That is a beautiful and amazing bow Andreas. Utterly fabulous as was the test. It is so useful to know what different energies do. I released an odd film a few days ago where I fitted rockets to arrows, generated a few more Joules than this but with smaller heads and still they struggled to get though and do damage. This is a great film
@@TanGuV123 From what I know crossbow limbs made of horn and sinew are more efficient than the ones made of steel because by being lighter they spring back faster.
For reference, a 9x19mm bullet from a full size handgun will produce around 490J, so this crossbow has roughly the energy of a 9mm subcompact pistol (shorter barrel).
@@Shoopuffishgud 9mm bullet through 3mm of steel? No, it wouldn't. Tesla Cybertruck has its body made of 3mm steel and it stops 9mm and 45acp shot from pistols. So no, plate armor made with modern steel would stop that bullet.
Amazing test. It really goes to show how much energy and momentum arrows/bolts require to have a chance of penetrating good plate. But no doubt some plate armour would be worse than this and the results under those circumstances would be different. Thank you for doing this test. It is very informative.
for a good breast plate or helmet perhaps, but limb and shoulder plates were by default thinner and thus required much less to penetrate, It's just like the Modern battle tank where the front armor is the toughest while the top, sides and rear are much less armored
I wonder if this crossbow can penetrate the 3 mm hardened breastplate from another video . That would be best armor vs best crossbow. A 3 mm plate would require almost twice the energy from the same arrow to be penetrated compared to a 2 mm because it's not a linear relation.And being hardened would raise the effectiveness by 1.5.
Die Platten sind völlig unterschiedlich da das Eisen in Rennöfen produziert wurde. Der viel zu geringe Kohlenstoffanteil machte eine übliche Härtung unmöglich. Irgendwie ist es trotzdem gelungen aber das Wissen darüber ging verloren.
My immediate thought upon seeing this was: "I've got to know what Tod would think of this!" So great to see him at the top of the comments. This whole community of living history and experimental archeology is such a fantastic example of the finest qualities of mankind. You all (creators and fellow viewers) have my sincerest well wishes.
Excellent Video. Magnificent equipment, all quite amazing. The testing was well done, well thought out, and well explained. Thank you. Doctor George Whitehead (shooting bows for 70 Years)
2:44 If the crossbow was braced against something rigid, you'd have a little more power-stroke since the crossbow recoils back before the bolt has left the string. Not sure how much of a difference it'd make, but with an already short draw, I'd expect measurable. Great stuff by the way. Very rare to see horn and sinew crossbows in action, let alone a monstrous one like that!
@@OblivionBonessmall calibers like 22lr and birdshot would absolutely struggle against good quality hardened steel. Add in range and I think it's safe to say that maybe even 45 acp would get stopped or deflected under some circumstances. Not sure about 9mm tho.
Okay, let’s be honest: birdshot and .22? Yes. 9mm, probably not. Aquebus of the early 16 century? Absolutely not. There’s a reason why aquebus and musket replaced crossbow.
Bolts not tuned to bow and flying perfectly straight and striking with all energy perfectly in line for max penetration. No..I don’t know how to fix that on this monster and I am very impressed with the video!
I'm surprised how well the armor and gambison did to stop the bolts from this absolutely gargantuan crossbow. It really can't be understated, though, how much it would still hurt to get hit by one of these despite the armor. Even in the best case scenario you'd be out of the fight for at least a while, probably unable to defend yourself against further attacks whether ranged or melee, so even if the bolt didn't kill you directly, you still might die... There's no chance you wouldn't have the wind knocked out of you at best, and like the narrator said, even though it didn't pierce the gel torso, you're still gonna end up with some blunt force damage and potentially broken ribs or breastbone. It probably still feels like getting hit in the chest with a major league fastball, even through that armor.
Yes. And the breast plate is one of the toughest parts of the full plate armour. If any knight was less lucky, the arrow would pierce both the armor and his body.
@@somerandoinaknightsarmor9938 Modern non-hardened mild steel is a good analogue in terms of strenght to the steel used for armor in the middle ages. Modern processes produce steel of much higher quality than what people were able to make in the middle ages. It is true that the very front part of the breast plate used to be thicker than in this video (2,5mm vs. 2mm) but other parts used to be significantly thinner than 2mm. As well as other parts of full plate harness. If the arrow hit any thinner part of the harness, the penetration would be severe, not just over 3cm.
Well, it still has less energy than most bullets... the momentum is very high though, so it may be right to compare it to hammer strike rather than a shot. On the other hand, the breastplate (together with the padding) will obviously distribute the shock both over the surface and the time, so it wouldn't be like a concentrated strike to one point... seems hard to tell on spot actually. Would be interesting to have some acceleration data from the target, especially from the inside. upd: actually as long as it doesn't actually reach the body to hit/wound it (and breastplate usually have some space underneath, padding included, exactly for the purpose), the fact that it penetrates the armor rather than glances/bounces off makes the hit softer overall.
Would bruises be reflected in the ballistic gel? We can't see any. Either way, if the bolts didn't cause internal injuries or bleeding, you would be just fine.
One thing that this does not take into account is that, in a typical scenario, the soldier would not have a giant pad behind him and would likely fall backwards when hit. This would further dissipate some of the kinetic energy delivered by the bolt.
I have a replica 16th century German crossbow but modern home-made bolts. These bolts have sharply pointed tips and are shorter than those in the video, about 22 centimeters weighing 150 grams (give or take). Small in comparison, but penetrating metal coffee cans is easy. I use a modified boat trailer winch to cock the crossbow. String movement is 20 centimeters. Lots of fun building and shooting. This is a good video.
Awesome video ! I just put the ballistics of this crossbow's bolts into a stopping power calculator, did you know it has 92 TKOF stopping power? That's MORE than a 12 gauge shotgun slug !!! And 5 TKOF is already enough to kill, so your crossbow is really really deadly !
