Again - good and useful stuff. Possibly, the biggest difference between case-hardened and softer heads would be the angle at which they would 'bite'. This is a problem in designing armour-piercing anti-tank rounds. A harder AP round will 'bite' into sloping armour and then perhaps penetrate (or shatter), whereas a softer AP shell will ricochet off sloping armour without biting into the surface enough for the weight of the following shell to push it in. Most arrow hits against limbs and rounded torsos of knights would be hitting plate at an angle.
Looking at how the arrows were deflected by the sloped armor in the tests you'd think it was better if they were hardened, but a skipping arrow has a chance to find a second target instead of biting and shattering on the first one, and maybe this time it finds a weak spot. Remember you're not dealing with a single target on a field, but shooting into groups of people so someone's always likely to be hit. So, maybe that's why there's no evidence of hardened arrow heads?
Except for the steepest angles, all the glancing arrows seems to be damaged after impact, so I doubt they would be keep their lethality when hitting the other armored knights around the actual target. But who knows. That's a test waiting to be done.
Kind of makes one wonder if an APC arrow would function at all, but I doubt man could make an arrow move quickly enough that shatter gap would be an issue.
@@feryth Yes, I'd be interested to see case-hardened arrows compared with softer ones against plate at a variety of angles. If the hardened ones bit at significantly steeper angles, it would make them much more effective against curving plate armour.
I would like to say "thank you" to every single person involved in making of these video. From Tod to the lowest kickstarter backer! Every one of you are just great human beings!
If there's anything these videos have proved to me, it's that Joe is a goddamn tank. The man's been shooting 160 pound bows for days and doesn't even look like he's breaking a sweat. Man's an absolute archer beast. Thank you all (including backers!) for this fascinating look into the scientific process.
@@JevansUK And even when you finally get through the rain of arrows you're still facing a bunch of English buff boys, professional soldiers, not quite as well trained as knights, but still a big difference to archer levies.
Having watched this after the longer main test video one thing I noted from that video that really can't be captured in this head-on test is that the biggest difference between the wrought and case-hardened arrowheads was actually not the penetration directly but the bite. The case-hardened arrows bit more into the angled surfaces and were able to dig gouges and make holes where the wrought iron simply skipped off. Great testing as always, fantastic to watch.
Thanks and yes a good observation. In our tests the outcome was not different, but I suspect in that marginal area between penetration and not, a hardened arrow had will take the odd shot through where the wrought does not.
Love seeing Joe shoot. You can clearly see his stance and method is perfected. It's downright violent, impressive ammount of power are put behind those arrows.
It's really interesting to see these results compared to the other video where they shoot at the full armor. In these tests it showed us it doesn't really matter much what the arrowheads are made of. But if you shoot it at plate armor, the case hardened arrowheads really have a better grip on the plate steel allow it to really bite into it. Compared to the wrought iron arrowheads who just bounce off. Just showes you that the kind of test matters to the result you want to get.
Yeah, but it also seems to me that we have an answer to why they didn't seem to use case-hardened arrowheads: the effectiveness of the arrow was far more dependent on where it hit than the material the arrowhead was made off. Because case-hardened arrows didn't go to plate, just like the wrought iron, but both went through the mail gaps like with no problem. There might be a bit more grip or bite on the plate for case-hardened arrows, but functionally they performed the same as wrought iron: they didn't incapacitate the knight... So yeah, seems quite clear why you wouldn't spend time and money on case-hardening your arrowheads, you are better off just chucking more arrows at the poor sod...
@@Kholdaimon I agree, I think it's very likely they did know the process and the effectiveness, and that even the relatively small extra time to harden them wasn't worth.
@@Kholdaimon All the evidences of case hardening will rust away over the centuries. The process itself is simple and you can treat thousands of arrow heads in a day, so the cost isn't going to be that much more per arrow.
@@Kholdaimon Case hardening would probably still be worth considering because of the variability of armor quality, bow strength, and distance. As was mentioned in the main video, there would have been stronger armor, and there would have been weaker armor. Case hardened arrows at that range might not beat the armor they were shooting at, but it's possible that case hardened arrows could beat weaker armor they otherwise couldn't, at distances they otherwise couldn't. Add in variation in bow strength/distance and case hardening makes more sense. There was a case hardened arrow that put a hole in the side of the breastplate and another that put a hole in the helmet: if the distance was shorter, or the bow was stronger, would that have pierced? There was a shot to the upper arm that managed to break through in between plates: if the armor was stronger, the bow was weaker, or if the distances were longer, would the arrow need to be case hardened to pierce? Case hardening arrows is cheap and easy to do, and doing so could swing these edge cases into the favor of the shooters. When you have thousands of archers firing thousands of arrows at thousands of knights, making these edge cases turn into lethal hits starts to matter a lot more.
@@calsalitra4689 Excellent points, I honestly have no clue how much effort it is to case-harden them, so if you are right and (as another commenter said) time would erase any trace of the process from arrowheads exposed to the elements, it is certainly possible... I guess we will need an Arrows vs Armor 3 with lesser quality historically-accurate plate armor to see if the case-hardened arrows would go through that...
Very impressed by what you have accomplished here - especially with Will Sherman for crafting so many arrows of such vatiety for these tests,A-thousand-thanks Will! And Joe Gibbs shooting true as only he can,simply fantastic! These datapoints are so valuable in broadening our understanding of history,not only about the practicality of various materials or the use of them but also the cost-benefit analysis that would have been done by the historical people as well - very,very interesting!
Thanks for the whole arrows and armour series Tod, I've been looking forward to that and it was even more fascinating than expected. Re arrowhead materials, I know there is no direct evidence for case hardening but I personally don't see any other way to reconcile the evidence for. firstly, the emphasis on steel or steeled heads in documents (as listed in Matt Easton's recent video) and the excavated pure iron heads except to think some at least were hardened and the layer rusted away. It seems likely enough perhaps to try case hardened heads a bit more against the armour, at various angles etc? Also, as a chap who shot longbows in field archery (and made them) for 30 years or so please say hi to Joe for me. I only usually shot about 60-70lbs (that was considered heavy in field archery 20 or 30 years ago) so please convey my admiration for his accuracy with such a heavy bow. Thanks again for these new videos, and your others, your channel is at the top of my bookmarked youtube ones.
2 ideas to add: Steel would likely rust away faster which may explain why heads aren't found. I don't know what effect case hardening could have had on preservation or if people even look for it. The harder heads likely matters more when the impact is not perpendicular- similar to spike mace vs round mace. One bites in and transfers the energy into the concentrated point better. Great work on these videos!
I think this was mentioned earlier, either in the original video or at some point during the Lockdown Longbow saga. But they're also frustrated because they can't find any evidence at all, no matter what silo (artifacts, sources, art, etc) they search.
