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

osmiu · Post by **osmiu** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:31 am

yes ... the steel must have the martensite structure . but , like I said already , is not the same thing to hardened o tip of an arrow or a verry thin and large piece of steel .
try to heat a large 1 mm steel plate with a blowtorch , and you will see that as you advance , the steel behind the blowtorch it will cold itself already . this is not happening with a sword blade for instance . or an arrow tip .
to hardened a big piece of body armour , a special heat chamber must be used . the steel must be put to even temperature . and , how you cold it ? it is nothing like hardening a blade .
I do not think that our ancestors reach some kind of technologies to hardened body armour . And I don't heared about hardened body armour evidence . I heared about different qualities in armours , but not about hardened one .

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:14 am

I think there are some publications put out by the Metropolitan Museum of Art 20 or 30 years ago on Milanese and Austrian armour. There is also 17th century Japanese text on how to make armour which has a description of forge welding hard and soft steel plates together to make breast plates.

Most of this kind of work happened after the beginning of the fifteenth century. Perhaps it is outside the period you are studying.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:35 pm

I would think that too much has been made of steel armor. Just because some fine sets have been found in high prestige burials does not mean that the average fighters had access to such items. Just the transporting of such items would require an extra mount. Maybe that horse would be needed for a fresh spare.

What of the expense of such armor? Its value in its time would preclude it being common.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:30 am

This is an explanation of testing armour with a crossbow and the method of cold forging manufacture of armour in the Song Dynasty, from Shen Gua <夢溪筆談>:

青堂X善鍛甲，鐵色青黑，瑩徹可鑒筆發，以麝皮為X旅之，柔薄而韌。鎮戎軍有一鐵甲，
X藏之，相傳以為寶器。韓魏公帥涇、原，曾取試之。去之五十步，強弩射之，不能入。嘗
有一矢貫扎，乃是中其鑽空；為鑽空所刮，鐵皆反卷，其堅如此。凡鍛甲之法，其始甚厚，
不用火，冷鍛之，比元厚三分減二乃成。其未留X頭話不鍛，隱然如瘊子。欲以治驗示鍛時
厚薄。如浚河留土X也。謂之「瘊子甲」。今人多于甲札之背隱起，偽為瘊子，雖置瘊子，
但無非精鋼，或以火鍛為之，皆無補于用，徒為外飾而已。

Yang Hong gave some specifications in his "Weapons in Ancient China" p. 276.

Hyarmendacil · Post by **Hyarmendacil** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:40 pm

Bede wrote: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.

On the other hand, European crossbows of similar dimensions to Chinese ones could and often did have much heavier prods. If we do a simplistic algebraic comparison of draw-weights and the lengths of power strokes, Tod's 850lb crossbow would have been roughly equivalent to a 200-ish pound Chinese crossbow with four times the draw stroke (draw length minus brace height), which I suppose would have had a pretty similar size (although it probably took more space due to longer prods and the position of the string at the cocked position)? European crossbows also seem to deliver more sheer penetration at short range, too, although their less aerodynamic bolts lost energy more quickly at longer ranges. But then the Chinese didn't have to deal all that much with plate armour.

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.

Interestingly, the Italians developed a similar system, too--each team had a pavisier to protect the rest from enemy missiles (and sometimes from infantry rushes and cavalry charges too), a leader who actually shot with the crossbow, and one or two assistants who kept spare crossbows and reloaded spent ones. The formation was probably somewhat less mobile than the Chinese, though.

At close range they were disadvantaged because reloading was difficult even with other troops protecting them from being overrun.

Couldn't the crossbowmen simply have waited until the enemy got close and then unleashed a massive point-blank volley before charging into the now-disorganized enemies? I had the impression that this was why crossbowmen (or archers?) were armed with modao in the Tang era....

Hyarmendacil · Post by **Hyarmendacil** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Stephen Selby wrote: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.)

On the other hand, tests performed with Renaissance pistols and full-sized Spanish muskets show that their armour-piercing performance was often better than modern handgun bullets, especially in the muskets case. After all, if a weapon that heavy could still give such a horrible recoil, then the ball on the other end of the action-reaction equation must have carried one hell of a lot of energy as it left the barrel. Considering the size of some Turkish and Manchu firearms, their performance against armour would probably have been just as impressive! (Or not if you're on the receiving end.)

jack farrell wrote:I would think that too much has been made of steel armor. Just because some fine sets have been found in high prestige burials does not mean that the average fighters had access to such items. Just the transporting of such items would require an extra mount. Maybe that horse would be needed for a fresh spare.