I really, really doubt it would have 92 TKOF. You'd need to know the diameter of the bolts they're firing, to calculate it. What we can calculate, based on mass & velocity is the kinetic energy - at 280g, moving at 52 m/s, these bolts have roughly 380J of kinetic energy. A 70mm Foster slug has about 3200J of muzzle energy.
@@ShokkuKyushu It's sort of a measure of presumed "one shot kill" ability for a projectile. It stand's for "Taylor Knock-out Factor", but how useful it actually is as a measurement is pretty debated.
Judging from some of the comments below I think you need to find a way to measure hydrostatic shock in your gel torso. For example, it is not the schrapnel from an IED that injures but the over pressure inside the body regardless of body armour. Those arrow tips are designed to bite into the plate enough to transfer the kinetic energy of the bolt into the body of the knight.
@@henriknemeth3370 momentum - if plate stops the heavy bolt, then the wearer of the armor would partially have to absorb the momentum, which is bigger than 9x19.
@@cdgncgn It'd still be no more momentum than he shooter experiences. the armour distributes it well enough that you would be completely fine (so long as it doesn't penetrate deep enough to wound, obviously)
@@cdgncgnirrelevant. Energy is energy. Someone wearing a kevlar vest and taking a modern handgun round is handling MORE energy than this thing can produce. The blunt force will hurt, probably break ribs. But it's unlikely to kill unless god hates you.
Super, dass der Kanal jetzt gerade aktiv ist. Gibt glaub ich keinen besseren zeitpunkt für Armbrustcontent als um das Release Date von KCD2 herum. Aber eine Anmerkung zum Alter: Balistae ad tornum (also große Armbruste, die eine Spannbank zum Spannen benötigen) gibt es in den Inventaren schon um 1200, lange vor den ersten Bildquellen.
Danke für die Info - das stimmt schon, die Frage ist nur wie groß diese Armbrusten tatsächlich waren bzw aussahen, denn zu dieser Zeit kam der Stegreif erst auf und die Armbrust wurde noch mit Hilfe der Arme gespannt. Für leistungsstärkere Exemplare ist aber dann jedenfalls eine Spannhilfe nötig.
Zuerst mal geiles Video. Aber dann noch eine Frage: hab ich das richtig verstanden, dass an der Stelle wo sich der obere und der untere Rüstungsteil überlappen, die gesamte Dicke 4 mm ist? Also 2 mal 2 mm?
What a beast! Any chance to test it at a longer distance? I keep being amazed by the punishment these plates can endure, from your art's, Tod's or Joe Gibb's strength.
I'm not a crossbow expert, but I'd think physics-wise, the force is concentrated at the butt of the arrow, pushing it combined with drag would amplify any deviation from a completely straight line, which won't really happen in a globe. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
If my calculation is correct, the dynamic energy when the crossbow is ready for shooting, is something around 1200 to 1300 joules. I am surprised to see just 370 to 380 joules kinetic energy of the arrow. Anyway, the video is very interesting.
I'm wondering, could a strong warbow with good bodkin arrows penetrate this armour? Because while this monster crosbow seems really strong, I don't think that it is really efficient.
My impression is that an arrow from a longbow doesn't go through the centre of a top quality breastplate. It's hard to know what happened at Agincourt. The French tactics were all wrong. They went for the centre and the archers were then able to shoot them from the sides and back.. just like a tank, you have to make choices with armour. Doesn't make sense for it to be same thickness all over. (Also, not everyone may be wearing quality gear). After all, armour didn't really go out of fashion till a couple of centuries later. It's based on Todd, recommended below. He's an armourer who collaborates with Toby Capwell, the head of the armour section of the Wallace Collection, and a gut who can shoot a longbow of the kind of weight they found in the Mary Rose.
It goes to show the amazing engineering that went into plate armor. That man wouldve survived that monster of a crossbow. Gotta aim for the head for sure
This really goes to show how effective this type of armor was. You'd have to hit a place on the body where the armor was very thin and even then you'd be unlikely to wound the warrior. especially with bows etc. The only real was is to hit somewhere that isn't armored at all, but later armor has very little gaps
Have ten of these lined up on the inner parapet when they make it through the porticulus. Also, those bolts could do with slightly wider flights, quarter to half an inch at least
Awesome astonishing quality video! Have 7 pounds been lost due to usage or just decimal approximation? Why not using that 320 g bolt which you used 5 years ago (with which you obtained 426 joules of kinetic energy)? I was also surprised that you used a two-parts breastplate instead of a single-piece one. I know that this crossbow is meant to be from the 14th century at the earliest, but do you think that this crossbow, at least for the prod, may be something similar to the so-called "arbalètes à tour" ("baliste ad tornum") which were in use at least since the early 13th century? More generally, would you see a crossbow having a prod like the one at this video being used in conjunction with the large windlass at your other video (namely, "Medieval Crossbow Spanning Devices - Hook spanning belt, Windlass and Cranequin") during the 13th century? Asking because it is a bit of a mystery what the "arbalètes à tour" of the 13th century were, and I think that you never covered these crossbows. The French Wikipedia, at the page "Arbalète_à_tour" (if you want to take a look at it), affirms that they were about as big as Roman Republic catapultae and appeared as early as the 11th century (I doubt it.), so I was wondering if something like this could be substantially close (or at least closer) to what an arbalète à tour of the army of King Philip II of France actually was. What do you think? Would this crossbow have been spanned by something like that large windlass? Clearly, the crossbow which you used when demonstrating that device was way too light. Is it known what the animal from which the horns has been made in the original is? Have you used horns from the same animal or from what else? I believe that the best horns for crossbows were those from alpine steinbocks (capra ibex). Do you have any preference when it comes to horns? Danke Schön.
