The thing about anti-armor weapons is that they're not meant to pierce the armor, but rather concentrate the force of the swing into a single point, sending as much force as possible through the armor and into the person wearing it.
The only thing I would change is the length of the shaft. A longer one would give more momentum and thus more power in an attack. It doesn't have to be super long, but I'd add probably another 4-6 inches (10-15 cm). The one in the drawing looks about that long, proportionately.
It seems like a fine option against unarmored parts of a enemy. Maybe even weaker areas of a skull (temple) could suffer a mortal wound, if not immediately fatal. Thanks for your research and sharing!
Another great video! I got to hold an authentic spike tomahawk from upstate NY, the eye geometry was just 3/8"×1/2"--about the cross section of my pinky finger. The collector was Jack Vargo, who wrote the book on spike tomahawks and made historic reproductions. He said the tomahawk eyes that were that small used very springy hickory or hop hornbeam and would hold up to chopping and dragging. In my own tests, I had prototype tomahawks with tiny eyes and they held up very well because the overall weight of the axes were under 8 ounces. I had to bump up the eye geometry to 3/8"x7/8" just to give the customers more confidence, but they can chop, hook, and drag just fine. Good wooden wedged handles are amazing.
Heck that’s narrow, I’ve never seen one that small. I suppose if it’s very light and very sharp, there wouldn’t be too much stress on the handle. Still, I would have a hard time trusting one like that.
@@MalcolmPL Yeah, that’s why we bumped up the size. Handmade tomahawks are expensive, and need to look more robust than a lot of the historic battle proven originals.
One thing people often get confused about is that war axes/weapons are meant to be used on soft squishy people. They aren't for chopping wood so the durability factor is at a lower threshold. Even armour and shields of the time weren't all that solid. It's also important to remember that when fighting with weapons you're NOT going full force all the time or you'll exhaust yourself quickly and be unable to defend yourself. IT doesn't take a serious hit in the head to put someone down anyway.
I would like to offer a little assistance with your reconstruction project if my may. I know you are working from the historical pictures but as someone who trains in various indigenous styles of fighting, I would question the accuracy of the length of the handle. I would try making the handle heavier and at least double the length and then I would do the armor test over again. I would try a 27inche handle length. I train in Okichitaw plains Cree fighting styles. my instructor told me one of the most important parts of these melee weapons is the handle itself. Though weapons have to be longer when fighting from a horse, I think weapons would also have to be longer on foot than the weapon in the picture for armor penetration and effective combat. If your handle is too small, it seriously impedes the effectiveness of the weapon. For one it won't have the mass and weight necessary for deep penetration. The second thing would be lack of reach and lack of blocking surface. That said you are doing great work that is really important Nea whey gowha! I just remembered that there is a Cherokee reconstruction of traditional weapons that include a war pick that has a longer handle on UA-cam video does not do the stress testing that you do, and it is lacking the really cool armor. Excellent work done on the armor bro.
Wow, I would be grateful for that armor if you came at me with the weapon! I was thinking that my grandkids would like to make these sorts of things 😮❤
I'd say it's good when targeting the thighs or hooking and pulling to deliver very short stabs around armor. Simply doesn't have the density and weight to damage armor.
I think the war pick was designed to get into the joints of wooden armor? I would think if you wanted to add the weight of impact, you'd attach a stone ring underneath the antler? Or attach a stone ball at the back using rawhide? Then it would be closer to European Warhammer?
If by joints you mean the gaps between slats, I disagree. The arrows can’t manage it, and this is a lot thicker and slower. If you mean the unprotected spots, Then yeah, I could buy that. I agree that adding a weight would work, however, we’ve got a couple surviving examples, so we know that it wasn’t done. Which means that this sort of design was fit for purpose. What that purpose was though, I can’t say with any conviction.
@@MalcolmPLI'm glad you agree, I think this weapon was made to attack the unprotected spots of wooden armor. I agree that my idea isn't historically accurate, but it would be interesting to see from an academic and scientific standpoint. To see what happens when you add weight to this stone age melee weapon to see what kind of added damage it could do. And it could be a fictional tribal weapon.
