ARROWS vs ARMOUR 2 - Best metal for armour?

[@akosmaradi5281]

As an engineer I may or may not have a solution as to why the arrows less deep when the material used should indicate otherwise. What you have not taken into consideration is the shot placement. Shots landing towards the middle are penetrating less because flexing, the displacement of the of the plate absorbs the kinetic energy of the projectile. The bending moment grows as you get more and more towards the centre of the plate with your shots that absorbs more KE thus reducing penetration.

[@holdehj]

I agree with this but from the steels I have worked with and the research I've done, this becomes less important the faster the projectile is because the window of time that energy absorption can take place reduces. This combined with the archery pad backing I think your well made points would come into effect but probably wouldn't produce a large variable.

[@akosmaradi5281]

@@holdehj I too understand your point but in my oppinion at least the arrows shot from that crossbow are not travelling fast enough to completely negate this effect. As you see in the video it is endeed not a very large error but it is there, and every other shot Tod took was very close to the edge.

[@holdehj]

@@akosmaradi5281 this is true

[@Desparil]

I was wondering about this exact thing myself, though you absolutely phrased it much better than I could have hoped to since it's been many years since I learned about physics and material science and my profession has nothing to do with either.

[@Drachinifel]

The plate was supported from behind by the foam, so there would be considerably less flex than if it was over open space.

[@dlatrexswords]

To all the crew who did this, your efforts to eliminate variables that would sway the results is really admirable. Great setups that you have done for your testing!!!

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks and we did consider that area as much as we could

[@REALdavidmiscarriage]

@@tods_workshop Love this stuff! Tod do you mind telling us to which approximate" Longbow Draw weight" that crossbow equates to and the material of the tips of the arrows used?

[@evanroberts2771]

@@tods_workshop Then why complain at 11:00 about variables and only firing ONE arrow at each target? Surely you could put 2 or 3 arrows into each, or did you purposefully NOT want a more accurate test?

[@Faust1169]

Disagree. 13-14 cm is more than 10 cm. Also mild steel should have been shot near edge like others.

[@SirDragonClaw]

@@evanroberts2771 I'm guessing they don't want a more accurate test for whatever reason.

[@LuxisAlukard]

It's official - there are better history documentaries on YT than on TV!

[@jamesbailey6257]

It's been that way for like a decade not lol, TV is the worst place to be getting really good history stuff

[@DH-xw6jp]

TV has to be enjoyable by the lowest common denominator . . . i.e. people that don't have any interest in arms and armor (in this case). So the funding goes to making it "exciting". Drama, music, voiceovers, "fun" targets, However, private studies like this are sourced and funded by people that *_do_* care, in some cases quite deeply. People that are willing to pay for historical accuracy, even if that means stripping away excitment for truths and making the armor cost a buck a ring.

[@JPBrooksLive]

Passion vs profit

[@Keovar]

The 'History' Channel has been producing low-effort, low-quality dross for a long time now. It used to be the "Hitlery" Channel because it was nearly all about WWII, but at least that was real. Then they got into the Ancient Aliens and Ghost Hunters garbage which is so implausible it hardly even rates as pseudoscience.

[@dlatrexswords]

What a wonderful series! We are spoiled by how much data is being collected this time.

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks and so much more to come

[@ericaugust1501]

@@tods_workshop i loved the variety of armour, didn't even know they cross laminated. interesting. But i'm a bit disappointed that you loosed only one arrow. i know a test sample of 3 is also very small, but a test sample of 1? no, Todd,....perhaps it wouldn't make a difference, but the idea of relying on a sample of only 1, for any test.... i just hate. why only 1 arrow tho? did you plan to do something else with those plates afterward? I really think 3 repetitions should be the minimum in any sort of testing.

[@RamsesTheFourth]

@@ericaugust1501 I agree that 3 would be better. But also I think that those arrows are really expensive. And the chance of miss was much larger. You hit the frame and arrow is gone. That''s why they chose only 1 shot per target.

[@CZProtton]

@@RamsesTheFourth Then they made an expensive experiment and got a useless result that says nothing. Better to not do it at all and save the money. He is absolutely right that 3 shots is the absolute minimum. 1 shot tells us nothing about the steel, the arrows or how they interact other than that its possible for the arrow to pierce the piece of plate. And even then, its just that particular arrow on that particualar plate in that particular place. It could ahve simply been a fluke. And we dont know, because there is nothing to compare it to.

