"Henry V's archers vs Wellington's redcoats: Who would win?" Topic

"Has ever anybody tried to practice something like this with a longbow at around 100yds?"

Only for 40 years or so…………..

Cptn Iglo,

With all due respect you have as much practical knowledge about shooting with the longbow as I have about basketweaving or origami.

So heres a few facts for you. Your 'mystical qualities' in judging a target distance are merely the result of practice. After you have seen Anvil's blacksmith come over for the weekend and we'll go out with the bow. Now if I still can't put 5 or more in a man sized target at 100 yds out of a dozen I'll buy ya the best lunch in Cambridgeshire. I won't guarantee they'll be heart or head shots but if it was a live target they'd certainly spoil his day. Thats why its called instinctive shooting. Shoot long enough and the bowhand will automatically go to the right elevation. An aiming point 17 – 20 yds over at 100 yds!!!!!! Jesus, is our target on the ground or flying a Sopwith Camel?? Your talking inches, not yards and half of the numbers you quote. And no, I won't get 12 aimed shots off in a minute. Six if it was a good day. But
stick 12 in the ground in front of me where I can grab and nock them quickly and I still should get the last one up before the first hits the planet. And I'm old and past it.

In the words of Anvil, Rocky, LordL and others don't b******t
about wind, calmness and stability, just go out and do it for a few years, then come and talk to us.

F5

Anvil,

The amount of rounds fired to casualties inflicted in the Napoleonic wars is open to dispute, but 1/200 is probably not far off the mark, contemporary sources claim a ratio of anywhere between 1/160 and 1/500. At Vittoria, an officer in charge of resupply calculated that 450 rounds had been fired to cause each enemy casualty.

In later periods, the hit ratio was still fairly poor. At Rorke's Drift, 25,000 rounds of Martini-Henry ammunition were fired, causing around 1,000 Zulu casualties, with much of the fighting being at close quarters. This is a 4% hit ratio. At Kambula 138,000 Martini Henry, and 1,100 artillery rounds were fired at the Zulus, causing a maximum of around 3,000 casualties. Even if the artillery caused no casualties, which obviously was not the case, the hit ratio is around 2%. Against a more ellusive and fast moving foe, the US army fired 25,000 rounds at the Sioux during the Battle of the Rosebud, inflicting an absolute maximum of 100 casualties, a hit rate of 0.4%.

I cannot see the hit rate of archers being any better in battle conditions, and most probably, with the speculative nature of the rear ranks shooting, it was a lot worse.

Anvil,
all theoretical, considering musket and bows.
I want to see substantial data, detailed write ups, youtube clips and such things.
I´m a sceptic.
Some claims are indeed beyond the ballistic capabilities of certain weapons.
Those on serious sports shooting and hunting sites are usually much more modest.

why is there no substantial data available on key performance parameters, why this endless irrelevant babbling about herculian drawweights and "armour" penetration, tested under totally unrealistic conditions.

I have no problem to understand that bow hunters have to close in to 15-30 yrds to bring even small game down, bow hunting is an art, I do meanwhile highly respect these people.
I have no problem to understand that people who repeatedly hit a man sized target at just 70 m with a much more accurate and twice as fast fast modern hight tech bow with added aiming devices, all under very calm shooting range conditions, earn olympic gold medals.
I have a lot of respect for people who shoot clout at 180yds
with the help of a spotter for correction shots, all against a target which has the size of a 5 story building.

I do indeed respect ballistic data, it helps me massively to understand, and respect, what the people mentioned above do.

I do not need medieval and modern tale tellers to explain me weapons performance.

80 joule of kinetic energy and a velocity of 45m/sec is actually all we need to know to find out that the longbow was a low energy weapon with an incredible weak on target performance by fire weapons standards and an inability to engage targets with aimed shooting beyond 50yds.

Thats all not dishonourable at all for those who did use this weapon once in anger and for those who do practice longbow and other kinds of archery today.

Its actually the tale tellers who make modern users look like incompetent idiots, all along the lines that a skilled archer "knows the distance" intuitively and that 150ibs is the draw weight standard for real longbow archers, plus naturally hunting deer at 200 yds and such things.

after all this is a gaming website, call it a game or even a fantasy game, but don´t try to rewrite or manipulate history.

falkonfive,
below is a link to a post on another website.
the poster there adresses shooting with modern high performance cross bows, which have 3 times the velocity, means three times the accuracy over long range, than the slow longbow.

auction

falkonfive,
If I understand you right, you use a longbow, shoot the usual at least 2oz war missiles and have a hit rate of 50 % against a man sized target at 100yds.
All spontanuously, not against your usual practice target, just a target which suddenly pops up somewhere, perhaps 100yds away.
Is this correct?

No Cptn Iglo, you do not understand me right. I'll shoot normal field shafts, bodkins, speedblunts, broadheads or type 18's. Give me enough time and i'll shoot sticks of rhubarb or the kitchen sink. And no, I'm not shooting at a figure that suddenly 'pops up ' outta nowhere. I was under the impression that we were discussing an advancing enemy on a battlefield
( unless I missed something and the enemy has stealth technology ). The crossbow reference puzzles me. Shooting crossbows is as different to longbows, composites or recurves as chalk is to cheese and really doesn't add one bit to the debate.

The invitation still stands. Come and learn something about archery.

F5

f5
there are certain things I have no problems with.
a sensual talented person with lots of training might have not much of a problem do what is required at the 100 yd range, but essentially it is as far as i see it just a repetition of trained processes, not exactly aiming. So target shooting at clearly defined ranges is actually – if things are seen from a military standpoint- some sort of cheating, you don´t have that in combat.

With the narrow beaten zone at longer ranges and the very low velocity, getting the distance right is indeed essential for the targeting process.
I doubt that anybody can tell me with certainty if something is 100 or 105 yds away, there is no intuition to get it right with this precision, in case of archery its hit or miss.
Same with wind influence, a lot of archers say wind influence is grave, again intuition is meant to solve the problem.
There are many grave ballistic and targeting problems involved and to much "intuition" to solve them imho.

Intuition may indeed play a role in archery contests, when looking at the calm toned down and introvert mood in a archery competition one can indeed get the impression that competition archery is a sensual business.

cpt.gars has posted period musketry trial numbers, which are actually very good, but could hardly repeated in the field.
aiming a musket is a quite robust simple business with no ranging and wind influence problems, how can anybody think that a much more complicated aiming process for archery can be repeated in field use without a much more massive reduction of effectiveness.