THANK YOU! The performance of a composite bow varies throughout the year and is highly dependent on temperature and humidity (weak in summer and strong in winter). Unfortunately, I only had a bolt with this weight and only this breastplate available😉 The terms "a tour" and "ad tornum" are well known but its difficult to say what the early sources mean..... The large wooden windlass from my other video is able to span this crossbow too. The materials for the horn core denpends from their region. Old scholars spoke somtimes from wood or whalebone. I think they mean baleen for northern Europe. Sources of the teutonic order spoke from "Bockshorn" (sheep?) and in central Europe ibex was available and - as you say - perhaps the best. For this bow I use water buffalo horn, but I build one composite crossbow from ibex and it works very well.
@@medievalcrossbows7621 I guess nobody knows which is the animal used for the original from the 14th/15th century on which your replica is based? Which one of the crossbows you demonstrated in this channel is the ibex one? This is the text, from the late XIII century or early XIV century: >Iuro ad evangelia sancta Dei quod omnes ballistas quas laboravo vel laborare fecero, vendam vel vendi fatiam cum suo nomine et dicam veritatem si erunt de cornibus stambicorum vel de aliis cornibus, omnes pro suo nomine de quo sunt. et omnes ballistas quas fecero vel laborare fecero de cornibus stambicorum, non mittam nec mitti faciam in ipsis de aliis cornibus nisi de stanbicis. et si sciero quod aliquis de ista arte fecerit contra ordinem suprascriptum et non habeat factum hoc sacramentum, quam cicius potero iusticiariis manifestabo. Practically, the text states that nobody must sell other horns as if they are of "stambicus" (steinbock, "stambecco" in Italian) and that such horns must be not mixed with any other horns within the same crossbow. It is clear from the text that steinbock horns are assumed to be either the best or the most costly ones. About the crossbows "à tour" or "ad tornum" of the early 13th century (and probably already existing before 1200), beside the fact that nobody is certain of what they were, do you have a prevalent idea? My idea is that they were actually crossbows like the one in this video, which at those times was possible to span only using huge stationary windlasses (so could not be used in field battles). What is your idea on the matter if anything? Could the crossbow in this video actually be one of those "arbalètes à tour"?
@@cernel5799 This crossbow was never examined in detail, so it is unclear what material was actually used. There is no video of the ibex crossbow yet🙂 Thanks for the source, I think I have read it somewhere or have read about it before. I don't think my large crossbow corresponds to the one in the early 13th century sources. I think it was more likely a design with an integrated spanning device....
@@medievalcrossbows7621 So, if I understand correctly, you share the view that the early 13th century arbalètes à tour were something like Ancient Roman catapultae except that they had prods instead of being based on torsion, or do you actually tend to think that they were very much like actual Ancient Roman catapultae, based on torsion (so practically about the same as later springalds but possibly with outward swinging arms)? Personally, I have a very hard time visualizing something like an Ancient Roman catapulta being aimed from early 13th century castles down at individual men besieging it. (By "catapulta", I mean something throwing huge bolts but never stones. Something like the one Tod has at his "Tod's new artillery piece - BALLISTA or CATAPULTA?" video, which is often identified as a "ballista".)
@@cernel5799 I'm not sure whether they were actually torsion machines, but it would be conceivable, especially since knowledge of them was not lost in the Eastern Roman Empire....
Surprisingly low velocity, a decent recurve 60# bo an beat it. Of course bolts are very heavy but still interesting. Anyway, totally awesome test! Wonderful work with reproduction of this crossbow.
Bow this massive definitely won't be built for speed... I wonder what's the maximum velocity, but danger of dry shot is real. From what I recall even with those massive bolts it still has rather low efficiency.
I think the bolts are too blunt. There are other types of bolt heads that might work slightly better. Type 16 and 9 leaf shaped bodkins with a reinforced central ridge might work well. Having those hardened cutting edges might do more than you think.
I wonder why they designed the bolts to have such relatively wide heads. In theory, a bolt with a narrower head would penetrate much deeper. It makes me wonder if these designs were target-shooting bolts rather than war bolts. There's a channel on here of elastic crossbows that achieves impressive penetration despite very low kinetic energy, probably because of the efficient design of the bolts.
For the quality of steel they could produce at the time, I don't think they could make much narrower heads that are strong enough to maintain structural integrity
Against properly designed plate anything with a sharper point with the material of the time (mostly iron) will just have the point tip roll, and penetrate less than this. The "blunter" pyramidal cross section allows some degree of chance of the point maintaining its shape. Any and all properly laid out tests of arrows shot against moderate plate that could be expected to encounter them shows that arrows really can't make it through. Only very low quality or thin plate against very strong bows or crossbows will fail to stop the projectile.
Finer points would have trouble keeping up as far as mass goes and would be prone to rolling and generally not surviving impacts. We've seen it happen. But yeah, it seems that some better compromise could be made. Those are si wide they stick to the surface, pretty much, moving entire breastplate round.
Armour on arms had to be thinner, since it would be difficult to fight with extra weight above 1 kg on each arm. And horse was vulnerable to shots from heavy crossbow too.
Arms armour usually was about 1 mm thick. But limbs armour has much more curved form so shot can be at angle that makes this 1 mm harder to penetrate than 2 mm at breast plate with 90 degree hit.
This is difficult because the surviving originals can no longer be used. Only reconstructions can help here and provide an approximation. In any case, tests show that the maximum bolt speed is around 70 metres per second, regardless of the respective draw weight of the crossbow.
No. These dull and broad heads (called Bodkin) are actually sharp and broad and exactly what was used for maximum armor Penetration abilities. 90° angles all over the place. Make it any thinner and you bend it on impact.
@@sergeynikolaevich1750ну смотря когда, ближе к концу 15 века стали распространены, и даже наемники вполне себе могли позволить, аристократия так была защищена поголовно... На 14, первую половину 15 века - да, кирассы были еще редки и большая часть была одета в бригантины... Но во второй половине 15 века, 16 век, такие латы, и даже более совершенные, были распространены.
@@PRINCKROVI Ой это слишком оптимистично . Бриги могли позволить себе лишь удачливые мародеры , большинство серой скотинки обходились кожей и тряпкой , и , да , их никто не считал , помнится даже детей отправляли в утиль на святую землю чего уж говорить про остальное быдло ,особенно что в наглии творилось -трэш , угар и содомия .