I think you're off to a perfect start at making a historic replica. As you've shown with the antler and bone knives, you can get good and durable penetration with a thinner point... using the base of the antler is perfect, as the natural end can be concussive like a war hammer, and adds weight for good momentum. But after 2-3" on the pick side of the handle, i think a steady narrowing should be done. Last 2" should be no thicker than 1/2" and I think the point will be much more penetrating, but still durable
The illustration looks like a ground stone pick to me. I've seen pictures of such pick heads on other websites but youtube won't let me link to them. Maybe if you search for "watauga pick" and "curved pick bannerstone" you can see what I mean.
As always it would be a compromise. A thinner point would be sharper, but it would also be lighter, meaning it wouldn't hit as hard. Then there is the question of durability.
@@MalcolmPL good point. I actually didn’t do a very good job of explaining myself though. I mean a thinner straighter point on a piece of antler the same size. It would still have the same issues probably.
I definitely don't think antlers have the mass to be good anti armor weapons. And I'm not sure why someone would pick this over a stone mace or axe. Any ideas? It might be more durable than stone?
Maybe it's not for going through armor, maybe it's for targeting unarmored sections, or maybe it's just a sidearm, something easier than a club to just stick into a belt and forget about. Or maybe I built it wrong.
Native armor and weapons are more based on woodworking and flintknapping than blacksmithing,it gives them an accesible feeling,but i wonder how hard is to work on antler.
Other than flintknapping, most of these crafts require patience more than skill. Antler is worked through abrasion. It’s relatively fast to grind. Especially when compared to stone. What would have been a pain is cutting workable sections from the antler. You have to scrape with a flint flake, or else with a wooden blade coated in sand. (Imagine having to cut with a file, but less efficient.)
Must resist urge to do "bone to pick with you" joke
Be honest, you just couldn't think of one.
The thing about anti-armor weapons is that they're not meant to pierce the armor, but rather concentrate the force of the swing into a single point, sending as much force as possible through the armor and into the person wearing it.
the nature of this wooden armor negates that effect by spreading out the force
The only thing I would change is the length of the shaft. A longer one would give more momentum and thus more power in an attack. It doesn't have to be super long, but I'd add probably another 4-6 inches (10-15 cm). The one in the drawing looks about that long, proportionately.
It seems like a fine option against unarmored parts of a enemy. Maybe even weaker areas of a skull (temple) could suffer a mortal wound, if not immediately fatal. Thanks for your research and sharing!
Another great video! I got to hold an authentic spike tomahawk from upstate NY, the eye geometry was just 3/8"×1/2"--about the cross section of my pinky finger. The collector was Jack Vargo, who wrote the book on spike tomahawks and made historic reproductions. He said the tomahawk eyes that were that small used very springy hickory or hop hornbeam and would hold up to chopping and dragging. In my own tests, I had prototype tomahawks with tiny eyes and they held up very well because the overall weight of the axes were under 8 ounces. I had to bump up the eye geometry to 3/8"x7/8" just to give the customers more confidence, but they can chop, hook, and drag just fine. Good wooden wedged handles are amazing.
Heck that’s narrow, I’ve never seen one that small.
I suppose if it’s very light and very sharp, there wouldn’t be too much stress on the handle. Still, I would have a hard time trusting one like that.
@@MalcolmPL Yeah, that’s why we bumped up the size. Handmade tomahawks are expensive, and need to look more robust than a lot of the historic battle proven originals.
One thing people often get confused about is that war axes/weapons are meant to be used on soft squishy people. They aren't for chopping wood so the durability factor is at a lower threshold. Even armour and shields of the time weren't all that solid. It's also important to remember that when fighting with weapons you're NOT going full force all the time or you'll exhaust yourself quickly and be unable to defend yourself. IT doesn't take a serious hit in the head to put someone down anyway.
😂😅
I would like to offer a little assistance with your reconstruction project if my may. I know you are working from the historical pictures but as someone who trains in various indigenous styles of fighting, I would question the accuracy of the length of the handle. I would try making the handle heavier and at least double the length and then I would do the armor test over again. I would try a 27inche handle length.
