Quote:Although another period (that of the English longbow in the late Middle Ages), this article studies the effect of different kinds of arrows on various types of armour. It illustrates results on mail (butted, riveted medium quality, and riveted high quality) and plate (coat of plates, and plate armour). The article also gives some references to other studies of the protective value of different kinds of armour. This might give you a starting point.
Cheers,
Martijn
Link:
http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci ... esting.pdf
I had a read through this and there are too many problems to draw any useful conclusions. The first and main problem is that the bow he uses is too weak. The most recent research suggests that a typical English warbow was closer to 150 lbs. 110 lbs would be the lowest end of the spectrum. The heavier bows use different arrows to the ones he tested so extrapolating on the range to guess the impact of a heavier bow cannot be done.
He doesn't mention the hardness of the arrowheads in these tests. I'm guessing that they are all much harder than any archaeological example that has so far been analysed.
None of his targets resemble that worn by a medieval warrior. The jack is flawed because he didn't bother to quilt the layers of linen properly. Vertical rows of stitching spaced an inch or so apart will greatly increase its resistance to arrow points.
The mail tests were no good. He didn't test "average mail" and "high quality mail". He tested "crappy mail" and "not so crappy mail". Riveted does not equal historical. Unless someone like Erik Schmid makes the mail using correct tools and manufacturing methods these tests are a waste of time.
The plate thickness in the coat of plates was not specified. Neither was the metallurgical composition of the plate. I'm guessing that neither has much in common with historical examples.
The plate test was also flawed. I won't explain here why but a far better test was recently published by the Royal Armouries.
"A report of the findings of the Defence Academy warbow trials Part 1 Summer 2005." By Paul Bourke and David Whetham. pp.53-82.
My take on it can be found here.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=79261
The only thing I would agree with the author is that the Type 16 compact broadhead was most likely the armour piercer the English used. Not any sort of bodkin. One should note that the only typology that shows any evidence of being hardened was the type 16. All bodkin typologies so far examined turned out to be unhardened wrought iron. IMO, after a great deal of research and experimentation the bodkin's primary purpose was to increase range, not to punch through armour.