My standpoint is quite simple, indirect aiming to hit small targets is unpracticable in the field,no matter which weapon is used, its for the shooting range and for unaimed massed fire into target zones.
And thats how archery was practiced actually.
but archery with 30yds deep formations create a 30yds deep target zone at the minimum, thats huge in comarision to a 85cm target radius of a musket, and already by design quite uneffective if the formation inside the target zone is just 3 to 5 yrds deep.

thanks for the invitation anyway, I live abroad, my last and only trip to England was for the last football match at wembley, does anybody still remember the result by the way?

The reasons for this discrepency are many and varied, but many must also have applied to archers, therefore to state that 100% accuracy could be achieved by anyone in battle conditions is absolute nonsense.

We already admitted that Agincourt was IDEAL battle conditions: the longbowmen were unthreatened and essentially shooting at a target moving very slowly diagonally across their front. You can argue about how many of those 5K longbowmen could SEE to shoot at all; but those that could see and shoot got close enough to 100% hits as to make any difference negligible: the archers were not shooting under "battle conditions" at all for those last pointblank shots.

Now, if they had been shot at like at Verneuil later, I am sure the percentage of hits would have gone down enormously; and the fact that they were being charged by fully armored cavalry earlier, explains why the cavalry reached the archers and rode through them without any notable casualties at all: that WAS battlefield conditions, and the archers did almost nothing to the cavalry.

Hypothetically, if the same cavalry had ridden up to the archer behind an effective line of stakes, the same thing would have happened to the cavalry at Verneuil as happened at Agincourt: the archers in the front ranks would not be missing what they shot at, because they would have been as safe as houses and knowing that would be able to concentrate on shooting swiftly and with unimpeded accuracy.

Capt Snort,,

I am in complete agreement with you,,and your data is the same or very close to that in Firepower by BG Gen Houghs..

I have a feeling that if modern weapons were tested the same way,,under actual combat conditions that around 5% would hold true today,, its just that a single man is capable of throwing so much out with todays weapons,, But,, this is sheerly spec on my part,, I have no proof or data to confirm or disprove this..

anvil

So, The British at Rorke's Drift, in cover, under an innaccurate return fire, using a very accurate breach loading rifle, manage to score a hit rate of around 4%.

Front rank longbowmen at Agincourt manage to score a hit rate of 100%.

Sorry, but I just cannot accept the second statement.

oops missed your last post,,
I don't think anybody is claming 100% hits with a longbow,,my example was,, 10 rounds per minute, 800 men firing,5% casualties was 400 hits vs 40 for muskets at the same range,same numbers,and 2 rounds per min,,which is pretty close for a smoothbore musket.

anvil

Anvil,

Looks like we both posted at the same time. I think that LordLaD is advocating 100% hits from the front rank at Agincourt. I don't see why the longbow is able to fire with such consistant accuracy under stressful conditions when firearms cannot.

With all these uncertainties its quite obvious that hitting the target at 100yds is sheer luck.
the zone of uncertainty is at least ten times larger as the target radius of the musket.

"Sheer luck." Dude, you don't have a clue.

"Uncertainties" are the actual mechanics learned by long experience. Greater uncertainties than distance and windage, by far and away, are the archer's bad habits: his release being el numero uno. The way he stands, the weight distributed to his feet: when he varies one teensy weensy part of the machine his body makes when loading aiming and loosing, he has inserted a variable that will throw off his years of experience. That is why the YouTube vids are so laughable: those longbows are far too strong for the users, and the release forms of virtually all of them simply sucketh.

I learned my archery skills from a book written by a Gold Medalist Olympian (many years ago by now, I can't even recall the guy's name). I religiously followed everything he said, for hours a week, for months. And I got proficient at learning how my release and consistency of the rest of my entire body determined the accuracy and consistency of my shooting: in other words, the more I practiced, the more I could see that I needed more practice. I saw instinctive shooters (like myself) who were "miles" ahead of me in skill, at both hitting the target and rate of fire. The guy I wrote about earlier, who killed the bear on the run with 50% hits, could also routinely knock clay pigeons out of the air with his bow and arrow. "Sheer luck", bucko, yeah sure….

Can any body provide numbers about the hit rate of archery at 100 yds or more?

The answer is "no". But I haven't heard anyone asking before for proof that archers can routinely hit man-sized targets at 100 yards or less.

Btw, your numbers for longbow performance keep getting worse: now we are down to 147 fps!? and no pointblank shooting outside 50 yards? Those are the performance figures for a crude medieval shortbow of c. 40 to 50 lbs. The warbow of the English shot a sheaf arrow at no less than 180 fps and probably over 200 fps. Let's keep this consistent, shall we?

I think that LordLaD is advocating 100% hits from the front rank at Agincourt. I don't see why the longbow is able to fire with such consistant accuracy under stressful conditions when firearms cannot.

Because Agincourt was ideal, not stressful; no threat to the bowmen, at all, and a target that the marksmen could not miss. Rorke's Drift was mostly shooting against shifting, loose order targets, an entirely different kind of shooting. Agincourt's French men-at-arms were practically motionless, less than 100 yards away, and in upwards of 30 ranks deep by the time they were clustered to attack the English men-at-arms. The Martini Henry wouldn't have missed at that range under those perfect conditions either. The target AREA is ENORMOUS! It would be like missing the side of a house. But of course, being shot at, at all, and being closed with for hand-to-hand combat, throws the entire comparison with Agincourt's ideal conditions completely away.

Captn Iglo

so since this topic is sorta going round and round,,lets do a review of what has been said…

you,,with no experience with either type of weapon, won't accept hands on experience from three members here who have backed up their actions with valid respected sources…

you with no experience accepts a youtube video done by contemporary blacksmiths doing SCA type armor using traditional techniques, but using non traditional materials,who are advertising there product,

you with no experience seem to accept data from modern bow magazines with data on how to hunt non armored animals with modern bows and arrow tips not used against armor and use this to define medieval combat using the long bow against armored opponents..

you with no experience take data concerning metalurgy and without truly understanding just what is stated are potentially misusing this data on "hardness" and using this to define the ability of arrows to penetrate medieval types of steel and wrought iron.. (I think one bit of this data was interestingly enough, that work hardened copper had the same hardness as mild steel, and that wrought iron had a hardness equal to mild steel as well)

you without experience seem to take math concerning KE, and for some unknown reason refuse to accept that as the surface area of a projectile decreases, the pounds per square inch increases asymptotically.

you with no experience seem to want to hold to these beliefs,and not even be willing to go to some local bow range and or rifle range to check out the possibilities that you just may be interpreting all this data in an incorrect manner.

well quite frankly,, i just don't accept youtube as a valid source for much of anything,, especially over the two people here who have stated their real world experiences,,,and,, given documented second sources,, very legitimate sources,, to back up their actual hands on findings..Also,,god bless their excellent work, but the SCA armor makers have a much different addenda than you seem to interpret it to be… I.E. showing their skills at forging,annealing,hardening,tempering contemporary steels for replica pieces for SCA types of clients…(May this lead to more work for them!! )

Oh,,yea,, lets sum up some other differences between the two types of men wielding these weapons..