I train in Okichitaw plains Cree fighting styles. my instructor told me one of the most important parts of these melee weapons is the handle itself. Though weapons have to be longer when fighting from a horse, I think weapons would also have to be longer on foot than the weapon in the picture for armor penetration and effective combat. If your handle is too small, it seriously impedes the effectiveness of the weapon. For one it won't have the mass and weight necessary for deep penetration. The second thing would be lack of reach and lack of blocking surface. That said you are doing great work that is really important Nea whey gowha! I just remembered that there is a Cherokee reconstruction of traditional weapons that include a war pick that has a longer handle on UA-cam video does not do the stress testing that you do, and it is lacking the really cool armor. Excellent work done on the armor bro.
Wow, I would be grateful for that armor if you came at me with the weapon! I was thinking that my grandkids would like to make these sorts of things 😮❤
I'd say it's good when targeting the thighs or hooking and pulling to deliver very short stabs around armor.
Simply doesn't have the density and weight to damage armor.
Well neither do arrows, but they can still split the boards.
@@MalcolmPL Come on man.. Speed and contact surface..
Oh thankyou this will help me with some research I've been doing!
More awesome material. Thank you for your work and sharing it with us.
Wow that armour is great.
I just found your channel, great work
I think the war pick was designed to get into the joints of wooden armor? I would think if you wanted to add the weight of impact, you'd attach a stone ring underneath the antler? Or attach a stone ball at the back using rawhide? Then it would be closer to European Warhammer?
If by joints you mean the gaps between slats, I disagree. The arrows can’t manage it, and this is a lot thicker and slower. If you mean the unprotected spots, Then yeah, I could buy that.
I agree that adding a weight would work, however, we’ve got a couple surviving examples, so we know that it wasn’t done. Which means that this sort of design was fit for purpose.
What that purpose was though, I can’t say with any conviction.
@@MalcolmPLI'm glad you agree, I think this weapon was made to attack the unprotected spots of wooden armor. I agree that my idea isn't historically accurate, but it would be interesting to see from an academic and scientific standpoint. To see what happens when you add weight to this stone age melee weapon to see what kind of added damage it could do. And it could be a fictional tribal weapon.
I think you're off to a perfect start at making a historic replica. As you've shown with the antler and bone knives, you can get good and durable penetration with a thinner point... using the base of the antler is perfect, as the natural end can be concussive like a war hammer, and adds weight for good momentum.
But after 2-3" on the pick side of the handle, i think a steady narrowing should be done. Last 2" should be no thicker than 1/2" and I think the point will be much more penetrating, but still durable
it may have higher chance of penetration with a thinner tip. but still a nice quick video
Yeah. A thinner tip would do better. But without trying it, I couldn't be sure it would be durable enough.
Antler is often used in stone working. Could be a tool.
Sure, like all those illustrations of a knight with a hammer and sickle.
The illustration looks like a ground stone pick to me. I've seen pictures of such pick heads on other websites but youtube won't let me link to them. Maybe if you search for "watauga pick" and "curved pick bannerstone" you can see what I mean.
Cool asf
It might be a thrower, something intended to trip up an opponent?
Could a straighter, more slender point on the pick give it more power?
As always it would be a compromise. A thinner point would be sharper, but it would also be lighter, meaning it wouldn't hit as hard.
Then there is the question of durability.
@@MalcolmPL good point. I actually didn’t do a very good job of explaining myself though. I mean a thinner straighter point on a piece of antler the same size. It would still have the same issues probably.
I definitely don't think antlers have the mass to be good anti armor weapons. And I'm not sure why someone would pick this over a stone mace or axe. Any ideas? It might be more durable than stone?
Maybe it's not for going through armor, maybe it's for targeting unarmored sections, or maybe it's just a sidearm, something easier than a club to just stick into a belt and forget about.
Or maybe I built it wrong.
Blunt trauma from the blow would do damage.
Antler is very light, so there isn't so much blunt force.
@Malcolm P.L. Got me thinking, thank you for reply.
Native armor and weapons are more based on woodworking and flintknapping than blacksmithing,it gives them an accesible feeling,but i wonder how hard is to work on antler.
Other than flintknapping, most of these crafts require patience more than skill.
Antler is worked through abrasion. It’s relatively fast to grind. Especially when compared to stone.
What would have been a pain is cutting workable sections from the antler. You have to scrape with a flint flake, or else with a wooden blade coated in sand. (Imagine having to cut with a file, but less efficient.)
Antler pick isn't greatest because antler is kinda light, and you want heavy material on the business end of the pick.