have been getting the arrow and particularly the arrow head wrong. I had this discussion on Thrand's tests and he and the bowyer who made the bow and the arrows just didn't seem to get it.
@PolluxA
5 жыл бұрын
The first thing people have to do when they test bows against armour, is to use the right metal. Modern steel is not equivalent to medieval steel. Modern medium carbon steel have a VPH of 320 when it's air-cooled. Medieval medium carbon steel armour have a VPH of around 240-260. Most of the armour we have from the late 14th C and early 15th C is actually wrought iron and low carbon steel with a VPH of around 130-229, with most around 150-189. When I say most I mean 65.4 %. Modern mild steel is not an analog to this. Mild steel is equivalent to air-cooled medium carbon steel. Quenched modern medium carbon steel represent less than 11.5 % of the armour they had. Medieval air-cooled medium carbon steel represent around 23 % of the armour they had. Test what they had. Not just the best.
@andreassjoberg3145
5 жыл бұрын
Since a lot of old steel was surface-hardened and that thin layer rusted away, the outer surface of old armor was likely a bit harder than we give it credit for. Tests should best be repeated against multiple versions of same armor, denoting poor or superior quality of period, as well as modern steel to find the worstcase svenario which we know for sure is beyond period ability.
@PolluxA
5 жыл бұрын
@@MalcolmPL We have tests against 1.15 mm plate with a VPH of 206 as average (max 221, min 191) and 1.95-2.00 mm with a VPH of 180 as average (max 187, min 170). The problem with that test was the kinetic energy behind the arrows. It was only 92 Joules with a lozenge plate cutter head. The short bodkin struck with 86 Joule. Despite this the heavy arrow protruded out on the other side of the 2 mm plate by 16 mm. The short bodkin protruded out on the other side by 9 mm. When these two arrows were shot at the 1.15 mm plate they penetrated to more than 10 cm. What they essentially did was to test what arrows could do at max distance on the battlefield. Mark Stretton have done tests with a 140 lb yew bow. A 102 gram arrow had a velocity of 54.7 m/s at 11 meters distance. This meant that the arrow left the bow with a velocity of 56.2 m/s. By using the Euler/trapezoid method we can calculate how this will be at 70 meters. It's complicated with several thousand calculations, but it can be done if you know how to. At 72 meters a 102 gram arrow will have a velocity of 47.57 m/s and strike with 115.4 Joules. That's with a 7 degree launch angle. With this amount of kinetic energy you will get different results than what they did in their tests. People in general believe that a 2 mm plate is twice as good as a 1 mm plate. That is not the case. If a 1 mm plate takes 100 Joules to penetrate (to get it in percentages) then a 2 mm plate takes 303.14 Joule to penetrate. The percentage increase follows this chart: 1 mm = 100 Joule 1.1 mm = 116.47 Joule 1.2 mm = 133.87 Joule 1.3 mm = 152.16 Joule 1.4 mm = 171.32 Joule 1.5 mm = 191.31 Joule 1.6 mm = 212.13 Joule 1.7 mm = 233.73 Joule 1.8 mm = 256.12 Joule 1.9 mm = 279.26 Joule 2.0 mm = 303.14 Joule In other words, if we reduce the thickness to 1.5 mm, those arrows would have punched through. The only thing we have to do is find out exactly when arrows punch through a 2 mm plate (or 1 mm plate). What we know is that it takes slightly more than 92 Joules with a lozenge bodkin. When you have that you can calculate the rest. Alan Williams did some tests with a square arrowhead for his book, The Knight and the Blast Furnace. He found that it takes 55 Joules to penetrate a 1 mm plate with a fracture toughness of 235. Medieval steel have a fracture toughness almost identical to their VPH value, so we can use that to make some educated and very accurate assumptions. The formula goes like this: 55 * 2^1.6 * 180/235 = 127.7 Joule According to him a 2 mm plate of this quality takes 127.7 Joules to penetrate. Here we have to use the short bodkin for comparison. The short bodkin struck with 86 Joules and protruded out on the other side by 9 mm. 127.7 - 86 = 41.7 Joules. So with 41.7 Joules more and the arrow would have penetrated. That is a reasonable assumption taken into consideration that for a hit to qualify as "penetration" the arrowhead had to go 4 cm in to the plastiline behind the plate. With a 1.5 mm plate that would be 55 * 1.5^1.6* 180/235 = 80.6 Joules Armour was in general not 2 mm thick. Only the center of breastplates and the top of helmets had this thickness. Armour on the limbs were often less than 1.5 mm. The side of helmets and breastplates could be from 1.5 to 1.7 mm.