[@RamsesTheFourth]

@@CZProtton I agree.

[@goranvujnovic597]

Great work Tod and team and thanks for all of this. P.S. Drach you've been had mate, that plate is not a part of U-534

[@stuartburns8657]

So pleased I was able to support this important historical effort. Well done to all those involved, simply outstanding 👏👍

[@bobrobinson1576]

This is such valuable historical research. A big thank you to all involved.

[@scottv6903]

Thanks again to all of you! An honor to be even a tiny little supportive part of such a fantastic piece of work.

[@_B_K_]

This is an incredible series. I am just a curious bystander, but I'm glued to my screen -- this is so fascinating. Way better than anything I've seen on TV in the past.

[@leoscheibelhut940]

Fantastic! Amazing work by the whole crew working on Arrows vs Armor 2, I greatly appreciate your careful work and careful wording of the results. Absolutely brilliant!

[@seanbrown207]

I’m amazed at the quality of the AVA2 series! Amazing job!

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks

[@silas13013]

Excellent quality as expected, so glad you are doing these and I am very excited to see more like this.

[@ApfelJohannisbeere]

Again such an awesome base check to have a valid comparison! Awesome done and the knowledge we gain from such things can't be praised enough!

[@lyndonwortley6329]

Delighted to have shared in bringing these videos and information to the public view as a wee backer. Well done Tod's Workshop and crew!

[@tods_workshop]

Thank you - genuinely not possible without you.

[@rhokirsolx]

I love how you guys looked at all these variables as well! It gives a much better understanding of the range of results we can expect from varying materials as compared to the main video. And I love your acknowledgement that "this is not conclusive testing, but some info is better than no info!"

[@ThunderLord1]

I absolutely love Tod's passion and obvious enthusiasm for every new tidbit of knowledge. I love these videos ! Oh I would reaally love to see them launch arrows at a linothorax, see how well/badly they would hold and if they could actually stop dead / trap an arrow.

[@nigeldepledge3790]

One of the things that really strikes me (heh!) in this test is the importance of the shape of a breastplate. If the armour is curved so as to encourage an arrowhead to slide across its surface instead of digging in, it offers that much better protection. It seems to me that the people who designed the earlier tanks used in World War II could have done with understanding this better.

[@aurtosebaelheim5942]

They mostly did, it was just a case of making cost-effective tanks with stable structure. Looking at France, Germany and Russia: - France had a lot of very curved tanks because they used cast hulls (as opposed to rolled sheet metal). This was expensive, you obviously needed custom-made equipment for each cast part. Also, there are anecdotal reports of French tanks ringing like a bell when struck and/or shearing all their bolts and sliding apart. - German tanks had nice curved turret faces and, in ideal scenarios, that's the only bit that's going to be visible. The rest was very nicely welded flat plates. It's a lot easier to structure the internals of a tank when you're dealing with a box. I'd also attribute the multitude of variants in part to the simpler, boxy design, it's much easier to swap a plate out for a thicker one when it's just a machined plate. - Russia had a bunch of goofy tanks with sharp angles or round turrets (and too many turrets). All their early tanks that weren't weird little clown cars were pretty well angled. Britain doesn't count because they refitted train factories for their early tanks. All the resources were dedicated to the airforce and navy, hence there being a bunch of riveted tanks. There were also different projectile designs that helped reduce deflection, though I'm not going to pretend I know enough about how they worked or how prevalent they were.

[@joost1120]

@@aurtosebaelheim5942 Not exactly sure if I agree with your opinion about German and Russian tanks though. It's an overgeneralization and seems pretty biased towards the already romanticized and overpraised German tanks. The description "Goofy tanks with sharp angles" definitely does fit Germany's most numerous tanks, the PzKpfW 3 and 4. Your praise of German tanks and criticism of Russian tanks seems to apply to everyone else as well. Germany was far from the only one that used welded flat plates, and the quality of said German welds was far from nice either, especially towards the end of the war. Russia did have tanks with multiple turrets, but Germany, the US and the UK also experimented with this. Russia only had a small number of these multi-turreted tanks. Russia made a total of 503 T-28's between 1932 and 1941. Between 1935 to 1940 they made almost 6000 BT-7's. Of the 120,000 Soviet tanks produced between 1930 and 1945, less than half a percentage of them had multiple turrets.