What of the expense of such armor? Its value in its time would preclude it being common.

Well, face-hardened armour would have been expensive enough to be beyond the reach of the common soldier, but heat treatment obviously wasn't the only way to improve protection. I can't speak of the contemporary Chinese experience, but in the late 14th and during the 15th century European armour-making went down two parallel paths: one was better heat-treatment to provide much stronger protection without increasing weight in the really high-quality armour produced for the rich and famous, while the other simply added more layers and more thickness to give extra protection without the expense of complicated steelworking and heat-treatment techniques. So...well, we don't only have to think about the possibility of better-quality armour, but also of thicker cheap armour. Moreover, if we're talking about China here, weren't the lamellar armours used there (and in the Steppes) designed to give something of a "spaced armour" effect through the arrangement of the overlaps in the scales? This would have been particularly effective against arrows and crossbow bolts and similar projectiles since they wouldn't have had a wielder's hand(s) behind them to add more energy after the impact.

Orda Khan · Post by **Orda Khan** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:13 am

Even in these later centuries cost would be the most important consideration. I agree with Jack, the overwhelming majority would never be able to afford, not only decent, but complete armour.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:20 am

On the other hand, armour would be extensively re-cycled, so a range of armour in different states or repair and qualities would be on the battlefield, either inherited from fallen comrades or taken as spoils. So the proportion using it would be much greater than the proportion who could afford it.

TheAzn · Post by **TheAzn** » Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:52 pm

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.

1. You have made some good points. I have also heard that certain parts of the elephant skin is thinner than the other. However, the elephant still has some advantages so let us look at this closer.
- In terms of "armor", armoured man is tougher than elephant skin.
- In terms of "padding", an elephant is equal to or greater than the armoured man. The elephant's mucles is probably better than a man's muslce+skin+cloting padding.
- In terms of "rib cage", an elephant is equal to the armoured man. The elephant's rib cage is more spaced than that of a man, but the individual bones are probably stronger.
- In terms if "energy absorption", an elephant is equal to or greater than the armoured man. This is because the elephant has a sheer advantage in mass. However, a man moves backward when hit, reducing the energy of impact.

Adding all of this together, an elephant is about as equally as impervious to projectile penetration as an armoured man. Now, it has been stated in the video that the bolt virtually "disappeared" inside the elephant. Since the bolt looks like it was 21 inches long, this means that there were at least 21+ inches of penetration. A man only requires 3 inch passed his skin to die. This means that, including armor, a man can die from a 5 inch penetration passed the armour. Since there is a 21+inch penetration of a man at 10(and probably 50) meters (yes, this was deducted from the elephant), a 5 inch penetration at 280 meters is still a probability. Of course, if shields were involved, then this would be a different story, but this wasn't my point to begin with.

2. The other point is that the crossbow performs better than the pilum in this regard. The pilum has a much smaller range than the bow/crossbow, but it was still used because it was the "sure thing"; you would use this right before you charge in, knowing that it would at least penetrate something. Those things would be the scutum (shield) and maybe even armor.
Now, I have never heard of a pilum throw killing an elephant. The best that I have ever heard was that it was used merely to chase the elephants away. And if there was killing, that was probably because there were mulitiple pilums involved.
If a pilum is able to penetrate shields and armor, then a crossbow should do so as well if not better.

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

This is why I wanted to test this in the first place; sometimes, statements like these need to be scrutinize. I am not aiming at a man-sized target; I am aiming at a formation where people are tightly grouped together. If I were to paint something on the ground that represents the width and length of a normal formation, I'm sure that my projectile will "always" hit the target at 280-400meters. I know that Richard A. Gabriel listed the successful hitting percentage as only 22%

, but this statement needs to be tested; did he meant tight formation or loose formation?

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.

What you have stated about drag and friction is certainly true. However, I have already used a relable calculation to find out the range and the energy of the crossbow; the maximum range of this specific crossbow is 310 meters and the Joules at this range is 104.7 J. This, according to William, the author of the Knight and the Blast Furnace, is slightly more than the 100J required to penetrate medieval plate armor. So even at maximum range, the energy required for penetration was already there. The problem was that the angle by then does not favor penetration. Thus, the effective range should be much lower than 310 meters, but the question is "by how much"; 280 meters is still a possibility.
And here is my calcultion (yes, I am TheAznValedictorian):
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index. ... p__4984275

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.