@PolluxA
5 жыл бұрын
@@andreassjoberg3145 There is only one piece of armour from the late 14th C with surface hardening. The surface have a VPH of 430 and it goes about 0.3 mm in. the rest have a VPH of 110. It's an English great helmet.
@maaderllin
5 жыл бұрын
Talking of very good and unbiased archery channel, I've seen this very good video about a guy who discovered the true way ancient people shot their bows, called Lars Andersen. What I just said was a joke.
@Pyrela
5 жыл бұрын
*catches arrow out of the air and shoots it back*
@penguasakucing8136
5 жыл бұрын
My god, I love brigandine.
@vedymin1
5 жыл бұрын
I would say that this was the "heaviest" kind of armor you could wear every day and put on by yourself easily.
@Askorti
5 жыл бұрын
I agree, they're really sexy.
@CyberJellos
5 жыл бұрын
Brigandine is my favourite armour.
@JustGrowingUp84
5 жыл бұрын
Yes, you could say it's... riveting. :D
@SiriusMined
5 жыл бұрын
@@JustGrowingUp84 very punny! ;-)
@visceralimpactstudios5034
5 жыл бұрын
Therei a fourth crucial factor in weapon vs armor tests: the support and backing for the armor! Too often a solid hunk of wood is used to support the armor. It has zero give compared to a human. Armor backed by an unyielding mass behaves differently from armor backed by a deformable mass.
@johnshepard8387
5 жыл бұрын
Great brigandine ! Where did you get this one ? I'm looking for a nice one.
5 жыл бұрын
There is also recent set of two videos on Tod's Workshop channel about different types of arrow heads (which are better against plate armor, which are better against chain-mail, which are better for hunting): kzitem.info/news/bejne/rpmksaaMaZN1naQ (as you said at around 11:47 yourself).
@jeffreyroot6300
5 жыл бұрын
Annectdotes from travelers to SE Native American villages noticed the hunters lavished the majority of their attention on crafting the best arrows they could, and the longbows were fairly crude afterthoughts by comparison.
@superseantendo
5 жыл бұрын
You should make a shirt that shows you pointing and saying “Context”
@rinflame44
5 жыл бұрын
Or 'Captain Context'
@mikedittsche
5 жыл бұрын
To Samurais: Context
@Lanser1964
5 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure that you are correct that there are only 2 factors the arrow and the armour, just after saying that you mentioned mass and velocity of the arrow, by itself the arrow has no velocity the size type and style of the bow is what imparts the velocity.
@inregionecaecorum
5 жыл бұрын
15th Century style brigandine, my backside, that's studded leather biker armour there.
@CanalTremocos
5 жыл бұрын
OMG1 Mat has gone full Hollywood!
@2bingtim
5 жыл бұрын
If you have x-ray vision you'd know Matt is speaking the truth. Cheap modern versions have mild steel(If you're lucky) or leather plates, often with stupid gaps between them rather than overlapping plates as any authentic brigatine would. Trouble is both the cheap modern rubbish & genuine medieval/modern facsimilies appear identical as brigadines have a cloth/leather covering which obscures the structure. Matt has the means & integrity to own exactly what he describes, whereas film makers have often created myths about medieval armours, usually substituting studded leather("Biker gear").
@2bingtim
5 жыл бұрын
I'd also like to see something analagous to the human torso shot at with arrows for comparison of an unprotected target; as a control. Ballistic gel is'nt that close as it's designed for bullets rather than usually edged arrowheads at much lower velocities.
@Curaissier
5 жыл бұрын
Please tell me you are taking the p###. That is definitely a brigandine and he does a separate video on it.
@CapnLan
5 жыл бұрын
My God, Matt. Good points but you repeated each one four times. Having taken your whack at TV documentary makers' bias, was it necessary to natter on to fill a 20~30 minute KZitem slot? Make the key points in 5~10 then send a couple of typical arrows into brigandine, gambeson and plate. Would a brigandine maker provide a 10"x10" sample for a demo?
@audun7517
5 жыл бұрын
Also, how come they don't simulate the momentum of a galloping horse when penetration testing armor?
@gaiusbrutus7174
5 жыл бұрын
you look good in that brigandine should wear it a lot more in videos
@Psiberzerker
5 жыл бұрын
Occam's Guillotine: Deciding the conclusion, and then looking for the evidence to "Prove" it (Excluding anything that may contradict it) is like cutting off your own head, so that you don't have to shave.
