Anyone can shoot through armor???
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 чер 2022
- A fun but not historical test, since a modern bow combined with armor obviously doesn't match at all.
Tod's workshop did a very serous and very exciting test where a historic longbow could not shoot through armor: • ARROWS vs ARMOUR - Med...
Armin Hirmer had tested this modern Oneida Osprey 30-50 pound bow: • Thumb Release with One...
Armin sent the bow to me and since I only otherwise shoot historical bows I immediately started changing it to something I could use.
After the bow was rebuilt it now works pretty well for me and the way I do archery but with amazingly much power.
My 100 pound traditional bow shoots a large wooden arrow about 12 cm. into one of my target plates.
But the Onida bow and the small surface iron arrow shoot 40 cm. into the target plate!!!
Then I tried on my not authentic 2 mm. armor helmet (which none of my regular bows can shoot through) The iron arrow went right through and it was fun to shoot,
So I made a quick video.
It has never been a historical test, I say that in the video
and I made it clearly funny, (rotating jump shot on in remote-controlled skateboard)
This bow did not exist in history (that type of materials and fine mechanics did not exist)
Armor is of unknown quality and without ring armor or gambeson underneath
I used a rather random metal armor, since this test could not be historical anyway, I did not think it made sense to spend large resources on destroy an authentically made historical armor.
But my traditional bows and arrows I can not shoot through this test armor.
Is the title wrong or wildly exaggerated?
Maybe a lot and maybe not.
Can everyone shoot through armor with this bow?
If you calculate the moment of force that is transferred with a heavy and only 5mm. metal arrow transferred from a modern bow with exchange, then it is quite high compared to even a powerful war bow with a much larger wooden arrow.
So what will a test on real authentic historical armor show?
I can't say with certainty, but I think that especially if some spend a little longer trying to find the ideal metal arrows and exchange in the bow to fit.
So maybe it's possible that everyone can actually shoot through real armor or some can.
But I can't know.
Can we learn something historical from this?
Definitely not the bow.
But the metal arrow might be interesting to test properly sometime,
of course metal arrows would be very expensive historically but compared to the price of a knight then a single backstopper arrow that could stop a knight???
An anti-tank missile is also very expensive, but not compared to the tank it can destroy
Thanks to:
Armin Hirmer for sending me the bow.
Tod from todsworkshop.com to allow me to show some of his tests.
Sincerely
Lars Andersen - Спорт
Biggest issue I see here: Tod’s test used armor that was made as close to historical standards as possible. Lars here is using costume grade armor that’s paper thin and not heat treated and hardened. This is the equivalent of cutting through soft fruit and claiming it’s the same as a human skull. I would wager that a historically made breastplate like the one Tod used would protect just fine against Lars’ setup here.
well fuck now we need to test this >:( DAMMINT WHEN DOES THE TESTING END!
also the knight would wear mutliple layers. Mail gambeson etc
Exactly
Tod also shot from what 40 yards away, the girl shot from 15 ft. naturally at 15 ft the arrow is gonna pack alot more force as well.
How can you tell what kind of armour it is? He said it is historical armour..
I mean as he pointed the tank dart or sabo, the type of arrow makes a massive difference with tanks so I assume it would with arrows too.
Irl a shell upgrade can increase penetration by alot for a tank.
What we noticed in he beginning of early modern period is that as firearms got more effective, armor was upgraded as well. Armor could then withstand shots from contemporary firearms. Only later the firearms got so powerful that making armor resilient enough to withstand said firearms felt redundant and people mostly stopped using armor made to withstand a shot from a firearm. We would see the same process with bows. So if bows got stronger, the armorers would accomodate for it by making the armor thicker.
Now you get a more tired enemy, it still a plus
@@nobody-cy8vn your infantry/cavalry would have to improve armor as well, because soon enough people would copy your invention, so it would not be a determining factor. Plus they could drop other parts of Armor, such as mail.
Another aspect is that while the armour was more powerful and resistent to contemporary black powder weapons, the increased thickness and weight meant that less of the body could be protected. So you see the reduction in the surface area of the human body covered by armour drastically reduced in the late 16th and early 17 thcentury vs the 15th century full plate which encompassed the wearer head to toe.
The most common armor would have been a simple curiass that was bulletproof to pistol and musket shot.
another reason why armor that whistood bulets werent as common as before is a massive increase in the size of armies, only heavy cavalery kept armor plates cirasus which could whistand bullets
There were breastplates able to stop shot all the way up to the invention of modern smokeless powder but even then armour had limited use through both world wars and up until the development of modern plate. I would recommend a book you can find for free as a pdf called helmets and body armour in modern warfare if you are interested in the subject. It was written during WW1 so modern is about a century out of date but still a great book.
First HUGE issue is that the armor Lars used is costume grade. The steel is paper thin and if I had to wager what it is, it's probably some kind of mild, stainless steel.
The one in Tod's video was an accurate replica of a historical breastplate. An actual historic breastplate of that period would have been 1.5 to 3 mm of medium to high carbon steel that in case of the really expensive knight's armor would have also been heat treated to make it even more resistant. A breastplate like that could withstand a hit from a contemporary FIREARM!
Winged Hussar's breastplate could withstand a shot from a 1600's pistol and even a MUSKET! The only "bows" that could match that energy were siege crossbows that had hand a hand crank mechanism to pull the string bc it had draw weight approaching 1000 lbs, and contemporary armors could, in favorable conditions (high quality steel, not a "point blank" shot) withstand that...
I'd wager the "armor" is either tin or aluminum
fake. you're a liar
The point remains, though, that he couldn't shoot through it with a traditional war-bow but could with the new bow.
@@LincolnDWard Because compounds cheat by using mechanical leverage for more efficient energy transfer to the arrow. The energy produced by say a 70 lb compound bow is more akin to a 140 pound selfbow.
@@kovona I thought that was the point of the video?
Tod’s tests involved a series of experts in their own areas.
This testing replaces expertise with deceptive practises.
So what? What is so deceptive about it? it is all said in the title and description of the video.
@@lokegrnbech1878 you Just need to read the comments for examples
@@VitorJTekkRodrigues Vel i was asking Dylan what his thoughts was. Dont know what comments tells me what Dylan thought.
For me it just sounds like a fan boy who is salty. But what do i know.
@@lokegrnbech1878 they arent using "armor" it's too thin, not heat treated, and improperly shaped.
Also it’s irrelevant to the discussion. My 30-06 will shoot through medieval armor also, too bad it didn’t exist in 1400
All I really learned from this test is that costume armour can deflect longbow shots.
The wooden arrow was not a war arrow, at best it was a hunting arrow.
@@kennethferland5579 but it was still shot from a longbow regardless what the arrow was composed of…
But yes, I still understand your point.
@@kennethferland5579 show me an all steel medieval arrow and I'll show you a fake
Incorrect. I found this piece of shit Breastplate at Kult of Athena and its only 19 gauge thick. 1mm for metric users. Longbow arrows would have easily cut through it like a can opener. The Breastplate tested by Todd's Workshop was 2.5mm thick.
@@kennethferland5579yea, if you compare that to the ones from tod’s video, these are flimsy as hell
There is one point missing. Whenever new weapon was introduced, new armour soon arrived. So if people would use this type of bows, other people would find a way to upgrade armour to stop it. Maybe two layers of steel would work, maybe higher sloping would be the answer, but they would figure it out.
True that, if it wasn't for the arequebus used in the battlefield, we wouldn't have guns in the first place. Ashame that I can't have a bow though, everytime I see one I just imagine myself using it.
