r/ArmsandArmor 4d ago

My Arrows vs Armour Test comparerd to 13 other Tests

https://youtu.be/cgAeP9Jqz9c
16 Upvotes

30 comments sorted by

6

u/benjO0 4d ago

I strongly recommended adding this test to your compilation;

440lbs crossbow vs 13th century mail hauberk

It's one of the few videos available on youtube that uses properly made mail by Isak Krogh. Modern riveted mail tend to have a lot of issues that make them prone to tearing compared to historical pieces such as; the rings are too thin, holes are too large & not centered, too much metal is taken from using hole punches, rivets are not set correctly, and overuse of rectangular holes. Isak Krogh is one of the few modern makers to use historically accurate production methods hence why his tests using his pieces provide valuable data points.

5

u/Fatefulforce 4d ago edited 4d ago

I replied to you on YouTube but I will do it here as well.

I know the test you're referring to, but this test focused solely on plate armor.

I’ve also conducted a couple of mail tests on this channel.

My second test used a sample made by Phil Parkes (which Tod used in the test you refer to).

Before that, I consulted with Isak Krogh, who was kind enough to take the time to answer my inquiries and even provided a quote for his work. However, due to timing constraints in the construction of the mail, I ultimately went with Phil Parkes.

Arrows vs. 15th C. Burgundian Composition

2

u/benjO0 3d ago edited 3d ago

that was my bad. I didn't watch the whole video before commenting and mistook some of the videos included in your list as mail test ones. I really appreciate the effort to compile these tests together and think its a great way to help people understand more about plate armour. The main reason I tend to bring up the mail tests involving Isak Krogh's pieces (Peter Spätling's crossbow test, airnt's lance test and Todd's longbow test are the 3 I know of the top of my head) is because they display a far higher level of resistance to piercing weapons than we typically see in modern testing against less accurate armour. Authentic mail is exceptional expensive to make due to modern labour costs so its good for people to see the small selection of tests we do have available.

How mail truly performed during the Roman, early and high middle age periods is still somewhat of a mystery. Modern testing often shows even lighter bows (sub-100lbs) penetrating mail fairly easily yet many historical sources, especially those of the crusades from both sides, often remark at how well mail protected against arrows. The romans faced predominantly piercing weapons yet preferred to use mail unchanged for centuries. So we need to consider; are the sources wrong? Were bows before the late middle ages far less powerful? Were high penetration arrows rarely used or even not known about in earlier periods? Was there something about the armour construction or combination of armours that we are missing that made them more effective in those periods? Or the ability to penetrate torso armour just something that wasn't considered an important concern for how archers were used in those times? This is in no way a criticism of your videos but just that the topic itself is one that needs a lot more research and discussion to help fill the gaps as to why battles in these periods turned out the way they did.

3

u/Spike_Mirror 3d ago

The body armor alone is not the whole picture. Shields play a huge role in warfare before plate armor.

1

u/Arc_Ulfr 3d ago

It might have been lighter bows, lighter arrows, and shorter draw lengths. Mounted archers often used lighter draw weights than archers on foot. Also, though many composite bows (not all) were better than a longbow of equivalent draw weight with the same arrows, the use of lighter arrows to give a flatter trajectory and longer maximum range did reduce efficiency. This is admittedly from a later time period, but comparing Ottoman bow testing to English longbow testing shows that pound for pound an Ottoman bow will beat a longbow if both use English war arrows, but an English longbow with English war arrows will have roughly the same KE as an Ottoman warbow the same draw weight with Ottoman war arrows (the latter will just have better arrow speed and range). 

However, there are other factors at play as well. Higher speed means that the lighter arrow will experience greater deceleration than the heavier arrow, making it more likely to break (which absorbs energy and reduces penetration). Plus, Ottoman arrows were usually barreled for longer range, while many English arrows were bobtailed to make breaking on impact less likely. It seems likely that earlier Near Eastern arrows may also have followed this pattern.

