European Archery/ Agincourt/crecy/etc

[katana]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

As for longbows beating plate armour, the thinner parts of plate armours could be penetrated at close enough range, while the thickest parts could not be penetrated at any range. "Thickest parts" tended to be chest and head, thinner parts the limbs where you prefer to carry less weight.

The numbers work out at about 70J of energy to put an arrow through 1mm of iron plate (which means that complete arrow-proof is attained at, at most, 2-3mm - don't trust iron or mild steel under 2mm to stop arrows at short range!), and about 1000J to put a pistol/musket ball through 3mm.


.

This brings up the question of the 'quality' of the average armour. Many surviving full suits of European armour are the high end versions (which, likely, never saw battle) A number of these were 'heavier' gauge metal plate .... as they were designed for the 'joust' and not battle conditions.
I get the impression that, at the time, that the 'average' grade armour was of a lower quality iron/steel and that heat treatment of said metal plate was more 'hit and miss'. Top armourers were very, very secretive about their methods. Quality armour was incredibly expensive ....and not all knights had big bank balances.

All the best
David

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

An interesting take on Agincourt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0

Cheers
Chris

[David]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Folks,

An interesting take on Agincourt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0

Cheers
Chris

Thanks Chris, interesting viddy...

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Folks,

An interesting take on Agincourt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0

Cheers
Chris

Salaams Chris Evans ~ I think your inclusion of this video is key to understanding the battle. I was wondering when the researchers would get down to the effect of the English archers on the French Knights horses but it was somewhat glossed over however they did agree that horses were much more vulnerable since the horse armour was not steel (as was the French Knights). I think much more confusion can be attributed to French Knights horses; shot out from under them, collapsing into the mud and causing and adding to the knock on effect in the funnel. Great video thanks...
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Notes; In reference to Turkish weapons so that Forum may compare European with Turkish and for interest please see http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/turkish/and http://turkishflightarchery.blogspot.com/ whilst at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow there is an excellent description and history of the English Longbow.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ibrahiim,

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

I was wondering when the researchers would get down to the effect of the English archers on the French Knights horses but it was somewhat glossed over however they did agree that horses were much more vulnerable since the horse armour was not steel (as was the French Knights).

I was wondering too.

Great and very informative links, especially on Turkish archery - Thank you.

Cheers
Chris

[Timo Nieminen]

Lots of good info on armour and arrows in Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace", and some more in Atkins' "The Science and Engineering of Cutting". The quick summary is that good body and head armour was arrow-proof. Good hardened armours were thinner for the same protection, but lower quality armours (thicker and heavier) should have been sufficient too.

This is looking at battle armours, not sporting (e.g., jousting) armours.