Thank you Tod, and all of your companions for your efforts here. I was brought up on the myth that the long bow struck right through the French Knight's armour and pinned them to the ground. Having just read Juliet Barker's "Agincourt" it is apparent that such was the torrent, the avalanche of arrow fire, that any vulnerable area could be struck was struck. Archeological examination of the French dead show a large proportion of lethal head and facial wounds, suggesting that incapacitated individuals were finished off by thrusts to the head as they lay in the tangle of men and horses. I did ask previously, what level of protection the horses had. The initial charge was characterised by reports horses maddened by their wounds charging back through their own lines. As Toby alluded to, by the time the armoured knight had become almost arrow proof, the arquebus rendered that armour redundant.
When he says the arrows are identical...my word...those are IDENTICAL. Amazing piece of craftsmanship; the consistency is off the charts. Beautiful arrows, truly.
So interesting after seeing the full test, since this test showed "a little deeper" but didn't capture the improved bite that we saw on the full armor when they weren't always penetrating.
This is most informative. I had not taken into account the production time. I noticed that regardless of materials the hits in the centre of the plate went deeper than the ones near to the frame. Perhaps a larger plate or tests about the effect of near to frame hits that would be reinforced on one or two sides would be appropriate.
I would love to see tests shooting at a plate at increasing angles just to get an idea of the effects of deflection. Great videos and a fascinating series!
I recall an earlier series waxed arrowheads and aside from waterproofing, the lubrication also improved penetration by a fair bit. I wonder if the different arrowhead materials would affect the degree of improvement, or if the change would be mostly uniform.
I wonder if waxed arrowheads would affect the angle it bites. I'd think it wouldn't have too much effect since it still strikes with the point, but I'd rather not assume.
I've been a smith/artist for more than 2 decades, and began learning without electricity or belt driven (water) power. Case hardening in addition to being very easy and straightforward uses every day waste materials (hair, bone, hoof shavings, charcoal, etc.,) and can be done passively sitting at the bottom of a fire for hours or days. I've done it many times bringing my antique hammers, swages, hardies etc. back to working condition. A brand new child apprentice could compete a batch with almost no training. All that's to say I agree with Tod, and think it highly probable that many objects were hardened, but the layer is so thin, and so much more readily oxidized that it is gone in decades, while the pieces we want to analyse are centuries old! I don't know what it might be, but I'll bet there is a way to learn a bit more at least. Perhaps testing samples to see whether the carbon in the steel shows isotopic variability and ratios might indicate carbon types its been exposed to, or, does the microscopic structure of what remains indicate that a "skin" has oxidized off? Those are just examples of properties to examine, I don't think it would be that straightforward. Maybe my hope is just wishful thinking dressed up with some science-y verbiage? Any materials scientists out there?
What I find really quite cool is the sound of the impact. I think it's the reverb as the steel plate suddenly collapses against the backing, but it sounds on video very much like how gunshots sound on video
That was another hugely informative preliminary test - the work going into the 'actual test' is outstanding. And it's a great joy watching Joe shooting all those test arrows.
Thanks again for all the work you have put in! Seeing not only the main video but all the other testing is just a really awesome educational experience.
For a future video I would encourage you to make a video where the steel plate target is set at an angle somewhat equivalent to the average curvature of a "standard" breastplate from the same historical era. Since all the arrow types penetrates the steel on the target, then the depth of penetration is just a function of the kinetic energy (which is about the same for all of them). In the longer main video, the biggest difference between the different arrowhead types was how well it "bit" into the curved armor. Thus a test with an angled target would show weather or not the different arrowhead types makes a difference on the ability to bit into a target to be able to go through the armor and then penetrate further into the target. Super video btw :)
i love this series. i do have some questions that you may or may not know the answers to: 1. was the weight of the arrows any different between types? 2. did Joe notice any difference in how the arrows shot? 3. is there any evidence that mediaeval armorers did any systematic testing of armor, arrows, mail, etc? or was it all anecdotal, and battlefield outcomes?
Outstanding job mr Gibs. So many arrows form such a havy bow , your shoulders and your back must be killing you. For such a great archer , just round if applause it's not enough. Can't wait to see you more on the channel
I remember that somewhere towards the end of the Swiss "Feuerwerkerbuch", they are talking about some obscure process to treat arrowheads, it includes some herbs known as "iron herb" in germany (vervaine), and I wonder if that, read by someone who knows about that stuff, could indicate some form of case hardening, at least in the late 1500´s, at least for some arrowheads.
Great work! I have a few thoughts on this, the take away seems to be that the material didn’t matter, all arrows penetrated about the same, but I don’t this this is the whole story. All arrows carry the same kinetic energy, so as long as the head is able to maintain its shape on impact, it will punch through using about the same amount of energy, thus will sink about as deep. It’s an all or nothing proposition. Had you repeated this series of tests on increasing grades of armor plate, at some point you will find that the softer heads will deform and will not penetrate at all, whereas the harder ones will still punch through. Essentially, I don’t think it matters if the head is a little bit harder than the armor, or a lot harder, if it’s hard enough to go through, it’s going through. And if not, it won’t. The value in the hardened heads is not improved penetration on soft armor, but the ability to penetrate higher grade armor that the softer heads would simply bounce off of.
Enjoying these videos. It could be that archers of the day were looking at other factors aside from solely arrow penetration. Many arrows were reclaimed on the battlefield- would the case-hardened variety be more reusable and so, in the long run, possibly less costly anyway? Just throwing this out there.
Great videos on arrow vs armor 2 and I love the collaboration and the discussion. I'm hoping these are a huge success so we don't have to wait too long for arrows vs armor 3.
How would an untempered bloomery steel head compare? Arrows aren't going to be retrieved in a battle and absolute hardness might be preferred to the durability of tempering. It would also remove a process and reduce the time to produce the head
Wow, you guys aren't messing about with these tests! I've seen the main and three of the supplemental new tests, now, and every minute of wait for this "sequel" has been worth it! Something about arrows just struck me (sic!): With what precision do we know the relationship between the width of the arrow head vs. the arrow shaft? While it's probably small, in relation to piercing steel, the subsequent friction between the wood and plate may have measurable effect, especially considering that it lasts for >10 cm, and may be enhanced by vibration. Potentially, even a small reduction of the shaft width might reduce friction, and allow deeper penetration. I know that it doesn't matter relative to the main test, but testing absolutely all variables and their combinations is impossible, so knowing the specifics of each that is tested is interesting, with thought to extrapolating (which will just be guessing, regardless, but guesses can be better, or worse). Jeez, talking about this, without sounding dirty is absolutely impossible. I might as well be writing porn... I can certainly see how Matt (scholagladiatoria) got started on his descent into the underbelly of the English language. ;-)
Love everything to do with this series, very interesting to watch! If I were to make a suggestion though, I would have staggered the release of these mini films across the few weeks before the main film was released. These would have provided a lot more context if I'd watched them before. Gets people hyped up for the main video
All of this is of course super cool to see and I’m sure took a lot of time and effort to get set up. I think if you really wanted to make an experiment that eliminates all undesirable variables, you’d have to make some sort of really expensive fixture that can consistently deliver the same kinetic energy to a steel plate. Then you could introduce the different arrow heads to that fixture and even then you’d probably have to do at least half a dozen runs per arrow head type to eliminate outliers. This is not to detract from y’alls experiment. All craftsmen and the archer did an awesome job.