[@Appletank8]

A hidden cost to very angled armor is interior volume, and it's something that hit the T-34 very hard. A well angled frontal plate is something that survived into modern day, but angling the sides and rear took away a lot of space for elbows, ammo, fuel, and turret ring size. Also, simple flat plates are cheaper compared to curves, as long as you are roughly sure that enemies will be facing you from the front. 90% of the time if you're caught with your pants down from the side, you're in for a significant emotional event. Enough armor to prevent side shots massively hinder mobility, which holds true to modern day. Tanks from WW2 can likely still badly hurt a modern MBT from the side. however technological advances allow modern tanks to take out older vehicles long before they can execute a point blank ambush.

[@aurtosebaelheim5942]

​@@joost1120 I wrote a long reply, but youtube ate it when I decided to check what I'd originally written. Sorry is some of these points are brief or reductive. - By "tanks with sharp angles" I meant "tanks that present sharp angles to opponents" as opposed to the German "vertical slab of metal" style. I was specifically thinking of the BT-7 in this regard. Other design features of that tank make it fairly goofy (namely the chassis). Soviet light tanks are an odd bunch, the most normal-looking one looks like it should have a big clockwork key sticking out of it. - I thought my "in ideal scenarios" would convey more general disdain for German tanks. The following was meant as more of a lukewarm defence of why their armour wasn't sloped. - I should have specified that I consider Germany's variant addiction to be a flaw. They never got production down because they just couldn't help but swap out parts. - The weld quality comment comes from an off-hand remark heard in relation to a museum piece. Oops, shouldn't have taken that at face value. - Late war Germany had no build quality in anything. Sometimes they accounted for this and made things within their means, tanks were not one of those times. - To my knowledge, Russia was the main producer of tanks with multiple full turrets and they took it the furthest. Other nations had designs with heavy hull guns, but Russia made the most tanks with discrete turrets. The idea didn't last particularly long. - I had meant the "too many turrets" comment to only be in relation to the cylindrical-turreted Soviet tanks. In my mind's eye, the T-28 and T-35 had much rounder turrets while the BT-7 had a more conventional shape, but looking up references I see that the line is a lot blurrier. Again, oops. - Soviet tank numbers are thrown off by the sheer number of T-34s they churned out in the mid and late war. My comment was focussed on the early war where the "goofy designs that present sharp angles of attack" and "too-many-turret" tanks were more relevant.

[@ThePlebicide]

Thank you for this amazing work. I wasnt able to contribute to the KS, but thank you for giving us the chance to see this project.

[@adamstanisaw2892]

Thanks todd and team for good quality material.

[@Yandarval]

Did I just see Drach (www.youtube.com/@Drachinifel) as part of the crew changing targets? He does do reenactments, and does own a plate harness. An excellent, and informative vid as always, Tod.

[@Drachinifel]

Yep, that was me :D

[@Yandarval]

@@Drachinifel Hanging around with Tod. Are you picking up ideas for Catapulta’s etc. In preparation for when our warships run out of missiles? As you and Dr C say, more guns would be better. But always have a plan C.

[@SamI-bv9kd]

@@Drachinifel Always exciting to see a Drach in the wild!

[@arkdeniz]

@@Drachinifel looking forward to your kickstarter armour vs 12 inch projectile Jutland test, Drach!

[@JevansUK]

Totally is

[@Erikreaver]

This whole series of films has been amazing, and even if my personal nerdery and enjoyment of arms and armour aside, it is a valuable set of data! Thank you guys. Looking forward to the others!

[@tods_workshop]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis]

I was lucky enough to meet Tod at the medieval market earlier this year (or was it last year?) TORM I believe it's called, and I've got to say he is one of the most down to earth and knowledgeable people I have met. You'd think with the knowledge and abilities he has he would have a level of arrogance found often in those who are in depth on their field but what a friendly and interesting chap! I absolutely love his thought out videos and the gear he makes, well absolutely perfect too.

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks, that's lovely and you must have met me on a good day!

[@leonpeters-malone3054]

Many thanks for the extra vids and extra details for the tests. Very interesting results. And was that a secret Drach I saw helping out?

[@jimmybob331]

Are you guys going to publish this data in a paper? I love that you're explaining all the weaknesses in your methodology. It's a very good example of how to conduct science well.