They can't tho really since too much layers can affect the armor's weight which makes it somehow impractical for mass use well that is the past where technology and materials aren't that advanced enough to compete against a modern bow
I have yet to see body armour in the Napoleonic War
@@KhoaLe-uc2ny there has been steel plate armour as late as WW1 look up German trench armour.
@@suacemanaquiatan9380 there is something primitive in us that will call us to the BOW. Just imagine being in the forest without your modern rifle/gun. If you're keen to your primitive nature, the bow and arrow should be the first weapon you think of to construct :)
There's a huge difference between trying to shoot correctly made armor with a Longbow and trying to shoot through modern costume armor with a modern bow.
One point I did not see mentioned yet is, that the arrows will not break after impact. The advantage of wooden arrows is that they often break on impact. Thus they can not be shot back. (Also the cost of making hardened steel arrow shafts would be an enormous investment for the amount needed.) Those pricey arrows would be fired from one side to the other like hot potatoes.
I would love to see this tested properly as a what-if scenario. Other comments mentioned the rest of the requirements for that.
PS: Also love the way this community just goes right into: Allright productive criticism here we go.
Have you done archery? If you have then you have probably come across the following. Arrows that miss go into the ground and are sometimes completely buried. Thin arrows, like the ones Lars was using (they have to be thin or they would be too heavy) get lost all the time. All archery clubs have metal detectors to find lost and buried arrows. So, less broken arrows but they are harder to find. This video is just Lars cashing in on the armour test craze. It has no historical relevance at all as Lars basically admits at the end. Also I just re listened to the video (to be sure) he does not say hardened steel, he says "hard steel". The arrow shafts flex after impact so maybe mild steel, this may explain why he didnt sharpen the tips.
@@Reginaldesq I suspect they are spring steel, which did not exist at the time. Regular mild steels would bend, even while leaving the bow.
@@maxjohnson1758 spring steel definitely existed at the time. There are medieval images of people bending swords as well as spring steel weapons in museums.
you should get in contact with todd, so you get to shoot historically accurate armor with this bow and steel arrows and see if it withstands it. I don't think that armor of yours is thicker than a beercan. Even if it's a compound bow and the arrow is made from steel, that draw weight seems too small to do anything to a proper armor.
We need to look at the control, which was an historically accurate arrow, which did not penetrate. The modern arrow penetrated showing that it outperformed the historical arrow.
Would it have penetrated the best steel available at the time? I don't know that, but the modern arrow did, again, outperform the wooden arrow which would likely mean that it can penetrate lesser armors like mail or gambeson used at the time.
They showed you the helmet’s gauge. It’s the normal thickness of plate armor.
@@Turgz that was just a wooden arrow, a historically accurate arrow has a much thicker shaft, higher weight, and it would not flex like that.
@@Redbeardblondie Thickness doesn't tell you that much. It's also about the type of metal and how it's welded and hardened. That makes a huge difference in penetration resistance.
Yup, that looked like some LARP armour, so I doubted it would really do it against proper armour unless its the sides or a weakpoint.
There's a reason that Tod's Workshop took the amount of time and money they did on their tests.
They had historically accurate armor of legitimate quality from reputable craftsman.
That breastplate turned away musket pistols.
There is no comparison between Lars' tests and the ones done by the good boys at Tod's Workshop because we literally have no information about the breastplate used. But based on it being penetrated by an Oneida Eagle at max 75lb draw, regardless of the arrow weight or design, the apparent flex when the target is moved even slightly, and Lars' own admission that he didn't know how it was made + the deliberate omission of the steel's gauge... Probably dubious quality.
Their armour wasn't quite as historically accurate as you might think. The breastplate they used was made of modern AISI 1050 steel. The carbon content of AISI 1050 steel is comparable to the carbon content of steels used to make armour during the medieval period, but AISI 1050 steel is vastly superior to medieval steels because unlike medieval steel, its phosphorus and sulfur content are tightly controlled, and it contains no slag inclusions (glass), which essentially all medieval steels did to varying degrees, especially when steel was made in large sheets of the size needed to make things like breastplates. AISI 1050 steel, like all modern "plain carbon steel" also contains manganese, which makes it tougher and more hardenable. These improvements mean that AISI 1050 steel is substantially less brittle than steels made during the medieval period (or another way of putting it, AISI 1050 steel has much greater fracture toughness).
The Tod's Workshop experiment would have been a more faithful test of the performance of medieval armour against medieval arrows if the breastplate had been made of steel forged using medieval techniques. Also, as nice as the arrows they used were, they were clearly far from the apex of what medieval arrowsmithing technology was capable of. The arrowheads used for English longbow war arrows were definitely made of hardened steel (we know this because two laws were passed requiring blacksmiths furnishing arrowheads for the King's army to make them this way and stipulating what punishments blacksmiths would be subjected to if it were discovered their arrowheads were made of lesser materials), whereas in the Tod's Workshop, they aren't. Also, in several of the tests, the arrowhead snaps off of the shaft when it makes impact with the breastplate. Wooden arrow shafts and arrowhead sockets can be fashioned so that the arrowhead almost never snaps off when subjected to the forces involved in a collision between the arrow and something like a breastplate.
The main issue is that very few people are actually making the amount of bloomery steel that would be required to make a suit of armor or even a breast plate. Then you can't just take bloomed steel straight from the furnace, it has to be heavily processed then rolled to the desired thickness. So 1020 steel isn't the same as wrought iron or bloomed steel but it is far more available and gives a decent facsimile.
The breastplate used in tod's is a renaissance era not medieval or early medieval. It's not even historically correct!
@@parengthonycastillo4272 they said in tods video that the breastplate used is a reproduction of the churburg breastplate. this breastplate dates to 1360-1390 and would of been an extremely similar to what the french would of been wearing at agincourt. that is in fact completely medieval. and of course it wouldnt be early medieval. they didnt use this type of armor in the early medieval era.
@@parengthonycastillo4272 Early medieval breastplate.. Cmon man XD
Did this guy shoot through a keyhole? And spin shot through the eye hole? That is beyond impressive.
@Riku Waiting for you to post a video of you doing it, then. If you're actually an archer, you would know that even with a properly aimed shot, it's incredibly difficult to shoot through a keyhole. Also, hitting such a small space after spinning 180 degrees is absolutely masterful. That's not even up for discussion. Obviously, you're not a traditional archer.
@@MasterFatness well I am an archer and actually shooting a real historically bows (and having historically correct armor) and I don't think its that difficult... is it difficult to do in first few tries? Sure! Is it difficult if you have as much time as you need and only need to do it once for a video? Nah... what I would find impressive would be if they actually tested it against a real amor and not this LARP stuff and if he shot from a proper distance
@@branofilipovic9608 He didn't just do it once, though. Lars has the world record, 7 consecutive shots through a keyhole. I do agree, with practice some seemingly difficult shots will become easy over time. I don't shoot as much as I used to, but at one time I could hit a pingpong ball with consecutive shots from a 10 meter distance, simply because I kept practicing. In any case, Lars is a better archer than most, especially when it comes to trick shots.
Lars is simply the world's best shot with a bow, all the nei sayers are just jealous. He get a tonne of shit but he is a genuine good guy.
Btw I am an archer too and the keyhole shot is not easy.