Great video! Would have been slightly better on a technical level to double blind it, so that the archer and those taking the measurements didn't know which head was which, until you look up the number afterwards. That helps to rule out effects from unconscious bias. Not sure if it would have been as good a video that way, as the batch by batch dialogue really made for a nice rhythm.
Really great video! I really enjoyed the time I spent watching it and I learned a lot more than I thought I would. As an aside, dude needs to get his eye fixed before it becomes a serious problem. It looks like a calcified stye. The issue is that they can become infected and being that close to his eye, it's an issue. The procedure is quick and easy.
Well done! It might not be worth the effort, but I can't help but wonder if the result would be different with less backing material. Once the head pierces the metal, extra hardness is largely wasted and it's all about surface area and friction against the backing material and shaft. What if you compared more against different thicknesses of metal and whether they were punctured cleanly at all, rather than how deep the arrow went? Also, to puncture armor, I would think you want the tip to be as narrow as possible without deforming. Therefore, would steel tips allow for a different geometry with better penetration? Since this would likely affect the entire design of the head and even the shaft, it may have been even more expensive and still not worth it unless it punched through armor like butter.
Hey Tod, didn't you do a test a couple years back, about wax being put on arrowheads, in order to increase their 'bite'? (Might have been Joerg Sprave) Would be an interesting added factor, especially with the hardend heads.
The issue in your methodology is that you are essentially measuring penetration in the backing material (which I didn't catch whether you mentioned it or not, but it seems to be some sort of dust?) and not the thin metallic diaphragm, which is easily defeated by all arrows regarding of arrowhead material. Penetration in that dusty backing material seems to be equally independent on arrowhead material - it's not the hardness of the arrowhead that determines the penetration depth but the energy of the arrow, which is presumably similar between shots.
I agree. The material test may be be somewhat flawed. If the arrows are easily penetrating the metal, then it increasingly becomes a measure of foam penetration and edge retention on the arrow head. Would it be possible to repeat but with increased metal thickness?
I believe the idea is that the different materials use different amounts of energy to get through the steel. Which makes sense - the harder the head is, the more energy is conserved in the steel plate phase and the deeper it penetrates.
Great Testing.Honestly I think they made the heads out of Iron to make them glance off. This also explains the shape of them best. How do you keep an edge on soft metal? make it a blunt angle. Same goes for making them glance off.
With regards to the case-hardened arrows, for the first one that was shot (second one measured), I noticed immediately after it hit that it was at an angle. So, when the arrows were being measured, I paid specific attention to which one was which and I was not at all surprised that it went in much shallower than the other two. This could mean that, all things being equal, the case-hardened arrows were actually even better than what was shown with the averages. I don't mean it as a criticism, it's just something to think about.
I'm sure anyone sensible would have coated the heads in some sort of wax or something oily fatty preparation to prevent rust in transport and that would also potentially aid penetration of the armour.
@@mrln247 Todd already tested it, beeswax helps penetration :) But if it's more corosion resistent you'd remove the need for checking up on them and reapplying the wax/oil. Wether that's a worthwhile trade i got no clue
As a machinist and an engineer, case hardening is a technology long used to make tougher, more durable product, because the very hard surface is supported by a very tough, fracture resistant core. Also, technically, since you can finish harder metals to a smoother, finer finish, this can mean less drag in the metal-on-metal contact, meaning that the smoother finish loses less energy to drag, meaning there is more energy left over to penetrate the target more deeply. While they CAN some times be a little too brittle and chip, [which might have happened on the one with the shorter 9 cm depth] if one 'draws back' the finished case hardening AFTER grinding and polishing, they should still maintain an excellent surface hardness AND a superior surface FINISH, but now with more chip resistance, so that they have the best possible combination of hardness, smoothness and toughness anybody at that period of time could have achieved [essentially, a skin of 'spring steel', or very near unto it, but without the extreme expense]. Indeed it is a shame we have no way to test this, especially since the case hardened skins of the heads, often only a few thousandths of an inch thick, are simply not going to be able to last that long in any non-preserved type setting. Even sweat and body acids from one's fingertips will corrode away the case hardening over time.
First, great video (s) I'd like to say something, materials behave differently when confronted, so I think it'll be very interesting not only testing those different types of arrowheads to each other, but against different armours, I mean, different kind of metals (targets) and the shape of the armour.
I wouldn’t have thought wrought iron with case-hardening would have been superior. I would have thought the mild steel would be the winner. Fascinating!
What an awesome video! Thanks for all of the hard work you guys obviously put into this. My question is about the arrowheads that were found/used at the battle of Agincourt, so called "plate cutters" or duck billed heads. What you have demonstrated is that these arrowheads do not effectively penetrate plate armor, especially the breast plate and helmet. I think one penetrated the shoulder armor but the vast majority of the lethal or disabling blows were in the gaps in the plate armor where the only protection was mail and fabric armor. So, it seems that the archers of the time would have been targeting these areas of their opponents. So, why weren't they using needle bodkins instead? We know or at least we think we know that needle bodkins outperform all other arrowheads against mail armor..
Againt the armour, lots of arrows broke on impact as the shaft snapped close to the arrowhead. Was there any historical means of reinforcing that portion of the arrow? Perhaps bindings?
Amazing! Not sure in which order to watch, so I started here. Interesting results so far. However,given your targets were mild steel, it would be interesting yet to see this same test, but with also having different irons or steels for the targets as well. As having a harder arrowhead might be necessary for harder armor plates? Who knows, eh...
A quick definition of the materials Tod mentions, around the 1:15 mark: "Wrought Iron" is a more primitive form of iron. If you melt iron ore down to iron, but don't do much else, wrought iron is what you end up with. Compared to other forms of iron and steel, it's softer and more flexible. Mixed in with the iron is usually silica or other impurities from the smelting being less than precise. This has some advantages (like, it can be "hammer welded") but for our purposes the main thing is, this is cheap, primitive, soft iron. "Case hardened" iron is iron that has been heated inside a sealed case together with a source of carbon, and left hot (but not melted) for an extended time. The carbon leaches into the outer layer of the iron, making it more steel like. Specifically, this makes the surface harder, where carbon has cooked into the iron. But it doesn't harden it all the way through, so it doesn't become brittle. "Bloomed" steel is steel that has been made by an early medieval process. If you like documentaries like this, you might like seeing "Secrets of the Castle", episode four. About 15 minutes into that one, you get a demonstration of "blooming" steel in the medieval way. It's a labor intensive process, so much so that steel didn't really become affordable until other methods of getting that iron + carbon mix at high purity were invented. "Mild steel" is what we call common everyday not-stainless steel made in the modern way. If you go down to your local metal supplier and ask for steel, you might end up with mild steel. It's the cheap but basically good stuff.