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks and not a paper as such, but we will be putting a few documents here todtodeschini.com/youtube-projects/arrows-v-armour-2/documents/

[@soul-om4id]

Fantastic series!! Can't compliment you all enough.

[@shaneintheuk2026]

It’s nice to know that the materials are not massively effecting the results. I would be tempted to take a few more shots with the case hardened as the first arrow looks like an outlier.

[@stav1369]

Breakdown of metal types found in 14th century plate armour by percentage Williams provided a metallurgic analysis of 48 pieces of 14th century plate armour. Of these 48 pieces of armour, the following breakdown was observed Wrought Iron: 14 pieces or 29% of the sample Low Carbon steel: 17 pieces or 35% of the sample Non-Fully hardened Medium Carbon steel: 11 pieces or 23% of the sample Hardened Medium Carbon steel: 6 pieces or 12% of the sample

[@mediocrefunkybeat]

Nice Drachinifel cameo there at around 7.10 Lovely work, everybody.

[@defaultytuser]

This series could have been named "Benchmarking for the Ages", I swear! Whit this video alone I spent many hours changing the home brewed rules of my RPG ruleset regarding armor protection and I can definitely see it as a reference point for future game designers as well. Of course, many of this data was somewhat available; but the empirical aspect of it and the accessibility it has for being in video format really make this a game changer. Congratulations to Todd and everyone involved!

[@Michael_MW]

Thank you for the amazing work. Glad to be a part of AvA2!!

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks for supporting it and glad you enjoyed it

[@rileyernst9086]

Had no idea about the cross hatched iron. This is why I love Tod's videos and work, you never know what you're going to learn. Awesome work as ever!

[@jonathanpuccetti9258]

I know it wouldn't really be useful for your tests and what you are looking at, but I would have loved to see a modern high carbon steel. Just to see the comparison.

[@DennisfromMunich]

This is such an incredible series of tests. And yes, a sample size of one might skew the result but in the end the knight that was on the receiving side of the arrow also was a single person and there might be an imperfection in the plate he was wearing. What strikes me the most with every single arrow is how much frigging force they actually carry! Devastating 😮

[@marcdavis4509]

Two clicks right on the scope Tod

[@loupiscanis9449]

Thank you , Tod , And all who helped , 🐺

[@tods_workshop]

A pleasure

[@brianmincher716]

This is so fantastic. Well done everyone involved.

[@vivianevans8323]

I think this armour plate test was really important because it showed you that the results of the actual test on the knight won't be skewed one way or the other because of the steel being used. I'm in awe of all the work you all put in!

[@CZProtton]

Sadly it means nothing, because of the smallest sample size. 1 shot is literally useless for a test. The only thing it proves is "this crossbow can shoot through this plate". If they did 5 shots at each plate, we could say that the materials are indeed all pretty comperable. But they did not. Tod even says so several times, like that he just cannot say if there is maybe a fault or a strongpoint in the plate where they hit so they get a weird result. More shots would eliminate that problem... but they dont do them!

[@varencilator]

@@CZProtton It's not literally useless. The point was to establish the results aren't orders of magnitude off between materials. The varying thicknesses of hand-forged historical plate and deflecting curvatures of armor will have more of an effect than the, at most, 40% differences in penetration shown in the one shot material tests.

[@CZProtton]

@@varencilator They did not establish anything like what you said though, because 1 shot says absolutely nothing about the material. 3 shots maybe. But 1 shot could have easily been a fluke, the system they use for testing is not eliminating any fault factors so the experiment sucks ass. A bad wind could skew the result horribly, a bad arrow, a bad hit. They had one bad hit in there, how do I know that any other hit was also not bad? That is why you always make several attempts in any experiment and only then make any kind of conclusion. Even "These are about the same in performance" is a very difficult question to answer and it certainly is not answered at all by this experiment. I am sure that the craftsmanship makes a bigger difference than the material the armor is made of, but they cannot just say something like they are saying after an experiment like this. Its like a case study of how NOT to do an experiment. They used a different bow from the other tests, one arrow each, outside... The only thing they proved was "This particular arrow shot from this crossbow at this exact day with these conditions managed to penetrate this particular piece of iron/steel in this exact spot". Without more shots, I really cannot say anything more than this. At least three is the minimum to even call the experiment viable. 10 would actualy give a result I could trust.