English Long bowman: let see, he is an experienced trained man,with up to 10 years of training how often did they train?,, not sure, but I believe it would be reasonable to assume he went to church on sunday,,and spent the afternoon with his buds, notching arrows and knocking back a few brews,,, shooting at targets from 100 yds to close range,,learning how to estimate wind,range etc,,and if missing the bull, being good naturedly teased by his comrads.. hehe excuse my graphical description here,,but i am sure it is rather close. Sorry no direct sources here, but I have read of this in the past,,, perhaps others can add to this?

now lets look at a musketeer during the age of blackpowder,,expecially up to and including the era of Nappy.. inducted into the service,,if lucky given 30 days training in marching,formation changes, loading of the musket by the numbers, pipeclaying the ole uniform,,but,, absolutely no experience in firing his trusty Brown Bess. It was thought by the powers what be that aimed fire,,and practice was a waste of good powder and money. Instead they were trained to "shoot into the brown",, meaning shoot at the mass,, not aiming at an individual. This belief was common from North America to Russia btw…

You,,with no experience seem to think that this musketeer,,at 100 yds, will have no problems with wind,and shooting from a musket with no rifling,no sights will be able to hit a target the size of a belt buckle one in three times… am i right here? sheesh, but I would be happy to buy you a steak dinner if you,,armed with 30 rounds,a modern high powered rifle,a scope,and in a standing position could even hit a mansized target anywhere at that range,,one in three!! much less with the type of weapon this man had…anyway,, you seem to believe that the trained bowman would be less skilled with his training than a musketeer with literally no training,,,

I think i have i summed up here pretty well,,,

Sorry, but you just need to do more homework,,

anvil

"100% hits" at pointblank range with the longbow at Agincourt. Let me add an elucidation here. Comparisons with other battles of the "age of the gun" have been shown with miniscule casualties to round fired ratios, to call into question the validity of such a claim as "virtually 100% hits" at pointblank range at Agincourt. But this kind of over-all battle comparison isn't valid, because it is the TOTAL of rounds fired. If you were to take only the rounds fired at the "cinematic" end of Rorke's Drift ("Front rank, fire! Second rank, fire! Third rank, fire!" repeat as needed), I claim that the rate of casualties would approach 100% under those exact conditions, and most of the Zulus probably died during that final moment of the battle. I am likewise assuming that most of the French casualties to arrows at Agincourt were caused at pointblank range at 10 to 12 rounds per minute: but the total volume of arrows shot off for the entire battle was no less than 120K! The total French casualties are given in the original sources as anywhere from c, 1,500 to 10,000. This is 1.2% to 8.3% casualties for 120K arrows shot: and, as in the other battles cited for comparison, we cannot tell what part of the total casualties were caused by missiles or melee or suffocation, etc. We must guess at which point, and under which conditions, the most casualties were caused: and it seems obvious to me, that given the skill level of the marksmen archers in the front ranks, and the increased effectiveness of the bodkin at pointblank range, and into the flanks of the oncoming men-at-arms, the greatest number of arrow-caused casualties occurred at this point. "Virtually 100% hits" still produces a very low casualty rating, however; due to armor, and the incapability of arrows to penetrate entirely through the target as bullets sometimes do: and the low blood-letting rate of a bodkin compared to a heavy bullet, i.e. the "pincushioned" outer ranks at Agincourt (Murten, Homildon hill, et al) taking longer to go down, and thus exposing the inner ranks at a slower rate than would be the case with firearms. Had the English at Agincourt been armed with Martini Henry rifles, and possessing the same level of skill with them that the marksmen archers did with their longbows, I do not hesitate to claim that the French would have been entirely shot down long before reaching the English lines. Two to four ranks of quickly shooting riflemen, as skilled with their weapons at individual shooting, not under any kind of threat, thus liberated to shoot casually with complete precision, would never miss a mass of almost motionless men upwards of 30 ranks deep and less than 100 yards away. But in the aftermath of the battle, when totaling up the rounds fired, how would you be able to separate out those last couple of minutes of shooting from all the shooting done on the entire battlefield? It seems impossible to demonstrate the obvious skill of the marksmen front rankers in Hal V's army at Agincourt, by such facile comparisons to statistical analyses of much later battles, and in their entirety. One thing is a constant as guns have increasingly dominated the battlefield and improved in range and rate of fire: the number of rounds per casualty has gone up, and continues to go up: obviously caused by the manner of fighting having changed from masses of men to small bodies and individuals, and from exposed men to men constantly taking advantage of cover. At Agincourt, the total opposite condition prevailed: a static body of thousands, scarsely outside of spitting range, in such dense order as to be impossible to miss: and the shooters safely behind defenses and not under any threat of attack upon themselves whatsoever.

Hi Anvil,

"being good naturedly teased by his comrades.. hehe excuse my graphical description here,,but i am sure it is rather close. Sorry no direct sources here, but I have read of this in the past,,, perhaps others can add to this?"

Good natured??? Downright insulting!! Back in the days when the LB crew used to shoot field targets over a weekend the favourite pastime when not competing was 'roving'. A group of 6 or so would set off and one would pick a 'mark'. Might be a branch on a tree or a post in a field. Each archer would take his turn and the nearest would pick the next 'mark'. And so you'd progress and on a summer evening cover a fair distance.
Absolutely light hearted stuff and a job for the old expendable shafts. More often than not if you hit a solid post the few congratulations were drowned out by the hoots of laughter when the shaft snapped just behind the pile. ( Now theres a thought…wooden armour?). But yes, exactly as you describe, done for the joy of it. 'Roving' is a pastime for archers from time immemorial. Some refer to the Agincourt bowmen as professional trained soldiers. They weren't, most of them. Just farmers and yeoman who reported for duty when called, shot at the butts on a Sunday and in an age when entertainment was limited probably spent their spare time 'roving', having a good time doing it and keeping their hand in. I can personally attest that stepping up to make your shot at a 'mark' with half a dozen of your peers waiting to hurl demeaning remarks is a helluva incentive to get it right.

F5

Hi

Anvil, I THINK he has mentioned that he owns replica armor, however. He and Gars seem to be "armorfanboys" and thus a lot of the argument revolves aournd their perceptions of US.

In fact, notice he again accuses us of repeating super bow myths out of Hardy and Strickland.