I'd like to add that it isn't just the additional work that makes anything above wrought iron more expensive but also the fact that much more charcoal is necessairy to produce the better qualities, and the wood to produce that charcoal is not something that is available in unlimited amounts in the late middle ages, when entire forrests were cut down to build ships, houses etc. aside from being consumed as burning fuel in households and workshops. Cheap, readily available energy is a relative modern phenomenon and a luxury that we are just now becoming more aware of...
Another great video. I have just a couple questions: First, shouldn't the hardened arrows have a longer taper? They can handle such a taper without as much plastic deformation and it would greatly improve penetration. Second, are the arrows catching on the shaft? If so, would slightly bigger heads or smaller shafts make a difference?
Great video, and I love the passion of all the guys….thanks to the kickstarter-backers, too! To make this even more scientific I would blind the Archer and the others besides the Arrowsmith to the material so that the human factor can be limited more…. I just found this channel and am going to binge these videos…so looking forward to that tonight
There more I see of these tests (I still have a couple of vids left), the more obvious it is how many different aspects play into the results, but also how wildly different they affect them, or not. Like several people mentioned, the arrowhead material doesn't matter that much for penetration, but much more for bite angle. Without all these tests, we wouldn't know. Though from this test in particular, I find that one of the most useful findings is that modern mild steel is a very reasonable substitute for wrought iron. It makes testing easier if you can use modern methods and materials that lower costs. Not that I'm familiar with such production costs, but having alternatives are always better than not. It was interesting to see how pointless it was to use bloomery steel instead of wrought iron considering how much harder it is to make. All in all, a relatively simple test, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it. Far from it; it makes it easier to learn from it. It's easy to get too greedy when testing and try to find out too much at the same time, which results in losing reliability and readability in the results.
I remember a Discussion with a Metal Master, he told me. In the past they used straw to up carbon the surface when forging something. Maybe they used it in the medieval time, straw was there in abundance.
If swords were tempered knowing as a king intelligence you will be up against armour would the thought of hardening the arrow to try to have an advantage to penetrate. Can it be done in the field , could it be done by the archers them selves etc. if my life was dependent on the killing effect I would try . More questions
When doing statistical analysis, given the "shot quality" variable, I'd do a 68% cutoff *here*. That's one of the reasons you need a bigger sample; then you could do a 95% cutoff. But at the effect size here--which I estimate at a Cohen's _d_ of about 1.5, it'd probably be about 15 shots each group, to get at least 10 reliable shots to reach a nice 90% statistical power in order to really be able to find if the _p_ < .05. Just PM me if you need some _pro bono_ statistical/research design work, Tod. This is pretty easy stuff that I'd do in a couple of hours during breaks at work.
The key part of the performance would be when armor thickness is at the threshold of blocking the arrows completely. If one of the higher quality arrowheads makes the difference in getting through your enemy’s armor and you can afford it, then it would be worth it. So I guess it really depends on the margins that arrows could get through armor at any specific conflict in the medieval period.
Super curious for the third installment- it would be amazing to see 3 different sets in a unit against a volley of arrows at terminal velocity (arched and then falling). The simulation here is super interesting, but as formations they would have been hailing incoming forces before they would be barraging. The straight shot scenario is much easier to control for testing, but being able to do some odds calculation with regards to the likely number of volleyed and straight shots an average knight was experiencing we could have a statistical analysis to work with. Though uh- I’ve heard popular theories that the mud and approach incline for the horses exposed them to arrow fire, leaving them stuck in mud and severely compromised by battlefield conditions- I’m curious if it would’ve been a possible feat without that.
how far were those shots??? it looks like those bodkin type heads would not be effective at twice that range. seemed like they dropped a lot and would lose energy fast due to weight and speed
I know that some earlier arrows or simple ones for smaller game used just fire hardened point tip of wood part it self so I was wondering how good that simple type of arrows were. Like maybe even how different type of wood used for it affect it after tip was burned to harden it.
Very interesting to me brings the question did there best archers the marksmen use the more expensive caseharden heads while the average archer used the common heads? Kinda like snipers in modern military.
great content. would not high carbon steel have a much greater chance to rust away to nothing in the time between when they were used and now? I know cast iron is much better at resisting corrosion than carbon steel.
Again - good and useful stuff. Possibly, the biggest difference between case-hardened and softer heads would be the angle at which they would 'bite'. This is a problem in designing armour-piercing anti-tank rounds. A harder AP round will 'bite' into sloping armour and then perhaps penetrate (or shatter), whereas a softer AP shell will ricochet off sloping armour without biting into the surface enough for the weight of the following shell to push it in. Most arrow hits against limbs and rounded torsos of knights would be hitting plate at an angle.
So the obvious next step is testing for penetration against sloped plate?
Looking at how the arrows were deflected by the sloped armor in the tests you'd think it was better if they were hardened, but a skipping arrow has a chance to find a second target instead of biting and shattering on the first one, and maybe this time it finds a weak spot. Remember you're not dealing with a single target on a field, but shooting into groups of people so someone's always likely to be hit. So, maybe that's why there's no evidence of hardened arrow heads?
Except for the steepest angles, all the glancing arrows seems to be damaged after impact, so I doubt they would be keep their lethality when hitting the other armored knights around the actual target. But who knows. That's a test waiting to be done.
Kind of makes one wonder if an APC arrow would function at all, but I doubt man could make an arrow move quickly enough that shatter gap would be an issue.
@@feryth Yes, I'd be interested to see case-hardened arrows compared with softer ones against plate at a variety of angles. If the hardened ones bit at significantly steeper angles, it would make them much more effective against curving plate armour.
I would like to say "thank you" to every single person involved in making of these video. From Tod to the lowest kickstarter backer! Every one of you are just great human beings!
👍
If there's anything these videos have proved to me, it's that Joe is a goddamn tank. The man's been shooting 160 pound bows for days and doesn't even look like he's breaking a sweat. Man's an absolute archer beast.
Thank you all (including backers!) for this fascinating look into the scientific process.
Imagine what any army of guys who can fire these bows would be like
@@JevansUK And even when you finally get through the rain of arrows you're still facing a bunch of English buff boys, professional soldiers, not quite as well trained as knights, but still a big difference to archer levies.