[@varencilator]

@@CZProtton I believe the problem with your thinking is that you're looking at that experiment without context, as if we know absolutely nothing of the materials at hand. We know they're all derivations of iron/steel and we know roughly how they should perform with respect to each other. We also saw they penetrated at similar angles, similar depths, and similar speeds. The tests displayed that and confirmed that what we know is correct, and that there were no particularly apparent defects with the materials aside for that one re-shot. I'll ask a rhetorical question: after looking at the results of the test, do you truly believe the results would have differed DRASTICALLY (a difference of 100% or more, over +/-10cm) if you increased the sample size? Especially in a way that would affect the actual armor test? I'm going to answer no, probably not. The materials and the methods they were prepared were controlled enough to give a relative idea of their arrow ballistic properties, and that they are close (besides carbon steel which we knew to be far sturdier). These tests follow some proper experimentation methods but are still mostly visual approximations at the end of the day, what with all the uncontrolled variables as you've even stated. Should they have upped the sample size for this specific flat plate test for completions' sake? You and I absolutely agree they should've/could've. If they did the test again with increased sample size and better methodology, I'd be thrilled. BUT, with the knowledge we already know, the tests, even with a single sample size, give a practical impression that mild steel is a suitable material analogue for historical plate for the main visual experiment on the plate armor. Basically a formality. The small sample size is still a valid criticism. I just don't agree that it invalidates the test.

[@CZProtton]

@@varencilator I dont agree with you though. I cannot say what would happen with a bigger sample size because we simply do not know, they did not do the experiment. But the materials are different. As some engineer in the comments here said, the placement of the shot might have very well skewed the result because the plate could flex in the middle but not on the sides, making it seem like some of the plates are way more resilient to piercing than they should be. The context also does not give me anything. I know mild steel plate armour works, that has been well established. Is it the same as the historical steel though? We still have no idea. Because this test was not good enough to give us an idea. One shot literally tells you nothing, the result is absolutely worthless science wise. Unlike their other experiements that actualy do give us an idea how things could work. I think you underestimate just how bad experiments with test groups like these are. An experiment as bad as this literally started the whole antivax movement. Now I am not comparing the damage that experiment did with this experiment, most people wont care they did this or that they did it wrong. But I am just saying you can create an entirely different conclusion from a bad experiment and they make some conclusions in the video, so some people will now take those conclusions as facts and say that mild steel is a good equivalent to medieval steel. While we still do not know at all. I am not saying they should have gotten a university to stress test the materials and make an actual scientific research out of it... I am just sure I can get a few students that would have actualy done that as their thesis. And then we would have an idea. If they did not want to do that and instead shot it with arrows from a crossbow, they at least should have had a bigger sample size. I am simply saying that the experiment they did was worthless and a waste of time simply and only because of the sample size. If they did 3 arrows, it would still have been a horrible experiment science wise, but I would then agree with your conclusions that we know enough from other contexts to say "good enough". With one arrow though, I just cannot agree with any conclusion.

[@epicblade5616]

As always, you guys have been doing incredible work with these, so thank you for all of it! This video got me thinking though, and I understand this was probably beyond the scope of this, but I'd be curious to see a similar test carried out with a sheet of mild steel that had been worked with a hammer and then flattened again to see what sort of an effect work hardening would have. It wouldn't be equivalent to armour of course, but it seems like it would be an interesting thing to consider in a materials test like that.

[@wolfvonversweber1109]

Simply amazing work! Thanks to all people participating!

[@karrachr000]

The results of the results of the laminated wrought iron vs the laminated bloomery steel have me a bit curious. One factor, that I believe could contribute to the iron performing better, is that, because it should be more flexible than the steel, it has a little bit longer period of time to slow the projectile down. That is just my hypothesis though, and as Tod said, it requires more testing with larger sample sizes.

[@Lovemy1911a1]

I would suspect something similar. The bloomers steel seemed to have a crack for as well. Possibly a sign of impurities or something leading to embritlement. We could also be seeing some edge effects at play.

[@CZProtton]

I suspect its because they shot 1 arrow at each, meaning the result is useless. One plate could have been hit in a weaker spot with a hidden fault, the other in a strongpoint. You just simply cannot make any conclusion from a test with 1 datapoint for each testgroup, there are too many variables.

