Anyone can shoot through armor, the invention that would have changed history! DEBUNKED
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 10. 2023
- Thanks to Scentbird for sponsoring! Use METATRON55 to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/3rqUkpz This month I received...
Ember by Joseph Abboud sbird.co/3EQvX7L
Cross River Gorilla by Sanctuary sbird.co/48q10oy
Fig Leaves + White Musk by OffCourt sbird.co/48sypPh
This is a debunking of the video posted by Lars Andersen on his youtube channel. Here is the link to the original video for context:
• Anyone can shoot throu...
#archery #debunking #mythbusting
Use METATRON55 to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/3rqUkpz
You're exactly right on the "cheap" armour of the period.
It doesn't matter that it was "built to a price". It was still made by a smith/armourer who was quite familiar with the process of making effective armour for the battlefield, who knew the proper forms to turn out plate that would keep the man wearing it alive. Armourers, as a rule, like that, because living customers are repeat customers.
Sure, once he trusted his apprentices to do the job properly he might turn over "mass" production to them, and like you say they would simply have a functional finish, but they would be effective armour, just not pretty armour.
It's like when people grab butted mail and shoot an arrow through it, and you see the rings deformed and expanded to let the arrow through. Then they declare mail "useless" even though butted mail in no way replicates the riveted mail that would actually have been used on the battlefield. Riveted mail might be "weaker" against piercing attacks, but it was still good enough that they had to invent bodkin arrows to have any reliable offense against it.
I recall reading that the Crusaders (who wore mail at the time) could be pincushioned with Islamic arrows, and kept fighting simply because none of those arrows penetrated deep enough to hurt them.
Dear Raff of Metatron. Ive recently noticed all your Livestreams on this channel have been either removed or made private. Any reason for this? I loved watching and listening the Q&A Livestreams on the background while I worked on different projects.
I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that if a knight or anyone on horseback was riding towards you in battle, they would be a coming at you a fair bit FASTER than the rigg that "Lars" and his fake military archers were shooting at. You know, just to add to the discrepancies.... Love Metatron's content and look forward to the next video.
Much love from Canada.
💜🤍❤
@@Shadow-of-Mampang I probably will respond at one point. She likes bags, I like armour.
"We asked Natia who is a very good but not so strong archer to try"
She's using a compound bow. She doesn't need to be strong. Once the string is back you can hold it indefinitely without strain.
Now I want to make a video about how if knights armor would have been made of AR500 steel, it would have changed history.
I'll make a video about how if the Romans existed, and had plasma rifles in the 75w range, could have won the punic wars.
Unless Carthage had nukes!
@@DogDooWinner 99% less casualties!!! 😲😲😲
Right?! Or if knights used ballistic shields.
@@DogDooWinner So, the power of a regular incandescent lightbulb from back in the day?
Those arrows hitting the so called breast plate sounded like they were hitting an aluminum trash can 😂
The penetration looked like it too
Absolutely. I was expecting Oscar to pop out the top complaining
Reactionary vs Realism
ok but you have to respect that medieval archers were MLG 360 no scope pros
aluminium.
As you can see here, the bunker buster against a cheap pine Roman fort recreation shows the Romans were engineering failures. Just like the time we proved how tanks made of paper can easily be cut by mall ninja weapons.
If it is such a foregone conclusion as you are implying that a metal arrow would easily penetrate medieval armour, then why didn't they use metal arrows?
You see I made a comment saying that I recognise this isn't historically accurate but that it is fun to speculate, and Metatron replied saying that I'm a perfect example of someone who didn't understand the lack of authenticity to the video and that is causes me to question "real medieval tactics". Meanwhile I see multiple other comments like your own, that seem to have the real point going right over their heads, and just accepting that these metal arrows would of been some sort of super weapon, but just for some reason weren't used, which is entirely illogical.
I'm a little miffed by the response I received.
@jamesquinn4959 Sorry people jumped on you. I may have missed the point.
@@marklaurenzi1609 Not people, but Metatron himself. I don't really understand why.
I don't see anything wrong in what you said, it was a funny comment, mission accomplished, I was just replying because of the reply I had gotten from Metatron.
I would say that the question would be that, if these arrows were so effective, (as yours and other's funny comment implies) then why weren't they used?
I think this is a reasonable question, the simple answer might well be that they weren't actually effective at all against historically accurate armour. But apparently that, and purely anachronistically theorising about how and why something like that might of been used, for fun, is "questioning real medieval tactics", and, "misinformation", according to Metatron.
Apparently you missed the part of the video where he says it would empty the kings treasury to make all your arrows out of metal……..
@@Alfred5555He's human, we all misunderstand and get a wee bit heated sometimes. 🤍
"Look, I have an fake breastplate made of aluminium foil. I'll use it to prove that hardened steel plate was useless against weak bows!"
Pretty much
@@MultiKeto yes, you can get aluminium to a lot of hardness - via anodizing - thus creating aluminium oxides - in nature found as corundum. it is harder than steel, but again you are right about the other property too - it is not tough enough.
There are but a few harder things in nature than corundum, one of it being diamond. We do use artificially created corundum for almost any grinding, sand blasting, water-jet cutting...
I just wanted to contribute a little bit, dont mind me :)
You were so right about the armor being useless. I threw a rock right through a piece of tinfoil so steel plate wouldn't stand a chance. Well done! LOL
That mounted knight is, at best, walking slowly towards the enemy. With a 12ft lance I think I might hit, or be close to hitting the archer on the first shot, but definitely the second one. One arrow is not going to stop me or the horse. Maybe the arrow through the eye might kill quickly, but probably not fast enough to stop my lance killing you.
