Steel Armour v. Arrows (A Request To Stephen Selby)

[TheAzn]

As some of you might know, I was planning on building a crossbow. I was planning to test the crossbow to find out about its performance, but it now seems like I cannot finish it.

So I would like to ask Stephen to do something for me: can you please build and test a 350 lbs crossbow with a 23-inch draw length and 60 grams bolt?
I know that you, like me, have things to do. However, you can have a much easier time since you have:

1. A sufficient amount of tools to quickly build a crossbow, even if you start from scratch.
2. But you are not starting from scratch; you already have the stock and the trigger mechanism; all that you need to do is to build the simple spring-leaf prod.

????????????..
Here is my request:
1. I want to see if the Chinese Crossbow can penetrate a 2 mm Low Steel plate at the distance of 280 -310 meters. The steel plate would be reinforced with leather and 2 layers of clothing You might say that this experiment should not be performed, since it would be unnecessary; the crossbow would definitely not penetrate at that distance. If you thought that way, then please watch the video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJokpxvMmvA
As you can see, the crossbow might have been of newer technology and was shot at a close distance, but it was around 275 lbs, which is lesser than a 350 lbs crossbow by a significant 75 lbs. The elephant, with its rib cage and mass, is probably also better at withstanding penetration than a man in armor. So please, do the experiment; the result might be surprising and would prove a lot of things.

2. I want to see if you can shoot 8 or probably even 9 shots a minute with the Chinese Crossbow. If you think that this is too high, then have a look at the video below. The Crossbowmen can fire 6 shots in 51 seconds, meaning that he should have been able to fire 7 shots per minute. Now, as you can see, his crossbow does not ?click? back ?automatically?; the Chinese Crossbow, as what you have already explained, can be ?click? back by just pulling on the string. This is why I think the Chinese Crossbow can have a significant advantage in the rate of fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs

3. You are a very reliable and professional person, Stephen. I would like you to post this on Youtube; you would be the first person to reliably demonstrate the performance of the Han Chinese Crossbow.

Thank you for your time reading this, Stephen.

[Stephen Selby]

To answer simply: to build and possess a crossbow that could achieve what you propose would be a serious criminal offence in Hong Kong. So the answer must be 'no'.

[Bede]

I like Stephen am restricted from making a crossbow. Legally I would require permission from the Police Commissioner to own or make a crossbow. Different states in Australia have different laws.

The target is also an interesting idea. I have a report of some Han iron armours from 140-49 BC. It was in Kaogu, 1975, Vol. 4 pp. 249-258. Several incomplete armours were found in pits at Ershijiazi near Huhehot in Inner Mongolia.

The scales from the armour were made of a low carbon steel (0.1 to 0.15 %) which had been well worked and had some surface carbonisation (case hardening). The scales in some cases were springy and slightly curved. The lacing patterns would have created overlaps on where the scale were laced together horizontally and vertically. This meant the areas near the lacing holes were effectively double thickness. The scale thickness varied from 1-2 mm.

[Hyarmendacil]

1. I want to see if the Chinese Crossbow can penetrate a 2 mm Low Steel plate at the distance of 280 -310 meters. The steel plate would be reinforced with leather and 2 layers of clothing You might say that this experiment should not be performed, since it would be unnecessary; the crossbow would definitely not penetrate at that distance. If you thought that way, then please watch the video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJokpxvMmvA
As you can see, the crossbow might have been of newer technology and was shot at a close distance, but it was around 275 lbs, which is lesser than a 350 lbs crossbow by a significant 75 lbs. The elephant, with its rib cage and mass, is probably also better at withstanding penetration than a man in armor.

I really don't understand how an elephant's skin and flesh would have been able to withstand penetration better than a man in armour. No matter how tough elephant hide might be, steel is even tougher pound for pound, even more so if properly backed/padded with cloth. Let's not forget that humans have rib cages, too, with the ribs much more closely spaced than an elephant's, and penetrating that is going to be a tall order for a crossbow bolt that has been slowed down dramatically by the steel and padding it would have had to penetrate before it could even break the skin. Another problem is that the best kind of arrowhead for penetrating metal (a conical pile/bodkin) was not the type best suited for penetrating fabric, skin, and, flesh (sharp-edged broadheads) and armour designers seemed to have deliberately exploited this property.