@curiouslizard
5 жыл бұрын
In firearms this is referred to as internal ballistics, that is what occurs in the firearm; external ballistics, what occurs during flight and terminal ballistics, that is what occurs at the point of impact. As you point out, terminal ballistics are what count. Love your channel.
@pd4165
5 жыл бұрын
Going to say It's holistic. If you're in Arnhem in late 1944, and being rounded up by Tigers (supported by infantry), what you need is discarding sabot (or hesh). Which needs an AT gun, possibly in an AFV, to fire it out of. You have lots of ammo for the infantry. But alas. No AT guns. My point? The armour v penetration thang is only of interest on a personal scale - will I cop for it? Battles/wars are what shapes the world and those are settled on a grander scale, though a technological advantage might play a part. An M4 tank (Sherman) was an adequate tank, but not amazing. But when you have 20 of them to every tank the Germans could muster... So the M4 won the war (or T34. Same difference). NOPE! Liberty ships. Coz Detroit is an ocean away from any fighting. NOPE! Flower class sub hunters. I could continue this game, but the real answer is 'it's holistic'. One big machine, made from lotsa parts.
@TyLarson
5 жыл бұрын
I was reading about tests on laminated linen with bows and arrows of different time periods in the Hellenistic world and that advances in arrowheads were probably a big reason for changes in armor styles. Pre first century bce the arrowheads didn't penetrate the laminated linen but later period arrows just punched right through if I am remembering correctly.
@andreassjoberg3145
5 жыл бұрын
I feel that you missed to stress the angle of impact as a factor. Differences between bows and crossbows is the ballistic arc and thus the angle of impact if it hit various points of the armor....at your moment of impact. Otherwise you hit this spot on.
@2bingtim
5 жыл бұрын
Yes, that's as important as anything as arrows striking at angles other than virtually 90 degrees will deflect ot shatter.
@londiniumarmoury7037
5 жыл бұрын
Very interesting, will watch Justin and Blakes video later as well.
@stupidburp
5 жыл бұрын
Both reproduction weapons and armor tend to be different from what was used in the past. Modern materials such as cloth and leather tend to be significantly different in strength and manufacturing methods from historical materials. This makes it really tricky to infer much from modern destructive testing using modern reproductions.
@stupidburp
5 жыл бұрын
@@MalcolmPL Almost no one makes leather or cloth in the same way and tests have shown a large difference in durability between the historical and modern versions of the same basic types of materials. The variability between examples is also an issue but testing is not even starting with accurate data for any example.
@Verdunveteran
5 жыл бұрын
Well said, Matt! Most people seems to tend to forget that the majority of soldiers on a medieval battlefield was not knights equipped with the latest and best armour and weaponry avalible at the time. So while an arrow might not have penetrated one target, it might well have penetrated another depending on arrow type aswell as what kind of protection the different targets were wearing.
@Gilmaris
5 жыл бұрын
The Way of Archery video is longer than yours. But yours have more likes. Which goes to show that it's not all about the length of the video, but how you... use it?
@edi9892
5 жыл бұрын
Actually, the type of bow does matter, especially when matching with an arrow. Many people use modern arrows on historical bows, but they don´t perform near as well as fitting arrows would. An English longbow won´t accelerate as fast as a mongolian recurve/composite bow, or even a modern bow. That means that lighter arrows won´t become faster than regular arrows. I´m pretty sure that bowmakers noticed that there´s a maximal speed and thus tried to make bows that could shoot arrows as heavy as possible in order to make up for the underwhelming velocity... The same is true for early firearms.
@edi9892
5 жыл бұрын
As a side-note: a bit of deformation on the arrow is probably preferable. A blunting tip can prevent glancing off and a bit of flex might prevent shattering on impact...
@CountElectric
5 жыл бұрын
The talk of when armor was used throughout history made me realize perhaps something quite obvious. Armor is still worn in combat today. Wearing a bullet proof vest or other protection certainly doesn't make anyone impervious but it can still save your life. I suspect much as it was throughout history, armor is effective against some types of weapons but not all.
@Rokaize
5 жыл бұрын
CountElectric Exactly. Just look up the US militaries analysis of armor protection. Soldiers wear their helmets, vests, and plates make them much more difficult to kill. Not impossible, but it lowers their chances of death significantly. The US military spends millions of dollars each year to equip every combat marine and soldier with high quality armor. They don’t do it for fun. They do it because it works.