@@eergegerg23 ну понятно, пехота от полного доспеха быстро отказалась, в нем только рыцари ходили когда спешивались, а вот панцирь(кирассу) и юбку вполне себе носили.
Off all the tests I have seen, almost always the armor will protect. Here we talk about a point-blank shot with the heaviest crossbow. So multiple hits would be needed, to catch an unarmored part of the body. And I guess only 10% of the troops were fully armoured in plate, with many only wearing parts...
Those bodkin style points seem too be awfully sharp of a taper, I would think a more needle bodkin style would penetrate more. Can you explain why this style was used?
These heads are based on preserved originals of such crossbows. They are designed for the penetration of plates. Needle-shaped heads are more likely to bend.
@medievalcrossbows7621 very interesting. It is pretty obvious that if the breastplate was replaced with mail it would be rather devastating, the energy transfer is quite impressive. Even with the breastplate the psychological effect would be quite substantial when getting hit that hard.
While the original this replica is based on wasn't used with a spanning stand, is this the kind of draw weight/energy you'd expect to see for a crossbow that could be spanned by one?
@@medievalcrossbows7621 Oh yes, like I said, I know the original doesn't have one on it, I'm just wondering if it's technically feasible to span a crossbow of that draw weight with one. I'm trying to figure out the upper limit for a hausspied/garroc as mounted on the French ships at Sluys in 1340.
Plate protects well against crossbow. That isn't a crossbow, that's a monster.
Just goes to show you every Superman has his Doomsday
It's the Barrett of Medieval .50cal😊
That breastplate still protected incredibly well. The man inside could be bruised or if real unlucky have a broken bone, but he’s probably going home.
Nah just a scorpio.
that's a goddam scorpion-class ballista
That is a beautiful and amazing bow Andreas. Utterly fabulous as was the test. It is so useful to know what different energies do. I released an odd film a few days ago where I fitted rockets to arrows, generated a few more Joules than this but with smaller heads and still they struggled to get though and do damage. This is a great film
Would the arrows be more stable with two smaller rockets on the same plane side by side?
Thanks Tod, I'm glad you like the video!
For some reason i knew i would see a tods workshop comment
Would be great to a comparisson between this crossbow and tod's1250lbs Windlass Crossbow
@@TanGuV123 From what I know crossbow limbs made of horn and sinew are more efficient than the ones made of steel because by being lighter they spring back faster.
For reference, a 9x19mm bullet from a full size handgun will produce around 490J, so this crossbow has roughly the energy of a 9mm subcompact pistol (shorter barrel).
thanks for this info!
really puts into perspective how powerfull handguns are, even compact ones, lol
Yet the bullet would sail through that armor like it's nothing at all. 🤤
@@luisfelipejahn1281guns really did change everything.
@@Shoopuffishgud 9mm bullet through 3mm of steel? No, it wouldn't. Tesla Cybertruck has its body made of 3mm steel and it stops 9mm and 45acp shot from pistols.
So no, plate armor made with modern steel would stop that bullet.
@@snookiewozousing the Tesla cyber truck as your comparison no way
Wow, what a monster. Very impressive to see it recoil and the impact in slow motion.
Amazing test.
It really goes to show how much energy and momentum arrows/bolts require to have a chance of penetrating good plate.
But no doubt some plate armour would be worse than this and the results under those circumstances would be different.
Thank you for doing this test. It is very informative.
for a good breast plate or helmet perhaps, but limb and shoulder plates were by default thinner and thus required much less to penetrate, It's just like the Modern battle tank where the front armor is the toughest while the top, sides and rear are much less armored
@@aburoach9268 Agreed
I wonder if this crossbow can penetrate the 3 mm hardened breastplate from another video . That would be best armor vs best crossbow. A 3 mm plate would require almost twice the energy from the same arrow to be penetrated compared to a 2 mm because it's not a linear relation.And being hardened would raise the effectiveness by 1.5.
Die Platten sind völlig unterschiedlich da das Eisen in Rennöfen produziert wurde. Der viel zu geringe Kohlenstoffanteil machte eine übliche Härtung unmöglich. Irgendwie ist es trotzdem gelungen aber das Wissen darüber ging verloren.
@@aburoach9268less power to penetrate, but also needs a much better shot not to glance off.
Wow, it actually happened, I always wanted to see this beast tested against plate and it was, in a proper authentic test. I am super impressed.
Whoever built that crossbow is a Master artisan😮.
Thank you ;-)
@@medievalcrossbows7621what type of crossbow do you think the folk hero William Tell would have used?
@@Hotoska tell is a myth and ordinary peasants did not own a crossbow😏
Yeah, that inlay is beautiful and well done.
@@medievalcrossbows7621can you provide a source for the blue mechanism used to draw the crossbow?
My immediate thought upon seeing this was: "I've got to know what Tod would think of this!" So great to see him at the top of the comments. This whole community of living history and experimental archeology is such a fantastic example of the finest qualities of mankind.
You all (creators and fellow viewers) have my sincerest well wishes.
This was a great test, it cannot be overstated how amazing it is to see this accuracy in materials and construction for this test.
Beautiful job Andreas! very well documented.
Thank you!!
Very Impressive and again proves having a good breastplate is extremely useful as most dont get hit by a stonking big crossbow
A great video that closes the "bolt vs. armor" theme, in my opinion. Thanks!
Sehr gut. Vielen dank!
Danke für das Lob!
Excellent Video. Magnificent equipment, all quite amazing. The testing was well done, well thought out, and well explained. Thank you. Doctor George Whitehead (shooting bows for 70 Years)
2:44 If the crossbow was braced against something rigid, you'd have a little more power-stroke since the crossbow recoils back before the bolt has left the string. Not sure how much of a difference it'd make, but with an already short draw, I'd expect measurable.
Great stuff by the way. Very rare to see horn and sinew crossbows in action, let alone a monstrous one like that!
