Warfare Research Series (Episode 3): Lamellar Revisited

[@stav1369]

Another criminally under-watched video.

[@jaguarholly7156]

This is the kind lf video you'd expect to have over a million views. Thanks for making such great content.

[@blake436]

Thanks for watching!

[@戰國春秋]

Nice! I've been waiting for this! Quite surprised to see that lamellar armour holds up pretty well despite upgraded and historical-accurate arrowheads. Would also like to see test on mail too!

[@Susikohmelo]

Great work! PS: Your little archer is as cute as always

[@frozenthunderbolt1]

so glad to see you continue this series!

[@kairyumina6407]

Seriously great work guys. You can see why there would be such an arms race between armor and ranged weapon technology across history. Loved seeing the ways that the Brigandine and Lamellar differed in their resistance to the arrows, and how the change in arrows also drastically changed the outcomes too.

[@blake436]

Thanks for watching! It's definitely fascinating to think about how all of these dynamics would have played out on the field of battle.

[@durandal441]

Great work, guys. I've been curious about the performance of composite bows against lamellar for a long time.

[@fireislow7270]

It quite late at night (early in the morning depending on how you see it) where I am, but after seeing this upload I had to see watching this video thru. Havent had a chance to collect my thoughts yet but I'm honestly more than impressed by what you guys have put together in these really amazing tests. Really admire the hard work guys!

[@hamasmillitant1]

i think chisel head was for mountain scale. as the chisel head would be directed to center of weave because of weave pattern then maybe be strong enough to break the one rivet on that 'Y' scale or cut through the scale entirely that was some nice armour :) we dont really know how thick most historical armour was because most of them have rusted away, plenty of people would have wanted armour thick enough to stop arrows even if it is heavy if they where using bows of that poundage & arrows that heavy some people would have had armour thick enough to stop it

[@jumpsuitart]

Amazing! I'm really enjoying this channel. Thanks so much, guys!

[@kairyumina6407]

Loving all of the baby contributions :)

[@SilverforceX]

You can see how straight the arrow flies on release from bow with this style of archery, as opposed to anglo-saxon style, where the arrow launches on angle to overcome the bow, then corrects itself during flight.

[@perrytran9504]

Awesome vid. One of these days maybe you should try and test some mountain pattern armor on the market. It's always been a mystery since we don't have historical specimens and most tests in the past suggest the design itself is flawed, but Lanka Temple Armory purports that they were able to make some mountain pattern that works. From their videos it looks like they put it on top a leather backing, but who knows as I don't think their armor has been tested on KZbin yet. And even if they did, it'd be cool to see if this makes a meaningful difference vs. plain leather, or if it really is just ornamental.

[@MarcRitzMD]

The officers with the lamellar were on horseback. You could probably consider doing a test where you add the speed of the oncoming horse. You would add around 30 fps when you shoot at cavalry that is galloping towards you. 30 fps more from baseline of 175 fps means 17% more speed but 37% more energy. Around 190 Joules (formerly 140) (Made up speed by the way, I dunno how fast cavalry charged. Wikipedia says 20 kph for Napoleonic cavalry)

[@ronliang7686]

the last puncture went through one plate. the others had overlapping plates underneath the lamellar and therefore may have resulted in non-puncture.

[@jreese46]

Seems like the diamond tip going into one of the lacing holes may have kept it on course, so all the energy could only go forward.

[@rshaart4810]

This is fantastic to see, personally, I've shot my warbow arrows out of my now 80lbs fibreglass Imperial Strength bow from Alibow through 18ga(1mm) mild steel at 15-20m in the form of a car door using "medieval"/Viking era arrowhead (including some tanged broadheads) reproductions, I've since invested in a 95@30 Daylite Monarq so I'd be keen to see whether using some old reenactment 1mm mild steel lamellar how it fairs given your prompts in this video. I'll have to try and think of a way to simulate the temporary cavity from impact, plus the potential for rib fractures (if I remember my stuff from my nursing course, it's around 400-600lbs of force for the first few ribs, less though to break/fracture the lower ones, that's why you often chance breaking someone's ribs when giving CPR at the correct depth, but the upside is they'll be alive to complain about it)