@@adders45 how is that conencted to making a "history" focused video which shows he does not understand even the basics of armor and medieval warfare and used fake armor in his video to prove something, which is not true? above all, how is being a "best shot" even if he was, or a "good" guy connected to this? i like him but that does not mean ill cheer when what he does or says makes literally no sense
2:44 The timing of this narration is so funny. Historical archers definitely jumped up while twisting.
In Visby, Sweden we saw a dude shoot some 120lbs bow at a hardened steel chestplate and guess what? It hardly left a scratch on the surface of the metal. You need pretty substantial force to dent hardened steel as it really dont want to do it, on most cases it cracks before it bends. The type of metal we are talkin about matters a lot. In this particular video we see massive denting in the armor so its clearly not a hardened steel.
Did knights back then had harden steel armor?
@@mrnice4434 regardless of if they did or didn't. The knights armor was top tier due to the region of so much metal and ores.
They also temper the steel and know how to work it so its made to take impacts and stabbings.
Otherwise they wouldnt be using it during the high and late period
@@koreancowboy42 Late period chest plates could stop a damn musket ball at certain distance so, yes, these things were quite hard!
@@giacomo8875 I question your logic behind heavy gambeson stopping bodkin tip arrows. These were specifically designed to pierce mail armor.
One test you can do with this these days is to shoot em at sandbags! Guess what? They go through sandbags. On comparison, bullet shot from AR-15 will not go through sandbag! I highly doubt that you have a ''reasonable'' enough gambeson armor that gives you a protection of entire sandbag infront of you... and even if you did, it wouldnt stop that arrow!
@@giacomo8875 Arrow does not have more momentum than a bullet. Its the opposite to that. Arrow pierces sandbag because its more similar to stab. Arrow is more streamlined and much much heavyer than a bullet and the weight of an arrow shaft will push the arrowhead through soft targets very easily compared to a bullet!
In fact, you can shoot arrow through kevlar vest because its not what they would call ''stab proof'' these days. I would argue that linen fibers are not stronger than kevlar!
During classical period they would make armor... specifically chest plates out of linen but, thats not gambeson anymore. They would take many layers of linen and glue them together with various types of resin. End product would be quite hard material and to stop an arrow you need hard material not soft one!
You blaming me for not comprehending the difference between arrow and a bullet and then you come up with a statement like ''arrow has more momentum''... really?
2:30 Historical arrows where ticker, double tapered, heavier and have specific heads for each kind of target... ¡And manufactured under budget concerns! then, a full metallic shaft was not possible by budget nor technology, the work mostly with wrought iron instead of steel.
I suspect they did try it but the limitations of the bows still meant that metal arrows or bolts still weren't any more effective so traditional wood was never abandoned. They certainly had the tech to make the arrows and if the kill ratio was that much higher they'd save a LOT of money and wouldn't need to make half as many arrows. Imagine every knight in a charge literally dropped in one volley. Then you drop the footmen and men at arms in the next volley. Battle over. At least until they bring back shields........lol.
@@MrBottlecapBill From some testing done by Todd it seems arrows have an easier time going through shields than armor, I imagine these arrows would go right through.
Like he said, it’s not a historic test, it’s just demonstrating what modern archery tech could do against medieval armor
And did you see that disclaimer at the end, if all that's the case, how can you claim it would've gone right through the armor *actual* knights would've worn when *most* of the time, even the *bullets* shot by early firearms couldn't?
@@rockyroadmagic4152 not even. That isn't medieval armor. It's not curved/domed correctly. A relatively flat surface is always easier to penetrate.
I love how one of the requisites for what would have changed history is both A.) a modern compound bow and B.) a modern, custom made steel arrow.
Also, to say it's surprising that yeeting a stainless steel rod out of a modern bow at very thin armor made it through, is a bit odd.
The point of the video seems to have gone right over your head, although to be fair, they didn't put as fine a point on it as they could have. The main point of the video is that dense, small diameter metal rod arrows penetrated armour that less dense, larger diameter, more fragile wooden arrows failed to penetrate. Lars' test illustrates the principle of sectional energy density (kinetic energy/diameter), which is one of the main factors that determines how capable a given projectile will be at penetrating armour. Broadly speaking, and subject to the strength limits of the materials available, a projectile's armour penetrating capability increases as its kinetic energy increases and its diameter decreases. That's why kinetic penetrator anti-tank rounds are long, narrow, made of dense materials and shot at very high velocities.
There was an English law that was introduced to ENSURE that fletchers would get punished for supplying arrow heads that were of iron. That means that they had issues getting arrow heads of hardened steel or they wouldn't need to have a law punishing substandard quality.
Full modern steel arrows were technologically possible not industrially or economically feasible. The Hundred Years war was a logistical nightmare. We knew that at some point they had 2 million arrows in the Tower of London. The Crown was on the brink of bankruptcy at times. Even today, getting good quality steel suitable for arrows would be expensive. Even bolts can be really expensive and they benefit from economy of scale.
The only advantage is that steel shafts would be very easy to mend and could be reused or recycled. If you can retrieve them of course
@@MarcRitzMD No one is proposing that the entire arrow should have been made of steel from tip to nock. The point of this video is that it illustrates the importance of characteristics like projectile rigidity, sectional density and sectional energy density for armour penetration. The same principles are the reason why modern anti-tank kinetic energy penetrators are high density long, thin rods.
The issue that gave rise to the Arrowheads Act of 1405 was that there were too many arrowsmiths getting away with selling soft iron arrowheads at hardened steel arrowhead prices.
Mass producing case hardening iron arrowheads using medieval technology isn't difficult to do. It just adds about a day to the production time of an arrowhead.
All wars are "logistical nightmares". Even in the best-run war efforts, there's never enough of something reaching the front as one would like.
@@Marmocet what you mean, no one proposes it? Lars argued and tested that steel shafts would produce more armor penetration, and that they happened to be smaller in diameter as well.
I am agreeing with everything you've been explaining.
I put a similar suggestion to Tod before and he dismissed it. I've pointed out to him a specific museum artefact labeled as Ottoman military arrow, which had a tip that tapered down to 6mm. I suggested to him that a narrower tip diameter would improve arrow penetration once the metal tip has defeated it. He disputed it and said that he tested it before and saw no benefit to narrow shaft tips.
@@MarcRitzMD No one proposes that medieval arrrowsmiths should or realistically could have made arrows this way. The video illustrates principles of projectile penetration of armour. This is apparently going over your head.
"I used a rather random metal armor, since this test could not be historical anyway, I did not think it made sense to spend large resources on an authentically made historical armor."
You thought wrong good sir.
"This test only shows that it is surprisingly easy for this rebuilt bow and these metal arrows to shoot through sheet metal*."
Where'd you get this "armor"? At your local LARP-shop? This is not even remotely comparable to the breastplate from Tod's Workshop's video.
I mean he says as much at the end of the video
@@e2rqey But still titles it the invention that could have changed history i flagged his video for misinformation...
@@e2rqeyExactly, he says it at the VERY END of the video. What complete bullshit.
It would be also good if we could see in the description the characteristics of that breastplate, e.g., what is its exact composition, thickness, etc.
it does not look like correct period armour is way to thin and would not take a mace hit at all it would be like paper unfit for hema
It's not armor, it's a costume piece. Thin mild steel or stainless.
It’s probably 18g mild steel, maybe even 20.
Heat treatment also makes a lot of difference
He said in the end he doesn't know. It's basically admitting that what he shot at was a tin can disguised as armor.
Costume armour, modern metal arrows, point blank range.
Amazing invention! That 180 jump shot into the eye of the knight was bonkers!!