And ignores that LLD, for instance, has never read the source and I have gotten up in lectures at Gen Con and Origins explaining that they promote MYTHS and aren't telling the truth.

I thought of another way of expalining it.

The usual person swinging a weapon gets the end of the sword of whatever moving at about 40fps, or 1/4th his touted arrow speed(and one 5th actual and the 3 times mentioned for crossbow would be in mustket speeds, no matter).

40fps. I hit you with a 3 pound down filled pillow, I hit you with a 3pound axe. Which does the damage?

I feel like I should kneel down and bow to this to end the cricle and while aceeding whisper under my breath ("but I have done this").

R

rocky,
no one has ever claimed that a pillow can penetrate armour.

I have found some more instructive examples, not exactly armour, but wood.

a 6,35mm (o.23cal) browning acp pistol round with 86j KE (roughly equal to a longbow) penetrates 60mm of spruce wood.

A replica crossbow, very likely with a similar KE number, did do 75 mm of spruce wood.

if we take into account that the longbow shaft was very likely around 10mm diameter and the pointed tip of the bolt was quite similar to a Bodkin, then we must indeed conclude that pointed tips in comparision to the blunt nose of a ball might indeed under certain circumctances improve penetration by a considerable margin.

armour penetration can indeed be debated, as long as people understand that on this low energy level, even a succesful penetration will leave no relevant ammount of energy for behind armour work.

capt iglo

"a 6,35mm (o.23cal) browning acp pistol round with 86j KE (roughly equal to a longbow) penetrates 60mm of spruce wood."

there is still one major difference between this and an arrow,, the bullet, to the best of my knowledge is made of lead,,and made to expand on contact, increasing the surface area of the projectile,, just the opposite of a steel tip on a bow.

a bullet works in quite an opposite fashion than a bullet.

Maby someone can add a bit here,, I have always believed that a crossbow "bolt" was just that,,ie it had a flat head and due to the metal springs vs wood shaft acted more like a bullet,, shock was its strength,, not penetration via a pointed end.

I have made cross bow springs for customers,but never a complete cross bow, nor ammunition…

however, due to the different material used for the two "bows",I'm not sure if it is actually a good comparison..

but another comparison could be simply a hand thrown spear vs a rock,, or a sling shot vs an atlatl… one is meant to pierce the other to strike a blow,,for lack of a better word here,, two entirely different ways of applying force…and that difference is truly the heart of the matter,,, the reduction of surface area of the projectile to a point, vs a large, in comparison, striking surface of a bullet,bolt,rock, etc… so

comparing these two opposites is comparing apples to oranges… and absolutely two diametrically opposed methods of applying force..

To add another term to your understanding of the process, take shear.. it takes very little force to actually shear a piece of steel. for example, if i place a piece of sheet steel in my vice, i can use a chisel and truly cut\sheer very intricate curves with a very small hammer,,and by necessity, very light blows of my hammer.. I do this for leafwork,,,I can do this from a "closed" situation as well,, meaning first pierce a piece of sheet,,then from the piercing, shear the steel to remove material…

So, you have to convince yourself of the truth that a point will, with very little force pierce a given piece of steel,, the action of the arrow after this is actually a shearing action of the steel… this is the reason a pointed arrow will pierce a piece of armor with very little loss of force,, the same principle used in the discussions in the bow hunting sites you have researched..So, once the steel is pierced, the hole is opened up, again with very little loss of energy to the arrow,,and penetrates the padding with about as much loss of energy as if shot thru Rocky's pillow,,and continues on to do its harsh duty. When this pointy object strikes something like bone or wood, they may not be as "hard" as steel, but they have a totally different physical makeup than steel, and will leach the energy from the arrow,,actually quicker than steel… thus the use of wooden shields(obviously weight is a factor too).

hope this helps

anvil

capt iglo

"why is there no substantial data available on key performance parameters, why this endless irrelevant babbling about herculian drawweights and "armour" penetration, tested under totally unrealistic conditions."

One of the problems here,,is such statements as "irrelevant babbling". no one here has been demeaning to you concerning your lack of knowledge,,theoretical or otherwise.. all have done their best, as hobbiest and more,, both history wise and tech wise,and valid sources,, to give you the data and info you need.

Is there not the possibility, that you are the one on the wrong end of the babble stick? Is it not possible that you have done your research in the wrong places? I would suggest you do a good ole google search for Tool Steel suppliers,,and some have a 1-800 number,,and query the salesman about the differences in tool steel,proper tools to pierce and shear steel,vs to forge(hammer it) both hot and cold,,,,, etc.. he will give you some very good info,,and send you all the data you need.. including nice charts,graphs,chemical compositions of the myriad of tool steels they deal with….

another site would be to google "metal engineering" or something similar,,and you will find people who will be better able to enlighten you..

also, perhaps, check your phone book for structural engineers that may be local to you. They may,due to time\business restraints, be able to further enlighten you on this topic, or refer you to books,journal articles, and other sources to solve this lack in your education.

they will be able to give you all the hard data you need, whilst we here can only give you our experiences…

good luck,,and hope this helps

anvil

capt iglo

"The accuracy issue of both weapons is quite easy to define.

In case of the musket at 100 yds there is a 85 cm radius around the aiming point in which the ball will land.
Aiming point is the belt buckle.
Hold the weapon right, point the weapon on the belt buckle and 1 of 3 shots will hit."

now this is really classic,, such a small statement to sum up so much time and practice,,,"Hold the weapon right".

concerning your intellectual approach,, perhaps you ought to try a computer game of any sort that allows you to "shoot" anything,,, put it on the hardest setting,, then see just how long it may take you to become proficient with what ever you are shooting,, then multiply this by a "reality" factor of years,,, and you just may have some indication of just what those four little words actually mean in the real world,,,to be able to hit something the size of a belt buckle at 100 yards with any kind of projectile weapon,, much less something as crude as a brown bess type black powder weapon…

a associate those four little words to the complete novice,for lack of a better term, who walks into my shop with a drawing,,and proceeds to tell me " all ya gotta do is---". They usually go away with nothing from me,,and end up having their iron needs satisfied at wallyworld…

anvil

capt iglo

I did check you your last link,, ebay? yea,, i truly think that an article on ebay is a prime source for about anything,, problems solved,,, lol,,,,

anvil

cptn iglo

I decided to do a bit of research on crossbow bolts,, found this,,

link

it appears to be a site dealing with antiquities.. perhaps a bit more reliable than an SCA site,,or ebay?

this is the interesting bit…

"This is reminiscent of the ‘bodkin' type arrowheads which came into use in the 13th century, replacing the earlier, flat-bladed arrowheads due to their greater efficacy at piercing leather, mail and plate armour."