Of course, the range is also a bit unrealistic. At such a distance the crossbowman is going to have a lot of trouble hitting a man-sized target in the first place--and even if he scored a hit, 280 meters is plenty of space for the bolt/arrow to lose its energy to friction and drag along the way. A projectile that could have penetrated steel armour with a square-on hit at close range would probably have just bounced off at 280 meters.

Incidentally, Leo Todeschini--a famous maker of European crossbows--have been doing some penetration tests with (much) heavier European arbalests, which he reported here if you're interested.

2. I want to see if you can shoot 8 or probably even 9 shots a minute with the Chinese Crossbow. If you think that this is too high, then have a look at the video below. The Crossbowmen can fire 6 shots in 51 seconds, meaning that he should have been able to fire 7 shots per minute. Now, as you can see, his crossbow does not ?click? back ?automatically?; the Chinese Crossbow, as what you have already explained, can be ?click? back by just pulling on the string. This is why I think the Chinese Crossbow can have a significant advantage in the rate of fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs

You seem to have conflated two different kinds of Chinese crossbows. There was the heavy general-purpose crossbow, which could have easily reached draw weights of 350 pounds or so, but they wouldn't have been appreciably faster to load than comparable European crossbows since they used the same spanning mechanism (by hand or with a belt-hook). There was also the repeating crossbow, which could conceivably loose some ten shots per minute, but it was much weaker and often had to use poisoned heads to be really effective. You also need to clarify what you mean by "clicking back" automatically; if what you mean is simply that the crossbow nut would lock the string in place once the string was drawn past it, most European crossbows had this feature too, though the mechanism was different from that used in the Chinese--so, once again, this was not a mechanical difference that would have made Chinese crossbows shoot considerably faster (though they wouldn't have been slower either).

[Bede]

I think some very good points have been made here, but some extra information may help.

From discussions I have had with people who have made Han-style crossbows, they are much more efficient at transferring energy than comparable weight late European crossbows. This does not mean that they were super weapons. It just means you cannot directly compare European and Chinese crossbows by weight to see how far they would fly. Han Chinese crossbows had a force draw profile closer to hand bows.

Rate of fire is complicated when referring to heavy weight Chinese crossbows because the string was drawn by sitting down and putting both feet on the bow and pulling the string back with both hands. There is no way this can be done quickly. Eventually the Chinese thought it was better to have specialists drawing the bow and someone to hand it to the actual shooter.

Crossbow tactics were perfected in the Warring States period when the main enemies were other Chinese infantry armies. Chinese infantry at that time was armoured and well protected by shields (with the possible exception of the Qin who apparently did not like shields). Against a mass of well armoured infantry, long distance harassment was not a productive exercise except to restrict foragers and light infantry. Crossbows were used as a medium range weapon and a volley of heavy arrows could do a lot of damage. At close range they were disadvantaged because reloading was difficult even with other troops protecting them from being overrun.

The purpose of broadheads is generally to cause massive bleeding and a quick death. This is very effective hunting, but in battle you only need to incapacitate your enemy. A wounded soldier needs two people to carry him off the battlefield if there is a medical service and he gets in the way if he is just left.

Obviously the use of weapons is determined by the ground that is being fought over.

[ginni]

Incidentally, Leo Todeschini--a famous maker of European crossbows--have been doing some penetration tests with (much) heavier European arbalests, which he reported here if you're interested

I didnt understood rightly? 850 lbs bow, 65 g bolt, 1,6 mm steel plate???
How is possible such low performance?
I am sure I can shot with my bow (65 lbs pulled at 85 lbs probably) trough this plate anytime.
I shot trough 1,2 mm plate with brass bullet point.
Here some pics with 2,5 mm low carbon steel plate and bodkin:





[/quote]

[Stephen Selby]

It is true that many people don't understand the penetrating power even from a simple bow at 60-80lbs with a pointed arrow. The properties are quite different from gun bullets. Bullet-proof glass on a car can't stop an arrow (although the arrow would not penetrate far.)

But as in your example, to do real damage the arrow must penetrate far. It must penetrate far enough to pierce vital organs after being deflected off bone or through gristle and muscle. A point which can deliver poison could be effective; but as you see from your test, a small layer of silk under the armour could prevent much penetration into flesh.

I have also not referred to the need for the arrow to hit the metal at a perfect angle. Most armour was designed so that such a perfect angle would not be presented to the archer.