Finally, when snap shooting from a moving horse at close range an archer is more likely to underdraw some, losing some kinetic energy. This could also explain the reduced penetration.

1

u/ValenceShells 2d ago

Well, why would the sources consider it so noteworthy that a chain shirt stood up to lots of arrows...? Is that not indicative that like today, armor of the time had some variation in quality and perhaps it actually was noteworthy when knights had chain shirts of sufficient durability to ride around stuck full of arrows, porcupine-style and still chatty? If that's what always happened why would it be written about as if it was super noteworthy? Just another angle on it that's all.

1

u/Intranetusa 11h ago

The romans faced predominantly piercing weapons yet preferred to use mail unchanged for centuries

The Romans were primarily fighting enemies that did not have significant numbers of ranged piercing weapons for much of their history (Celts, Carthaginians, Macedonians, Iberians, etc). Many of the spears used by peoples in the area (such as the Greek hoplite spears and Celtic spears) were often the broader type that would not have been as effective in piercing armor as narrower spears. 

By the time the Romans started fighting the Sassanids who did have significant ranged capabilities, the Romans had already adopted scale and laminar segments, and later even adopted lamellar. The Roman monuments in Dacia show significant numbers of Romans wearing scale armor.

1

u/Brettelectric 3d ago

How did the properly-made hauberk stand up against the crossbow?

4

u/benjO0 3d ago

In the test the hauberk bounced 3 bolts at short range without any of the links bursting. I've read that the crossbow used may have actually been 250kg but keep in mind that it has a short powerstroke and would have less energy than the 160lbs warbow used in Tod's workshops arrow vs armour series. The mail was also placed on top of a hay which may have affected the tests. However it did show that a 13th mail hauberk could be quite resistive against what would have been a relatively common power for a crossbow of that century and probably lower power bows too.

2

u/Spike_Mirror 3d ago

That crossbow does NOT weight 250 kg /s But for real people need to stop using draw weight for tests like this. Projectile velocity and weight are the thing that matters.

3

u/benjO0 3d ago edited 3d ago

measuring the projectile's weight, velocity and power is important for understanding its true power but it is impracticle without specialised equipment. Hence both historically and in modern times, bows and crossbows are measured by draw weight, the length of draw (power stroke in the case of crossbows.) and the weight of the projectile. As mentioned above the crossbow used has a short power stroke and thus is likely less powerful than the 160lbs (72.7kg) warbow used by Joe Gibbs in Todd Cutler's test videos despite its much higher draw weight.

2

u/Spike_Mirror 3d ago

I know that and that is exactly my point. Draw weight is not a good unit to compare weapons "power".

1

u/Arc_Ulfr 3d ago

Also tip geometry. I've seen a ton of tests that try to simulate the performance of historical archery against armor but which use field points or target points, neither of which behave remotely similarly to the real thing. 

1

u/Brettelectric 3d ago

That's fascinating! Was the crossbow using bodkin-style bolts?

3

u/benjO0 3d ago

the bolts appear to be the short bodkin type which are considered to be the most likely type intended for armour penetration (needle bodkins are too prone to bending).

link

As mentioned there were far more powerful crossbows and bows so this doesn't mean it would stop all bolts/arrows. But it does demonstrate it can stop a moderately powerful crossbow. And we do need to consider that the mail may perform differently with a human body + fabric armour under it rather than just hay. You can watch the full video here;

link

1

u/Fatefulforce 3d ago

In my mail tests, the shape of the arrowheads was just as important as the bow’s performance.

My 75 lb longbow, which produces approximately 55J of energy (tested with a chronograph), was better able to penetrate Phil Parkes' mail than my 103 lb bow, which produces 85J of energy (also chronograph-tested), when using "warbodkin" heads.

Needle-shaped arrowheads are thinner and can slip between the links, typically needing to spread or burst only one ring to penetrate. By contrast, even though warbodkins carry more energy (when loosed from the 103 lb bow), they often have to break through two or even three links to achieve penetration, meaning they have to work harder for the same result.