Hey Jason! Very true! I didn't even think about the length of the lance. Besides, in plenty of historical helmets the ocularia are much thinner than that. I still appreciate his skill for pulling that one off, but the skateboard charge looked more like a pleasant walk in the park.
@@metatronyt Lars is super skillful absolutely, and his video is entertaining, but maybe not so useful to understand the ebb and flow of a medieval battlefield. Lars, if you read this, I'm super impressed by your archery by the way!
Often Lars seems to use the cheapo costume armors in his tests, and even the eye slits seems to be lot bigger than historical
Unfortunately, spectacle is like a lie; it gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on.
A.mounted knight is moving as fast as the horse will carry him
An unmounted knight might be walking slowly
Just got done explaing the concept of armor to my family.
They believed armor can be slashed by daggers and pierced by any random arrow.
6 years ago, that was me, thinking fantasy rpg games were super accurate to real life😅
Actually, armor can be slashed through with a dagger, but only by me, or someone as powerful as me (if such a person exists).
"They believed armor can be slashed by daggers"
STABBED through with daggers, absolutely. Stabbed through EASILY? Heck no. And later "bulletproof" or "bullet resistant" armor needs massive force behind a dagger to punch through, generally far beyond what a normal person can manage at all, much less manage in combat.
And heck, even just being a really high quality armor makes a huge difference, but over 99% of combatants who wore armor historically, didn't have high quality armor, hell, most of them didn't even have QUALITY armor.
"and pierced by any random arrow."
Well, technically, yes they can. As long as the arrow has enough force and doesn't hit the stronger parts of the armor or at a bad angle.
It was literally impossible to make an armor good enough to be impenetrable everywhere from any direction. But if the armor can lose 10% weight by being penetrable in locations that are less than 0.1% like to be hit, that's generally a perfectly agreeable tradeoff.
So if the guy in the armor has to do a handstand split for an arrow to hit a weak point allowing it to pierce the armor, well, that's still "any random arrow" being CAPABLE of piercing it.
The amount of false information conveyed by films and video games is overwhelming. And it's perfectly normal to be fooled.
In fact, I think we've all been there.
@@Supreme_Debaucher Are you having doubts about your own existence?
Slashing through armor with a dagger would be a waste of time: daggers, dirks and other long knives would only be useful if you could penetrate a weak link, a hole, etc. And unless you are attacking from behind, it's doubtful a trained soldier would leave those weakness exposed.
And I would love to see someone perform a trick shot with an arrow like in the video, only with an actual historical representation. A battle with a dozen plus combatants, a half ton horse fully clad in mail, with an armored and shielded knight. There's so much chaos to an actual battlefield and a real horse that is weaving left and right, bobbing up and down, it would have to be a 1 in a billion shot to shoot the eyehole.
Most fantasy games really put the emphasis on making you more human than human, but I'll take a gritty realistic pain in the ass game any day.
This looks like one of those cable shows that claimed a katana could cut through European medieval armour. They are shooting arrows through a car bonnet.
I think car bonnets actually might be thicker than this “armor.” 😂
Katanas can melt through steel beams, And kill Gods! Don't underestimate the power of Anime.
@@ExtreamClownTown Oh look the definition of fictional power fantasy!
@@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378 There’s a reason why JRPG have you fight gods.
Meanwhile katanas couldn't parry longsword since the katana would shatter lol
So I haven't watched the video yet. But I can tell you as a 17th century history buff that armors were proofed with firearms, there was musket rated armor and pistol rated armor a lot of the bullet dents that people see in the armor thinking that they got them in combat was actually what was called back then the proof mark. I'm sure you're going to state this though already now to watch your video
I see we are talking about archery not muskets. Lol
Oh well
@@Real11BangBang still, your commentary its a really interesting piece of information!
Exactly! Bullet-proof
@@gamediverbr and it really doesn't matter because I guarantee you that a 75 caliber or larger matchlock loaded with the period correct charge of the weight of the ball and powder which is 440 grains Is definitely going to be more powerful than any war bow Mind you, the powder wasn't as good as more modern equivalents but I have made myself some 17th century style of powder and it still lobs a 69 caliber musket ball at about 1800 feet per second.
I don't think anyone is talking about arrows vs armour past the 15-16th century. By that time as we know armour was specifically made to be bulletproof.
Damn This was something I had on the list to get around too but you beat us to it..The armor was some cheap Larp Steel, Not heat treated and not very thick sounds like a tin can when the arrows hit it and when being removed.
Does not matter, do it anyway
Looking forward to seeing your take mate :)
You got the green light from Metatron, I’m certain fans of both channels would love to see it as well! Just make sure Shad doesn’t hurt his back.
It would be deliciously ironic to see "Boromir" fail to be harmed by arrows. 😂
The world is full of 'i was gonna' s
Tod’s Workshop did a series on arrows penetrating plate armor, using Mary Rose type 160# longbows and bodkin arrowheads. The joints covered with chain mail were vulnerable, but simulated plate breastplates were not.
Great set of videos. Love his current pilum work too.