@@heygek2769 I'm overwhelmed with ancestral pride.
Having watched this after the longer main test video one thing I noted from that video that really can't be captured in this head-on test is that the biggest difference between the wrought and case-hardened arrowheads was actually not the penetration directly but the bite. The case-hardened arrows bit more into the angled surfaces and were able to dig gouges and make holes where the wrought iron simply skipped off.
Great testing as always, fantastic to watch.
Thanks and yes a good observation. In our tests the outcome was not different, but I suspect in that marginal area between penetration and not, a hardened arrow had will take the odd shot through where the wrought does not.
Love seeing Joe shoot. You can clearly see his stance and method is perfected.
It's downright violent, impressive ammount of power are put behind those arrows.
It's really interesting to see these results compared to the other video where they shoot at the full armor. In these tests it showed us it doesn't really matter much what the arrowheads are made of. But if you shoot it at plate armor, the case hardened arrowheads really have a better grip on the plate steel allow it to really bite into it. Compared to the wrought iron arrowheads who just bounce off. Just showes you that the kind of test matters to the result you want to get.
Yeah, but it also seems to me that we have an answer to why they didn't seem to use case-hardened arrowheads: the effectiveness of the arrow was far more dependent on where it hit than the material the arrowhead was made off. Because case-hardened arrows didn't go to plate, just like the wrought iron, but both went through the mail gaps like with no problem. There might be a bit more grip or bite on the plate for case-hardened arrows, but functionally they performed the same as wrought iron: they didn't incapacitate the knight...
So yeah, seems quite clear why you wouldn't spend time and money on case-hardening your arrowheads, you are better off just chucking more arrows at the poor sod...
@@Kholdaimon I agree, I think it's very likely they did know the process and the effectiveness, and that even the relatively small extra time to harden them wasn't worth.
@@Kholdaimon All the evidences of case hardening will rust away over the centuries. The process itself is simple and you can treat thousands of arrow heads in a day, so the cost isn't going to be that much more per arrow.
@@Kholdaimon Case hardening would probably still be worth considering because of the variability of armor quality, bow strength, and distance. As was mentioned in the main video, there would have been stronger armor, and there would have been weaker armor. Case hardened arrows at that range might not beat the armor they were shooting at, but it's possible that case hardened arrows could beat weaker armor they otherwise couldn't, at distances they otherwise couldn't.
Add in variation in bow strength/distance and case hardening makes more sense. There was a case hardened arrow that put a hole in the side of the breastplate and another that put a hole in the helmet: if the distance was shorter, or the bow was stronger, would that have pierced? There was a shot to the upper arm that managed to break through in between plates: if the armor was stronger, the bow was weaker, or if the distances were longer, would the arrow need to be case hardened to pierce?
Case hardening arrows is cheap and easy to do, and doing so could swing these edge cases into the favor of the shooters. When you have thousands of archers firing thousands of arrows at thousands of knights, making these edge cases turn into lethal hits starts to matter a lot more.
@@calsalitra4689 Excellent points, I honestly have no clue how much effort it is to case-harden them, so if you are right and (as another commenter said) time would erase any trace of the process from arrowheads exposed to the elements, it is certainly possible...
I guess we will need an Arrows vs Armor 3 with lesser quality historically-accurate plate armor to see if the case-hardened arrows would go through that...
Very impressed by what you have accomplished here - especially with Will Sherman for crafting so many arrows of such vatiety for these tests,A-thousand-thanks Will! And Joe Gibbs shooting true as only he can,simply fantastic! These datapoints are so valuable in broadening our understanding of history,not only about the practicality of various materials or the use of them but also the cost-benefit analysis that would have been done by the historical people as well - very,very interesting!
Thanks for the whole arrows and armour series Tod, I've been looking forward to that and it was even more fascinating than expected.
Re arrowhead materials, I know there is no direct evidence for case hardening but I personally don't see any other way to reconcile the evidence for. firstly, the emphasis on steel or steeled heads in documents (as listed in Matt Easton's recent video) and the excavated pure iron heads except to think some at least were hardened and the layer rusted away. It seems likely enough perhaps to try case hardened heads a bit more against the armour, at various angles etc?
Also, as a chap who shot longbows in field archery (and made them) for 30 years or so please say hi to Joe for me. I only usually shot about 60-70lbs (that was considered heavy in field archery 20 or 30 years ago) so please convey my admiration for his accuracy with such a heavy bow.
Thanks again for these new videos, and your others, your channel is at the top of my bookmarked youtube ones.
2 ideas to add:
Steel would likely rust away faster which may explain why heads aren't found. I don't know what effect case hardening could have had on preservation or if people even look for it.
The harder heads likely matters more when the impact is not perpendicular- similar to spike mace vs round mace. One bites in and transfers the energy into the concentrated point better.
Great work on these videos!
I think this was mentioned earlier, either in the original video or at some point during the Lockdown Longbow saga. But they're also frustrated because they can't find any evidence at all, no matter what silo (artifacts, sources, art, etc) they search.
I just want to comment that all of you should be extremely proud of this series of films. Everything is just top notch.
Thank you Tod, and all of your companions for your efforts here. I was brought up on the myth that the long bow struck right through the French Knight's armour and pinned them to the ground. Having just read Juliet Barker's "Agincourt" it is apparent that such was the torrent, the avalanche of arrow fire, that any vulnerable area could be struck was struck. Archeological examination of the French dead show a large proportion of lethal head and facial wounds, suggesting that incapacitated individuals were finished off by thrusts to the head as they lay in the tangle of men and horses. I did ask previously, what level of protection the horses had. The initial charge was characterised by reports horses maddened by their wounds charging back through their own lines. As Toby alluded to, by the time the armoured knight had become almost arrow proof, the arquebus rendered that armour redundant.
I JUST TSAW ONE VIDEO AND GOT NOTIFICATION FOR IT, THEN IT JUST POPS UP MORE AND MORE ADN MORE, THIS IS A GREAT DAY TO BE ALIVE !
When he says the arrows are identical...my word...those are IDENTICAL. Amazing piece of craftsmanship; the consistency is off the charts. Beautiful arrows, truly.
Great work! Very interesting work, especially with the context of just how well the shaped armor protects more.
Brilliant and informative. Loving the series. Would have been interesting to see the condition of the various heads after shooting them.
So interesting after seeing the full test, since this test showed "a little deeper" but didn't capture the improved bite that we saw on the full armor when they weren't always penetrating.
Simply amazing work! Thanks to all people participating!
I was about to go to sleep, youtube recommended one of these for me and now I have 1 video left to watch after this. Fantastic stuff.
Thank you Tod ,
And thank you to the whole Crew .
🐺
A pleasure
This is most informative. I had not taken into account the production time.