[@paavobergmann4920]

Fascinating. And finally we can say with full confidence " Yes, this is modern material, but it´s pretty much what they would have worn", and that´s a big thing.

[@tods_workshop]

I agree. It is a great point for discussion that yes it is modern and it is different, but not by much

[@whyidontwant2723]

Absolutely fantastic.

[@tods_workshop]

Many thanks!

[@whyidontwant2723]

@@tods_workshop All I did is watch and enjoy all thanks belong to you and your team.

[@oneshotme]

Well Tod I have enjoyed this series you put out today!!!!! Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up

[@roffels11-gamingandhistory69]

Interesting experiment. Thank you so much for filming and sharing this.

[@HobieH3]

Another Engineer here (agreeing with the one below) and very much agreeing with Angelo's evaluation of mild steel. I would say that commercial grade 1008-1010 cold-roll would be as good or better than all but the best 15th century steel. Plus he deserves a new hat. Another Kickstarter!

[@HobieH3]

Sorry, Augusto.

[@simonista8976]

Another great film guys! Proper test with historical materials none the less. I will always be fascinated by how much the shape of armor-plates affect what happens to it even though it's not shown here - seeing those arrows cut right through these flat plates instantly brings it to mind from the main film. I am very interested in hearing more from Toby or Augusto about what is known about the range of armor between the English and French at Agincourt - i.e. do the French have more frenchmade armor that the English have englishmade armor,as opposed to import-armors from for example Germany or Italy. Again a big thank you to everyone involved in this project,truly amazing!

[@greghenrikson952]

No amount of armor will protect you from Augusto's eye for detail!

[@harrykouwen1426]

The shock absorbsion is a major fact in my opinion; the backing of the plate armour with gambeson and other materials, the human flesh factor to bounce off and absorb huge portions of the impact on the steel plate. I can't help making comparison with car crash impact shock absorbsion, the insights of for instance volvo crash test engineers. And not to forget the arch shape of armour, that aids to withstand impact and penetration by spreading the shockwave and shrinking the steel which absorbs energie as well

[@HereticalKitsune]

Very interesting series!

[@benhall7574]

Cool to see Drach there 🙂

[@KasperBoLarsen]

Looking for clues for the great question: will an arrow penetrate the amour on a destroyer? 🤣

[@danspragens4935]

@@KasperBoLarsen Might have to be a really big bodkin.

[@dontimberman5493]

Small sample but it proved what modern metallurgy has been saying mild carbon steel is a good modern equivalent. If the results had been to the contrary then yes a larger sample size would have been absolutely called for. This however really reinforces all the mild steel armor test done by everyone. All that to say. Well done gentlemen!

[@esoel]

You are welcome! I made a tiny contribution really, but I'm very happy I had a small small (small) part in getting this done.

[@givemeanameman1]

Nice work, as always.

[@DewaKopling]

Finally arrow vs armor, i love this kind of videos

[@johntipper29]

Thank you once again. This is a full of thought provoking information.

[@ThePhortex]

This was super cool! Thank you

[@Andrewbert109]

It is absolutely bonkers to me how much the shape of the armor changes the outcome here. A flat piece of steel is getting completely punctured. That curve though and it didn't even come close on the helmet or breast plate in the final test. That's bananas to me

[@drifloon360]

7:18 I think that's Drachinifel...

[@rexbarron4873]

The vital piece of information missing is the FPS of the crossbow. If it is set to Joe’s monster bow, 180fps, then it is not of the day. Between 1356-41 the Keeper of the Kings Wardrobe ordered and distributed 23,000 longbows and a million arrows. This was a vast business enterprise with quality control and strict criteria with the King, Edward III as recorded in the parliament rolls, threatening retribution by land confiscation against various Sheriffs for allowing sub par munitions to reach the troops. A 160lb bow might arrive at the front as a special order but would not be the norm, A war bow of the late 1300’s would be in the 80lb to 100lb draw weight range which would have an impact speed at 30 yards of around 110fps or less. Almost 50% of Edward III archers at Crecy were mounted and when not forming a battle line were used as body guards, escorts, convoy protection etc. You would destroy every tendon in your body trying to shoot of a couple of quick shots with 160lb bow astride a horse at different angles. In real life, in real battles, the plated and shielded man at arms usually prevailed as at Formigy where Thomas Kyriell’s archer heavy (6000 archers) army was defeated..... “The Count advanced to the left, towards the point occupied by Mathieu Goth. He detached archers and sixty lances to occupy the right bank of the stream, while the culverins fired on the camp, where they did great damage. Suddenly Mathieu Goth, passing from defense to attack, launched a troop of archers, who resolutely crossed the bridge, made the French retreat and seized the culverins. The French archers gave way when Pierre de Brézé, at the head of his companies of men-at-arms, brought them back to the stream. There ensued a furious melee. The recently created ordinance companies made their appearance on a battlefield: they did wonders; and, says a witness: “had it not been for the gendarmes who held out, I believe that the English would have done a great outrage to our people” (Gruel, secretary to the constable, Histoire de Richemont, Coll, Michaud. VII, p. 226 ).”