Yes, i think the armour plate Tod used where hand made by Kevin Legg and it was made as functional armour and had the same curvature as the mediveal original and where hardened and tempered at the same temperatures, etc. Modern steel are more homogen so perhaps it is slightly more resilliant, but bloom iron where made with a damascener like metod in the end of the making process in order to make it solid (i had the opportunity to study that process in a field experiment long time ago) so i think Tods experiment is relatively accurate, at least as far as we can go by any means of realistic reconstruction currently.
@@sheep1ewewhy don't we do damscene process in modern forging? Sounds awesome
@@sakesaurus1706
The reason is just that it would take a lot of work to do a genuine damascener piece, but there where actually a guy from sweden, unfortunately i can't remember hi's name, who made really awesome art pieces from black and silver-nickel (i think he used pure nickel or very high nickel alloy, which works as a glue the black part where carbon steel he bleckened with cold blue after the making process) those looked out of this world awesome to me, but i think it stayed with a gauntlet and a few more pieces.
Bloom iron where made by a process where the slag malts and one has to hammer it out of the lump after it hs been taken out of the pit, tha tprocess where (at least in the reconstruction) made in two steps, one, using a very large wooden malled made from fresh wood and a stone or treestump, but using the glowing heat remaining from the slagmelting process, when this is taken as far as it could the pice can be reheated in a coalforge, in scandinavia we used coal made from pinetrees (which they did in the reconstruction) which gives the benefit of a less "aggressive" heat compared to stone coal (at least it feels that way in the forge and the spice does "coaling up" nicely instead of getting burnt as whan i use the regular rock coal, but i am not sure how they did on the British islands if they also used this process or if the British Celts did use rock coal directly, but raw rock coal will leave a lot of imputities, it may work for bloom iron, but not for cast iron, so i think they did use wood coal for that reason in order to avoind impurities from sulphur, etc from the rock coal, and they almost cerntaly did in mediveal time even if the probably did use rock coal found on the beach or in the hillside mines in England in mediveal time i guess, we did not had that in scandinavia, so we used only wood coal here),
So, satge two is to solidify the bloom iron lump by forge welding it together into it self until one got a solid block without impurities if one where lucky ang managed to got good quality iron sand, they could not use rock ores until mediveal time, so they had to use orin dust collected in the bogs or from springs with a high amonth of iron hydroxide which could be collected in a system of small pond like structures and then extracted and dried, unlike cast iron, bloom iron is steel and can be forged directly after the smelting process if one want high carbon steel one could adjust that by adding more coal and regulate the heat, the whole process takes a whole day only for the pit owen to be fired and it requires coal för 9 houres nonstop, ontop of the firewood for roasting the ironsand from impurities before it can go into the oven. so i can understand steel where really expensive in historical times.
If the bloom iron process sucess in all for steps if one cut a pice and etching the surface it will show a damascener like pattern, but less distinct than modern nickel and black carbon steel damascener.
It show more like the blade on very old Japanese Tachi and Katana swords which where made with a similar method (but with an additional step for adding in layers ofthe high carbon pieces, which armor probably did not had but one can still see the lines of the welding patterns on a sheet of bloom iron).
I don't know for how long armor where made this way, but at least i think it still where in the early mediveal time in may places.
I am not sure, but i think in the late 1300 and 1400 bloom iron where probably a lot less common and replaced by a method described as puddle/pole steel (where the lump where aired with wooden and orin bars in the purifying process of cast iron bars/pig iron which where re melted and the coal burnt out and replaced with surface coal from the forge, the Valloon smelters used a similar method long in the 1940s here, but in 1950 the Valoon method finaly died out, the last batch where actually produced not far from where i live and it was shipped ower to the United States), the predessesor of the Lancashire method for making wroght iron, but i think even with that metod it would show a similar pattern as more modern wroght iron so those damascener like lines where probably still there on a very close look.
It had been super cool to see a reconstruction made from bloom iron, but unfortunately my body and brain is not what it once where whan i was younger, but i would gladly teach what i know if somone younger where interested in giving it a try!
@@sakesaurus1706 I believe it's a matter of cost vs benefit. Modern steel is enough better that the added improvement is not worth the work. But it is a guess
I use cut resistant sleeves and gloves at work. Many times in over ten years I have seen pieces of aluminium just slide over the surface. It might not be medieval armor but it show, at least for me, that armor did indeed work.
For the removal of the arrow rest, his logic seems to be that it slows down the nocking process (at least the one that Lars is used to) so he sliced it off since it shouldn't otherwise change the performance of the bow other than making it more simple for his muscle memory to do speed shooting.
I would love to see him properly use a bow for speed shooting instead of partially drawn and lowest weight possible. Oh wait he can't do that.
4:09 "The arrow rest did not exist on historic bows, so lars removed the arrow rest and filed down the middle of the bow" point still stands, the whole bow didn't exist on historic bows
And the video completely overlooks WHY Lars was able to use the "New" bow design faster , which is in fact an Oneida Eagle that was invented in 1980!!! The reason he "struggled" with the normal "Cams on the ends of the limbs" bow was because the normal compound he was using is a RIGHT handed bow, with the arrow shelf on the left side of the riser. Lars shoot off the RIGHT side of the riser with his particular style, so the Oneida Eagle that he cut up and ruined is a LEFT HANDED bow with the arrow shelf on the right side of the riser, which Lars uses with his archery style. This whole thing is a joke... Calling a bow that is uncommon because it is too quirky for most people to copy the style of which has been on the market for FORTY THREE YEARS a "New" bow.....