Alternatively, a large enough head to cause severe bleeding will work; but it is not likely to be able to penetrate armour.

A realistic test using a leg of pork, with 1.5mm or forged steel armour over 2mm of leather over 2 mm of silk would be a realistic test of the lethal power of a bow or crossbow. I think the impact would throw the victim back, reducing the penetration of the shot further.

[redhawk]

Most people are still assuming that the string of a 60lbs- bow has to bear nothing more than 60lbs.
A bow is a leverage tool, depending on the design and type of bow you need a string 3- 7 times heavier than the drawweight.
That?s the power of a bow(crossbow)
Michael

[Adam Karpowicz]

"forged steel armour " - that is the key. The hardness of the plate (and the arrowhead's) is critical in these tests. Modern cold rolled steel is a closer approximation for forged armour, not the much softer hot rolled steel. If the penetration with this (relatively) light weight bow was that much in the 2.5mm plate, then the plate was probably hot rolled.

The quality of forged iron varied as well, together with the thickness, depending on the location of the armour on the body.

Adam

[Bede]

To expand on what Adam said, there was also a great variation in the quality of steel and iron used in armour in the past. I have seen several studies of mediaeval European and Islamic mail that record that there was no hardening and significant inclusions of slag. The high quality plate armour of the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance was both expensive and rare, but accidents of survival have made it statistically more significant than it was when in use. It is the same phenomenon that makes 17th century wooden plates much rarer than 17th century silver plates. Old wooden plates are firewood. Old silver plates are heirlooms.

The study of penetration of armour by arrows is still in its infancy. Unfortunately, some academics are quite prepared to take limited studies as definitive when instead they are pointers to the way of studying the subject.

In conclusion, if you wanted to shoot a prince, you would wait until he put his visor up and shoot him in the face. If you wanted to shoot an ordinary infantry man, wait till he raised his arm for a sure shot or just shoot a lot of arrows and hope one will get through.

[jack farrell]

Mongols had coats with large leather scales flopping loosely on the inside. One in the Silk road display HMNS, another survivor in a collection in Japan. A loose item is very hard to penetrate.

[Bede]

Jack is right. When Mark Stretton did his tests with 150 pound longbows he used a brigandine coat (small scales on the inside). In his first test, he had the coat on his target (a recently deceased pig) worn loosely and he did not achieve full penetration to the body through the armour. Later, when advised that in Europe brigandines were worn tightly like the contemporary clothing, he tested them again and could pierce them easily.

It is worth noting that Qing brigandine armour was designed specifically to rest loosely on the body. This suggests the Manchus understood this feature of armour design. Several armours shown in recent catalogues as Mongol are actually later Qing armours. The Mongol Banners seem to have been equipped with Manchu bows and Manchu armour.

[osmiu]

When we discuss penetration tests , some of my romanian colleagues talk about old hardened body armour . But I just don't believe that in the past were used such hardened body armour . I just can't believe that . Anybody that hardened a tip , a knife or anything knows how hard it is this process . How you possible can hardened a big and verry thin piese of equipment like an armour ? How you bring a such thin plate to a uniform temperature in the first place ? What you use to measure temperature ? How big is your heat chamber ? What is your steel composition ? It is suitable for hardening ?
Hardening a thin body armour is a challenge even today , with quality steel . In the distant past , I think it was impossible . Is nothing like hardening a blade or a arrow tip . It is a different matter . My oppinion .

[Bede]

The comments about hardened armour are based on scientific tests of real dated pieces. Small sections are cut out, etched to bring out the crystal structure and examined under a microscope. Experts can usually tell the processes necessary.

Case hardening was well known in the Middle Ages in Europe. The Chinese were already removing carbon from cast iron and re-adding it to change the surface into steel (for arrowheads and hand weapons) in the late Warring States Period 2300 years ago.

Our ancestors were very talented. Just because we do not know how they did something does not mean we can disregard the evidence they have done it.

[Stephen Selby]

Osmiu has a point: it was hard and expensive to harden steel. The Chinese used hardened bronze for weapon blades, but never got into using it for armour. It can't have been cost-effective in large quantities. The Chinese held that leather and silk were the best option.

The Ruzhen (Jin) in the 10th century CE were keen on heavy steel armour and they were quite effective for some time; but the Mongol/Turkic alliance finished them off quickly enough.