Another excellent test video Andreas, much appreciated.
Awesome video, thank you so much, amazing reference for writers, game developers, designers, etc! awesome work
Amazing work. Let's not underestimate late medieval armour. It could even withstand some types of firearms.
No
@@OblivionBonessmall calibers like 22lr and birdshot would absolutely struggle against good quality hardened steel. Add in range and I think it's safe to say that maybe even 45 acp would get stopped or deflected under some circumstances. Not sure about 9mm tho.
*Some* could resist firearms.
Okay, let’s be honest: birdshot and .22? Yes. 9mm, probably not. Aquebus of the early 16 century? Absolutely not. There’s a reason why aquebus and musket replaced crossbow.
Small caliber rounds, sure.
You'd be hard pressed to find any armor that could withstand 9mil or greater.
This isn't a crossbow, it's a mini javelin launcher. Amazing stuff and amazing skills!
This isn't a crossbow anymore, this is a full-on handheld ballista!
This isn’t a great crossbow, it’s a small ballista…🤔🙂But boy, it’s beautiful and impressive!
Quite the glorious crossbow. Thank you for doing the demonstration.
Now i have full understanding of how would plate armor defend even against the most powerful infantry crossbow. Thanks for such a video
On the breastplate.. well it would hurt badly. But doesn't look leathal. Awesome vid man
yeah that second one looks like it'd hurt a ton from sheer kinetic energy
Bolts not tuned to bow and flying perfectly straight and striking with all energy perfectly in line for max penetration. No..I don’t know how to fix that on this monster and I am very impressed with the video!
Aren't crossbows shooting straight, no need for tuned arrows
Those are some sturdy shafts. I'm surprised none of them splintered.
I'm surprised how well the armor and gambison did to stop the bolts from this absolutely gargantuan crossbow.
It really can't be understated, though, how much it would still hurt to get hit by one of these despite the armor. Even in the best case scenario you'd be out of the fight for at least a while, probably unable to defend yourself against further attacks whether ranged or melee, so even if the bolt didn't kill you directly, you still might die... There's no chance you wouldn't have the wind knocked out of you at best, and like the narrator said, even though it didn't pierce the gel torso, you're still gonna end up with some blunt force damage and potentially broken ribs or breastbone. It probably still feels like getting hit in the chest with a major league fastball, even through that armor.
Maybe waxxing the Bolts would made the Bolts more efective?
Made the armor look like tin! Very impressive
incredible. Even with all that power it still can't get through the armor enough to pierce organs. But i bet the impact with hurt like hell.
Yes. And the breast plate is one of the toughest parts of the full plate armour. If any knight was less lucky, the arrow would pierce both the armor and his body.
Keep in mind the armor in the video wasnt even hardened and it held up that well!
@@somerandoinaknightsarmor9938 Modern non-hardened mild steel is a good analogue in terms of strenght to the steel used for armor in the middle ages. Modern processes produce steel of much higher quality than what people were able to make in the middle ages.
It is true that the very front part of the breast plate used to be thicker than in this video (2,5mm vs. 2mm) but other parts used to be significantly thinner than 2mm. As well as other parts of full plate harness. If the arrow hit any thinner part of the harness, the penetration would be severe, not just over 3cm.
Well, it still has less energy than most bullets... the momentum is very high though, so it may be right to compare it to hammer strike rather than a shot. On the other hand, the breastplate (together with the padding) will obviously distribute the shock both over the surface and the time, so it wouldn't be like a concentrated strike to one point... seems hard to tell on spot actually. Would be interesting to have some acceleration data from the target, especially from the inside.
upd: actually as long as it doesn't actually reach the body to hit/wound it (and breastplate usually have some space underneath, padding included, exactly for the purpose), the fact that it penetrates the armor rather than glances/bounces off makes the hit softer overall.
Would bruises be reflected in the ballistic gel? We can't see any. Either way, if the bolts didn't cause internal injuries or bleeding, you would be just fine.
One thing that this does not take into account is that, in a typical scenario, the soldier would not have a giant pad behind him and would likely fall backwards when hit. This would further dissipate some of the kinetic energy delivered by the bolt.
I have a replica 16th century German crossbow but modern home-made bolts. These bolts have sharply pointed tips and are shorter than those in the video, about 22 centimeters weighing 150 grams (give or take). Small in comparison, but penetrating metal coffee cans is easy. I use a modified boat trailer winch to cock the crossbow. String movement is 20 centimeters. Lots of fun building and shooting. This is a good video.
Awesome video ! I just put the ballistics of this crossbow's bolts into a stopping power calculator, did you know it has 92 TKOF stopping power? That's MORE than a 12 gauge shotgun slug !!! And 5 TKOF is already enough to kill, so your crossbow is really really deadly !
I really, really doubt it would have 92 TKOF. You'd need to know the diameter of the bolts they're firing, to calculate it. What we can calculate, based on mass & velocity is the kinetic energy - at 280g, moving at 52 m/s, these bolts have roughly 380J of kinetic energy. A 70mm Foster slug has about 3200J of muzzle energy.
@@Soren015 The diameter of the bolts is said at 4:27... I used "22mm" in the calculator.
Pardon ,what is a TKOF?
@@ShokkuKyushu It's sort of a measure of presumed "one shot kill" ability for a projectile. It stand's for "Taylor Knock-out Factor", but how useful it actually is as a measurement is pretty debated.
@@Soren015 Ah,ok
Judging from some of the comments below I think you need to find a way to measure hydrostatic shock in your gel torso. For example, it is not the schrapnel from an IED that injures but the over pressure inside the body regardless of body armour. Those arrow tips are designed to bite into the plate enough to transfer the kinetic energy of the bolt into the body of the knight.
The kinetic energy of the bolt is less than that of a 9x19.
@@henriknemeth3370 momentum - if plate stops the heavy bolt, then the wearer of the armor would partially have to absorb the momentum, which is bigger than 9x19.