If Lars tried selling this armor to a medieval lord he'd be drawn and quartered for fraud.
what if the armor is actually thick and real medieval representation? you dont know, so dont draw conclusions
🤣😁😂
@@trader2137it’s not
@@trader2137except it’s very clear the “armor” in his video is a costume piece. It’s not shaped properly at all, and that’s immensely important. And going off the quality of the shaping, it’s likely not great steel either.
@@trader2137 It's a Nauticalmart cuirass. They're made of 18ga (1.2mm) untreated stainless steel.
I love the fact that Lars shoots the armor when it's 10 or less meters. Oh, look, shooting something at point blank is more effective than shooting it et 25 meters ! I hope for the archer that his shoots will be instant kill because at this range, he is screwed.
Right! A modern day human armed with a holstered pistol will rarely stop a blade-wielding assailant from 25ft or less, even if that assailant is at a standstill ("Tueller Drill"). Imagine, instead, a cavalryman charging at full gallop with a lance, from similar distance...you're absolutely fucked! Even if you somehow neutralize the rider, you're not stopping that horse from bowling you over, likely crushing you and causing severe, if not lethal, damage.
Let's see this gizmo work to stop an assailant in an automobile at 30 mph or more. It will fail 100% of the time.
If that was real armor it wouldn't have mattered how far or close he made the shot.
@@kaizokujimbei143 yeah its hollywood armor. in the real deal back in the day i dont think they cared about penetrating steel plate, it was just about hitting the guy a bunch of times and knocking the wind out of him and demoralizing him. yes you havent pierced his armor, but you have definitely intimidated his soul.
@@cwg9238 Add in the fact that the dents start to add up after a while and will restrict breathing. If you get lucky, an arrow splinter will go through a gap in the armor and maybe cause at least a minor injury.
Archers could fire from behind spearmen and pavise bearers at close range with mounted archers being especially potent due to their elevation in the saddle.
The idea of shooting arrows at close range where more lethal is not so "Hollywood" as people think.
Army vet here. They call me the Michellin man from all the armor I wore. AND, my battle buddy can attest to armor. Took three .556 from a fallen brother's rifle. Didn't know till after the engagement how many times...he didn't go down, either! ARMOR WOKRS! I use groin, elbow, knee pads, PLUS trauma plates. I'm pre 9/11 Interceptor with boron carbide plates
Thank you for your service and comment
Thank you for all that you do! You kept me sane through Covid. I'm a huge Rome fan, one of the guys with the SPQR brand you love! I wish I could've been Black Achilles, lol
Brother, being in the army, can you tell us what material modern military armor is made from?
@@Darksky1001able generally ceramic plates with kevlar
Steel is more common on eastern europe
@@lucibvee Soviet and modern Russian armor vests generally abandoned steel around the mid 1980s in favor of Titanium.
16:07 Okay this part made me heated for a bit. Even today, we have tanks (Which is a form of modern armor) and we have weapons that can deal with them and many can be carried and used used by the infantry, and yet we still use tanks, because the battlefield isn't that simple
Tod's Workshop might get a lot of clicks, but it's pretty obvious he's just a smart guy who loves nerding out on these historical experiments. The clicks are a bonus, not the main goal.
I think that's probably why he gets so many clicks in the first plate. He's just an awesome guy
I was so expecting him to say "I don't know what it is in English. The "hole" where the "key" goes." But alas, I now can't say "So close, just flip it around. It's a key hole."
Cheap armor was still fitted for the Spearman and it might have been second hand plate armor refitted to the owner plus it usually didn't cover the entire body but at least the chest area which was the most important area of the body. It wasn't modern day thin metal sheets like cosplay armor. There's a reason bowmen of the era trained a lot and targeted specific part of the armor. They target the holes or weak spots in the armor because breast plates were made to protect the vital areas. But if you able to target let say around the armpit well that can kill. The helms also were made in a specific way to protect as best as possible but if you can target the ocular holes or the breathing holes well damn you killed a guy. But that's easier said than done in the heat of battle and it requires a ton of training
Thats why those with cheap armor used shields, to block arrows. Those who had better armor would fight with two handed weapons.
That's always been my issue with Lars, his whole "double arrow" thing wouldn't be effective cause he only goes half draw with each arrow, but since he shoots aluminum crap it looks effective.
I think the first time I heard about Lars was regarding exactly the drama you described, Which was why I was surprised when I saw him mentioned on the Shad's channel in a positive light.
+ he would Never get that close.
Pierces flesh no problem
Lars , no offense... seems kind of a 'slow' individual
@@MaxRavenclaw because he is smart and debunking this video was a waste of time since I the end he admitted this was experiment
lol at the 'armor would disappear' thing.
Modern high caliber rifle bullets (and armor piercing rounds) will blow through steel plate, but soldiers are absolutely still wearing it.
All I really want to add, I wrote a comic when I was a kid about a time-traveling skateboarder who teaches armored Knights to settle their differences through jousting, as in POOL jousting a'la Skate or Die! Seeing the armor on a skateboard brought back memories! Wish I still had it, but the dog chewed it up.
Along with your homework! 😂😂😂
Not doubting you, just popped up in my mind (what little there is left). 😂😂😂
@@ericpode6095 Oh yeah! Ha! Good one! Like it. He also enjoyed eating the accessories off of my action figures, especially capes. Got a lot of fond memories of that dog. 😉
Well, I can't speak to the quality of your artwork. But as far as the logic of your story goes, it probably makes more sense than 75% of the comics published these days.... make that 90% if you exclude manga / manhwa.
