That show about armor piercing arrows was disappointing and a waste of time and money for the simple reason that the Bowman brought a bow of lesser weight and therefore less power because the lighter bow would allow him to shoot more arrows before he tired out.
I like how the armor deflected a couple arrow heads upwards, where they could hit the throat or follow the spine up into the brain. Also reminds me of a guy who offered to put on a breastplate so a buddy could shoot an old Indian bow that had been kept in good condition. Said buddy had a flash of brilliance and said, "No, we can put the armor on this small barrel." The arrow easily penetrated the armor, but only the barrel was injured during the experiment.
And that's why the armor is worn with a bevoir (armored neck and chin protection) or a gorget (armored neck protection) with a helmet that also overlaps and doesn't allow that shit to come in.
Those dents are referred to as "Proof Marks", meaning that the armor had been tested and proven arrow proof. It's where we get the Proof Marks and firearms in modern times.
I recall reading that some armor manufacturers had small, engraved hardened-steel stamps made to fit over the end of a crossbow quarrel. Loosed from a bow of a certified weight at a standard distance, it embossed the proof mark with the manufacturer's seal. Kind of like a trademark and proof mark combined in one. It could be crap or false memory on my part, but pretty neat, if true.
Later armor was proofed against pistol (about a carbon-sized pistol) or musket. Same concept.
Body armor proof against even rifled muskets existed during the American Civil War. Worked great, sucked to run in it. And they were sold with proof marks also.
We don’t know exactly who invented the handheld crossbow, but we know that it originated in East Asia. The earliest evidence of crossbows in ancient China and neighboring territories points to at least the 6th Century BC, and Sir Joseph Needham states in his Science and Civilisation in China that it is not possible to determine precisely which of the East Asian peoples invented the weapon.
I recently saw a video about the English long-bowmen at the Battle of Agincort under Henry V. For ages it was thought that the bowmen were the main reason the English won that battle, but this video by a scholar showed the exact same results as shown here, and said the English longbow, while important, was not the deciding factor in that battle. The horrid weather, the boggy field that the French had to cross, the narrow channel that they had to march through all forced them into a formation that was too tight to effectively wield their weapons. The English infantry and mounted knights were more important in that they could simply cut down row upon row of French, especially after disorder and panic took hold among the French.
Also once an armoured knight was off his horse and in that mud he was unable to move and once he fell he was done for. The mace, war-hammer etc. were nasty.
That show about armor piercing arrows was disappointing and a waste of time and money for the simple reason that the Bowman brought a bow of lesser weight and therefore less power because the lighter bow would allow him to shoot more arrows before he tired out.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the government can't come up with a Covid vaccine that does the same thing.
ReplyDeleteVaccines can stop arrows?
Deleteserious looking arrows
ReplyDeleteI like how the armor deflected a couple arrow heads upwards, where they could hit the throat or follow the spine up into the brain.
ReplyDeleteAlso reminds me of a guy who offered to put on a breastplate so a buddy could shoot an old Indian bow that had been kept in good condition. Said buddy had a flash of brilliance and said, "No, we can put the armor on this small barrel." The arrow easily penetrated the armor, but only the barrel was injured during the experiment.
And that's why the armor is worn with a bevoir (armored neck and chin protection) or a gorget (armored neck protection) with a helmet that also overlaps and doesn't allow that shit to come in.
DeleteSeriously, the armor works as a complete set.
Those dents are referred to as "Proof Marks", meaning that the armor had been tested and proven arrow proof. It's where we get the Proof Marks and firearms in modern times.
ReplyDeleteI recall reading that some armor manufacturers had small, engraved hardened-steel stamps made to fit over the end of a crossbow quarrel. Loosed from a bow of a certified weight at a standard distance, it embossed the proof mark with the manufacturer's seal. Kind of like a trademark and proof mark combined in one. It could be crap or false memory on my part, but pretty neat, if true.
DeleteLater armor was proofed against pistol (about a carbon-sized pistol) or musket. Same concept.
DeleteBody armor proof against even rifled muskets existed during the American Civil War. Worked great, sucked to run in it. And they were sold with proof marks also.
Which lead to the creation of the cross bow.
ReplyDeleteWe don’t know exactly who invented the handheld crossbow, but we know that it originated in East Asia. The earliest evidence of crossbows in ancient China and neighboring territories points to at least the 6th Century BC, and Sir Joseph Needham states in his Science and Civilisation in China that it is not possible to determine precisely which of the East Asian peoples invented the weapon.
DeleteI recently saw a video about the English long-bowmen at the Battle of Agincort under Henry V. For ages it was thought that the bowmen were the main reason the English won that battle, but this video by a scholar showed the exact same results as shown here, and said the English longbow, while important, was not the deciding factor in that battle. The horrid weather, the boggy field that the French had to cross, the narrow channel that they had to march through all forced them into a formation that was too tight to effectively wield their weapons. The English infantry and mounted knights were more important in that they could simply cut down row upon row of French, especially after disorder and panic took hold among the French.
ReplyDeleteAlso once an armoured knight was off his horse and in that mud he was unable to move and once he fell he was done for. The mace, war-hammer etc. were nasty.
DeleteThe Longbow was to be used against the horses and the men-at-arms who weren't as well armored as the knights or squires.
DeleteIt takes a lucky hit to penetrate a weak spot.
Doonhammer-
ReplyDeleteThat'd been disproven more than once.
https://youtu.be/q-bnM5SuQkI
Got anything that light that'll defeat .45ACP? Ohio Guy
ReplyDelete