@pd4165
5 жыл бұрын
The British were late to adopt helmets in WW1. There was statistical analysis - the number of men admitted to hospital with head wounds shot (no pun intended - helmets are not bullet proof anyway) up enormously when helmets were issued. And then someone counted the number of crosses in fields, which correlated negatively with hospital admissions. As I partly pointed out - it wasn't the head shots being deflected, it was the falling earth and shrapnel from artillery, a different matter entirely. And, as is pointed out in channels such as this - mail is great against slashing weapons but shit against pointy stuff with inertia.
@braydenj1327
5 жыл бұрын
@@pd4165 "shit against point stuff with inertia" debatable.
@ShazzikinZ
5 жыл бұрын
A good deal of the Hon Kozane scales were nerigawa (rawhide) Which was VERY THICKLY coated with lacquer - It was usually pretty thick Beef hide (about 3-4 mm thick) and coated with lacquer to be up to 6-7mm thick- I've experience in making and handling these scales, so I'm gonna make a section of this type of kozane armor, and shoot it with a bodkin and an "armor killer" and see what happens. I'm probably not going to make a video, but this makes me curious.
@lucanic4328
5 жыл бұрын
Very true, although more often than not they were mixed in the pattern with iron lamellae, coated with lacquer as well. I would be interest to know the result!
@ShazzikinZ
5 жыл бұрын
Luca Nic - Depends on the period, truly- this is why I said “a good deal” - Luckily I’ve already got a few hundred cut, so- Maybe I will film and just send to Matt to do with whatever he wants
@2bingtim
5 жыл бұрын
If you do, please post your results here so we can share your findings.
@jimduggan8314
5 жыл бұрын
He doesn't shoot any arrows in this video !
@DerFauleHund
5 жыл бұрын
A few years ago i have seen a documentary about swords made out of meteorits. These weapons had a mystical reputation back in medieval times. In this documentary they have shown how bad these weapons are and how bad the quality is. My problem with this is, the process in which the sword was producessed, had huge flaws. The sword had flaws on such a basic level that every skilled smith would have seen the flaws right at the begining of his working process.
@flordebattaglia5993
5 жыл бұрын
Armour induces the use of far less nasty cutters, also called armorpiercing heads. A classical trade-off. This is often forgotten... Puts the broad use of mail in perspective. Even if it fails under some circumstances it will keep the worst stuff out and lessen the impact of the rest... If a pitched battle it's to be expected thick gambeson might just enhance the protection enough...
@callumtostevin-hall2044
5 жыл бұрын
Well for that very reason you often see thick quilted defences (usually sleeveless ones) worn on top of the hauberk rather than under it. There is very little evidence for quilted protection underneath maille until the early 14th century.
@elieobeid77
5 жыл бұрын
disappointed that he did not shoot anything
@Matt_The_Hugenot
5 жыл бұрын
With all the trades involved in arrow production and the shear quantity produced arrow production provably reached as close to mass production methods as anything pre-modern.
@davidw6684
5 жыл бұрын
True and (sometimes) impressive for the tools and materials our ancestors had. This is one of the aspects of early (and even modern) warfare that gets little attention: logistics . . . which often includes economics. For a country to have a functioning archery "system" it takes/took significant resources. Not impossible as it was done, but more difficult than many people understand. The end result is what people want to see and they do not see (nor care about) all the work it takes to put joules of energy on a cross section millimeters in size.
@llamawerkz
5 жыл бұрын
So, what kind of arrow head would you use to test against plate, if not a short bodkin?
@pd4165
5 жыл бұрын
Watch. The video. Again.
@beowulf.reborn
5 жыл бұрын
16:08 "Lamellar armourla" :'D
@Agorante
4 жыл бұрын
Am I seeing a revolution on KZitem? To date there have been two major types of KZitem video - individual efforts self financed and big institutional (e.g. BBC, Smithsonian) big budget short movies. Now we seem to be seeing individual youtubers banding together to form long distance over-the-web mini-conglomerates: Skalatrim, Tod, Shad and some others. I suggest you be the leader and set the agenda. You know to keep everything in context.
@cliz305
5 жыл бұрын
TV people want their evidents to support their story? I think this applies to many tv programs, which sadly include news here in the US.
@pd4165
5 жыл бұрын
Everywhere. As my dad told me, when I was a young teenager 'Who gains from this? Everyone is running an agenda.' (What am I gaining from this?)