Love this video! Great debunking! ❤
Metatron is fantastic at these videos, is this the first time you’ve ever seen him in a video??
@@jordanthomas4379 lol he is fantastic! And no, I’ve seen many of his videos 😊
@@KenzieScarlettthat’s awesome, I love the Metatron, he’s amazing, have you ever met him?
@@jordanthomas4379 She knows me quite well, she is my wife 😄
@@metatronyt 🤍🤍🤍🤍
I really like all your videos, but I feel like I enjoy watching the ones from the debunking series as much as you enjoy creating them.
So, a different type of arrow shot from a modern bow (which couldn't be made using medieval technology) at a decorative set of armor on a scarecrow riding a skateboard would have changed history? Somehow?
Ok, sure. Why not.
"Actual historical archery"
*watches Lars do a 360 jumping noscope eyeshot
aight
We still use armour today. It made a big comeback in the last 40 years. Obviously, it isn’t the same as the 17th century. I wore body armour on all my deployments. Had soft body armour during my tenure in law enforcement.
Weapons vs. armour has always been an interesting competition. At time one side dominated and at others it was somewhat balanced.
Even prisoners use paper body armour for anti-shank defense
I actually watched the video that you responded to in this one before you uploaded this one and I left a comment which said. Ok so the bow with metal arrows can go through that chest plate more than I expected, and far enough to kill a person. But I want to know how thick it was and what material it was made of. The thickness and material used in the armour are very important with regards to how well it will do against attacks like arrows. And for reference the on used in Tod’s video was 2.5mm thick and made of hardened steel. If the one in this video is made of thinner metal or weaker metal then it won’t do as well against attacks as the one in Tod’s video did.
Lars: Im going to test the differences between a medieval bow and a modern one
Also Lars: I had to change the modern bow because it was too different from the medieval one
It's also a bow used primarily in fishing.
No, his way of doing archery just doesn't work well with arrow rests.
@@the11382 His way of shooting archery is childish and he would never get as close as he is + the bow he chooses is much weaker than the one he didn't choose (Hoyt)
+ the arrows he uses aren't Hunting arrows they're just target arrows.
He's using Either aluminium or carbon Fiber or both Aluminum wrapped in carbon Fiber arrows.
@@1sthander373pse.
@@1sthander373probably only at 35 lbs too.
30 seconds in i hear the name "lars anderson" and thought "oh not this again".
Being skilled at using a bow does not make him a expert on history.
Another video to see that many do not understand basic physics, here the conservation of energy. Discounting all losses such as friction, the energy of an arrow will equal the energy spent in the motion of drawing it, so draw weight × draw distance × probably a 1/2 factor somewhere if the bow strength increases by how much you pull the string.
It doesn't matter how modern the design of a bow is, the energy will not exceed that. A better design will be closer from 100% efficiency but it ends here. The bows they are using seem nowhere near as strong as a yew longbow, hence less energy transfered to the arrow
I've watched enough archery channels, doing debunking videos of Lars channel that I tend to take anything on his channel with not a grain of salt, but a whole salt shaker.
Jup!
He's a straight up con artist, been taking advantage impressing people ignorant on the topic of archery since the start.
I agree with you! A circus performer.
His chatter is just bad...@@LostBeetle
I just blocked his chanel after first of his videos I seen about historical archery
but it finds its way to me through other channels debunking all the sh...t he ewer tells
The Lars video would have been like a channel on armored vehicles saying "I'm going to show how a WW1 British Mk1 tank could be defeated by depleted uranium sabot rounds.".
Moreso "I bought a small toy remote control tank, now let me shoot at it with a hand gun."
There's an excellent video by Schwerpunkt that illustrates the matter from the perspective of the actual tactics and Art of War rather than the usual "engineer" mode, which I strongly recommend
Omg, finally someone renowned debunks this video. It's been so long since I first watched it!
I mentioned this in a previous video, but if you go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, they have a remarkable exhibit of armor. Several of the chest pieces have a dent where they were shot. This armor was proof tested before delivery to prove that it was bulletproof.
Lars Anderson “historical” videos should always be watched with popcorn
And alcohol.
This is like saying the Titanic had a metal hull, it had armor!
We also have to consider how the speed of a cavalry charge would influence the arrow
Todd of Todd's workshop uses a modern crossbow that delivers the same energy as a warbow. Still doesn't penetrate properly made armour
"If a knight is running at you in full plate, run my liege!" That's some great advice.
True. You'll be faster.
Not medieval but In 1879 kelly gang In Australia forged suits of Armour out of plough mouldboards, over several months which withstood dozens of shots from Martini Henry rifles & spencer repeating Carbines in the Glenrowan seige.
Wow! Nadia seems to shoot with perfect form. I think I'm going to go watch the original video, purely for research purposes of course.
😁😁
Going to invite Mary Palmer and her five sisters to join?
Love the video and I have a suggestion. Ive recently seen you videos on biblically accurate angels, demonw, and the story about Aram and Eve. How a bout biblically accurate monsters, like the leviathan?
I'd have loved to see a collaboration of this video so that you guys could discuss what is necessary to meet an acceptable and agreed upon standard for the period armor, good luck!
Speaking of testing armors, would it be possible for you to discuss the functionality of Gondorian soldier's armor from the LOTR films as if they were real? Also how to fix its problems.
