Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

We nead a Chainmail penetration test!

(1/6) > >>

D. Tiller:
I've been thinking about minimum and maximum penitration and its relation to bow weight with warbows. I've read and been a part of a lot of discusions on bow weight vs penetration of armor and what was the minimal weight necesary to actually do this at military distances with a warbow durring the beginning of its use. I propose we do a test and find out what is the minimum weight of both bow and arrow to penitrate chainmail at 50, 100 and 200 yards.

I think such tests should be done with yew bows pulling in weights from 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 and 120 pounds weight and shooting shafts 3/8ths inch and 1/2 inch in diameter with long bodkin points.  I believe such a test would allow us to determine the lightest weight of bow usable during the nasence of the warbow.

Now all we have to do is find someone who has some chainmail to test on and people with bows in these weight ranges. Whos up for the challenge? Me I only have one 60# bow in yew.

Does anyone know what early shaft diameters where during the birth of the warbow? I would think they were actually smaller than 1/2 inch in diameter.

Loki:
60-80lb Bows are going to struggle with 1/2 shafts,i loosed a livery arrow out of my 75lb (More like 70lb now) Bow and the results werent very impressive  ;D,arrow was far too heavy for me.
This test would allso do for testing accuracy,i presume the Mail is going to be a Hauberk? or Hauberk size? as you know D.Tiller all the relevant undergarments will have to be included to get a accurate discription of the penetration.Then there's the steel used for the armour,can you remember the discussions on the WB forum  ;D,jeez.... ;D

Len:
Hi guys, if your'e talking Norman era then you dont need any padding as there is no evidence for akertons before the mid 12th C. If you're talking about the time of around edward the 1st then you need an arrow that will penertrate the maille plus akerton and also about this time the coat-of-plates was starting to appear so I think the early warbows and arrows couldnt have been much lighter then the Mary Rose ones. However I have seen a 60lb bow destroy maille without paddind at 20 metres.

mnewcomb59:
Just a quick question.. Why yew bows? I thought we all agreed that every wood is equal, just have to design it right. I know that would disqualify some woods that need to be made flat and thin from being a "warbow", but why couldn't you do the tests with ipe, massaranduba or another dense wood that has been proven to withstand the 5:8 ratio?

sagitarius boemoru:
There is indirect evidence of padding worn under chainmail in the norman era. It exists in the form of written account. Anybody cares to post first crusade erata on "Franks" (Normans).
Its either description of one of muslim writers (or perhaps even in the description of normans by Anna Komnena) about "Franks marching through the hail of arrows and not paying any heed to many arrows sticking out of their armour resembling the form of hedgehog" - this is hardly possible without a form of padded thick undergarment.

Also in antic warfare was known "subarmalis" garment - which is preciselly this. Medieval warfare in europe stands  on roman legs. So think. It was known, then it dissapeared and then again magickaly appeared? Hardly. (Taking in consideration continuous use of chainmail since late roman iron age in europe.)


Also - regarding metalography - everytime I get into discussion with one of armour guys about chainmails, they start to rant about how many different "styles" of chainmail exists and how "wrought iron" is superior to that and that....
It does not bear much significance. The chainmail is not constructed to stop piercing damage. Its mesh. Look on the development of spear since migration period through the viking age till 11. century. Does the bell rings? That is the reason everybody used such big shield in the time when chainmail was cutting edge of armour technology.

There is also written accounts of warriors withstanding large number of cutting and smashing blows (Vilem of Kounic took over 100 hits during the battle at Lodenice in 11. century - as counted on his completelly destroyed fox fur coat - the battle itself took place in freezing winter - he was without any wound and he established a church upon his return home) which is not possible without padded undergarment. (Kosmas chronicle)


Such a test does not prove anything in terms how light "warbows" were. D. Tiller - you are just triing to lower the treshold to pass into warbow teritory, but it does not work that way.

When in war you want to do 2 things
1) beat the armour
2) outdistance the enemy

Even if 1) is achieved you still want to shoot over larger distance than enemy archer and also the 1) has to occur with reasonable regularity. Nobody deploys ineffective weapon and stays successfull for long time. This trigers arms race very well.

There are at least 2 examples of 11. century bows which are well over 100# in the cultural area we are speaking of and lots of others at least in 80# range.
Also we have written account in heimskringla (excellently versed actually) of shooting through chainmail (and also that SHIELD is the protection against arrow, not chainmail.


Anyway


“German Infantry Warrior, 1130-1140”. Abteikirche von Andlau im Elsaß.


David and Golias , Master from Tahul 12. century

So unless this sort of undergarment appeared by miracle between AD 1095 and 1150.......Go figure.

Objectives of this test is ultimatelly flaved. It "proves" nothing Also its obvious as Loki pointed out that 70# and 120#  would need different arrow.

J.


(This is for both Len and Loki)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page