@MarcRitzMD
4 жыл бұрын
I'd like to add another factor concerning arrow performance: FOC - Front of Center. It is basically the center of gravity of the arrow. It's the percentage of the arrow's mass that is in the front half of the arrow. Pretty inconvenient to measure to be honest when center of gravity can be checked by balancing your fingers on the arrow. But penetration studies (yes, actual scientific papers) have shown that FOC is important for penetration. Further, penetration scales with momentum rather than kinetic energy (but that is from hunting studies, armor may behave differently).
@GamelessOne
5 жыл бұрын
So you think the arrows are important?
@NocKme
5 жыл бұрын
Matt Easton's holistic detective agency
@stewartprice553
5 жыл бұрын
Wonder if he uses his dirk gently?
@voxkoshka
5 жыл бұрын
Wow. I'm really happy that The Way of Archery is taking off! I just hunted them down a few weeks ago RIGHT as I was getting into archery for real (asiatic) and I'm SO pleased to see the interactions!!
@SiriusMined
5 жыл бұрын
I liked this video. I agree with trying to make the tests more historically and scientifically accurate. I just may donate.
@paulpasche7853
5 жыл бұрын
When talking about the arrows, you left out the most important part, the fletching. Without the fletching, you can't get a solid, square hit with the head. Think a sword cut with poor edge alignment. The energy is not focused on the point of impact Also, without the fletching, the accuracy is completely gone. And of course, if the fletching is not HELICAL, which causes the arrow to spin, then that's a real factor on accuracy.
@d.lindsey5583
5 жыл бұрын
Not all armor is equal! Right on! Thanks for pointing that out. Steels and wrought iron do vary in ultimate (strength to rupture) or tensile strength ranging from ( without considering heat treat) 1095 spring steel- 99400 psi , 1040 oil quench steel - 89900 osi, 1030 water quench steel - 76100 psi, 1020 steel - 60900 psi, plane carbon mild steel -- 53700 psi, wrought iron - 34000-54000 psi or about 1/3 to 1/2 the protection of spring steel. For better tests, the strength of the material used would eliminate a lot of the doubts that still exist and should not be too difficult to obtain from an engineer who is also a fan of your videos.
@darthbuzz1
4 жыл бұрын
Really loving your videos. Just out of interest, are you sponsored by Superdry?
@antivalidisme5669
5 жыл бұрын
So glad you're doing a Archery Vs Armour video Matt and so tired of all the braindead bias that USED - Hell yeah!- to be the rule on the YT sphere. As a scientist, more a chemist than a physicist but still, I can't express how much appreciated that you insisted on the arrowhead. Loved Todd's video on the matter by the way. Had to get my Gaston Phoebus facsimile book right after his video! Oh nice Superdry gambeson
@bernieeod57
5 жыл бұрын
From a “Wizard of ID”Comic “Hello Sir Rodney! Can I sell you some arrow proof armor?” Sir Rodney: “No thank you! I already bought some off you last month!” Armored : “Good! Now would you like to buy some armor piercing arrows?” Sir Rodney: “ Wait a minute! Back up here!”
@greatnoblelord
3 жыл бұрын
On what basis is the conclusion made about the high quality of the arrows? Arrows have a fairly small size, which complicates the processing, and increases its cost, arrows are expendable, they can be used by the enemy. Archaeology gives arrows of rather poor quality. But the eastern armor-meaning the Middle East, Russia, Greece, has always been of high quality, in contrast to the Western European armor
@jacobahn9998
5 жыл бұрын
For pre-gunpowder technology (< 1200ish), would a jai alai cesta and lead balls be more effective than a shepherd's sling and bullets or bow and arrows? Athletes of the 20th century have flung leather balls to velocities above that which is expected of typical longbow arrows of medieval England. Not at all musket fast, but still very fast. It looks like it requires less training, can achieve a faster rate of fire, and allows for more ammunition to be carried than for longbows and shepherd's slings. The cesta and lead balls might also be simpler and cheaper to produce than arrows and longbows.
@arwo1143
5 жыл бұрын
High carbon steel (wich can be hardened effectively) was in medieval times, usually more expensive than gold because it was VERY difficult to produce. They knew how to carbonized the outer layer of metal, but a pure high carbon steel was expensive as fuck.
@sirwooley
Жыл бұрын
Another factor is the resistance. If you set the armor up with a piece of wood as a backdrop and mount it to a reinforced base, you are allowing the full momentum of the arrow to impact the target. A physicist, or anyone who has boxed will know exactly what I'm talking about. If I put my hand in the air and you slap it, my hand is free to move and bounce away, so the impact in which you made contact is dramatically less than if you did the same thing to a steel wall, because you were able to transfer ALL of the momentum into it. And while yes, a man will weigh quite a bit on average, there is almost never a point where one stands completely still and dead weights themselves. Instinct might make you brace your body for an impact, you will most likely be in motion in some way while being shot at. I've just never seen someone calculate these things in their tests. I've seen the gelatin FBI ballistics test dummies used and used well, but always keep in mind how much of an impact the little things have because it can be dramatic.