hope this adds to your knowledge base…

anvil

and a bit more research, another website to check out.. this is specifically for cross bows,, but what applies to a bodkin point fired one way applies to another,,

"500lbs with a bodkin should put you striaght thru armor – no questions. It is my understanding armor was in the 18 to 14 guage thickness in period. My 450lb will put a bolt thru a plate of 12gu and follow it thru a piece of 18gu behind it at 60 yards"

link

Lol,, I happen to know this guy casually,,and for years. but my last contact with him,,he was doing architectural blacksmithing,, I have been in hibernation way too long!!

anvil

Lol,, I have to say, my above link leads to a very interesting thread,, All they need do is substitute cross bow for long bow,, describe battles we have discussed instead of a slightly later period,and the threads would be nearly identical!!!

anvil

and another great link,,

link

they suppose the hole to be done by a bullet or crossbow,,but could as easily be done by a bodkin tipped long bow as well…

Come on capt iglo,, if you don't,or cannot do the actual physical,, at least pound those keys,and do your own research as well!!

anvil

Lol,, sorry for the amount of posts.. but this thread is just great!!

We Blacksmiths just must think along the same lines for some strange reason!!

"A bullet impact can be stronger then a bolt or arrow, HOWEVER the arrow and bolt will penetrate easier due to no expansion – rather it focuses ALL its energy onto a point that is designed to pierce. A very easy test to this is to take something like a bullet proof vest, – shoot it with a gun, then shoot it with a mere 50lb handbow with a chisel (bodkin) type tip. Impact turns to expansion on a bullet = wasted penetration. This is not the case in a bolt."

Hi

Anvil, I think you noticed how he used metal terms without understanding them. I assure you he gets all the bow stuff and the pistol stuff wrong as well.

The following is typical:
"and the pointed tip of the bolt was quite similar to a Bodkin, then we must indeed conclude that pointed tips in comparision to the blunt nose of a ball might indeed under certain circumctances improve penetration by a considerable margin."

Well, in one respect, a steel cap does improve penetration over a blunt end of a stick or even steel. (actually, we make "bird blunts" which are big soft blunted arrows to stun birds in flight without killing them. These are predicated on the fact that a bird in flight will be pushed by the arrow rather than being able to resist like a standing object.

No matter, the assumption he makes about the mechanics of the bow are so wrong in so many ways. In the case of a "flight cap" versus a Bodkin doesn't understand the non-intuitive relationship of launch velocity. Essentially, the limbs of the bow have a "virtual mass", and will transfer more energy to the arrow the heavier it is within the limits of the virtual mass of the limb. So, when you shoot an arrow, the momentum is transferred to the tip itself, which is why some of the tests applying pressure to the knock and getting a snaped shaft or a tip compressing into the shaft are an incorrect test. Doesn't happen in the world. the tip carries the energy. And the bodkin weighing 4 times a flight cap does more damage. When I was doing these tests 35 years ago, I spent a lot of money circulating photos to friends (included Roger Zelazny the SF writer), showing the different effects at 100yds of these tips on 16th sheet steel.

Something I didn't realize before making the bodkin is that this(and the oriental equivilent) have some subtlties at the tip that changes the energy transfer. Not just the basic "make it a point". But I had access in the day to originals to measure and copy. I was astounded that a few degrees in the slope behind the edge changed the values.

Great fun.

I have never had a crossbow heavier than 200lb draw weight. At 175, using period bolt replicas, I did two sheets of plain steel 1/16th thick at 300yds. This wasn't armor grade stuff, I was shooting at an abandoned power pole that still had the junction box on it. I had just taught a gamer how to consistantly hit a man sized target at 75yds, and he thought he was GOOD, and I did the shot to show off. I didn't expect to penetrate both sides of the box.

Rocky

anvil,
i´m convinced, lets agree that an 80j longbow bodkin is a better armour penetrator than a 86j 0.23cal small caliber pocket pistol round.

still the kinetic energy of this weapon is on the level of the weakest small arms ammunition available.

where is the magic formula?
some might say its the heavy weight of the arrow.
But those who kill living subjekts with these weapons state that missiles unlike balls have NO STOPPING POWER, no shock or trauma effect, wounds are less painful than gun wounds, the target often doesnt even take notice.
the only chance to fell a living subjekt is chirurgical shot placement and relying on blood loss.

Thats before even protective gear comes into play.
Protective gear eats up most of the already insufficient energy.
Some, like Dr. Williams in "the knight and the blast furnace" do claim that penetrating 3mm of plate requires from 200 to 400j from a bodkin warhead, but it has only 80j.
The vid above shows a solidly documented test in which a penetration attempt with 80j did fail.
others, using hardened bodkins and mild steel plate at perfect perpendicular angle have claimed penetrations or semi penetrations at point blank range.
Still how relevant is this, when even engaging unprotected bodies has no real stopping effect.

Its actually quite harmless, for the redcoats in our example it should be quite harmless, at least in comparison to Albuera or Waterloo.
Musket and artillery balls are much more horryfying then 80j low energy projectiles.

to give them some protection, issue them their greatcoats.

I'm learning a lot here

Rocky..

the angle of the point is critical.. never thought of it concerning much other than my tools, but there is a whole world of subtly in tool angles for cold work, hot work,wood,and all different types of iron and steel…So it only makes sense that the theories would apply elsewhere as well..

I finished that thread at the site above,, there is an incredible amount of info there,actually for both sides of this discussion,and some really well documented articles,,and persons from such places as the Royal Armoury in London… alas it ended on a sad note..

Roger Zelazny,, awesome,, you do have some fascinating people in your life's journey…

anvil

Some, like Dr. Williams in "the knight and the blast furnace" do claim that penetrating 3mm of plate requires from 200 to 400j from a bodkin warhead, but it has only 80j.

Dr Williams made a basic mistake: he reproduced a c. 30 degree impact angle (I am repeating myself, again). The way an arrow launches, it doesn't reach even a 30 degree angle of attack until well outside 100 yards (even at pointblank range, the arrow begins point-high, is still slightly point-high at the top of the arc, then comes down to horizontal or slightly tip-low by the time the vertical target is struck), ergo, Williams' conclusions do not reflect the most effective range of the longbow at all. Also, "3mm" of thickness is only the very thickest parts of the armor; there are plenty of areas well under 2mm thick, and even under 1mm thick. A glancing impact (by far the majority of potential impacts, because the human body is composed of rounded surfaces, and thus also the armor covering it) will not penetrate even 1mm of steel. But a direct hit with little or no impact angle will punch through those thinner surfaces.