I noticed that regardless of materials the hits in the centre of the plate went deeper than the ones near to the frame. Perhaps a larger plate or tests about the effect of near to frame hits that would be reinforced on one or two sides would be appropriate.
I would love to see tests shooting at a plate at increasing angles just to get an idea of the effects of deflection. Great videos and a fascinating series!
I recall an earlier series waxed arrowheads and aside from waterproofing, the lubrication also improved penetration by a fair bit. I wonder if the different arrowhead materials would affect the degree of improvement, or if the change would be mostly uniform.
I wonder if waxed arrowheads would affect the angle it bites. I'd think it wouldn't have too much effect since it still strikes with the point, but I'd rather not assume.
Keep on rolling!
Thanks for your time and effort :D
I've been a smith/artist for more than 2 decades, and began learning without electricity or belt driven (water) power. Case hardening in addition to being very easy and straightforward uses every day waste materials (hair, bone, hoof shavings, charcoal, etc.,) and can be done passively sitting at the bottom of a fire for hours or days. I've done it many times bringing my antique hammers, swages, hardies etc. back to working condition. A brand new child apprentice could compete a batch with almost no training. All that's to say I agree with Tod, and think it highly probable that many objects were hardened, but the layer is so thin, and so much more readily oxidized that it is gone in decades, while the pieces we want to analyse are centuries old! I don't know what it might be, but I'll bet there is a way to learn a bit more at least. Perhaps testing samples to see whether the carbon in the steel shows isotopic variability and ratios might indicate carbon types its been exposed to, or, does the microscopic structure of what remains indicate that a "skin" has oxidized off? Those are just examples of properties to examine, I don't think it would be that straightforward. Maybe my hope is just wishful thinking dressed up with some science-y verbiage? Any materials scientists out there?
What I find really quite cool is the sound of the impact. I think it's the reverb as the steel plate suddenly collapses against the backing, but it sounds on video very much like how gunshots sound on video
That was another hugely informative preliminary test - the work going into the 'actual test' is outstanding.
And it's a great joy watching Joe shooting all those test arrows.
I'm going to do some testing of my own to see if results change with *sharp* leading edges on the heavy bodkins. Like a slight hollow grind.
I think the Romans did this on triangular heads
I could watch this content all day. Thanks so much to you and the rest of the crew.
Thanks again for all the work you have put in! Seeing not only the main video but all the other testing is just a really awesome educational experience.
Another great video Tod and I'm off to watch the last one
Love these in depth and serious tests.
Thank you for all your hard work!! Love this series
For a future video I would encourage you to make a video where the steel plate target is set at an angle somewhat equivalent to the average curvature of a "standard" breastplate from the same historical era. Since all the arrow types penetrates the steel on the target, then the depth of penetration is just a function of the kinetic energy (which is about the same for all of them). In the longer main video, the biggest difference between the different arrowhead types was how well it "bit" into the curved armor. Thus a test with an angled target would show weather or not the different arrowhead types makes a difference on the ability to bit into a target to be able to go through the armor and then penetrate further into the target.
Super video btw :)
Thank you for this incredible series. This is a gem.
i love this series. i do have some questions that you may or may not know the answers to:
1. was the weight of the arrows any different between types?
2. did Joe notice any difference in how the arrows shot?
3. is there any evidence that mediaeval armorers did any systematic testing of armor, arrows, mail, etc? or was it all anecdotal, and battlefield outcomes?
Outstanding job mr Gibs. So many arrows form such a havy bow , your shoulders and your back must be killing you. For such a great archer , just round if applause it's not enough. Can't wait to see you more on the channel
Very intersting video. Thank you to all involved in making this
I remember that somewhere towards the end of the Swiss "Feuerwerkerbuch", they are talking about some obscure process to treat arrowheads, it includes some herbs known as "iron herb" in germany (vervaine), and I wonder if that, read by someone who knows about that stuff, could indicate some form of case hardening, at least in the late 1500´s, at least for some arrowheads.
Great work! I have a few thoughts on this, the take away seems to be that the material didn’t matter, all arrows penetrated about the same, but I don’t this this is the whole story. All arrows carry the same kinetic energy, so as long as the head is able to maintain its shape on impact, it will punch through using about the same amount of energy, thus will sink about as deep. It’s an all or nothing proposition. Had you repeated this series of tests on increasing grades of armor plate, at some point you will find that the softer heads will deform and will not penetrate at all, whereas the harder ones will still punch through. Essentially, I don’t think it matters if the head is a little bit harder than the armor, or a lot harder, if it’s hard enough to go through, it’s going through. And if not, it won’t. The value in the hardened heads is not improved penetration on soft armor, but the ability to penetrate higher grade armor that the softer heads would simply bounce off of.
These are great! Getting results as accurate as possible with limited funds.
Enjoying these videos. It could be that archers of the day were looking at other factors aside from solely arrow penetration. Many arrows were reclaimed on the battlefield- would the case-hardened variety be more reusable and so, in the long run, possibly less costly anyway?
Just throwing this out there.
excellent stuff, replacing the steel sheet each time, makes the results more consistent
Great videos on arrow vs armor 2 and I love the collaboration and the discussion. I'm hoping these are a huge success so we don't have to wait too long for arrows vs armor 3.
How would an untempered bloomery steel head compare?
Arrows aren't going to be retrieved in a battle and absolute hardness might be preferred to the durability of tempering.
It would also remove a process and reduce the time to produce the head
Such an amazing baseline, thank you for getting that knowledge!
Total legit Testing! Thank you!
Wow, you guys aren't messing about with these tests! I've seen the main and three of the supplemental new tests, now, and every minute of wait for this "sequel" has been worth it!
Something about arrows just struck me (sic!): With what precision do we know the relationship between the width of the arrow head vs. the arrow shaft? While it's probably small, in relation to piercing steel, the subsequent friction between the wood and plate may have measurable effect, especially considering that it lasts for >10 cm, and may be enhanced by vibration. Potentially, even a small reduction of the shaft width might reduce friction, and allow deeper penetration. I know that it doesn't matter relative to the main test, but testing absolutely all variables and their combinations is impossible, so knowing the specifics of each that is tested is interesting, with thought to extrapolating (which will just be guessing, regardless, but guesses can be better, or worse).
Jeez, talking about this, without sounding dirty is absolutely impossible. I might as well be writing porn... I can certainly see how Matt (scholagladiatoria) got started on his descent into the underbelly of the English language. ;-)
Congratulations to all involved in this series, just wonderful work. What a treat!
Love everything to do with this series, very interesting to watch! If I were to make a suggestion though, I would have staggered the release of these mini films across the few weeks before the main film was released. These would have provided a lot more context if I'd watched them before. Gets people hyped up for the main video
Yes I agree - we made a mistake in how we released them I think - live and learn
All of this is of course super cool to see and I’m sure took a lot of time and effort to get set up.