@DrVictorVasconcelos
Жыл бұрын
The reduction of the arrow to its mass × velocity² is alright If you have a really high velocity. If the arrow was going at .2c, then the arrow wouldn't matter. It might as well be an apple, I don't know. But that's not the case.
@Sk0lzky
5 жыл бұрын
I agree on the point of aluminium arrows, actually even carbon fiber would be more suitable, since it's a lot more similar to bamboo which was often used for arrows in China and Korea.
@mace8873
4 жыл бұрын
I'm not a bow and arrows guy. I suck at archery. I'm no authority on the subject, but I do have quite a bit of experience from the special effects business, and that led me to think about what Matt said about the means of delivery being irrelevant. Right off the bat, I'd agree that it doesn't really matter how you deliver an arrow to a target, regarding impact energy and so forth, that's just math. But then again, I'm one of those people who've actually had to deliver an arrow, repeatedly and very accurately to a target, for a commercial (kzitem.info/news/bejne/2WlpnaR7roKSmKQ). Now, because the archer couldn't hit the target in the exact same spot the customer wanted, over and over again - we made some 15 targets or so, and that was our original job - I suggested we build an airgun to do the job, and so we did. We ended up with a roughly 3m long airgun fired from the shoulder, run at about 4 bar if I recall, but what I noticed from the filmed test shots when run in slow motion, was that the arrow didn't flex as much, coming out of a 15mm barrel, as what I've seen arrows do when fired from a bow and filmed in slo-mo, "archer's paradox" and all that. So, I'm wondering, what if an arrow is still wobbling when it hits the armor? Obviously, you'd prefer the arrowhead hitting the armor straight on, with all the weight of the shaft directly behind, and in line with the head, in order to transfer the energy more efficiently to the target; an arrow that is still wobbling around and maybe hitting at an angle, although impossible to see with the naked eye, obviously won't penetrate as efficiently. So can any of you magnificent dudes and dudesses out there tell me at what distance an arrow, preferably a fat-bellied "Mary Rose" war arrow, will stop dancing all over the place, and straighten up its act? Oh, and thanks for all the awesome videos Matt, you're doing one hell of a job.:-)
@justsomeguy3931
5 жыл бұрын
That brigantine rocks. You should do a video about what equipment a Medieval archer would use; which extra weapons and armor it would make the most sense to use, how spare arrows were carried, etc. I wonder if, somewhere in the darkest corners of the interwebs, a debate rages about European vs. Asian bows with the fury of longsword vs. katana and Glock vs. 1911.
@SiriusMined
5 жыл бұрын
21 makers of crap arrows didn't like this video ;-)
@akhasshativeritsol1950
5 жыл бұрын
Tod's workshop just released a really good arrow vs armor experiment video, they really made an effort to make everything realistic and period [Agincourt specifically] appropriate. I highly recommend it
@edwardanderson1053
5 жыл бұрын
BTW do you know about Chinese paper armor, made of layers of laquer and paper, very interesting
@strydyrhellzrydyr1345
3 жыл бұрын
I truly believe it's more about the arrow... And it's tip type. It's funny u bring up the different factors point, right after I type this... But yes, exactly, their are many different variables
@johnhanley9946
5 жыл бұрын
Matt: "This is not a criticism..." *Proceeds to give criticism.* Lol! It's a valid point you made though.
@Marmocet
5 жыл бұрын
Why would archers have shot at breastplates and gambesons when they had less well armoured things to shoot at like faces, armpits, groins, throats and the crooks of elbows? I'm not the greatest archer in the world by any means, but with my medieval style bow, I can almost always place my arrows within an 8" diameter target from 30 yards. I would have a good chance of hitting face at that distance. At 20 yards , I can almost always place my arrows within about 2" of the bullseye. Any closer than that, and I can chew the centre right out of the target. And I just shoot my bow as a casual hobby. Medieval archers would have trained religiously for years, so I think we can be pretty sure they didn't just loose arrows in their enemy's general direction and hope to hit something but could pick specific points on their enemies' bodies and hit them with a reasonable degree of reliability.