Again, we are not talking about defeating the best parts of the armor: we are noticing that the longbow formations relied on an increase in the number of effective hits by sheer probability alone: thus the thousands upon thousands of longbows deployed in a typical large English army.

LordLoveaDoug,
Nope he didn't make a misstake, the 30 degree test was intended to simulate a glancing blow due to an strike on a rounded surface, not a head on strike. It was only one of many as he tested impacts at 0, 10, 20, 30, 45 and 60 degrees to establish the effects of all kinds of strikes.
(Page 938 which can be read at Google Books)

The Pdf you are referencing is discussing a high quality suit similar to the Milianese style Avant armour in Glasgow picture The Avant armour has an average thickness of 2mm.

This is suit from the 1440's. This example was used as example in the lecture of how and why an armour could be sold as 'arrowproof' in the mid-late 15th Century. I.e well beyond the Azincourt period and I for one was wrong when I used it previously in an earlier period context.

The 400J claim made by Iglo is misrepresentation of Williams work and infact applies only to the force needed to 'compleatly defeat' a 2mm (not a 3mm) plate of 0,5% carbon steel. (I.e high quality steel) Furthermore he leave out Williams defintion of 'completely defeat' which is Williams term for a strike which achives a 40mm penetration beyond the plate.

Nor does Williams say that a longbow "has only 80J" as he puts that weapons approximate energy at 80-100J.

So let's keep Williams actual data separate from Iglos manipulated quotes of it.

A bodkin point striking in the right place will be fatal at much less depth than the 40mm mentioned above and even non-fatal lesser penetrations will cause the kind of debilitating wounds you have described elswhere in this thread.

Williams tests showed that a 1mm plate of mild steel will be "completely defeated" by a 55J strike by a bodkin point.
(This test does not take into account any additional protection offered by the arming doublet or by padded armoru worn over the plate.

cpt Gars,
Where did I "manipulate" Williams numbers?
I did indeed write them down from memory, so they are not 100% precise.
I did actually show the arrow in a better light, I did write 200-400 Joule for 3mm, while Williams says 400j is enough only for 2mm.
40 mm behind the plate is 40 mm of air, in real life its a fleshwound, not more. Thats completely harmless and after all only an academic number, a Longbow bodkin under these conditions will not penetrate the 2mm plate because it does not have 400 joule, it does just have 80 joule or maybe 100.

80 joule for a warbow missile is actually a solid number, unless people do not want rely on Stricklands moon numbers.
For a longbow 80 joule is not "only", its actually quite a lot.

Good info there, Capn'. Thanks for that.

The poster only provides the single statement of "30 degrees" and "2mm" for thickness. I take them to be the most pertinent figures that Williams employed, as averages more than anything else. I can accept the 30 degrees as a good test angle for striking into a glancing surface. The effect would be identical if the arrow was otherwise coming in straight on, but dropping from a mid-range shot, or, hitting where the body is rounded, thus presenting a back curve to the arrow point. It is obvious that even a mid 15th century suit of tempered steel plate would leave the wearer very leary of walking into the kind of arrow storm that was put down at Agincourt! "Arrowproof" it may have been, as long as the arrows all cooperated and only hit the right spots. Thus we see the French by that time refusing to engage an English army drawn up in their traditional "come and get us" defensive formation.

The earlier debates supporting such armor as "arrow proof", thus rendering the longbow as a totally ineffective weapon, are falacious. The arrow won't defeat the best plate at the proper thickness, that has never been argued by me. But the thinner areas, since 2mm is only an average thickness, remained vulnerable, especially at pointblank range. And looking at that excellent example of Milanese cap-a-pie plate armor illustrates also just how much of the body was not protected by any plate at all.

How much of the body was not protected by any plate at all?
Not much and the Avant suit does not even represent maximised coverage. link
Although this particlar suit is based an a 1430 effigy such suits can be found back as early as 1410 and would have been typical of the best 'state-of-the-art' harnesses at Azincourt. And thus fairly rare, I doubt that even 25% of the French men-at-arms wore such suits.

A significant part woudl have worn something like this
picture Bascinet, breastplate over mail and padded 'coat armour'. Simple legharness and gauntlets.

The Avant armour continued:
Once you add in the missing tassets (do note the leather straps on the fauld)and sabatons the only area of the body not covered by plate is the inner part of the thighs and a small strip on the upper part of the right arm. An a slight area at the groin.

The choice of helmet of course affects the amount of exposed area, the armours orignal armet and wrapper is missing, these would have provided no exposed area at all except for the slit in the visor. The barbute associated with the armour today offers less protection but increased visbility and air circulation.

The 2mm average does not take into account the effects of overlaps an reinforcement plates so a considerable number of areas would be much better protected.

Btw the pdf's numbers are not those for a hardend suit, it states: "…it would often be hardend, but for this example an air cooled steel will be considered."

Suits like this is the reason why the French only lost 8 or 12 men-at-arms while attacking into the arrow storm at Formigny. Of course only 600 of Clermonts army wore this level of protection. The ordonnance coustiliers and ordonnace archers who formed the bulk of his army together with the local levies were not nearly as well protected.
And suffered accordingly and as a result the initial French assault failed.

So while the cap-a-pie suit did indeed become 'arrowproof' to all but the luckiest strikes it also became restricted to a minority on the battlefield due it's cost.

Which is why there is a need to test the kind of armour worn by the 'ordinary' fighting men of the late to mid 15th Century. Brigandines, mail and 'Jacks' and various combinations there of.

Btw I fully agree that the archers on the outer parts of the wings owuld be the most dangerous due being able to use enfliade shooting at the sides of the armour. Which is probably why both French and Burgundian battle plans often focused the effort of their own missile troops and the mounted detachments on removign that threat.

Interesting something here for you metallurgy boys, seems we may all be barking up the wrong tree.

link

For those who ain't familiar with the Royal Armouries they,re the UK government department who look after the historical stuff. They write the book over here far as weapons and armour are concerned.

So looks as if the type 16 is the guilty party.

F5

Iglo,
You consistently misrepresented Williams data throughout your post by leaving out key information about the context.
The 2mm plate was not any old plate of steel but one of the most effective steels around. Nor was 400J energy needed for 'penetration' alone, it was the energy needed to completly defeat the armour. In fact 2mm plate were penetrated by a 70 pound bow in the tests carried out by P. Jones at the Royal Armament and Research Establishment.

A 40mm pentration into the body a 'flesh wound' and 'harmless'!! If you sincerly belive this why not test pentrations of such depth on your chest, neck, chest and abdomen as well as the limbs and post the results on Youtube.
However do note that I've personaly seen humans killed or severly wounded by similar depth pentrations as well as having examined archeological remains of men killed by far less penetrations in the right spot.