@@cdgncgn It'd still be no more momentum than he shooter experiences. the armour distributes it well enough that you would be completely fine (so long as it doesn't penetrate deep enough to wound, obviously)
@@cdgncgnirrelevant. Energy is energy. Someone wearing a kevlar vest and taking a modern handgun round is handling MORE energy than this thing can produce. The blunt force will hurt, probably break ribs. But it's unlikely to kill unless god hates you.
where is the line drawn for ballista and crossbow i feel this has passed that a while ago
Excellent video. Thank you for posting.
That thing is like a portable ballista
I’m wondering what those internal injuries would have been. That’s quite an impact from those bolts.
It is, however, spread out over the entire torso by the plate and the padded jerkin.
Less than taking a 9mm wearing kevlar vest.
almost nothing
Super, dass der Kanal jetzt gerade aktiv ist. Gibt glaub ich keinen besseren zeitpunkt für Armbrustcontent als um das Release Date von KCD2 herum.
Aber eine Anmerkung zum Alter: Balistae ad tornum (also große Armbruste, die eine Spannbank zum Spannen benötigen) gibt es in den Inventaren schon um 1200, lange vor den ersten Bildquellen.
Danke für die Info - das stimmt schon, die Frage ist nur wie groß diese Armbrusten tatsächlich waren bzw aussahen, denn zu dieser Zeit kam der Stegreif erst auf und die Armbrust wurde noch mit Hilfe der Arme gespannt. Für leistungsstärkere Exemplare ist aber dann jedenfalls eine Spannhilfe nötig.
Übrigens... Absolut schönes Trefferbild!
Danke dir!
😳 Jesus, to see a bolt that thick oscillating like that, damn.
Very jinteresting test! Thank you ❤
Zuerst mal geiles Video.
Aber dann noch eine Frage: hab ich das richtig verstanden, dass an der Stelle wo sich der obere und der untere Rüstungsteil überlappen, die gesamte Dicke 4 mm ist? Also 2 mal 2 mm?
Genau - die Platte ist "geschoben" (beweglich) und im überlappenden Bereich sind es 4mm
What a beast! Any chance to test it at a longer distance? I keep being amazed by the punishment these plates can endure, from your art's, Tod's or Joe Gibb's strength.
Respekt! Schöne Armbrust und top Video!
Vielen Dank!
Great video!
I'm puzzled by how the bolt flew all the way to the target at an angle, instead of straightening out in flight. 03:52
I'm not a crossbow expert, but I'd think physics-wise, the force is concentrated at the butt of the arrow, pushing it combined with drag would amplify any deviation from a completely straight line, which won't really happen in a globe. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
380 J is pretty impressive for a medieval crossbow considering a 9mm round does about 500 j.
may we know the powerstroke?
sensationell!!!!!!!!!! Vielen Dank.
If my calculation is correct, the dynamic energy when the crossbow is ready for shooting, is something around 1200 to 1300 joules. I am surprised to see just 370 to 380 joules kinetic energy of the arrow. Anyway, the video is very interesting.
I'm wondering, could a strong warbow with good bodkin arrows penetrate this armour? Because while this monster crosbow seems really strong, I don't think that it is really efficient.
If you want efficient one, look at Chinese Crossbow that basically got 200lb draw weight, drawn into 20 inch.
It has 3 times the energy of a strong bow.
I recommend to watch Tod's Workshop YT channel, he have entire series of warbow vs plate armour.
My impression is that an arrow from a longbow doesn't go through the centre of a top quality breastplate. It's hard to know what happened at Agincourt. The French tactics were all wrong. They went for the centre and the archers were then able to shoot them from the sides and back.. just like a tank, you have to make choices with armour. Doesn't make sense for it to be same thickness all over. (Also, not everyone may be wearing quality gear). After all, armour didn't really go out of fashion till a couple of centuries later. It's based on Todd, recommended below. He's an armourer who collaborates with Toby Capwell, the head of the armour section of the Wallace Collection, and a gut who can shoot a longbow of the kind of weight they found in the Mary Rose.
If I'm not mistaken I believe this is the most powerful crossbow ever built at least to be successfully replicated.
Sehr interessant! Danke für das Video!
It goes to show the amazing engineering that went into plate armor. That man wouldve survived that monster of a crossbow. Gotta aim for the head for sure
Would this be considered a crossbow? Seems more like a ballista. This is an interesting overlap between manpad, and siege weapon
This really goes to show how effective this type of armor was. You'd have to hit a place on the body where the armor was very thin and even then you'd be unlikely to wound the warrior. especially with bows etc. The only real was is to hit somewhere that isn't armored at all, but later armor has very little gaps
EPIC video, this is history youtube history
Thank you.
If there’s one thing these videos have taught me- armor or no getting hit by an Arrow or Bolt would HURT
It would be interesting to know if the impact would knock a knight out of his saddle, or knock him off his feet.
289 ftlbs is on a par with a 9 mm
Have ten of these lined up on the inner parapet when they make it through the porticulus.
Also, those bolts could do with slightly wider flights, quarter to half an inch at least
how would that perform from max range then ? Not penetrate at all and just bounce off ?
Sehr interessante und schön gearbeitete Armbrust samt Bolzen. Ich hätte eine deutlich höhere Durchschlagskraft erwartet.
Awesome astonishing quality video! Have 7 pounds been lost due to usage or just decimal approximation?
Why not using that 320 g bolt which you used 5 years ago (with which you obtained 426 joules of kinetic energy)?
I was also surprised that you used a two-parts breastplate instead of a single-piece one.
I know that this crossbow is meant to be from the 14th century at the earliest, but do you think that this crossbow, at least for the prod, may be something similar to the so-called "arbalètes à tour" ("baliste ad tornum") which were in use at least since the early 13th century?
More generally, would you see a crossbow having a prod like the one at this video being used in conjunction with the large windlass at your other video (namely, "Medieval Crossbow Spanning Devices - Hook spanning belt, Windlass and Cranequin") during the 13th century?