I think if you really wanted to make an experiment that eliminates all undesirable variables, you’d have to make some sort of really expensive fixture that can consistently deliver the same kinetic energy to a steel plate. Then you could introduce the different arrow heads to that fixture and even then you’d probably have to do at least half a dozen runs per arrow head type to eliminate outliers.
This is not to detract from y’alls experiment. All craftsmen and the archer did an awesome job.
excellent demonstration
Excellent video thanks for making.
Archery is so interesting.. always more to learn.great fun and it keeps strength up.. could also put food on the table ..
This series of films are the best, on this subject, I have ever seen.
Great video! Would have been slightly better on a technical level to double blind it, so that the archer and those taking the measurements didn't know which head was which, until you look up the number afterwards. That helps to rule out effects from unconscious bias. Not sure if it would have been as good a video that way, as the batch by batch dialogue really made for a nice rhythm.
Really great video! I really enjoyed the time I spent watching it and I learned a lot more than I thought I would.
As an aside, dude needs to get his eye fixed before it becomes a serious problem. It looks like a calcified stye. The issue is that they can become infected and being that close to his eye, it's an issue. The procedure is quick and easy.
Well done!
It might not be worth the effort, but I can't help but wonder if the result would be different with less backing material. Once the head pierces the metal, extra hardness is largely wasted and it's all about surface area and friction against the backing material and shaft. What if you compared more against different thicknesses of metal and whether they were punctured cleanly at all, rather than how deep the arrow went?
Also, to puncture armor, I would think you want the tip to be as narrow as possible without deforming. Therefore, would steel tips allow for a different geometry with better penetration? Since this would likely affect the entire design of the head and even the shaft, it may have been even more expensive and still not worth it unless it punched through armor like butter.
Hey Tod, didn't you do a test a couple years back, about wax being put on arrowheads, in order to increase their 'bite'? (Might have been Joerg Sprave) Would be an interesting added factor, especially with the hardend heads.
The issue in your methodology is that you are essentially measuring penetration in the backing material (which I didn't catch whether you mentioned it or not, but it seems to be some sort of dust?) and not the thin metallic diaphragm, which is easily defeated by all arrows regarding of arrowhead material. Penetration in that dusty backing material seems to be equally independent on arrowhead material - it's not the hardness of the arrowhead that determines the penetration depth but the energy of the arrow, which is presumably similar between shots.
I agree. The material test may be be somewhat flawed. If the arrows are easily penetrating the metal, then it increasingly becomes a measure of foam penetration and edge retention on the arrow head. Would it be possible to repeat but with increased metal thickness?
I believe the idea is that the different materials use different amounts of energy to get through the steel. Which makes sense - the harder the head is, the more energy is conserved in the steel plate phase and the deeper it penetrates.
Great Testing.Honestly I think they made the heads out of Iron to make them glance off. This also explains the shape of them best. How do you keep an edge on soft metal? make it a blunt angle. Same goes for making them glance off.
With regards to the case-hardened arrows, for the first one that was shot (second one measured), I noticed immediately after it hit that it was at an angle. So, when the arrows were being measured, I paid specific attention to which one was which and I was not at all surprised that it went in much shallower than the other two. This could mean that, all things being equal, the case-hardened arrows were actually even better than what was shown with the averages. I don't mean it as a criticism, it's just something to think about.
I do wonder, are there any longevity differences between the bloomery steel, the case harden and the wrought iron? mostly in regards to rust?
Yes a case will rust slower
I'm sure anyone sensible would have coated the heads in some sort of wax or something oily fatty preparation to prevent rust in transport and that would also potentially aid penetration of the armour.
@@mrln247 Todd already tested it, beeswax helps penetration :) But if it's more corosion resistent you'd remove the need for checking up on them and reapplying the wax/oil. Wether that's a worthwhile trade i got no clue
It might be of value to examine how much head deformation there was after striking the target. (edit - I see that philsie had the same idea!)
a good point. ideally, the arrow head isn't re-usable by the person you shot it at
Good idea. Wonder about the relative difficulty in repair, as well?
As a machinist and an engineer, case hardening is a technology long used to make tougher, more durable product, because the very hard surface is supported by a very tough, fracture resistant core.
Also, technically, since you can finish harder metals to a smoother, finer finish, this can mean less drag in the metal-on-metal contact, meaning that the smoother finish loses less energy to drag, meaning there is more energy left over to penetrate the target more deeply.
While they CAN some times be a little too brittle and chip, [which might have happened on the one with the shorter 9 cm depth] if one 'draws back' the finished case hardening AFTER grinding and polishing, they should still maintain an excellent surface hardness AND a superior surface FINISH, but now with more chip resistance, so that they have the best possible combination of hardness, smoothness and toughness anybody at that period of time could have achieved [essentially, a skin of 'spring steel', or very near unto it, but without the extreme expense].
Indeed it is a shame we have no way to test this, especially since the case hardened skins of the heads, often only a few thousandths of an inch thick, are simply not going to be able to last that long in any non-preserved type setting.
Even sweat and body acids from one's fingertips will corrode away the case hardening over time.
First, great video (s)
I'd like to say something, materials behave differently when confronted, so I think it'll be very interesting not only testing those different types of arrowheads to each other, but against different armours, I mean, different kind of metals (targets) and the shape of the armour.
I wouldn’t have thought wrought iron with case-hardening would have been superior. I would have thought the mild steel would be the winner. Fascinating!
What an awesome video! Thanks for all of the hard work you guys obviously put into this. My question is about the arrowheads that were found/used at the battle of Agincourt, so called "plate cutters" or duck billed heads. What you have demonstrated is that these arrowheads do not effectively penetrate plate armor, especially the breast plate and helmet. I think one penetrated the shoulder armor but the vast majority of the lethal or disabling blows were in the gaps in the plate armor where the only protection was mail and fabric armor. So, it seems that the archers of the time would have been targeting these areas of their opponents. So, why weren't they using needle bodkins instead? We know or at least we think we know that needle bodkins outperform all other arrowheads against mail armor..
Wow.... this series makes me so very happy. 😁😁😁
Againt the armour, lots of arrows broke on impact as the shaft snapped close to the arrowhead. Was there any historical means of reinforcing that portion of the arrow? Perhaps bindings?
Amazing!
Not sure in which order to watch, so I started here.
Interesting results so far.
However,given your targets were mild steel, it would be interesting yet to see this same test, but with also having different irons or steels for the targets as well.
As having a harder arrowhead might be necessary for harder armor plates?
Who knows, eh...
What do you thing about bee wax/pork fat mix coating of arrows so it can better slip through?
How much do these arrows weight? Do you know how fast they are propelled from that bow?.