[@5chr4pn3ll]

Very interesting. I think a cool added test, tho going a bit off the subject, would have been taking mild steel and testing it at different angles. Since shape is integral to armour design it would have been interesting to see how small differences in striking angles might affect the effectiveness of the plate.

[@tymoteuszdziedzic3370]

Thank you for this!

[@gergelybesenyei1622]

Happy to see Drach😀

[@ncktbs]

DRACHINIFEL GOOD TO SEE HIM INVOLED

[@sidneyhowardjude5284]

I love this series 🏹

[@Broomtwo]

I saw the Drach cameo! One of my favorite youtubers

[@90mankku]

an entertaining point would be to gather some data about how many kilos/psi does it take to arrowhead to penetrate these plates versus how much force does it take to penetrate accurately padded and supported armor plate. Or does the support and padding even affect the cold data of the penetrating force. And how it compares to mail, wood, leather or padded armor. prehaps spmewhat like hydraulic press channel tests pressing forces but with the arrowhead

[@blakewinter1657]

Together with the tests on the armor itself, this really shows how important the shaping of the armor is, perhaps even more so than the material. In fact I would say probably more important than the type of steel used.

[@jamesnorlin1273]

If you do a round 3, I’d love to see a test like this at an angle or series of angles

[@DIREWOLFx75]

That would be VERY interesting indeed. As it would add several potential factors, possibly changing results the same way various metals fatigue and strain very differently.

[@MrShoryuken1]

Brilliant stuff!

[@matthewlucas3854]

The momentum of the arrow and a ridged locked steel plate is a big reason these are pushing through the plates. Would really like to see the same test with a high-hardness cast iron plate of equal thickness (if that is even possible).

[@adambielen8996]

While yes that is absolutely the case that is also the point. This isn't seeing if arrows could penetrate armor made of these metals but rather to compare the metals to each other. And to do that properly as many variables as possible need to be eliminated, hence bolting them down and using the lockdown longbow instead of Joe Gibbs.

[@Lovemy1911a1]

I would expect cast iron to do rather poorly. You need ductility to absorb energy and cast iron doesn't have much ductility. With plate as thin as this ductile tearing is probably the main failure method.

[@Katvanished]

would you be interested in trying some modern materials as well? like say titanum and alloys thereof, armor steel, ceramics, and substituting heavy modern fabrics for chainmail

[@Heldermaior]

And I somehow missed the kickstarted for this. Looking forward for the next one. Hope I can fiunancially contribute as I feel this is a great piece of Historical research.

[@EricBlumenstein]

I would be ver interested to see this same test performed with all of the materials set at an angle. How does the quality of the material affect whether the arrow glances off or digs in.

[@sarchlalaith8836]

Iron is harder than steel, but can't flex... I think that might be why laminated wrought iron is better than the bloomery steel.

[@kentonward97]

One aspect of your arrows should be at the point end wrapping the shaft with silk or linen thread glued on. I know historically arrows of many places were reinforced.

[@mccad00]

How thick are the samples? I May have missed this in the video

[@thechumpsbeendumped.7797]

He tells s at 1:13, they’re 1.5mm thick.

[@jonathanpuccetti9258]

1.5 mm 1:14

[@notbobrosss3670]

Was that Drach! Wasn’t expecting that but I guess I should have expected one of are favorite engineers to be helping. Cheers😊

[@tommeakin1732]

7:18 Erm...Drach...? 😂Casually slipping into the background

[@lukeorlando4814]

Thank you

[@jasonpacker7475]

Do you think they may have leaned forward to try and cover the lower part of their body too? Seeing as the arrows go right on in?

