Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fernando
Roland, i confess i could not sustain this discussion in skilled terms but i believe that, in certain circumstances and time stage longbows and crossbows were capable of piercing armour plate, providing they had an appropriate arrowhead and managed a direct hit; this is why breastplate central quills were implemented in the XVI century, to deflect the arrow impact, so as flutes in other susceptible armour parts.
I guess you would also have to ponder on the steel thickness and its temper; early plate 16 to 18 gauge (1.6 - 1.3 m/m) soft iron used in field armour was not properly the 5 m/m thick plate apparatus used by Ned Kelly in 1880.
On the other hand, i fail to see the similarity between the need for a stopper in a hunting sword and this tulwar hilted estoc, or other of the kind. A man with his chest armour punctured doesn't have the strength to run through the blade like a wounded boar; but i might be wrong, though.
.
|
Hi Fernando,
I only claimed that a crossbow is too weak to penetrate plate armor efficiently, because i saw that on Youtube a few weeks ago:
350 lb only dents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ
1200 lb a little bit of a puncture but the bolt wont stuck in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byc887HmUdc
The bolt is too slow with ~200fps for more effectiveness.
Plate armor for the battlefield was between 1.5 and 3mm thick and hardened.
As far as i know long bows are unable to deeply penetrate every kind of armor exept the weakest ones.
I have read in another comment that this Tulwar could be a hunting sword and this was just my poorly placed answer to that.
Best wishes,
Roland