I get shooting metal darts out of a compound bow is a fun idea (afterall, modern arrows are basically tubular darts already). However, it feels like the video is still being disingenuous. It kinda disses on the historical community by stating that Lars and "anyone" can shoot through armour while Todd and his "very strong man" couldn't. Sure, it has a short disclaimer at the end of the video and one hidden in the description, but still, this could have been presented from the start as a fun idea inspired by Todd's armour tests.
Todd's "lockdown longbow" tests show that you would need at least a high poundage modern compound crossbow to replicate the energy a 160 pound
longbow imparts on medieval war arrows.
I'm pretty sure this quality of armour would have been penetrated by the 160 pound bow too... Todd's group put a lot of effort and resources replicating the quality of historical armour whereas this test shows you can shoot metal darts through cosplay armour with a modern compound bow.
100% agree. The sentence "I don't know how this armor was made" alone renders this entire "test" pointless and inconclusive. It also sounds super pretentious to claim that medieval people were simply too dumb to make steel arrows
@@wimmer3324 true. also consider that while the spine of the arrow does have some momentum, it likely served more as a way to transfer the bow's energy into the bodkin point (which is basically a small steel dart designed to defeat armour) and stabilise it aerodynamically. The fact the spine explodes on impact is also probably good (splinters were dangerous, and arrows cannot be shot back afterwards).
I question whether an entire spine made of "hard metal" (no idea what metal) is even necessary in this video. He was shooting wooden target-shooting arrows with negligible arrow heads. Replace the arrow head with a bodkin or any heavier tip and it probably would have done as well.
With modern tanks, kinetic penetrators are rods because they are actually using a form of hydro-dynamic penetration. The rod, impacting armour at high speeds, acts more like a jet of high-pressure fluid that displaces material on the target much like a jet of high pressure water would dig into soil. This is very different to the behaviour observed here with the relatively low speed of arrows.
Given medieval people were not trying to perform fluid penetration (where the length of the projectile matters), I suspect they figured they gained no benefit from making the entire arrow out of steel. Heck, small but dense dart-like arrows shot using special tube-like constructions existed, suggesting that various cultures even considered eliminating the spine entirely.
Ye man, Lars is trying to legitimize his test by putting Todd's test in the video. At the same time he puts little effort and care to make his test actually conclusive.
@@Overdrawn_ I don't think this is Lars fault, he was probably told "here is a bow, can you shoot through this piece of metal?" and in that case the answer was yes. Now he should do another test with Todd's armour. And those compound bows can be damn powerful, some time ago a complete nutjob created four-arm crossbow with two rollers on each arm. To draw the string, you needed only something like 20, maybe 25 pounds of force, but the arrow broke few bricks.
Yeah this is like testing how much force a WWII tank can take by shooting a cardboard one with a modern weapon. It’s just all over the place.
I think this video plays in to the "medieval people were all stupid" stereotype.
We can assume with confidence that arrows with metal shafts were tested during the period but for whatever reason were not adopted as the norm. Most likely it still wasn't enough to penetrate *real* armour, or if it could it wasn't reliable enough to warrant sinking precious metal resources or extra time in to. Also consider that arrows were a long-range tactic in warfare so you'd just be throwing money at the opposing army.
i believe due to lars rare english accent you might haven't heard that he's not trying to make any kind of "historical" argument , just that he can pierce armor with a modern bow.
the video plays into cool stuff you watch at 3 a.m.
Or save it for a leader or important target only like general or tactician...
He did say it wasn't a historical test.
i dont know how you could interpret it like this lol
"I think this video plays in to the "medieval people were all stupid" stereotype."
Not at all. Modern presumptuous people maybe. If anything, Lars has helped reveal how talented and clever they could be.
"Historically accurate" steel breastplate from a Halloween costume
Fun fact bows that could shoot through armour existed in the middle ages. In fact these bows were so easy to learn to use that a peasant could easily kill a knight.
They were called crossbows and they were banned for their ability to upset the social order.
Dang I felt bad for ancient men who broke their shoulders, back bones to defend their country just so some guy penetrate some plate armor with 50lbs bow
You know the test isn't accurate, so you don't need to feel bad, because it didn't happen...
Not real
Im trads bow seller especially high poundage even warbow. Im roughly can draw 80lbs above. Im being sarcastic😌
The test is not serious
@@adymasuaribinmustakip3990 berapa berat bang
Amazing Test Lars! With Steel throwing knives i can penetrate chainmail armor as well
I do it with spoons
I do it with power of my farts.
Liar. Maybe costume, not proper armor
Well Adam, you gave the viewer a closer look at the chainmail in your video, which is a big step towards authenticity - at least we see what you are working with!
I however have my suspicions about the quality of the armor used in Mr. Andersen's test, as the audience is not given a closer look at (or otherwise informed about) what is being used
(the helmet seems solid though).
@@markusschmitt8013 i think the breast plate was made of aluminium. A 0.7 mm steel plate would stop these thin and light arrows i guess.
You have poked the historical community. You will now be scrutinized.
Nadja actually looks like she has more muscles in her arms than Lars
Does she have her own channel? Asking for a friend
Congrats on the $10,000, bow guy :)
The difference is that the armor they were using was thicker towards the front of the breastplate as it was meant to protect against spears, lances and arrows. You are using armor made of aluminum foil so of course you could shoot through it🤷🏻♂️.
And at far closer range, too.
And those were made from mild steel not tin can ...
this "armor" looks like something you will find in a costume shop
Your accuracy is legendary and even knowledge of bows in general. But maybe not so much about armor. Armor of that period was designed to even stop heavy arquebusier and musket bullets that apply 3-10x the force of a modern bow. Think of the cuirassiers. Im not saying its impossible to make one but those armors were extremely tough.
If the historical armorsmiths had same steel that was used for arrows, they would also use it for the armor they made.
Considering that they could also test their products, and that the customer pays for quality, they would simply make armor appropriately thicker, to the point when again, a bowman can not shoot through it. Napoleonic era cuirasses were tested against contemporary guns. Surely they were much heavier than cuirasses of 14th-16th century knights/armored cavalry (and much more cumbersome), but they were made to stand contemporary weapons.
What never fails to amaze me, are assumptions of such "testers" that armor would not evolve with weapons. Surely, you might get a short term advantage and win a couple battles, but then it would soon be over.
Also, armor-piercing arrows would hardly kill anyone, unless they hit the vitals. The wound would be painful and hard to heal, but not instantly lethal and stopping. At displayed distance/conditions the knight would most likely get to the bowman and kill him.
People wouldn't even use metal rods for arrows because that would have been too expensive.
It's the same reason why not every single bullet today is armor piercing because it's too expensive.
On top of that I can tell you right now that's not proper armor like you find Tod's Workshop. And Tod's Workshop they talk about the steel and the dimensions of the armor as well as the thickness.
The armor on this videos probably some cheap internet made "armor" from 1.2 mm mild Steel. The one from Tod's Workshop was made out of 2.5 mm treated medium carbon Steel that that got a bit thinner to the sides; the very sides of the armor was 1.1 mm but the front of the armor was 2.5 mm and everywhere between was 2mm-1.5mm
Personally I really doubt those steel arrows would go through that properly historically made armor.
"If the historical armorsmiths had same steel that was used for arrows, they would also use it for the armor they made." I agree with your broader point about the projectile-armour arms race, but using medieval metalworking technology and techniques, it is a lot easier to make high quality steel in small objects, like arrowheads or, in principle, something like a metal arrowshaft, than it is to make high quality steel in large objects, like a sheet of the size needed to make a breast plate. One reason metal arrowshafts would have been a non-starter in the medieval era is cost. Each metal arrow would have cost a small fortune in labour and especially materials. Back in those days, they might also have lacked the kinds of glues needed to bond fletching to metal.
