Armor

[Rod]

I guess this will bear watching in case it goes south as yet another of those  longbow v armour extravaganzas.  ;-)

Anyone care to comment usefully on the implication that steel plate of quality was not much in evidence until the late 15thC ?

That the ability in the later 15th C to shape larger and more complex items with better defensive virtue and fewer defects is likely, but at what cost and with what limitation on the scale of production?

Availability of plate of the highest quality would always be ultimately limited by availability and  cost.

But steel of quality has been around for much longer than some folks appear to think, but with what limitations in it's use?

And the presumption that bow weights were not already very high may well prove to be unfounded.
After all, a fundamental requirement is, and always has been to outrange the other blokes with heavy shafts.

That there was a development in point types is quite certain, that there was overmuch development in draw weight is perhaps speculative.

Informed comment would be appreciated.

Rod.

[Phil Rees]

There's another factor to consider in effectivemess of armour and that is the shape of the curvature of the surface. Armour was all designed to deflect impact. Corrugations in selected areas gave the armour strength, so thinner material could be used but, tangental faces allowed impact to be deflected
Take a look at the web site of the Wallace Collection in London they have one of the finest collections of armour in Europe, some of the plate thickness is less than 2mm

[bow-toxo]

I guess this will bear watching in case it goes south as yet another of those  longbow v armour extravaganzas.  ;-)

Anyone care to comment usefully on the implication that steel plate of quality was not much in evidence until the late 15thC ?

And the presumption that bow weights were not already very high may well prove to be unfounded.
After all, a fundamental requirement is, and always has been to outrange the other blokes with heavy shafts.

That there was a development in point types is quite certain, that there was overmuch development in draw weight is perhaps speculative.

Informed comment would be appreciated.

Rod.

 We can compare the Nydam bows, the Viking bows from Sleswig and the Mary Rose bows. The MR bows were the highest draw weight. We can see this from the thicknesses of the yew bows from these finds. However, the MR period was acknowledged to be a time of arschery decline at the end of a long period of cumpulsory archery practice. If plate would have automatically been proof against arrows, there would have been no need for nobles to pay extra for "proof armour".

[Rod]

There's another factor to consider in effectivemess of armour and that is the shape of the curvature of the surface. Armour was all designed to deflect impact. Corrugations in selected areas gave the armour strength, so thinner material could be used but, tangental faces allowed impact to be deflected
Take a look at the web site of the Wallace Collection in London they have one of the finest collections of armour in Europe, some of the plate thickness is less than 2mm

It is probably a common misconception that the function of armour is to absolutely "stop" penetration, whereas in truth it is in functional terms far more often about deflecting a stroke or hit and about limiting or retarding penetration.

Rod.