[@pjccwest]

Great stuff.

[@RobKinneySouthpaw]

A lot of skill and knowledge on that shooting range.

[@chedabu]

Awesome!

[@CraigLYoung]

Thanks for sharing 👍

[@zsoltbocsi7546]

I hope you will have a period correct crossbow video against the same armour in the future.

[@warpdriveby]

I'd LOVE to see how a forgable type of silicon bronze behaves in this test. I originally used it for outdoor lighting pieces, and discovered how durable and stubborn it is. It has to be hit more times with a heavier hammer to forge the same thickness into the same shape than if you used steel. It resists being cut both with a saw blade and with abrasive disks more than mild steel does as well, so it made me curious if it were would perform well as armor. I've never found an analysis done on the few ancient bronze armor pieces that have survived, if anyone has please point me to it, I'd love to finally know the composition of hellenic age Greek bronze, or Celtic, or any!

[@WisdomThumbs]

I don’t know where you can find good analyses of bronze armor’s composition. What I do know is that bronze was valued for armor and shields long after the Byzantines. It can be denser and tougher than steel of the same thickness and weight. Roman cavalry officers preferred bronze because A) it really worked, B) it could be lighter with comparable protection, and C) it was more expensive to make, increasing status.

[@warpdriveby]

@@WisdomThumbs I'm not aware of any forms that are lighter than steel per the same volume, bronzes average out to about 8.5g/cm³, hardenable steel 7.5-7.7, but much more armor was made from layered wrought iron and that tends to be right between at 8g/cm³. Some compositions are fragile, but the Si Bronze/marine bronze I worked with was the second toughest metal to cut without heat I ever had to deal with. It was a very close second to WW2 naval armor plate/Krupps steel, which exceeded my frustration/progress tolerance!😂😂😂

[@WisdomThumbs]

@@warpdriveby The trick is that you get the same level of protection from comparatively thinner bronze. The weights would actually equal out, on further thought. But I distinctly remember sets of scale armor for cavalrymen that were made of thin bronze scales, which would’ve been too thin to be effective as iron.

[@stevef3274]

Wonderful series. Now, we just need to find a BL 15" Mk I gun for Drach to test.........

[@cupajoe7258]

next stretch goal, get that armorer a hat

[@PhuzzPhactor]

Great work, everyone.

[@momerathe]

Unexpected Drachinifel!

[@alaspooryorick9946]

Woohoo! Ive always wanted an opportunity to make a Historical Materialism pun

[@QuantumHistorian]

Am I correct that none of these samples were heat treated? Were they work-hardened though? (ie, cold worked to increase hardness at the cost of toughness.) IMO would be interesting to see how the results change on the historical materials with/without work hardening and, for the steels, with various types of heat treatment - none, just quenched, quenched and tempered. Always stuff left to do for arrows vs armour 3 ;)

[@ameenoahmad]

This was wonderful

[@jamesnorlin1273]

A wild Drachinifel appears!

[@prouttralala]

It reminds me of Jeanne d'Arc injury on the shoulder. She took a crossbow shoot that pierced her armor while she was on a ladder in a ditch. it should be interesting to try next this kind of shoot from above.

[@marchorton4761]

With your previous video regarding wax, I would live to see if a blob of wax would effect penetration. It helped on your cloth experiment but would a blob provide a key for a bodkin arrow hitting the armour?

[@christopherstein2024]

I want to thank you for using metric units in this test.

[@TheLesserWeevil]

The History Channel: "Have aliens landed on Earth? We speak to absolutely reliable, sane witnesses and hear their stories!" Tod's Workshop: Actual history. Cheers for the incredible content. Do you plan to increase your sample size in future?

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks for the chuckle. It ids tricky. We had limited time and arrows this day, so I would have loved to shoot more, but we were just not able, but I like to think it was indicative.

[@chrish1657]

If going on Tod's Workshop isn't worth a new hat, nothing is.

[@imflikyt]

I believe they said there wasn't enough material so they only did 1 shot each, but there is clearly plenty of space and they even used the crossbow to improve accuracy. Why not take follow up shots to get a decent sample size? If some samples have less data points that isn't actually a problem, you still get better results than 1 arrow each which is the worst possible way to sample.