@@landsknecht8654 yeah before just nails were expensive, I can’t imagine what a quiver of these arrows would cost
@@landsknecht8654 bruh what you talking about with that metal rod as an arrow ...there is also such a difference when you fire a 6mm 8mm and 10mm thick wooden arrow due to weight ...and you talking about using metal rod, so its not only about expensiveness and availability ...imagine that power what is needed
They would have just started making armor thicker, like they did during the age of the matchlock
This bow is 20-50 pounds . Imagine 100-150 pounds. If they keep making armour thicker it'll become too heavy and inconvenient. Plus the archer could use the Tong-ah and use short arrows like a dart. Faster and straighter flight for long range.
@@fan_dan_go1545
Armor kept getting thicker as guns became more and more powerful. Modern AR500 bullet resistant steel plates are the final evolution of that.
Suffice to say a similar thing would have happened with arrows like that around
And they wouldn't made the armors from tin compound :D
Maybe you should try the test with actually historically accurate, hardened steel armor.
Even a deaf man can hear youre shooting pepsicans....
While it is interesting to see Lars shooting through small holes in the armor, and I understand this is not meant to be a serious video….now here comes the but, which Im obligated to do being involved in the historical archery community, and to educate the viewers who are interested…EVEN IF these modern bows can penetrate Actual medieval plate (which I doubt it)， the modern equipment shown here would not have changed the battlefield for the simple reason of logistics of maintaining and mass producing these bows/arrows. Of course we can completely ignore logistics and the scientific developments of (synthetic strings, synthetic limbs) of the time for argument sake, and still, melee weapons of that time would still be a competitive choice assuming these modern bows are effective only at close range for armor penetration (since heavy arrows loose velocity significantly at longer distances). I won’t talk about the armor quality since u already addressed it. even crossbows of the time were comparable using authentic 200J-400J composite crossbows (not 1000lb steel crossbows that only outputs 120joules) And that 100lb “historical bow” is a Fiberglass bar bow not a horn sinew composite bow of the medieval period and would be nice to see how far you pulled it.
Like how your first sentence is bs 🤣
Makes the rest of the comment seem less credible for next time 😉
When you write 'might of' and make the rest of the comment worthless..
i dont think logistics were part of the hypothesis for this technical demonstration, but i appreciate the added info.
@@Risk0s logistics is extremely important for military history. Can never be ignored. Hence Why most armies fought with spears for most of history
I mean for all the metal involved creating an armor you can make many arrows out of metal which can poke holes in the enemies armor. So I'm not so sure your argument works well.
On the other hand you can even stop a metal arrow with a large enough lump of wood, so just some wooden barricades would completely eliminate the need for armor if you can kill the enemy approaching in armor efficiently.
The Armour shown here seems (and very certainly so) to be cheap badly formed pakistani/indian made pieces. A bb gun could penetrate it probably.
So the question and its answer is irrelevant and misleading. Even if (correctly) not labeled as a historical test.
Also: I highly doubt the bow shown is as powerful and (considering the crazy heavy war arrows, so expertly recreated by will sherman) would deliver as much energy.
This setup for sure would have been irrelevant historically, even if present.
Its a fun exercise, ill give you that ^^
Still: crazy impressive shooting. As always :)
I don't think this video is misleading. It shows that the armour penetrating capability of a projectile, like an arrow, is a function of the projectile's diameter and sectional density (and a few other properties not examined in the video, like tip shape and tip hardness and toughness). Wooden arrow shafts tipped with steel arrowheads don't deliver the limit of what an arrow shot from a bow is capable of in terms of armour penetration.
If you and I were medieval weapons research and development engineers tasked with looking for ways to make the bow and arrow a lethal battlefield weapon for as long as possible given the materials and manufacturing techniques either available or reasonably possible at that time, one of the things we'd certainly have to look at would be whether we could compress a wooden arrow shaft 's diameter enough, without decreasing (and ideally, increasing) its strength and stiffness in order to achieve a narrower, denser arrow with higher sectional density. I once ran the numbers using a few different steel armour penetration models and found that, holding all other variables constant, for every percentage point reduction in diameter, armour penetration depth increases by about 0.6-0.7%. So, for example, a 8/16" diameter (12.7 mm) arrow weighing 110 grams travelling at 55.4 m/s might be able to penetrate ~2.1 mm of face-hardened steel, and a 7/16" (11.1 mm) arrow with the same mass and velocity might be able to penetrate ~2.4 mm of face-hardened steel.
I think with a more powerful historical bow, even with a historically made metal arrow it might have a chance at going through. Though there are forms of hard wood likely cultivated in the medieval period that are far more rigid than the flimsy wooden arrows shown in this video, so would it be that much better than a historical armor fighting arrow? Idk.
@@corneliusmcmuffin3256 Perhaps, but would you use your money to buy weapons grade steel arrows. Or buy some armour to protect you?
Or perhaps some good food? Or a frickin house, since arrows being consumables you'd probably end up there pretty soon buying steel arrows.
Not sure he could get any better armor. The import duties on that as a private person would probably be staggering. And its not like any Danish Museums are selling their historical armour pieces either.
@@SophiaAstatine But getting reenactment quality stuff (reenactment quality can be almost historical quality) isn't too hard and imports won't be that bad as long as it is within EU.
I'm certain there's a bunch of armourers in germany.
Problem is those suits are much more expensive.
Hystorical plates armors were extremely effective against 250lb crossbows.
And, under plates armor, it wears leather armor.
A full knight armor is completely arrowproof.
Maybe heavy crossbow bolt on the helm, will causes a knock down for the concussion effect but without penetrate and without touch the head
Going to need extensive review into the construction and historical integrity of that tin can your shooting at.
Unknown armor quality is a huge factor (though, historically, armor varied and so you would have a variety of tempers on the field even in "standard" armor insomuch as any army at the time had standardized armor).
Obviously, a high power, short travel modern bow conveys energy differently than a historic longbow which might have equal poundage, but a longer travel time. Consider the difference between throwing a volley ball and punching a valley ball as an exaggerated example. This is, in essence, changing the ballistic profile to something more similar to a crossbow.
Range is another huge factor. A very heavy metal arrow might do the same from a historic bow as well at such close ranges. Pinpoint accuracy at close ranges certainly has some merit on the battlefield, but we know from history that volley fire was standard and archers who were closed upon were seldom content with their circumstances.
The heads on those arrows are simply pointed shafts. That is going to be the least stopping power an arrow could possibly have - with almost no external bleeding until the arrows are removed and very limited internal damage. You are going to need a lot of deep and on target hits to stop someone with those. Obviously, no one wants holes in them - but if you are looking for holes that you are likely to walk away from, those are it (they even have lower diameter shafts).
So, even if you took such a weapons, in numbers, onto a historic battlefield against charging knights in full plate, you would not be massively disrupting the battlefields of the time. Poking small holes through plate would, at most, reintroduce the shield. It would not be like introducing a few dozen modern rifles (which would utterly shift any battlefield before the 1800's).
If you have Lars' practiced trick shot skills, you would still be doing better to shoot through the eye slits.
exactly what i was thinking that armor for the modern bow sounded like a tin can and it was like 4m away.