Making them thicker instead of tin setpiece.
@victoriazero8869 True, I knew that much. I guess I just figured we would look at the design of the armor. Treat it as though it were battlefield steel or iron and then discuss things it does well and things that need improvement.
Stainless steel is great for modern reenacment. Less time is needed for mantanence and nobody tried to kill you for real. BTW, Kevin Hicks from History Squad is among other archer-reenactor with few decades of practice. His recipe was to aim for weak points like armpits and elbows. And especially groins if knight falls over.
That's true, but also that thing? You'd bend that breastplate with a firm pillow strike.
@@puffincz3482 I have stainless steel cutlery and most of kitchen knives. They work fine for me. Also I was joking and I guess most of modern reenactment does not involve medieval style melee fights with hard blows from real weapons. In that case your shiny polished cuirass would not remain shiny, polished and spotless anyway, especially if you need to heat it in forge to bent it back in shape.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 Yeah, here I am agreeing with you. Stainless steel cutlery works fine, but also I recently broke a cutlery knife with just my bare hands. Really depends on what sorta reenactment you're doing. I'm personally doing LARP, and my helmet is 2mms of quality heat treated steel, and I wouldn't have it otherwise, lol. At least I have certainty that some dumbass with improperly made soft weapons won't bend my helmet, because I could strike this one with sharp weapons and it'd be fine.
btw, if you bend some dumbassery like stainless steel helmet, just hammer it back into place, lol.
@@puffincz3482 Scola Gladiatoria mentioned that Solingen used to mass produce sword blades which British exported even to India, where they would put hilt according to local liking. But improvements in fired weapons reduced need for swords so they switched to cutlery and in pre-War Europe every middle class household tried to have Solingen stainless steel cutlery for daily usage. These days yacht metal parts and industrial fermentation tanks are mostly made of stainless steel (Inox).
the argument that if they had metal arrows they wouldn't have armor is just silly. we have bullets and we have bullet armor... they called chest plates.
Thank god you exist tbh. Those kind of videos (debunking misconceptions) are my favorite of yours.
Watching him pretending to fumble with the modern bows and the arrow rest reminded me overwhelmingly of those 2am informercials where people pretend they don't understand how to use a blanket, or a mitten, or a common tool that's been in use unaltered for 300 years, or other simple things.
But then instead of trying to sell us a "better" bow that's actually worse in every way (for the low low price of ten payments of $29.95 plus shipping and handling), he tries to sell us the idea that plate armor was terrible and people just kept wearing it because they were idiots.
Metatron debunking armour and weapons videos...ah good old days.
Anyone can shoot through armor with a 50 BMG
@@luissuazo3684 a .308
Tank armor!? Even armored car can stop 50Bmg
@@pashapasovski5860 medieval armor🤣🤣🤣
@@theamericannestormakhno2360 you weren't specific, hahaha
@@pashapasovski5860 i thought people would assume i meant medieval armor considering what the video is about
"Watch in amazement as i use a slightly modified modern compound bow to poke modern metal shafted arrows through some low grade larp armour."
I saw the video when it first came out, I think I suggested that they get in touch with Tod to perform some tests
I watched it 1 yr ago
And commented that their title is 'misleading". And tell other ppl about there is a disclaimer at the end of video.
I thought he made the video with "click bait" intention but i will give him the benefit of doubt.
Now Metatron makes a video about that one particular clip and im glad that he watched like i did, until the end of that clip and notice that the last piece of clip should be put at start of video. Well done sir.
"If they could've penetrated armor, then armor wouldn't be used"
[Looks at all the Tanks still being used right now]
I think a fun video about just shooting arrows at costume armor would also be good for giving channels with a budget the idea to do the proper version. Though to be honest, I would be more willing to trust a science channel like Kyle Hill's for that sort of thing.
I've heard at the start of the ACW a lot of soldiers had body armor but discarded it fairly quickly in part because they weren't really used to marching significant distances carrying it. How useful it was at that point is also a question.
Thanks again for these videos that help correct some of the misinformation that's out there.
It was a strange experience because the videos of Lars made me interested in archery to have some home and learn the techniques he uses. And implicitly it helped me find your channel too. I mean you were super respectfull, so big like, but still strange experience :D
Lars Anderson has been on my "grain of salt" list ever since his first viral video where he made all of his claims of "arrows are never shot from the left" and "back quivers never existed" and "Persians contextually must have had stopwatches because they were supposed to be able to shoot 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds" to eventually "arrows are actually really easy to dodge and I'll prove it by shooting arrows past my friends so you can't actually tell how far away I'm shooting from them!"
Dude is a talented trick shooter who has figured the best way for himself to do trick shots. All of his experimental Archaeology breaks down to "I don't like how they did things back then, so they must have done them my way" is problematic at best and historically misleading at the worst.
To this day, I still hold an eternal mark against the CZcamsr Gaijin Goomba from back when he was still doing videos on Game Theory. He was trying to analyze how historically reasonable Farcry Primal was. He pointed to the "shooting two arrows at once" skill and confirmed it as fact because "Lars Anderson recently released a video where he is rediscovering ancient archery techniques!"
Nah, man.
Maybe it's a very "historical" armor made from Pepsi cans?