@wraith67
5 жыл бұрын
The shape of the arrowhead would be very important, but I think the shaft is minimal. The arrowhead is going to perform according to it's design based on the amount of mass behind it and velocity... provided your arrowheads were the same, the actual performance should be essentially identical if the shafts were the same weight regardless of material; the velocities should be nearly identical, except that a big fat arrow will probably drag more than something skinnier with a smoother surface...but I don't think that would be terribly apparent in a 20 yard shot.
@elviejodelmar2795
4 жыл бұрын
The approach of testing arrows against armor has an incorrect -- and too narrow -- focus. The fact is that The long bow was used from the 13th well into the 16th century (Mary Rose). Kings didn't spend money on a whim, so the questions should be more holistic, "What did the long bow contribute to a battle and how were archers employed? And, when did the long bow cease to be used and what were the changes that led to that to that change?"
@Robert399
5 жыл бұрын
Are those short, chisel-like bodkins effective against gambesons? I was under the impression (based on tests, I'm not just making this up) that you needed cutting edges to be effective against gambesons, otherwise it's like trying to push an actual chisel through a duvet.
@77gravity
5 жыл бұрын
If I had a castle, and was stocking it for defense, I would have different quality arrows for different tasks. The more expensive arrows would only be used against armoured targets, and the cheaper arrows used more often against the lesser-armoured targets (foot soldiers). It does not make sense to use expensive arrows in situations where cheaper ones will do, nor to waste good arrows that might be needed later against tougher targets. And I'm nothing special, I'm sure many people know more about castle defense than I do, but if I can think I this, I'm sure they would too.
@jacobstaten2366
5 жыл бұрын
7:00 This is why I scratch my head with people afraid of "assault rifles" or sawn off shotguns as opposed to "normal" rifles or shotguns. A mini14 shoots the same round as an AR15, but is made out of wood, so it's less scary. The shorter shotgun won't have a much wider pattern and will lose velocity faster than a regular shotgun.
@sethduffey9538
5 жыл бұрын
Very 👍. Spot on. Except no matter how good the ,projectile, you still need to leave the bow.. Cant have one w out the other.. A flimsy bow or bad tension on the crossbow and all you have is hurling insults... Lol Cheers.
@MarcRitzMD
4 жыл бұрын
I've never seen penetration tests on IRON armor. I would love to see penetration tests against lower quality plate armor.
@wilsoncalhoun
5 жыл бұрын
It's obvious in retrospect, but I've never noticed before now how much the brigandine resembles an OTV or SPCS.
@d.lindsey5583
5 жыл бұрын
A word about arrows, I have shot hundreds of arrows in my youth ( 1959), all wooden arrows Cedar I believe. With a low draw weight less than 29 lbs,. If the arrow hit a hard object like a rock, a piece of hard wood or a steel post the shaft would frequently (every time on steel) shatter and split longitudinally or more often across the arrow at a steep angle if the grain was not Perfectly aligned with the axis of the shaft. I have no idea of the reduction in force allied to the armor when that happened.. But a simple test would be able to do so with a lifting weigh and non returning pointer..
@qimingzhang3940
5 жыл бұрын
I don't understand why don't the bow matter. We don't care if a cannon fired arrow could do something to medieval armor, do we? Like if we are talking about 200j out of an arrow, it is really meaningless because sure if you fire some crazy bow to get 200js but what does it matter if no bow can really fire at that j?
@dwargonedragon794
5 жыл бұрын
Archery is used for killing in ancient times because people aren't wearing much armor. Starting early medieval, it's mostly used at middle to close range, with the goal of injuring the opponent. That's why you can mostly see medieval paintings depicting them fighting beside infantry. Mongol horse archers are very effective at this as they can get close, shoot arrows and hurt the horses or the riders, and the heavy lancers finishing them off.
@Jay-ln1co
5 жыл бұрын
"...for penetrating mail..." [snickering at the back of the class intensifies]
@strydyrhellzrydyr1345
3 жыл бұрын
Exactly... And it seems.. people still haven't went all out. And got different types of arrow head types. I see everyone trying random results still. To this day
@LessAiredvanU
5 жыл бұрын
I had a discussion a few weeks back on a KZitemrs channel where he was using arrows copied from those recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose. I had said that they did not look "hefty" enough to work against the breastplate he was using as the test subject, to which he countered that they were correct by length and weight (= mass) to that found among the Mary Rose inventory. As it was his channel I allowed the debate to slide, but I was concerned that the arrows on a ship of war would not be necessarily the same as used on the field of battle - the archers would not have expected to meet heavily armoured opponents, but rather packed masses of men attempting to board or repulse same. It was the kind of skewed demonstration I think you are referring to, as the arrows performed poorly against a modern reproduction breastplate (many arrows shattering). I must admit that the type of arrowhead was not indicated, nor that I thought to make that point also. Anyhoo, I think my experience shows how bias can unintentionally be introduced into the subject of bow vs armour.