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

Thank y'all for doing these tests. That's very impressive performance for the armor. I'm particularly surprised that Blake's last shot didn't penetrate deeper. By Alan Williams's numbers from those drop tests, it should only take 82.5 J to pierce hardened 1mm steel to a depth of 40mm. I don't know what to make of that. Perhaps the arrow angled into an adjacent plate or the adjacent plates supported it somehow. Also, these plates are harder than most of the historical European armors Williams tested, & presumably virtually slag free as they're modern steel. So they probably do a bit better than even Williams's **** category. Is there evidence historical Chinese armors reach 50-55 HRC? Only the very hardest 15th/16th-century European armors managed so much as 50 HRC on average. This test makes me wonder about those Jurchen armors that apparently resisted both arrows & arquebus fire, prompting the use of heavy muskets. I imagine a suit like this of similarly hardened plates but somewhat thicker would do the trick. Blunt trauma with arrows may be a factor, but we have lots of accounts of soldiers continuing to fight after lots of arrows struck & dented or stuck in their armor. Accumulated blunt trauma from arrows might wear people down & perhaps make them less a bit effective in further fighting, but if so, this doesn't seem to have been a huge issue in practice. On the other hand, I imagine a direct hit to the helmet that bounced back rather than glancing off could ring the wear's bell pretty good. Blunt trauma to the torso would be mostly negligible unless there was a whole lot of it, but a solid hit to the head might have a meaningful effect.

[@Intranetusa]

They mentioned the overlap of plates results in 2mm of armor...and lamellar plates are supposed to substantially overlap with each other.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

@@Intranetusa That last shot from Blake with the diamond arrow doesn't seem to have hit an overlapping spot based on the video, though it's hard to tell.

[@Intranetusa]

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 If you're referring to the last arrow hit on the lacing hole for the very top lamellar plate that only has horizontal overlap (no vertical overlap), I think that hit is still on an overlapping spot. I believe the lacing hole has to overlap with another lacing hole of another lamellar plate (the two holes on the two different plates have to roughly match-up so you can have the lacing go through and connect both plates).

[@lscibor]

These plates are very small, their surface to thickness ratio makes them hard to pierce. We can see that arrows sometimes bend them close to 45 degrees when they force their way in.

[@eirikronaldfossheim]

82.5 Joule is with a fracture toughness of 352.5 kJ/m2.

[@adampalamara]

Late to the party. Glad you revisited it with improved arrows. Why do your shots with a 110# bow have more energy that Joe Gibb's 160# longbow? What is MR putting in the Tiron? Also a couple times afyer Blake shot he says something like 'more bent/blunted than before'. Was he reusing your arrows after they'd shot

[@ReviveHF]

The lamellar did it's job very well against all threats, it's the M16 of all ancient and early modern armour. But the advent of flintlock firearms soon rendered them obsolete.

[@lscibor]

Wouldn't say obsolete, since they were being made well into the 19th century. If the plate is few centimetres wide at most, and the bullet is too, (most popular round bullets were at least 15mm caliber), bullet likely won't penetrate at all, in most cases. Obviously it's going to destroy, laces, dent and shred plates, and find it's way inside anyway, but consumes a lot of energy. so against less powerful bullets, and at larger distances, it may be quite effective. At least I know one source about bechter armor stopping a shot, though bechter is obviously bit different, though it kinda is a a lamellar laced with mail in a way. In any case, it would still be way better than nothing against firearms.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

@@lscibor Nothing weighs nothing, meaning you are more mobile. And mobility is the best defense against firearms. Nothing also costs nothing, meaning resources could be spent somewhere else.

[@goyodesigna5221]

You should veil these armors over synthetic-organ filled, bone framed ballistic gel mannequin like those of the blade testers. I'll bet many of those shots coulda broken a rib despite plates not fully failing. Especially that first chisel shot! Ouch!