Gars,
I didn´t misinterpret anything.
I did write 200-400 joule for 3mm of plate.
Indeed according to Williams its actually 200-400 joule for just 2mm.
According to Williams 200 joule is for an unhardened plate, 400 would be for a plate hardened to the best period standards.
so according to williams 200 joule is actually not for the best available armour, still it is 100% beyond the capabilities of a longbow missile, at least according to Williams.

you do misinterpret Williams definition of "completely defeated" by penetrating 40mm as a statement about behind armour effects.
Thats not what he did intend to say.
he did just define his standard for what penetration means.
All usual serious military armour penetration tests have standards of this kind. If only the tip becomes visible behind the armour its not a penetration, just a semi penetration.
40mm is just 40 mm into air, it means that at least most of the warhead did penetrate.
in his test setup, which is actually a mathematical calculation he doesn´t deal with behind armour effects in this context.
Perhaps some padding or a human body would stop penetration completely, elsewhere he states for example that the usual underpadding would require another 50 j.
so if the knight is adequatly dressed there would be no behind armour effect at all.

But lets just imagine a 40mm penetration with a naked human body behind.
By the safety standards of passenger cars or children toys such a mishap is completely unaccaptable, there might even be some really unlucky cases in which someone has did from something like this.
where there are soft body parts, the body will simply give way and the result will be perhaps just a unpleasant contusion.
if there is some air between the armour and the body there is no effect at all.
so there is actually a strong chance that a 40 mm penetration doesn´t even create a bleeding wound.
And if there is indeed a bleeding wound very likely will be harmless.
if there are some bones or dense muscle flesh, the remaining minimal KE will be spent for minimal penetration , indeed there will be a fleshwound.

armchair reasoning aside, thats indeed quite harmless for a soldier in combat.

Williams writes 40mm, not the 4mm you try to reduce it to in the above post.

Nor does Williams write that most armour was hardedend. 38% of the Italian armour was not. Furthermore the harded armour belongs mostly to the post-1440 period, indeed the larger part of them are from the 1475-1510 period. The German armoru tested was from the 1460 to 1510 period i.e not valid for the pre-1460 period and still 30% of the armour was not hardend.

And the 2mm plate in the 230/280J example is still a superior medium-carbon steel plate. A 2mm mild steel plat similar to medieval iron or low grade steel is 'completly defeated at 175J. Indeed previous testing by Williams shows that 75J is enoguh to punch a 6mm hole trough a 1.9mm plate , indeed a froce as low as 20J will pentrate the plate as well.

You obviously don't have any experience of actual injuries to the human body in genral nor combat wounds in particular do you.

A 40mm pentration into the neck is quite capable of severing the cartoid artery causing a massive bleedign which will lead to death.
A 40mm pentration into the thorax can and will cause severe trauma to the lung. Any patient with a penetrating chest wound must be closely watched at all times and may develop a collapsed lung or other immediately life-threatening respiratory emergency at any moment.

A 40mm strike to the abdomen can pentrate into the cavity and damage the viscera wich resutls in internal bleeding. Intestinal wounds are also killers in the long run as they are highly infectious if not treted correctly.

A 40mm strike to the face or skull will lead to brain damage which can be fatal as well. The Visby graves hold numerous examples of men killed by less pentrations than 40mm as shown by the arrow and bolt head still lodged in their skulls.

A 40mm pentration of the arms will both cause significant trauma to the muscles&tendons and can very well result in artieal bleeding as well.

I notice tha you deleted your previous post which I wrote in reply of, too many errors? Oh well th epost takes care of most of your new misconceptions as well.

The padding tested by Wlliams is 16 layers of linen, the arming doublets worn under neath plate armour is not that thick. 16 layers is a Jack worn over mail or possibly a aketon. And alot of padded armour is not constructed by multiple layers of cloth. Many were instead stuffed with raw cotton or wool.

what i have picked up here is that in this era, 2mm was about as thick as the armor got,, then tapered back from the center to protect the sides.

Captain Gars.. not sure of your % for carbon in steel, but its actually rated in points,, 1 point of carbon is 1% of 1% total composition…60 points of carbon is considered medium carbon steel,, at the high end.. high carbon steel is anything above 70 or 80 points carbon,, sorry i don't remember the actual breakpoint, but its above 60. medium carbon has a specific use,,and that is as a shock steel,, ie hammers etc… So,, I suspect a lot of armor used a medium carbon steel as the other need would be to deflect blows of heavy swords,warhammers, etc…

with the process they used, this would also have been more readily produced. They didn't actually have the tech to make a specific type of steel,, high,medium,or low,, but say made a batch of carbon steel,, then broke this up and tested it and separated the fragments into the three grades of steel. these three grades were then forged to remove impurities,,and refine the types. the largest amount would have been low carbon, next medium carbon, and the least produced would have been high carbon steel.. Thus the most expensive of he three.

when i say tech,, understand that this has to do with production of steel,,not a smiths ability to understand how to forge it, aneal,harden,and temper it. the knowledge to work it has not really changed since well before the medieval era. for instance, as long as I have the specs for any Tool Steel, in my forge, I can do all functions needed concerning forging,anealing,hardening, and temering,,as long as I have the "power" needed for some of the tool steels..meaning a power hammer. the actually anealing,hardening and tempering can be done with no high tech equipment.. just the tools that have been available since man first figured out how to make steel. Its one of the things that makes my work so fascinating..

Lol, on a lighter note,, what we have here are the "warriors",,, one believing in the arrows ability to pierce armor,,on the other hand we have the "warriors" who believe that armor is the end all and be all for defense and attack,, and infallible!! whilst in the middle, we have the blacksmith,,the man qualified and capable of making either product…A Master Smith without a doubt, had a shop specialty,,no matter what myriad of specialties he chose, but during his journeyman days,, he most likely worked under a number of masters and varied specialties.. a few years in a "Bodkin" shop,, a few years in an "Armour's" shop,,amongst others…Swords to plows,,Plows to swords,, what ever the market demands… Lol,,, love it… and this debate has prolly gone on from that time and before!!!