Asking because it is a bit of a mystery what the "arbalètes à tour" of the 13th century were, and I think that you never covered these crossbows. The French Wikipedia, at the page "Arbalète_à_tour" (if you want to take a look at it), affirms that they were about as big as Roman Republic catapultae and appeared as early as the 11th century (I doubt it.), so I was wondering if something like this could be substantially close (or at least closer) to what an arbalète à tour of the army of King Philip II of France actually was. What do you think?
Would this crossbow have been spanned by something like that large windlass? Clearly, the crossbow which you used when demonstrating that device was way too light.
Is it known what the animal from which the horns has been made in the original is? Have you used horns from the same animal or from what else?
I believe that the best horns for crossbows were those from alpine steinbocks (capra ibex). Do you have any preference when it comes to horns?
Danke Schön.
THANK YOU! The performance of a composite bow varies throughout the year and is highly dependent on temperature and humidity (weak in summer and strong in winter).
Unfortunately, I only had a bolt with this weight and only this breastplate available😉
The terms "a tour" and "ad tornum" are well known but its difficult to say what the early sources mean.....
The large wooden windlass from my other video is able to span this crossbow too.
The materials for the horn core denpends from their region. Old scholars spoke somtimes from wood or whalebone. I think they mean baleen for northern Europe. Sources of the teutonic order spoke from "Bockshorn" (sheep?) and in central Europe ibex was available and - as you say - perhaps the best.
For this bow I use water buffalo horn, but I build one composite crossbow from ibex and it works very well.
@@medievalcrossbows7621 I guess nobody knows which is the animal used for the original from the 14th/15th century on which your replica is based?
Which one of the crossbows you demonstrated in this channel is the ibex one?
This is the text, from the late XIII century or early XIV century:
>Iuro ad evangelia sancta Dei quod omnes ballistas quas laboravo vel laborare fecero, vendam vel vendi fatiam cum suo nomine et dicam veritatem si erunt de cornibus stambicorum vel de aliis cornibus, omnes pro suo nomine de quo sunt. et omnes ballistas quas fecero vel laborare fecero de cornibus stambicorum, non mittam nec mitti faciam in ipsis de aliis cornibus nisi de stanbicis. et si sciero quod aliquis de ista arte fecerit contra ordinem suprascriptum et non habeat factum hoc sacramentum, quam cicius potero iusticiariis manifestabo.
Practically, the text states that nobody must sell other horns as if they are of "stambicus" (steinbock, "stambecco" in Italian) and that such horns must be not mixed with any other horns within the same crossbow. It is clear from the text that steinbock horns are assumed to be either the best or the most costly ones.
About the crossbows "à tour" or "ad tornum" of the early 13th century (and probably already existing before 1200), beside the fact that nobody is certain of what they were, do you have a prevalent idea? My idea is that they were actually crossbows like the one in this video, which at those times was possible to span only using huge stationary windlasses (so could not be used in field battles). What is your idea on the matter if anything? Could the crossbow in this video actually be one of those "arbalètes à tour"?
@@cernel5799
This crossbow was never examined in detail, so it is unclear what material was actually used.
There is no video of the ibex crossbow yet🙂
Thanks for the source, I think I have read it somewhere or have read about it before.
I don't think my large crossbow corresponds to the one in the early 13th century sources. I think it was more likely a design with an integrated spanning device....
@@medievalcrossbows7621 So, if I understand correctly, you share the view that the early 13th century arbalètes à tour were something like Ancient Roman catapultae except that they had prods instead of being based on torsion, or do you actually tend to think that they were very much like actual Ancient Roman catapultae, based on torsion (so practically about the same as later springalds but possibly with outward swinging arms)?
Personally, I have a very hard time visualizing something like an Ancient Roman catapulta being aimed from early 13th century castles down at individual men besieging it.
(By "catapulta", I mean something throwing huge bolts but never stones. Something like the one Tod has at his "Tod's new artillery piece - BALLISTA or CATAPULTA?" video, which is often identified as a "ballista".)
@@cernel5799 I'm not sure whether they were actually torsion machines, but it would be conceivable, especially since knowledge of them was not lost in the Eastern Roman Empire....
Should not be underestimated, indeed.
Surprisingly low velocity, a decent recurve 60# bo an beat it. Of course bolts are very heavy but still interesting. Anyway, totally awesome test! Wonderful work with reproduction of this crossbow.
Bow this massive definitely won't be built for speed... I wonder what's the maximum velocity, but danger of dry shot is real. From what I recall even with those massive bolts it still has rather low efficiency.
heavy bolt produces strong momentum that gets transfered, something like getting hammered.
Just curious, does the armor provide double protection at the belly, do the plates overlap significantly in that area?
only a few centimetres but I don't think the bolts will get through 4mm
Great video. What is the powerstroke and draw length of the crossbow?
The distance between the bow to the nut is 46cm, the powerstroke is approx 33cm
@@medievalcrossbows7621 Thank you very much!
I think the bolts are too blunt. There are other types of bolt heads that might work slightly better. Type 16 and 9 leaf shaped bodkins with a reinforced central ridge might work well. Having those hardened cutting edges might do more than you think.
That thing's basically a man portable ballista. Detritus would be proud.
Would the impact be strong enough to make you fly of a horse?
I think so 😉
The prod of this crosbow Is only horn and sinew with out wood?
Thank you .
Guido
jep- 67 stripes of buffalo horn and approx 800 g sinews.
Idk much about bolts, but aren't the tips flat?
the shape corresponds to that of the preserved originals
can you make a repeating crossbow?
You play too many silly fantasy games... lol
It wasn't mentioned or discussed, but I noted how one bolt flew flat, without a spin, while the other was in rotation.
Hello
Where can i buy this crossbow?
What about with a bodkin point?
Imagine getting hit by that with no plate armour
I think that the bolt tip would come out of the back at the very least.