[@ryankolick4117]

I'm curious about two points are these the exact same arrows that were used last time? If so how would the deformation effect the impact and do you think the results might be different if they were fresh arrows?

[@Marmocet]

Great work here. I definitely like that you take the time to go into some of the physics taking place here. One thing that makes the results of these kinds of tests hard to interpret is that modern steel is quite a bit different from the kinds of steel that were being used during the historical period under consideration. Steel from the medieval period always included slag (essentially glass) to varying degrees, and it could also contain large quantities of elements like sulfur and phosphorus. The carbon in it also tended to be unevenly distributed. By comparison, modern steel is homogenous, with tightly controlled amounts of evenly distributed carbon, sulfur and phosphorus. It also usually contains manganese, something never found medieval steels except tiny amounts in slag inclusions. The manganese in modern steel makes it harder, more ductile and more resistant to fracture than medieval steel of similar carbon content. In many ways, modern steel is almost a fundamentally different material from medieval steel. The differences between the properties of modern and medieval steel undermined the historical authenticity of a similar "arrows versus armour" test done by Tod's Workshop. In that series, they said they were pitting what they think would have been typical medieval arrows shot from a typical English longbow against an average quality breastplate. However, because it was made of modern 1050 steel, which is 0.6-0.9% manganese, the breastplate they tested was actually close to the pinnacle of what medieval armourers were capable of creating in terms of hardness, ductility and fracture toughness. Meanwhile, the arrowheads they used were made out of wrought iron that was invariably too soft to do anything more than blunt and skid across the armour's surface. The arrowheads were clearly also poorly attached to the arrowshafts, because they almost always snapped off on impact. [Their choice of using wrought iron arrowheads was a bit strange, since medieval written documents show that by the time plate armour came into widespread use, laws existed mandating that military arrowheads were to be case hardened.] If you were to continue with tests like these, it would be interesting to see what results you'd get if you were to use Manchu bows made out of period-correct materials. That might be hard to pull off though. I don't know of any bowyer who makes high draw weight Manchu bows out of traditional materials.

[@JoshJustjosh-ew7yu]

Does anyone know what is up with Justin? Is he posting videos anywhere else?

[@pyramid_scheme_termination3655]

Do you think that impact could break a rib or incapacitate an ancient warrior even if it doesn't go through?

[@stephend50]

Would armor from this period be made of hardened and tempered steel or iron?

[@Intranetusa]

Probably all sorts of metal materials including wrought iron, low carbon mild steel, higher carbon hardened steels, etc. As early as the Han Dynasty (about 1500 years before the Ming), texts talked about higher quality armor such as dark steel armor, armor that looked blueish, etc. So they were using a variety of iron/steels in addition to the use of cheaper wrought iron and mild steel.

[@叩くと七色に光るゴキブリ]

9:41 The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

How much does the tested patch of lamellar armor weigh & what are its exact dimensions?

[@gizmonomono]

Awesome, as usual. A question, how does friction tell us the hardness of a material?

[@Intranetusa]

Friction means he is scratching the material through resistance. If he can scratch the material with a pick then the material is softer than the pick. If he can't scratch the material with the pick, then the material is harder.

[@gizmonomono]

@@Intranetusa Oh, right. The resistance is the pick cutting into the material. The Mohs hardness chart. Don't know why it didn't accure to me before 😁 Thanks

[@saileshjoshi5422]

I like byzantium lamellar armour

[@adders45]

Blunt force trama would be painful and damaging from these bows also

[@penguasakucing8136]

Aww, can we look at your kid trying his bow effectiveness?

[@peasantmob1712]

1 mm isn't less thick than historical Chinese armors, it's well within the range of thickness given the Chinese armor excavated. King of Chu armor, 2-2.5 mm thick scales One Han dynasty armor excavated at Shandong, scales mostly 1 mm thick, entire armor weigh 16.5 kg King of Nanyue's armor. Scales mostly 1.5 mm thick. Source: -Traditional Chinese Craftsmanship, Armor Recovery "The largest of the 322 iron lamellae of Tang date unearthed near Xi'an in 1976 are 9.6 centimeters long, 2.6 centimeters wide, and 0.28 centimeters (2.8 mm) in thickness; the smallest are 9 centimeters long, 1.3 centimeters wide, and 0.22 centimeters (2.2 mm) thick." - pg 54, The Eurasian Way of War

[@cathayarmory]

those thickness are probably inaccurate. 0.7mm to 1mm average thickness of the Tang size plates are maximum and the Han plates need to be even thinner or the armor will be seriously overweight.