Oh yea,, lest we forget, here we have,, as has been here time immoral,,the theorist, with no actual experience on either end,,speaking loudly and long,, and with much vehemence and passion,, fanning the flames about said topics…

with all due respect,,and tongue strongly in cheek,, his roll has always reminded me of the parable "The King who wore no Cloths",,,

cptn iglo,, I would have to say that 40mm of steel would cause a fair amount of damage,, strike bone and break it,hit the heart, pierce the lung, pierce the brain,, etc,, etc,, isnt 40mm just shy of 2"? I just cannot call this a mere flesh wound,, altho Monty Python,,in his great medieval swordfight would… heh "come on,, is that the best you can do?" Great movie…

anvil

Cptn Iglo,,

"But those who kill living subjekts with these weapons state that missiles unlike balls have NO STOPPING POWER, no shock or trauma effect, wounds are less painful than gun wounds, the target often doesnt even take notice."

good question,,and hopefully I can help here.. There is no way you can compare what happens to an Elk,Deer,or especially a Bear to what happens to a human being. Here, I believe lies your problem… Just think of the body mass of these critters compared to a human,, just consider the amount of blood difference,, We humans are frail and very vulnerable compared to most of the critters we hunt. We basically have the same organs,but ours are definitely more compact,, it is way easier to hit something critical on a human than a large animal.. an arrow can pass thru an Elk, for example with a way greater chance of hitting nothing critical,, not so a human…

anvil

Ok,
lets take medieval untreated iron or low grade steel,the cheapest of the cheap so to say, but thats still 175 joule, without the underpadding!!!
according to williams its at least 75j to much for a heavy longbow warhead.
reducing the diameter might help a lot, but 6mm is much to thin for a longbow warhead.

it should not be forgotten that william´s numbers are just mathematical calculations, so longbow penetration lovers might still have some points if they question Williams calculations.
but they should look too at those points which were deliberatly ignored by Williams, thats for example flexing,bending and breaking of overburdened warheads.
finding the right warhead is actually a challenge.
the needle bodkin is much to fragile as an armour penetrater, no wonder no hardened needle bodkins were ever found. point 16 is a broadhead , again no good penetrator for hard stuff. broadheads are for tissue, even modern broadheads are made of the best hardened steel, hardening alone is no indication for armour piercing use.
The best penetrator of hard surfaces should be acompact massive warhead like no.10.
reduce such a warhead plus shaft to 6mm and you might have a good penetrator, but insufficient weight of less than 1 oz, so you have 1 third of the energy.
This might be compensated by very high velocity, but the longbow couldn´t do this.

Lol,, God Bless the Royal Armories site,,

link

a bit of a quote,, and its author..

"he famous south German armourers, until the end of the 15th-century most armour was of unhardenable iron. However from around 1500 there is a transition to steel and this was carefully heat-treated to harden it. "

"Much of this research reported above was carried out as part of the Royal Armouries' Science Officer's PhD research. However, the specialist who has worked most extensively on European armour, including much from the Armouries Collection is Alan Williams who has published widely including a recent major volume entitled the Knight and The Blast Furnace (Brill, 2003)."

I have suspected this,, but did not press it.. So It is just possible that the tests needed should be against wrought Iron,,and hardened bodkin tips for this particular era to get a better idea as to what happened during the era of the long bow we are talking of here…wrought iron is the softest,most malleable of all types of iron\steel, the easiest to work, and most common to procure…

anvil

Cptn Iglo

you are still grasping at straws..

"finding the right warhead is actually a challenge."

this would be common knowledge to any specialty shop during this time,, and today, if you talk to a metals or structural engineer..I have that knowledge in my books and sources. Refer to Rocky's thread concerning tip angles. Not for bodkin points specifically, but for proper angles to best cut or piercd thru different types of iron and steel,, hot or cold,, etc,etc,, and design my tools accordingly. Tell me your use,,and I will design the best tool i can for the job,,this concept is the same today as then,, just more varied as more and more types of tool steel are created..I can refer you to these books if you are truly interested… Interestingly enough this type of knowledge was actually taught in high schools around the turn of the century,, hehe not the millennium,, the one before,,,

"the needle bodkin is much to fragile as an armour penetrater, no wonder no hardened needle bodkins were ever found. point 16 is a broadhead , again no good penetrator for hard stuff."

I believe you are speaking beyond your knowledge here,, I don't have that info at hand, but as a general rule as the iron\steel gets harder, better penetration\shearing happens with a broader angle to the tip…

here is the quote from the RA,

"Results of analysis
Even within the small group of arrowheads which have been studied metallographically, one type stands out as being unusually carefully constructed using the relatively expensive material, steel, for points and cutting edges and usually being quenched to achieve maximum hardness. This is the Type 16 (B above) compact barbed and socketed head."

this type is the one i would intuitivly select from the three as one best qualified to pierce armor of any type,,its hardened,and the angle is relativly broad,, notice it doesnt have flat sides on the tapered tip? this is intentionally done,, at least in my tool making,, to better pierce a piece of steel.. (type 16)

There is another article i am about to read,, for confirmation more than anything,, but it confirms to me the reason that we don't find much armor with holes in it,, or many arrowheads to do research on. Iron,,and steel to a way higher degree were very rare and expensive.. We see, and read about after battle scavengers,,You can bet,,if they burned down old buildings to salvage the nails,, there were few pieces of iron or steel left on battlefields of these times… Iron and steel today, and always has been one of our first totally recyclable resources… stick it back in the old forge,and re work it,,send it back to the foundry,,and re pour it..

I was privileged to work with two blacksmiths from Frankfort,Germany for a weekend or so. They were restoring the screens for the Gothic cathedral. the main posts were, as i remember 4" square wrought iron, and very tall… they had sandblasted them,and you could see that they were literally made up ou thousands of smaller pieces,, picked up off the floor, and forge welded onto the post to get its length and width… Nothing was wasted, everything was reused…

anvil

Anvil,
With regard to the carbon % i'm merly quoting the Williams poster PDF link
in order to point out what Iglo leave out when he is quote-mining Williams work.

Indeed the Royal Armouries and it's staff is superb. Dedicated and professional, it is a real treat to to research there. Williams test of the German armour from the 1460-1510 period found that 70% of the pieces were hardend but it was a very small sample, only 23 items.

Ha,ha,
you speculate as much as me.
type 16 is a broadhead, I´ ve seen it at work against wood, maybe on steel its different.
you´re reasoning is based on tool making, mine on using gun standards for penetration, in both cases its not excactly fitting.

Anvil,
Very good point about recycling. Medieval man recycled all the metal they could get their hands on. And recycling didn't necissarily involve melting down items. I've examined two helmest which had been converted to cauldrons for cooking, written records from the Swedish Royal Court describe how the kitchens were issued old 16th Century steel bucklers and roundels to use as lids for pots and pans. Artillery pieces were recast or rebored to suit the new owners.

Unless one is very lucky the metal finds archeologist make are the scraps left over after the scavengers are through or items that have been droped or lost. Some tiems you strike gold like the 80 swords pulled out of the river near Castilion.