I wonder why they designed the bolts to have such relatively wide heads. In theory, a bolt with a narrower head would penetrate much deeper. It makes me wonder if these designs were target-shooting bolts rather than war bolts. There's a channel on here of elastic crossbows that achieves impressive penetration despite very low kinetic energy, probably because of the efficient design of the bolts.
For the quality of steel they could produce at the time, I don't think they could make much narrower heads that are strong enough to maintain structural integrity
Against properly designed plate anything with a sharper point with the material of the time (mostly iron) will just have the point tip roll, and penetrate less than this. The "blunter" pyramidal cross section allows some degree of chance of the point maintaining its shape. Any and all properly laid out tests of arrows shot against moderate plate that could be expected to encounter them shows that arrows really can't make it through. Only very low quality or thin plate against very strong bows or crossbows will fail to stop the projectile.
Historians only have the remains of history, we do not know all types of arrowheads, we only know those that have reached us
Finer points would have trouble keeping up as far as mass goes and would be prone to rolling and generally not surviving impacts. We've seen it happen. But yeah, it seems that some better compromise could be made. Those are si wide they stick to the surface, pretty much, moving entire breastplate round.
Same principle as trying to use a woodworking chisel on steel
What would the felt trauma be at ?
WOW! HUGE! does this prove you need to be a monster and no little guy has a hope?
Was für ein absolutes Monstrum von einer Armbrust 😮
Armour on arms had to be thinner, since it would be difficult to fight with extra weight above 1 kg on each arm. And horse was vulnerable to shots from heavy crossbow too.
Arms armour usually was about 1 mm thick. But limbs armour has much more curved form so shot can be at angle that makes this 1 mm harder to penetrate than 2 mm at breast plate with 90 degree hit.
Is there a way to convert the poundage of an old traditional crossbow to that of a modern one.
This is difficult because the surviving originals can no longer be used. Only reconstructions can help here and provide an approximation. In any case, tests show that the maximum bolt speed is around 70 metres per second, regardless of the respective draw weight of the crossbow.
@@medievalcrossbows7621 yeah, confirmed what i was thinking thanks
The bolts look dull and broad. Would a seeker version do better?
No. These dull and broad heads (called Bodkin) are actually sharp and broad and exactly what was used for maximum armor Penetration abilities. 90° angles all over the place. Make it any thinner and you bend it on impact.
Amazing speed and Atack🔥😎👏😳🗿
Are the tips of the bolts waxed?
No
Здорово! Спасибо за видео. Значит средневековые танки были практически неуязвимы в своём железе.
Такое железо могли себе позволить не только лишь все , мало кто мог это сделать .
@@sergeynikolaevich1750ну смотря когда, ближе к концу 15 века стали распространены, и даже наемники вполне себе могли позволить, аристократия так была защищена поголовно...
На 14, первую половину 15 века - да, кирассы были еще редки и большая часть была одета в бригантины...
Но во второй половине 15 века, 16 век, такие латы, и даже более совершенные, были распространены.
@@PRINCKROVI Ой это слишком оптимистично . Бриги могли позволить себе лишь удачливые мародеры , большинство серой скотинки обходились кожей и тряпкой , и , да , их никто не считал , помнится даже детей отправляли в утиль на святую землю чего уж говорить про остальное быдло ,особенно что в наглии творилось -трэш , угар и содомия .
@@PRINCKROVI у тех же швейцарцев во второй половине 15 века полудоспех был весьма распространен (а ветераны из первых рядов иногда и 3/4 имели).
@@eergegerg23 ну понятно, пехота от полного доспеха быстро отказалась, в нем только рыцари ходили когда спешивались, а вот панцирь(кирассу) и юбку вполне себе носили.
Significant emotional effect you could say
Need a test against popular pistol calibers.
Off all the tests I have seen, almost always the armor will protect. Here we talk about a point-blank shot with the heaviest crossbow. So multiple hits would be needed, to catch an unarmored part of the body. And I guess only 10% of the troops were fully armoured in plate, with many only wearing parts...
thats not a crossbow thats a ballista
Try it with a hardened bodkin point, I wanna see that👍🏻
Like a Roman scorpion?
Those bodkin style points seem too be awfully sharp of a taper, I would think a more needle bodkin style would penetrate more. Can you explain why this style was used?
These heads are based on preserved originals of such crossbows. They are designed for the penetration of plates. Needle-shaped heads are more likely to bend.
@medievalcrossbows7621 very interesting. It is pretty obvious that if the breastplate was replaced with mail it would be rather devastating, the energy transfer is quite impressive. Even with the breastplate the psychological effect would be quite substantial when getting hit that hard.
Would be cool to see this compared to a modern crossbow (they do say that speed is what defeats armour)
Actually it's the ratio of kinetic energy and area of impact.
While the original this replica is based on wasn't used with a spanning stand, is this the kind of draw weight/energy you'd expect to see for a crossbow that could be spanned by one?
For this crossbow, you need a spanning bench or lage windlass like here in the video ruclips.net/video/JVVFp9t8Rk4/видео.html
@@medievalcrossbows7621 So not even a spanning stand like the one in the Löffelholtz Codex?
@@Cahirable Maybe a big spanning stand would work but all pictures I know show crossbows with stirrups and the great crossbow doesn't have them....
@@medievalcrossbows7621 Oh yes, like I said, I know the original doesn't have one on it, I'm just wondering if it's technically feasible to span a crossbow of that draw weight with one. I'm trying to figure out the upper limit for a hausspied/garroc as mounted on the French ships at Sluys in 1340.
@@Cahirable I understand - a very interesting question. I also own a spanning stand but have only used it to span light crossbows so far....
Sir, I think you can go ahead and call this a mini ballista
I have one question - how often such monsters was used?
Great crossbows can be found in many medieval inventories - I think every large castle or town had some.
@@medievalcrossbows7621 but did great crossbows used in the fields en masse, or it was siege weapon?
@@PyromaN93 a siege weapon
@@medievalcrossbows7621 thanks👋
I think if you want to take or defend castle doors, siege towers, hoardings, ... you want some