Bronze scale questions

[Magnus]

Mount them on a dead pig that is hanging, unless you have any ballistic dummies kicking around. But that would likely provide the best type of test and results.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

But what exactly would it tell you about the way armour worked? :?
It seems to be well established that the metal component of armour is pretty much of no value without the padded component underneath it....

[Matt Lukes]

Or far simpler, place them on damp earth- that's not going to provide a hell of a lot of resistence, but it's sufficient support, and it's a relative test anyway so all you want to do is minimize the effect of the support material. Pigs or ballistic gel is fine for wearer damage testing, but not for armour alone testing.

Christian- I've not seen evidence of scales sewn directly to thick padding before, just a burlap canvas-like fabric. Certainly if they're directly on padding, that is the armour- but then it's not a good example to introduce in a discussion of a very different form, yes? The super thin scales (0.25mm) that Coulston describes are on the same sub-garment as other examples of scale armour known (Dura) and it wasn't of the later form with the heavy cord support, which further differentiates your example from what I was talking about- simple scales stitched to a garment.

I sure hope the bouncing arrow was a single wild result as if I both penetrating scales and bouncing off in more frequency, that would sure suggest a hell of a lot of variation in a vital component of the impact- not exactly what would give me a lot of faith in the results LOL If you did get shots into the padding passing through (really should be done as proper controls, not as accidents as an experiment without controls isn't valid) that certainly shows the scales are slowing the projectile; it must be friction- the edges of the pierced hole contact the projectile throughout its passage, so even thin metal will 'resist' after being pierced. Obviously if lamellar of the same thickness performed less-well, there is more but it's the scale specifically we're talking about here.

[caiusbeerquitius]

but then it's not a good example to introduce in a discussion of a very different form, yes?

Errrr... I re-read th thread and couldn´t find sthg that specified we were only talking about scales sewn on a single layer of fabric? If I missed sthg, sorry for talking about it.
Apart from that I don´t see much sense in testing components of armour only. I very much doubt that any of these armours was worn without some kind of padding.

I sure hope the bouncing arrow was a single wild result as if I both penetrating scales and bouncing off in more frequency, that would sure suggest a hell of a lot of variation in a vital component of the impact- not exactly what would give me a lot of faith in the results LOL

On the contraray, it was very telling about the qualities of the armour. Each shot was filmed with a 25.000 Euro high-speed film camera for further evaluation. From the hits as far as I could see during the experiments it certainly depends on where exactly a hit occurs: where two scales overlap, on a single scale, or at the place where three scales overlap... the arrow that bounced had nonetheless pinched metal and fabric.

it must be friction-

I have no idea what else it could be than friction, yes.

(really should be done as proper controls, not as accidents as an experiment without controls isn't valid)

THAT depends on the question you ask. If the question is: "Do the scales make a difference?", then yes. If your question is different, then you may not need to do so. Which was the case here.

Obviously if lamellar of the same thickness performed less-well, there is more but it's the scale specifically we're talking about here.

O.K., sorry for mentioning it. :roll:

[Dan Howard]

Why not simply test the backing material by itself and then compare it to the test with the scales attatched? That would give far more useful data.

Thomas Hulit has also tested scale armor against arrows in a Bronze Age context. A summary of the tests is in Barry Molloy's "The Cutting Edge". His PhD dissertation is far more detailed though.

[Magnus]

But what exactly would it tell you about the way armour worked? :?
It seems to be well established that the metal component of armour is pretty much of no value without the padded component underneath it....

Because for some weird reason pig flesh resembles that of humans most closely. So instead of putting a piece of armour against a static target which to me, has little scientific value, now you can put it on something that acts very close to a human body. This will tell you how the armour behaves on a dynamic target. Isn't that what we want?

[caiusbeerquitius]

Alternatively you can use ballistc gel. Or plasticine.

Pig: In an ideal case the pig would be alive, I assume?

[Magnus]

Well, I dunno...maybe not so ideal for the pig LOL.

[Dan Howard]

Alternatively you can use ballistc gel. Or plasticine.

Ballistic gel would be better to gauge penetration. Plasticine is better for determining the degree of blunt trauma.

Pig: In an ideal case the pig would be alive, I assume?

In Barry's book the pig was freshly slaughtered.

[Magnus]

What was that show that was on a little while back where they put two historical fighters against each other, and did the weapons testing on those ballistic gel dumies with complete skeletons? I remember the premise of the show was a bit silly, but all of the scientific data that was garnered from all of the measuring devices was really, really cool, and seemed to be very valid. Though I can't remember if they used the dummies in conjunction with body armour. They did with helmets though.

[Matt Lukes]

Obviously if lamellar of the same thickness performed less-well, there is more but it's the scale specifically we're talking about here.

O.K., sorry for mentioning it. :roll:

I forgive you

The show was 'Deadliest Warrior' Matt and it was SUPER lame; a bunch of morons badly talking smack, ridiculously dubious pairings, worse science and really was definitely a Spike show LOL A total joke...

[Dan Howard]

What was that show that was on a little while back where they put two historical fighters against each other, and did the weapons testing on those ballistic gel dumies with complete skeletons? I remember the premise of the show was a bit silly, but all of the scientific data that was garnered from all of the measuring devices was really, really cool, and seemed to be very valid.

Well it wasn't. Even using skeletons is a waste of time. Live bone has completely different mechanical properties to dead bone.

[Magnus]

Oh. I thought that part was ok lol. I should have known since it was on Spike TV lol.

[Gregg]

A few years ago I read a very interesting medical paper (available online) which concluded that ballistics gel is not a suitable medium for testing arrows. For accurate results, stick to fresh pig carcass. Or a cadaver, if you have the resources.

Gregg