😂🤣😁
I have waited for this video sooo long! Thanks metatron
1. This cavlry charge was in max ~7.5 km/h meanwhile in real medieval times Charges were carefully managed for speed, with a charge's maximum speed being 20 km/h (12 mph). Few times higher. 2. Mounted knights were much higher. 3. It is impossible to shoot at knight in 1-2 meters distance, because knights usually have some long weapons, like spears, longswords, lances. Usually even longer. For example (late medieval) hussar's lances usually ranged from 4.5 to 6.2 metres (15 to 20 ft). Good luck with that. What about armor. I think this bowman would piss themselves faster than shoot arrow, so it doesnt matter anyway.
Honestly, Lars should stop making claims about history. He’s been consistently wrong and sometimes his claims were outright fraudulent.
Since when?
@@whiteeye3453 Since the beginning of time.
@@coffeefox5703 right after we harnessed fire
@@coffeefox5703 haha that's funny
But seriously he was never wrong
In fact he rediscover many akncient lost archery techniques
LOL says him@@whiteeye3453
Hello Metatron! Thank you for the video. I personally think it is interesting to test a realistic replica of medieval armor of different cost against a modern compound bow with all-metal arrows. This bow transfers near double the kinetic energy of a traditional bow of the same max draw, so the arrow goes about sqrt(2) time faster and penetrates much better. Also an all-metal arrow is a) thin + b) heavy enough (higher pressure on the tip) c) durable, so it also penetrates much better then a historical wooden shaft with bodkin point arrow. The really interesting question is could medieval people make such a bow with Renaissance-era technology. Could you, please, make a video on this point?
I think theoretically they could have. Not out of the same materials and that would probably have made the thing too heavy. And hideously expensive. So that's probably why nobody tried to downsize the pulley concept for use in bows.
Your Physics are somewhat off
.An Oneida bow at 56lbs (31"DL) with an 1100grain arrow shoots thru a chrono at 153fps.Joe gibbs shooting with a 160 lb warbow and an 1126 grain arrow gets 196fps out of the bow.With the use of arrows over 12gpp ; a compound bow would not hold any real advantage over a medieval war bow.
The all metal arrows used do not give arrow specifics and does not seem to take into account arrow spine.I seriously doubt that they would have any reasonable accuracy over distance.There are too many inaccuracies with the video to be taken seriously as anything scientific.
@@alantitter7879 Thank you for the data. Look, you wrote that a 56lbs (27 kilo) comp bow pushes an 1100 grain (75 gram) arrow at 153fps (50 mps), while a 3 (THREE) times heavier max draw weight classic bow pushes (almost) the same arrow at just 20% higher velocity! Imagine how a 160 lb Oneida bow would perform! I guess it would be smth around 300 fps!
@@kaltaron1284 Concur. If one wants a historical analogy, wheellock firearms might serve as such - very quick to load, reliable to use & more weather resistant when compared to contemporary options. But machining the parts was both ridiculously difficult & punitively expensive with technology of the time, so that much more brutish flint lock prevailed and wheellock was never more than a sumptuous quirk of few affluent users.
@@stalhandske9649 Or later the lever repeating rifles. Good for wealthy individuals or some special units maybe but not within the possibilities to outfit your whole army.
You know what changed history of armoured warfare? Guns. They didn't need some fancy modern bows when they had handguns as far back as late 14th - early15th century! xD For example Hussites were so effective against armoured knights, because they were early adopters of handguns, which they called "píšťala", which later created the word "pistol", or "houfnice", which became "howitzer". And they used them on armoured war wagons or with tower shields.
Oh and we can't forget Osman Turks who were unstoppable for the same reason.
Öhm… NO. firearms uswd in the 14th, 15th century where not effective against armor. Even jn the 16. century.
Sir Tony of Hawke - mount your steed and lets ollie forth into battle!
How the skateboard transformed the use of cavalry units in the 13th century
Armor testing is hard, I wouldn't expect just anyone to be able to create a good setup to get accurate results. Good thing we have a lot of different voices on the subject to balance out the discussion and the find the truth. Thanks Metatron for your contributions, your level-headed analytics are always welcome.
At least with the Tod Cutler videos, they studied manuals of how the armour was made and what was actually worn (chainmail under the breastplate, fabric under the chainmail, thicker chainmail around the throat) and of course, a shield. This one was just a cheap helmet and breastplate, so they didn't even do the most basic of research. It was basically an infomercial for the bow.
@@handsolo1209 todd pretty much proved it, you are NOT getting through proper steel plate with arrows. that said, the energy still transfers, even if the arrow didnt go into the guy, he still felt the impact. blunt force and psychological force, even if there was no penetration.
@@handsolo1209 they also picked a particular well documented battle (Agincourt) and used arrows and arrowhead designs from the Mary Rose of roughly the same era. Also they based the armour on existing versions. It was so thorough. Feel like a rewatch.
If you can't create a good setup why even test it at all? What's the point of a test you already know is inaccurate? Sure you might have people like Metatron who speak up against it, but then the damage is already done. You will have people who saw the test and didn't see this video, so all they have is the test to go by and now they are incredibly misinformed.
There’s a extremely good research paper out there that goes deep into the physics behind arrow penetration.
Also; Lars Anderson has been disowned by the greater archery community due to unsafe practices.
Never heard of a scandal with lars andersen, what unsafe practises are we talking about?
@@the11382 Shooting stuff off peoples head and other daring stunts that could go bad. Nothing happened though, I live in Denmark, would surely have heard about it.