I like the lack of mail and gamberson and coif and how the breast plate and helm only have a few points of contact all very historical very accurate
armour is also to thin a mace would eat that no good for hema and does not look harden either
On top of that I can tell you right now that's not proper armor like you find Tod's Workshop. And talked Workshop they talk about the steel and the dimensions of the armor as well as the thickness.
The armor on this videos para some internet are mermaid from 1.2 mm mild Steel. The one from Tod's Workshop was made out of 2.5 mm treated medium carbon Steel that that got a bit thinner. So the very sides of the armor was 1.1 mm but the front of the armor was 2.5 mm and everywhere between was 2mm-1.5mm
Personally I really doubt those steel arrows would go through that properly historically made armor.
Not unknown it's from spirit halloween :D
Thank you Lars for creating content for the next couple months from our favorite historical UA-camrs just by posting this video.
🤣...🤔...🤣
Let the outrage begin!!
He's a very good trick shooter but theres hardly anything historical about his content, for example armor is more then just plates, theres a layer of mail and then gamberson both of which help distribute force. It's more like a really good speed runner make a joke out of a game on ng+ where they already have all the upgrades
@@asherroodcreel640 He and others have shared numerous written accounts of ancients doing the same legendary techniques that Lars has resurrected.
Yet the armchair history experts with one track minds only seem to focus on armor.
Lars isn't exactly a brute. Many archers of old were considerably stronger by comparison, and would have been able to exploit various weaknesses in the armor of the day using techniques like Lars. The part of history re-opened by Lars is just the tip of the glacier, so to speak.
Don't waste time behind a keyboard, when you can live passionately, and truly explore the legendary old ways, like Lars.
While time remains.
@@techstuf4637 Lars is full of shit! Historical archers were not trick shooters or point-blanc fighters. They were used as a ranged unit where they could suppress enemy forces but themselves were out of danger as much as possible.
umm, keep that girl safe, please. remember it only take one screw up
The metal arrow problem seems like could be solved with historically accurate arrows as in Todd's video where they feature armor-piercing arrowheads (bodkin points).
This video as far as I can tell and anyone who actually knows archery can tell is complete BS and all it really proves is when you want to engineer an arrow punching through something that looks like metal it's quite easy to do that. My best guess is that piece of armor he is using is a piece of plastic painted to look like armor (most of the time when you see scenes with medieval battles and someone wearing plate armor that's all it is, plastic painted to look like metal) and if it's not plastic, it could very likely be aluminum and anyone who's worked with aluminum will tell you that it's a lot stronger than the average person thinks, but seeing is the average person doesn't think it's much stronger than paper that doesn't mean very much, and it's also complete garbage as armor
That breastplate is also much flatter, historical armour is much more convex. Also only the tip is penetrating, a knight would have had padding underneath, so they'd very likely be uninjured. That breastplate also looks incredibly thin and sounds like a soup can when hit.
Looks like the shitty made in India armour you buy off Amazon.
@@GameSteph I mean, that's what it probably is.
On top of that I can tell you right now that's not proper armor like you find Tod's Workshop. And talked Workshop they talk about the steel and the dimensions of the armor as well as the thickness.
The armor on this videos para some internet are mermaid from 1.2 mm mild Steel. The one from Tod's Workshop was made out of 2.5 mm treated medium carbon Steel that that got a bit thinner. So the very sides of the armor was 1.1 mm but the front of the armor was 2.5 mm and everywhere between was 2mm-1.5mm
Personally I really doubt those steel arrows would go through that properly historically made armor.
Ancient Indian manual of archery described use of exacly this - arrows fully made of metal. Thus this is historical.
Makes sense, why wouldn't they have tried it already.
Full metal jacket arrows. We’ve come full circle!
This is how arrows and armor works in Hollywood productions.
Lars you won in a video talent show contest that Mrbeast hosted. You won 10k or 73.000 danske kroner. Du fortjente det
So what I'm getting from this is, if you were to pair a few of these steel shaft arrows with a bog standard high poundage yew longbow, you, or at least someone capable of drawing 100lbs+, could poke holes in plate armour. The suerhightech modern compound bow just makes it significantly easier to do without having significant and specifically developed musculature.
I mean idk mate, tod tested a 160lb longbow at 20m with bodkins against average period armour and it bounced right off Lars is literally using costume armour that has no bearing on real life at all
It's like saying a toy bow can't shoot through cloths so cloths nylon would have been a game changer
If you ant to see real historical tests thats the channel for it not this, Lars has caused outrage in the historical community many times with his clickbait claims with poor historical relevance feeling he is spreading misinformation, this will probably be the same
@@jamesj4827 a sharpened steel rod will transfer more energy into the target than a twig with a metal point. It is heavier and sturdier.
It very well may penetrate Tod’s armor.
Medieval armor was typically 1-3mm thick. Lars’s helmet was ~2.3mm thick as shown with the calipers. The steel rod pierced the helmet. Meaning it probably would pierce a similar thickness breastplate. Medieval plate armor sets were also made of iron OR steel. This helmet looks to be made of steel. Meaning his steel arrow could penetrate at least some of the medieval armor sets, but not necessarily all.
It's easy to see why Andy missed the part where Lars put them through the eye slits.
It's ok Andy, I'm jealous too.
🤓
@@jamesj4827 I saw Todds test, i was just pointing out that the bow here isnt the thing thats doing the work, despite the effort that went into making it compatible with his trick shooting. His game changing thing is the sharp metal rods with fletching. I wonder if Todd could, or would, knock up some period accurate iron rods and stick them in his lockdown longbow.
@@techstuf4637 I saw that, and really i wish i had the space, and friends crazy enough to be downrange of me, to help develop that level of skill.
Wat bow is it and where can u buy it
Out of curiosity I'd love to see such an arrow (which in essence is an APFS round) tested on good armour and with a historical warbow (preferably composite bow, which is faster and would provide a better kinetic penetrator).
The reason they don't show that in this video is because that would not give the result they are looking for, they are trying to demonstrate an arrow going through a piece of metal, not a historically accurate recreation or even historical armor tested against modern bows and arrows, because unless you're going to make a compound bow with a draw weight of 100 lb and a fireweight closer to that of what a crossbow can manage (with significantly more power because of a longer travel while still connected to the bow) then you're not going to be punching through historically accurate armor with an arrow, and if you had a bow with such power, that would almost certainly knock the person shooting it on the ground because you would need a person who could basically hold 300 lb plus from throwing them forward, and seeing as they're trying to say anyone can do this, that is absolutely not an option. Also, the accuracy claims are quite dubious so I just wouldn't trust anything in this video. Assume it's all fake and stupid
congrats on 10k
Congrats on 10K From MrBeast you deserve it.
Todd used real armor, not tinfoil.
I will never cease to laugh at a middle aged man doing pirouettes with a compound bow thinking it makes him look cool lol.
2:44 bad day for the knight
I applaud the effort. That bow appears to use polymer asymmetric pulleys though. That would require considerable engineering, consistent manufacturing, pulling a vacuum, injection moulding, and the development of light weight polymers with considerable strength like PVC or nylon. Using wood/metal would significantly reduce the efficiency. Probably easier to develop a gun/blunderbuss.
Fun fact: we invented nuclear weapons before we invented the modern compound bow.
Those things are feats of modern engineering and require modern materials science to be constructed.
It also wouldn't work...properly made armour is much, much better than what they're using for the test.
The test he does with the helmet is very indicative of this.