[@peasantmob1712]

I find that hard to believe at least for the first book because: 1. The book also gave the weight of the armor (Shandong 16.5 kg, Nanyue 709 scales averaging 13.5 grams) so these are heavy armor relative to coverage. 2. The book's very detailed and breaks down the type of scales for each armor in detail (ie type IV scales covered the bottom front, have 8 holes for each scale, X mm thick, while type II scales are etc etc) 3. Lamellar reconstructions with 1 mm scales do match the weight of the armor above, once the additional coverage and thinner scales of the reconstructions are taken into account.

[@cathayarmory]

@@peasantmob1712 King of Nanyue's armor is just a sleeveless chest piece. 1.2mm reconstruction yielded 15 kg already. It is crazy weight. I seriously doubt they did not clean off the rust when they measured those small plates. Antique tibetan plates are 0.7mm to 1.2mm in the center of the plates.

[@peasantmob1712]

@@cathayarmory yes it's heavy given the coverage, but that's probably why it's only a sleeveless vest. The weight matches the scale thickness though. They may be exchanging coverage for greater protection for the areas that remained covered, it would be a design exchange that made sense considering that hard-hitting crossbows were commonplace during that time/place. Compared to chainmail it's heavy, but there are plate armor just as heavy if not more so. Song regulations from the Shaoxing reign period said BuRenJia was made from 1825 scales weighing 29 kg, infantry had armor from 32 to 35 kg, archers 28 to 33 kg, and crossbowmen 22 to 27 kg and the government was issuing regulations putting an upper limit on the weight of armor because they considered armor to be getting too heavy. May I ask where you got the information about Tibetan armor?

[@戰國春秋]

​@@cathayarmory My quick Google-fu reveal to me that Lorica Hamata (Roman Chainmail) can weight as much as 16 kg, so a 15 kg lamellar cuirass sounds reasonable (for a "heavy" cuirass).

[@MarcRitzMD]

How authentic are these arrow point and lamellar plate representations? Do we have a good understanding of their supposed hardness and thickness?

[@nomanor7987]

Was mountain scale armor a real thing?

[@RedmarKerkhof]

There is no archeological evidence for it, but plenty of statues and paintings so people are bickering over it to this day. I myself even got so curious that I started building one just to see how feasable it would be. And honestly, if my life depended on it, I'd choose lamellar over mountain scale so there's an argument against the existence of it. Still looks really cool though. That's an argument in favour.

[@dr.andersonsghost4315]

Could be real but only used for ceremonial armor, at least that's what I'm speculating. This would explain why no archeological discovery of mountain armor has been made, since ceremonial armor would naturally have been far fewer in number and therefore less likely to survive.

[@eugeneng7064]

@@dr.andersonsghost4315 I recall reading that the mountain scale pattern could simply be a lacing pattern

[@duchessskye4072]

No reconstructions with pattern have worked so far and it would seem that things are speaking against its existence. It might be a stylised way to depict mail, which seems far more in line with the description given in accounts. Alternatively it could possibly be some form of fancy decorative pattern on garments worn over actual armour.

[@cathayarmory]

nope. So called "mountain scale" was invented in 2000s by SCA people of the US (who cannot read the original source). In short, there were "mountain pattern" armor and there were these "Y pattern" armor and these is no evidence these two are associated. Furthermore, there are many evidence pointing that the "Y pattern" on paintings and sculptures are merely textile pattern.

[@alexanderren1097]

Great video! Just discovered your channel and subscribed. I assume you're familiar with Tod's Workshop? You should get together and do a collaboration