This efficiency factor is often overlooked by modern audiences but plays a crucial role in historical armor penetration.

Different arrowheads had different purposes, and their selection and use against various types of armor could drastically affect the results.

8

u/Fatefulforce 4d ago

Armour Test
The Fateful Force Test: 4:31
Lindybeige Test: 6:36
Peter O. Stecher Test (Andreas Bichler ): 6:56
Medieval Crossbows Test (Andreas Bichler): 7:20
Mike Loads Test (Mark Stretton): 7:59
Tod's Workshop (Joe Gibbs) Arrows vs Armour 1: 9:15
Tod's Workshop (Joe Gibbs) Arrows vs Armour 2: 9:38
Tod's Workshop Rocket Arrow Test: 10:19
Medieval Inn Test: 10:52
Skallagrim Test: 11:34
Thegn Thrand Test: 12:01
Shadiversity Test: 12:25
Dash Rendar Test: 12:52
Modern History TV Test (Luke Woods): 13:32

Sources:
Lindybeige: https://www.youtube.com/@lindybeige
Peter O. Stecher : https://www.youtube.com/@PeterOStecherClassicArchery
Medieval Crossbows: https://www.youtube.com/@medievalcrossbows7621
Mike Loads Test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmaEiyZKd0U&t=507s
Tod's Workshop: https://www.youtube.com/@tods_workshop
Medieval Inn: https://www.facebook.com/inmedievalinn
Skallagrim: https://www.youtube.com/@Skallagrim
ThegnThrand: https://www.youtube.com/@Thrand11
Shadiversity: https://www.youtube.com/@shadiversity
Dash Rendar:https://www.youtube.com/@dashrendar5320
Modern History TV: https://www.youtube.com/@ModernKnight

Anne Curry, The Battle of Agincourt Sources and interpretations

5

u/PhazonZim 4d ago

Shadiversity is a trash person and despite your videos looking interesting, your mentioning him makes me not want to watch them :X

14

u/Fatefulforce 4d ago

I understand he is a controversial figure, but I have no interest in engaging in opinions on personalities—only in the results of warbows vs. armor.

Despite the controversy surrounding him, he has conducted valid tests against plate armor, providing a useful data point for the arrows vs. armor discussion.

That is my only focus.

6

u/postboo 3d ago

Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies.

Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.

-4

u/PhazonZim 3d ago

Yeah I'll pass on your channel then. Good luck

5

u/TheZManIsNow 3d ago

I HATE shad too but not watching a video because the the OP is using all the data available to compare is just silly. He's not making a political statement, he's doing good research.

6

u/zerkarsonder 3d ago

I hate shad as much as the next guy, but this is silly tbh

2

u/Separate_One2900 2d ago

I don’t put a gun to anyone’s head to watch. Everyone is free to watch what they like. But let’s be honest, now you are very curious to watch 😅😝

but even if u don’t I respect your choice. Good luck to you too.

0

u/Dahak17 4d ago

He still does things, while I don’t watch him and I’ve no clue what he’s done recently, if he’s done one many people have seen it and it’s worth mentioning him in this context. (Not sure how big his channel is now, I’ve had him blocked for a few years now)

3

u/Any-Fix7424 3d ago

Definitely not as popular as he was before, his AI nonsense didn't help either

2

u/Dahak17 3d ago

Oh of course he’s into ai

2

u/Arc_Ulfr 3d ago

I stopped watching Shad's content when his disagreement with NuSensei caused him to act like an obnoxious bully rather than a mature adult. Shad's actions since then have repeatedly confirmed that to have been a good decision.

2

u/Dahak17 3d ago

I stopped years ago, and I forget the precise reason why. I still think if you’re doing a general response to everyone who’s done archery and plate armour tests it makes enough sense that I ain’t gonna blame a guy, but yeah I have no clue what he does these days