The problem with this test is that the crossbow used has a very small draw-length. This is understandable, since the safety of customers should always be a priority. Yes, I know Leo Todeschini. In fact, it was he who recommended me to talk to Stephen Selby.

This is how I know about his customer safety policy.
Anyways, the draw-length is important as well. This is why the longbow-crossbow debate continues to this day; although the crossbows usually have a much higher draw-weight, the longbows have a higher draw-length; the advantages of each weapon thus becomes unclear. The crossbow of Leo Todeshini looks to be no more than 6 to 7 inches. The brace-height also seems to take up nearly half of the draw-length, meaning that there is no more than 4 inches of powerstroke. So, although the 850 lbs crossbow might have 2.4 times more strength than the Chinese one, the Chinese version have 3.2 times more draw-length and 4.5 times more powerstroke.

You seem to have conflated two different kinds of Chinese crossbows.

If I was to talk about the repeating crossbow, then the rate of fire would have increased to at least 20 rounds per minute. 20 rounds per minute? How so? I understand that the repeating crossbow requires time in loading, but that isn't much time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgbKi4SX5M
As you can see, loading only requires a few several seconds. Thus 20 rounds per minute should be possble. I am sorry for any confusion that I might have caused though.

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,

Yes, I meant that the nut would lock the string in place once the string was drawn past it. Again, I apologize for any confusion that I might have caused.

most European crossbows had this feature too

But the one in the video did not have this feature. The person has to personally put the nut in place before he can even draw the string. Even then, the rate of fire was around 7 per minute. My point was that the Chinese version would have been slightly faster.

Thomas Duvernay · Post by **Thomas Duvernay** » Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:16 am

This past summer, a lot of my research concentrated on the penetrating power of traditional black powder firearms. For that, I used a 30-layer pad of cotton and a 30-layer pad of ballistic Kevlar. The cotton "body armor" only protected against very low-velocity bullets, while the Kevlar protected against medium-velocity bullets. However, when I shot a bodkin arrow from a Korean bow, even the Kevlar was penetrated all thirty layers.

Orda Khan · Post by **Orda Khan** » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:38 pm

Nice pics Thomas. What was the bow poundage and the distance?

Thomas Duvernay · Post by **Thomas Duvernay** » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:36 am

The draw weight was 50# and the distance was about 20m.

The human analog backing I used was modeling clay (seen in clumps in the pics), as it is what body armor testers use (ballistic gel is too expensive).

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:03 am

I have recently read Baburnama (memoirs of Babur, the Moghul ruler, early 16th c.). He mentions instances when arrows penetrated armour in some cases, but not always. There are too many variables to be sure.

I do not believe arrows could penetrate armour from a greater distance however. The energy of arrows drops by about a quarter every 50 yards. Short crossbow bolts with leather fletching are a bit better.

Adam

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:27 pm

Much of the fighting in the Baburnama was very chaotic and not much like the earlier battles when armies were more disciplined. The undercurrent in Babur's narrative was of armies that would fragment when the various leaders chose to switch sides. Even though the fighters were formidable, there was a lack of commitment in combat which shows up when often formations failed to charge home. This would affect the effectiveness of their archery.

Adam's comments may refer to relatively low angles of release. I am not at home so I cannot give the references to The Glade article by Mark Stretton where he examined the different properties of arrows shot at high angles. What I remember is the change in final velocity was not linear. There were two peaks, one near by and one near the end of the range.

Crossbow bolts on the other hand were very effective at close range, but the shorter European ones had problems with stability at long range. I think Payne-Galwey reported the bolts tumbling at high elevations. I mention Payne-Galwey specifically because many modern experiments were done with underweight bows.

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:37 pm

Bede, I am not sure if I understand what you say, re: battle tactics. My remark was about penetration. Actually the tactics were not exactly random hits, as Babur was very careful in his planning and the armies were always rigidly divided into their respective units. I think his memoirs can be trusted on these subjects, since he had no need to impress or please, being the padishah himself.

By the way, one of his begs could draw 30 to 40 batman bow. The batman, according to Thackston (translator) was 3 kg or 6.5 lb at the time! The same individual could unstring and string his bow while galloping towards the target on the qabaq field.

I am aware of the tests by Stretton, where he shot a styrofoam target at varied distances. Tests by my friend do not agree with Stretton's results, so I better reserve my judgement here. These tests are based on the premise that a heavy arrow in free fall will accelerete until it reaches its terminal velocity, which is true. At the same time is is not clear how this effect works in practice and if the arrow gains enough energy at the end of the flight to make any significant difference.

Adam