The historical bow is only a 100 lb bow, and it leaves a substantial dent. A decently made and accurate reproduction of a helmet of that style wouldn't dent...even bows with substantially higher draw weights and heavier arrows only leave scratches on good armour.
The test done in this video is about as useful as someone trying to say that a modern assault rifle could punch through a piece of paper, they have given us zero information about the bow or the armor being tested on and from what I can see in some of the clips that does not look thick enough to be a modern recreation of historical armor, I also highly doubt it's made of the same materials. It is possible to engineer scenario where a human can punch clean through a sheet of metal, you need to use very specific materials and a specific technique from the person, but it's possible to do, that does not however mean that your average person can just take any chunk of metal and punch through it. This video would be the equivalent of the human punching through metal, It doesn't mean anything because these are very specific circumstances where they just hide all that information. That would tip you off that this is engineered instead of just taking taking the real stuff and a real bow and a real person and then firing it and seeing what the result is. Instead of deciding you want an error to go through metal and then just making that possible
I am sure that the kings of that fantasy world would already have used ceramic plates and kevlar!
And if medieval archers had a modern bow they'd be using gun.
When you see the arrow how it shatters itself, you understand who absorbs the energy.
modified the bow to shoot a lower poundage essentially turning it into a weak trickshot bow
Goddamm, this test is more or less accurate, but from the perspective of armour. First of all,the hellmet used in this test is a sugarloaf, which was designed arround the "crusading era".Where arrows weren't the main concern for that type of battles. And the breastplate is just awfull. Its a horrible plane replica made with notable bad and cheap material, that It doesn't even represents the rounded shape that breastplates were meant to have to deflect blows and arrows. Overall, this test is done to armor that wasn't supposed to be specialiced to stop arrows and very bad replicas. Try to shoot an Arrow to a Hounskull bascinet to make It a real test.
Plus it's not shot from an accurate distance
touch grass
thank you!
@@VuurBarbaar your welcome
Yep, this video is garbage. On top of what you just said, the armour is off the shelf and not properly heat treated. A Hounskull would just bounce the arrow off and that’s before we even get to the beefed up transitory ones that were precursors to the great bascinet.
Even if the arrow went through, depending where it hit the combatant could still be able to fight. There was always ancillary layers worn under armour. Thick arming garments, mail, etc. Its basically like shooting an armoured mattress
This is exactly why I’ve chosen to dedicate my life to learning and passing down medieval history to the next generation. Too many people who think they know things they don’t
how can i make one, or where do I buy it?
Seriously though, I'd like to get into the hobby of making bows.
Ive found through my research that it appears to be very doubtful a longbow with a bodkin headed arrow would ever even have a reasonable chance of achieving a kill by penetration. Explaining or testing the bow's ability to kill or penetrate is pointless to me because the true answer lies in ancient and medieval formation based battle tactics. Longbows that are not actually physically kill people in plate armour we're so widely used because they were essentially the first form of suppressive fire. Anyone who has ever been shot at by a projectile will tell you that not moving out of the way in never a thought that crosses their mind. Longbows against plate was clearly to me very ineffective at killing. Realistically they used longbows because of their devastating effect on the cohesion, morale, and overall ability of the enemy to perform battle without being hit in the chest, legs, arms, head. Initiative and formation cohesion are paramount in successfully winning a ancient or medieval battle. The arrows fired by longbows didn't penetrate plate, but rather the soundness of the enemy formation, giving the knights of the English a significant advantage going into the melee right from the begining of the battle. Mostly my opinion.
Most of anmedieval army did not wear plate armour so a long bow would easily kill most battlefield targets. As for Knights they kill their horses while charging and the horse throws them off and smashes their face in and breaks their spine, if not then a man at arms stabs you in the back while your disabled
Now I want to see Lars talk about giant bow and arrow used by Gwyn's knights from Dark Souls
that "armor" is thinner than a sheet of tin foil, its an insult to the medieval period to call it armor
There would still be nights in armour; they did not only fight against archers. Armour remained long after firearms where introduced.
There’s lots of layers under armour as well, so even with this penetration it wouldn’t have done anything, probably a fair bit of shock but not much if any damage at all. (That’s not including the softer more vulnerable parts.
Looks to me like the arrows have way less energy than Todd's longbow test. When they deflect it's not nearly as violent... I think the armor is crap. Invalid test until you can prove the quality of the armor. Otherwise you don't deserve to mention other tests.
If it's really 2.2mm as the calibers indicate, that is fairly thick & I'm confused at how a 30-50lb compound could pierce it. The arrows Armin shot with it with 300-grain arrows had around 36 ft-lbs of kinetic energy. Joe Gibbs gets around 100 ft-lbs with a 160lb yew warbow & medium-weight arrows. So yes, these arrows almost certainly have less kinetic energy, even if Lars turned the power up to 50lbs.
gee, I would have never thought a modern compound bow can punch through some cheap armor......
thanks for the lesson professor.
so his skills are clearly impressive; no doubt about it (hitting the eye of an armoured helmed is fcking good shooting; trying to do so when a shield and a person is moving is another story; but very impressive ^^)
..
i do get rubbed the wrong way with the amount of "sensation!!" pushing it feels like; as example, the plate armour is not an actual armour made for fighting or it is super early in the history;
it lack the basic triangle design and neck protection from arrows; it seems much thinner or low quality metal as it bends inwards from such "weak" arrow shots and it shouldn't bend much if at all; the arrows should glide off it when not penetrating and they can't penetrated if not hit on a flat surface or an indent from an earlier hit both cant be done on an actual plate armour for war.
..
the design of the metal arrow and stronger bow was a cool touch but i doubt distance will not become a problem with such heavy arrows; using a strong but compact crossbow instead since we are so close anyway would be preferred against such heavily armoured enemies; or honestly shoot them in weak points is good too, i think this setup can pierce a chainmail and cloth; maybe ^^
Like he said, we don't know if the armour he's using is the same as the armour in the longbow test - or worse. Also you look like you are standing a lot closer with the modern bow vs the longbow test, plus the armour is moving towards you which will create more force on the arrow. Plus, although possibly rare, you could get longbows over 160lbs, what poundage was this modern bow??
Okay Legolas
Poundage of a modern bow is completely different compared to a medieval bow.
Different materials to made said bow but also modern bows stronger slightly
Interesting stuff, one thing that bothered me was seeing the archers firing wood arrows from compound bows. Very dangerous. Here in the US I saw a guy do that and the arrow shattered before it left the rest and penetrated his forearm. Never, never shoot wood arrows. And if you are shooting carbon arrows check them for damage after every shot. Just a safety reminder.. Compound bows have an enormous amount of stored energy at full draw, unlike a recurve or a long bow.. the bow they modified looked to be an Eagle Oneida. Very nice bow. I own 2, and a Mathews I use for hunting deer and bear. have fun and be safe and most of all enjoy the sport.
Thanks for the information, I'll keep in mind. But please stop hunting things that are not for eating like bears. Or can you explain me why you do this?
Greetings from Germany 🙏
The thing is.... it should be common knowledge that wooden arrows should not be shot out from a modern compound or recurve bow.
It's why arrows are weighted and labeled specifically as to not shatter upon release.
Modern bows use modern arrows. Some wooden arrows might be able to be used however.... it needs to be tested safely
@@theodor.koerne You can absolutely eat bears
if a swordfighter is that close ... you are simply dead as an archer
So, all they needed to shoot through armour was a bunch of technology and materials they hadn't acquired yet. Damn, if only they'd known.....