@virgosintellect
5 жыл бұрын
Needs a rotational beveled, prying, can opener shaped broadhead, tanged with three times the common weight. Forward momentum behind the least number of friction bearing surfaces, fluted, tri lobed tips were effective in smallsword, lances, Rondel daggers and arrows.
@mrpirate3470
5 жыл бұрын
Great video. Robert Hardy's book 'Longbow' has some excellent equations and technical information in the appendices [p222] :)
@carterlewis487
3 жыл бұрын
I notice that often to say that something must have worked, you refer to the history of use and investment in a device. Dowsing rods have been used pretty much forever, and have had tons of investment put into them, including by quite a few militaries, even those actively at war and using them. Perhaps, it's worth thinking about the fact that sometimes people are stupid?
@carlahlers8991
3 жыл бұрын
I guess it's interesting what a bow does to armor in a direct fire scenario, which all these tests seems to be. If an archer is shooting directly at an armored knight (or even a well armored halberdier, or even lightly armored troops) something has already gone seriously wrong (from one side or the other). A better test would be massed archery (maybe get 20 guys to shoot longbows at 100 yards) at an infantry target or horse target. The angles would be totally different (for example, the ridge on the breastplate does less to protect the neck if the arrow comes from the top) for one, the velocity of the arrow would be different, you could get an idea of hit rate when the archer shoot at an area, etc. Horse armor could also be looked at to address the comment about "shooting the horse out from under the knights".
@QT5656
5 жыл бұрын
What Matt says about arrow heads also applies to teeth. Experiments on bat teeth suggest that teeth with edges leading from the tips improve penetration of certain materials (e.g. different types of insect cuticle and fruit skin). These edges can also be found in lizards, marine reptiles, big cats, and a range of other animals.
@jello788
4 жыл бұрын
I have a nooby question. Why was full plate archers not a thing? We see them in games like Vindictus but this channel said it was impossible. idk why?
@jacobstaten2366
5 жыл бұрын
A lot of these tests take how far an arrow will go as it's range and do the test at point blank range, then assume it will perform just as well at a distance regardless of velocity lost.
@Dugout97
4 жыл бұрын
Concur. It's like someone doing modern ballistic tests on plates/kevlar and focusing on the gun vs the bullet type and its velocity.
@tjakal
5 жыл бұрын
doubt it'd affect the physics of a clean impact in any meaningful way but shooting a arrow from a bow and from a air-cannon def alters the behavior of the missile in flight as you don't get that swimming motion of the spine bending. I have a hunch that the angular inertia of the bow launched projectile vs the air-cannon one prob contribute to how it'll perform at more glancing angles.
@arnijulian6241
4 жыл бұрын
I love non engineers and/or fabricators talking about steel production. its like watching a baby trying to walk but it just keeps falling over. its adorable.
@Randerggan
5 жыл бұрын
The thing is that most people that test arrows vs armor don't apply the scientific method on them. Trying to prove that you're right is exactly what you shouldn't do in those cases. People should apply the scientific method and try to prove how wrong their hypothesis is, and if it stands against the tests, then it's right. Of course there could still be some bias, so you have to come up with test for every point where your hypothesis could fail.
@andreasgiallouris5185
5 жыл бұрын
How do you clean the brigandine's plates though?
@amindofiron
5 жыл бұрын
They're generally exposed on the back side, so that side of the plates can be cleaned and oiled easily. the side facing the leather on the front is in constant friction contact with the leather (which is generally slightly oily from the tanning process) and that contact causes a sort of self polishing effect, similar to how brake pads self polish your rotors when you stop. Hope that helps.
@AudieHolland
5 жыл бұрын
If you're rich, you send it to the blacksmith who will disassemble it and clean each plate seperately.
@strydyrhellzrydyr1345
3 жыл бұрын
Ok kool. I'm glad I'm thinking straight about the head shape mattering. . . A LOT
@4stringedninja
4 жыл бұрын
A question regarding your point on the bow not really mattering, doesn't the drawweight affect the power of the impact of the arrow a lot? Or is the drawweight moreso affecting the distance the arrow is able to travel?
Пікірлер: 380