A quick definition of the materials Tod mentions, around the 1:15 mark:
"Wrought Iron" is a more primitive form of iron. If you melt iron ore down to iron, but don't do much else, wrought iron is what you end up with. Compared to other forms of iron and steel, it's softer and more flexible. Mixed in with the iron is usually silica or other impurities from the smelting being less than precise. This has some advantages (like, it can be "hammer welded") but for our purposes the main thing is, this is cheap, primitive, soft iron.
"Case hardened" iron is iron that has been heated inside a sealed case together with a source of carbon, and left hot (but not melted) for an extended time. The carbon leaches into the outer layer of the iron, making it more steel like. Specifically, this makes the surface harder, where carbon has cooked into the iron. But it doesn't harden it all the way through, so it doesn't become brittle.
"Bloomed" steel is steel that has been made by an early medieval process. If you like documentaries like this, you might like seeing "Secrets of the Castle", episode four. About 15 minutes into that one, you get a demonstration of "blooming" steel in the medieval way. It's a labor intensive process, so much so that steel didn't really become affordable until other methods of getting that iron + carbon mix at high purity were invented.
"Mild steel" is what we call common everyday not-stainless steel made in the modern way. If you go down to your local metal supplier and ask for steel, you might end up with mild steel. It's the cheap but basically good stuff.
Thanks for that Sam 👏
I'd like to add that it isn't just the additional work that makes anything above wrought iron more expensive but also the fact that much more charcoal is necessairy to produce the better qualities, and the wood to produce that charcoal is not something that is available in unlimited amounts in the late middle ages, when entire forrests were cut down to build ships, houses etc. aside from being consumed as burning fuel in households and workshops.
Cheap, readily available energy is a relative modern phenomenon and a luxury that we are just now becoming more aware of...
Really fun series but I think it's incredibly valuable information and very well put together.
Another great video. I have just a couple questions:
First, shouldn't the hardened arrows have a longer taper? They can handle such a taper without as much plastic deformation and it would greatly improve penetration.
Second, are the arrows catching on the shaft? If so, would slightly bigger heads or smaller shafts make a difference?
This is a lot more interesting than I thought it'd be. 👍 good vid
Great video, and I love the passion of all the guys….thanks to the kickstarter-backers, too!
To make this even more scientific I would blind the Archer and the others besides the Arrowsmith to the material so that the human factor can be limited more….
I just found this channel and am going to binge these videos…so looking forward to that tonight
Would love a colab between this channel and the slow mo guy, just to see how the arrow penetrates the armor plating on hyper slow mo.
Thank you for the work.
Love it as usual, should try Arrows vs Guns part 2 also try with waxes arrowheads and for fun, one with a modern armor peircing arrows.
Again. Brilliant stuff.
There more I see of these tests (I still have a couple of vids left), the more obvious it is how many different aspects play into the results, but also how wildly different they affect them, or not. Like several people mentioned, the arrowhead material doesn't matter that much for penetration, but much more for bite angle. Without all these tests, we wouldn't know.
Though from this test in particular, I find that one of the most useful findings is that modern mild steel is a very reasonable substitute for wrought iron. It makes testing easier if you can use modern methods and materials that lower costs. Not that I'm familiar with such production costs, but having alternatives are always better than not.
It was interesting to see how pointless it was to use bloomery steel instead of wrought iron considering how much harder it is to make.
All in all, a relatively simple test, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it. Far from it; it makes it easier to learn from it. It's easy to get too greedy when testing and try to find out too much at the same time, which results in losing reliability and readability in the results.
Did you save the heads from these tests? I would be interested to see the tip deformation and edge retention
Well done. Really good information.
hi there guys i remember a video about oiling or waxing arrows making them more penetrating have you tried this versus armour ?
I remember a Discussion with a Metal Master, he told me. In the past they used straw to up carbon the surface when forging something.
Maybe they used it in the medieval time, straw was there in abundance.
I've also heard that they used horns, rubbing it against the red-hot steel to deposit carbon onto the surface
If swords were tempered knowing as a king intelligence you will be up against armour would the thought of hardening the arrow to try to have an advantage to penetrate. Can it be done in the field , could it be done by the archers them selves etc. if my life was dependent on the killing effect I would try . More questions
Received my Messer thank you Tod it's beautiful. Brilliant videos love it
When doing statistical analysis, given the "shot quality" variable, I'd do a 68% cutoff *here*. That's one of the reasons you need a bigger sample; then you could do a 95% cutoff. But at the effect size here--which I estimate at a Cohen's _d_ of about 1.5, it'd probably be about 15 shots each group, to get at least 10 reliable shots to reach a nice 90% statistical power in order to really be able to find if the _p_ < .05. Just PM me if you need some _pro bono_ statistical/research design work, Tod. This is pretty easy stuff that I'd do in a couple of hours during breaks at work.
The key part of the performance would be when armor thickness is at the threshold of blocking the arrows completely. If one of the higher quality arrowheads makes the difference in getting through your enemy’s armor and you can afford it, then it would be worth it.
So I guess it really depends on the margins that arrows could get through armor at any specific conflict in the medieval period.
what was the tension of the bow or ,did I not hear?
Would arrowheads have been greased to protect against rust etc and would greased arrowheads perform differently?
could they have case hardened the bloomery steel tips? wouldn‘t that be the ultimate arrow for that time period?
Super curious for the third installment- it would be amazing to see 3 different sets in a unit against a volley of arrows at terminal velocity (arched and then falling).
The simulation here is super interesting, but as formations they would have been hailing incoming forces before they would be barraging. The straight shot scenario is much easier to control for testing, but being able to do some odds calculation with regards to the likely number of volleyed and straight shots an average knight was experiencing we could have a statistical analysis to work with.
Though uh- I’ve heard popular theories that the mud and approach incline for the horses exposed them to arrow fire, leaving them stuck in mud and severely compromised by battlefield conditions- I’m curious if it would’ve been a possible feat without that.
how far were those shots??? it looks like those bodkin type heads would not be effective at twice that range. seemed like they dropped a lot and would lose energy fast due to weight and speed
We have a film coming about speeds and distances, but yes of course they lose speed, but not that much
@@tods_workshop love the amount of work and well thought scientific approach to these type of problems!!
I know that some earlier arrows or simple ones for smaller game used just fire hardened point tip of wood part it self so I was wondering how good that simple type of arrows were. Like maybe even how different type of wood used for it affect it after tip was burned to harden it.
Very interesting to me brings the question did there best archers the marksmen use the more expensive caseharden heads while the average archer used the common heads? Kinda like snipers in modern military.
Was weight of the head a factor in these out comes?
great content. would not high carbon steel have a much greater chance to rust away to nothing in the time between when they were used and now? I know cast iron is much better at resisting corrosion than carbon steel.
Great video what draw weight was that bow?