And the enemy should buy the armors fro mspirit halloween :D
Modern wooden arrows are just shafts of wood, but traditional arrows are built something like a que stick with a heavy dense wood in the front dovetailed by a lighter shaft in the back. The effect of this is to have more kinetic energy in the front of the arrow then the back and it delivers a bigger punch, even if the shaft breaks.
This is completely wrong! Do you think, when you fletch arrows in military grade you have the time to make them balanced? No! The working process has to be quick! Because it needs a lot of time to make one arrow. But you have to supply dozens of archers in a battle.
@@MrLoris85 i’ve made arrows like that. I think he’s talking about hunting arrows, not so much arrows for warfare.
@@SeanPat1001 Yes I totally agree! I make my own arrows as well. For hunting you need specialized arrowheads, so you have to balance your shaft for each type. Also for tounaments and noble people you took more time and effort. But here we are talking about shooting on chestplates, so it's about mass produktion! 👍
@@MrLoris85 yes indeed. I think the emphasis was on arrowheads and the shaft was just a way to get the arrowhead on the target.
First I wanna say that I respect Lars' skill immensely and this is a neet little thought experiment. However I do disagree with the comment about medieval archers firing on the move. Sometimes they did but from historical accounts it would have been far more common for them pick a spot and stay there (think the battle of agincourt) the exception of course being horse archers. Regardless he's a great archer and his tricks are very impressive.
In archery, is not about shooting accurately, is about whether you can shoot first.
OMG so if I shoot armor from 75 feet away I can't penetrate it but if I pretend my bow is more powerful I'll shoot cheaper armor from only 10 feet away. Makes sense
Have you tried the metal arrows with the historical bow?
That would have been my question too
He probably wouldn't be strong enough to pull it effectively not for very long, he's a good acher but he hasn't trained with war bows
He didn't even tries metal(actual steel) armor
I need one of those modified modern bows, really cool stuff
That eyeshot was amazing!
Random, mild steel that isn't hardened or likely even heat treated? I'd be more concerned if it DIDN'T punch through it.
I really want that Onida lever bow. Always thought it would be perfect for Lars. Nice to see video from Roskilde Archery club, my hometown. Sad we have to leave the club :(
that is some sheep costume armor that I could stab through with a 15 dollar Mora knife, you can literally hear how thin and soft the metal is when the arrow hits.
3:07 When you are viewing with bias, it blinds you. The helmet that being shot through in the video, the caliper reading clearly showed it's 2.5mm in thickness, and it stood up for a 100 lbs traditional bow shooting with modern fiber glass/ carbon fiber arrows in the beginning of the video as well. The Oneida Osprey bow Armin sent to Lars Anderson was only configurable with 35 - 50 lbs draw weight, and even it is more effective than traditional bow, it only rates around 75 lbs equivalent, still less than the 100 lbs traditional one used by Lars from the beginning of the video. With 75lbs of draw weight, full metal core arrows can penetrate 2.5mm thickness plate armor without any issues.
It-s not a breastplate - it is a tin can of slightly similar shape, no surprise it can be penetrated even with a pencil. According to the doubtful claims about 'wooden arrows flex and cannot transfer all energy' - historical war arrows were half inch thick with enough rigidity and heft to do its job. And lastly - appropriate arrow from 160lbs 'erzatz-bow' in Tod Cutler's tests penetrated quite thick mild steel of modern helmet replica, so medieval archers knew quite well what they were doing (as well as armorsmiths).
King Henry the 3rd of England, who was wearing played armor when he was a teenager, was "shot in the face", not because an arrow went through the metal, but because it was deflected from his breastplate and shot up into his face.
Yes, archer's back then knew what they were doing, but they also knew they could not shoot their arrows through metal plates. They had to find the gaps.
In fact, very strong historical evidence shows the archers often would go for cavalry mounts, and not the knights themselves. Shoot down a horse and get the knight on the ground, now you can take the knight out with daggers, swords, and pole arms.
@@josephnebeker7976 Yep, frontal parts of breastplates and helmets were the thickest and strongest, but other parts of the plate armor were thinner (we'll see how they behave in actual tests in nearest future at Tod Cutler's channel). In the end - it's neverending battle between armor and anti-armor weapons.
I'm very happy to see another video from you, Lars. You're always fun to watch, and I love seeing your precise work in progress. Keep the great content coming!
I think I watched this video 11 times before I realized that Nadja was holding a bow.
Does she have her own channel? Asking for a friend
My rpgs campaigns gonna be wild with this ranger/artificier multiclass.
Hey you have won a MrBeast challenge i just want to say well done 👍 you are so good with a bow keep it up 👍
The plate Joe tod and the gang shot was 2.5 mm thick at the apex. Lars measured this a 2.2mm so about 13 percent thicker, not sure is that would make a difference, but worth noting. Sectional density of the arrow would be good to know and KE should be measured also.
it's a huge difference actually, as is the quality of the metal the treatment of the metal and the shape
The helmet is 2.3mm thick steel. Medieval armor was steel OR iron, and typically 1-3mm thick. The steel arrow penetrated the helmet, which looks to be comparable to at least some medieval suits of armor in terms of thickness and material.
The main difference is the tempering process and the graduation of the steel thickness.
The type of plate Lars is shooting at is not hardened, and is basically metal pressed into shape.
Medieval armor at the time period Todd was testing at (Agincourt basically), was extremely hard at the surface and a spring steel.
Lars can penetrate his armour because his metal bow tip is harder, not sharper, than the plate he is shooting.
It is an entertaining video, made for entertainment, and Lars obviously understands that is what he is doing, not reinventing weapons.
There has been an invention that changed course of battles, though.
It's called "crossbow"
From gupta period in India arrow with iron shaft were used against heavy armoured war elephant but it was costly to make and had less range they somewhat solved the problem by making an steel bow but again it was costly
I do think, that arrows made from Steel could be very much improving the penetration possibility, but its likely, that this was too expensive or difficult to make a good number at the time. One has to remember that the original hit ratio would not improve so a lot of arrows coud be lost without effect.
Do you mean made out entirely out of steel?? If so that would be way to heavy.
@@j.j.kuiper22 I think thats what they did with the arrows in the vid. So I think it could work.
Correct me if I misinterpreted something they said in the video
@@j.j.kuiper22 that is literally what he did in the video….
@AK47Dr4ven if it could really go through armor it wouldn't have been too expensive, specially if you give them to only a select bunch of elite archers so they snipe knights. the armor in this test was most likely way thinner than an actual good quality historically accurate armor.
It would be absurdly expensive. Just nails were relatively expensive so a dozen metal arrows would cost a fortune. The armor would also just get thicker, not to mention the armor he used in this video is akin to what you’d buy on wish. Not even a half baked replica would be this low quality.
Would be nice if Lars made a video showing all the changes he made on the Oneida Osprey.
When he got the saw out my eyes got really big 😂 that's an expensive bow to take a hacksaw to
Where can i get one of those bows, its like the perfect blend of modern cam and recurve
I pierced several cans of steel with a toy bow, simple about 20 pound or less... I destroyed concrete walls with an self made bow years ago, also I destroyed a crossbow made from a car parts... I had no Internet then, luckily.
She got cake
I wonder if she has her own channel
Why throwing history in trick shooting? It would be a much more fair video without telling misinformation. If you trickshoot it's fine, it can be fun for people to see. But why basically lie, even citing the research from Tod, which was extremely accurate (starting from the simple fact that the armour they used was an accurate reconstruction and not a tin sheet), and so on.. What's the point
Clickbait
And he does not care