Not just the safety aspect; many of his claims are flat out wrong. Foot archers stopped caring about mobility when cavalry became common, and most of his claims from Arabic Archery are from the chapter on trick shooting. He points to that as his contemporary source, then conveniently neglects to mention that he's ignoring 90% of the book and taking most of the rest out of context. It's like if someone "rediscovers" Annie Oakley's mirror shot trick, then claims that people actually used that in gunfights historically: impressive trick, but it was never a combat technique.
"its too slow to use an arrow rest!"
cut immediately to using his thumb as an arrow rest... yes, because an arrow rest that will always be in the same spot no matter what would be slower than making sure your thumb is in the right spot each time.
It's probably more accurate to say that he's used to shooting without an arrow rest, so he would be slower with one. Given enough training he might be as good with one as without but I guess they didn't have the time so it was easier to remove it.
Lars uses a toy bow. Love to see him try his "stunts" using , even a 50pounder hunting bow. With a compound bow, you STILL have to draw that bow, gearing or not, You STILL have to START drawing it back
Interesting video. I loved the Arrow vs. armor videos from Tod and they gave a lot to think about it. I was not aware of the Lars Anderson Video until now and even it was wrong in so many cases, like Metatron had said allready, there are two things to take with:
Increasing the weight of the arrow (by changing wood shaft to metall) increases the kinetic energy. What we don't know, what the metall rod had weight in comparison to the wooden one. And we don't know, what the speed difference between both was. (The english longbow arrows were thicker and a bit heavier (if I'm not wrong, about 85g) than normal arrows, and therefore the bows had a stronger drawweight to shoot the heavier arrows properly. And the thicker arrows flex less than thinner ones. Why? Because they were designed to penetrate armour (they go through mail and gambeson) and the armourer reacted to that, by designing plate armour. That's why parts of armour survived over such a long time. It was just an arms race.
The other nice idea was the moving ehm.."knight". That point is not easy to replicate in a safe and not too complicated way in the setup Tod had chosen and would additionaly create the problem with consitency. But the motive of a moving target has some interesting aspect, because you add the speed of the moving target to the speed of the incoming arrow, and that gave the arrow more impact energy and could potentialy increase the ability of penetrating. Would be interesting to test it in a serious way. (the quite lame skateboard doesn't look like much and would not represent an incoming horse, but it did influence the energy of the modified arrow in the Lars Anderson stunt, because the increase of speed influenzes the kinertic energy by the square.)
The Metatron is not only the greatest man in history, he’s the greatest clapper of historical cheeks of all time! We are all privileged beyond belief to hear the truth from you Metatron!!!!!
Yeah, but here’s the real question.
Could the armour…penetrate a bow?!
Only in soviet Russia does the armor pierce the bow.
14:43 You see how the holes pucker outwards? That's because the "armor" is so weak that when the arrows were pulled out by hand the "armor" bent. You can't get much more low grade than that (unless it was aluminum foil).
I'm glad you got around to this, that video has bothered me for ages.
There is another factor that have been left out which Tod workshop also included was how far the arrow penetrated the armour when it did as there are plenty of times when an arrow did pen the armour, but they also debated weather how far the arrow went in if it would have been a fatal shot or an injury that would really hurt. Yes there are other clips where they did pen armour and also different types of armour and even different grades of steel equivalent to medieval period and also different types of arrow heads. Worth watching
Reminds me of how some Muslim sources describe the crusader knights looking like porcupines but still able to fight without problem. Maybe an exaggeration but still.
I rolled my eyes at the part when he said that with a modern bow you don't even need to be strong. Well, no matter how fancy your bow is, it won't help you on that. The power of the shot only depends on two things: the draw length and the poundage. Yes, a modern bow might have larger poundage for the same size and weight as a medieval one, but you still need to be able to draw it fully to get its maximum potential. And for that, you need strength.
The other thing to note is that even in medieval times there were different arrows. For heavier bows they used heavier arrows. So if you use a small wooden arrow for your super powerful modern bow, of course it will bounce off the armor instead of penetrating.
A modern bow can "cheat" by increasing the effective draw length with pulleys and such. So you get more effective draw out of your power.
While I understand that one who knows some basic physics may think the energy only depends on draw length and poundage, this is not accurate. A historical bow will not give all the stored-up energy back to the arrow on release, but instead waste a lot of that energy to accelerate the the bow. With a modern bow, much less energy is wasted and is instead transferred to the bow.
Tod's Workshop did a comparision between a 150lbs modern crossbow and a 960lbs medieval one, and the modern one's bolts would actually shoot bolts with more energy.
Now the modern bow had longer draw length, but not 6x longer.
@@haakoflo That makes sense.
@@haakoflo There's far less of a gap with bows compared to crossbows. Yew and wood/horn/sinew composite are both pretty close to fiberglass laminated limbs in performance, while steel is not even close. I would be surprised if that steel prod gave 40% efficiency, while English longbows (and most composite bows) tended to be in the 60-70% range.
A thought came to mind here... What if cavalry charges actually made it so armour worn by knights offered LESS protection against arrows compared to if they were stationary?
Here's my thinking: when knights do a cavalry charge, they're travelling at a pretty significant speed.
So with an incoming arrow coming from the opposite direction, the impact wouldn't solely be affected by the speed the arrow travels, but also by the speed which the knight is moving into the arrow.
Would be a very interesting experiment to conduct to see if damage to armour is greater when it travels at speed into oncoming arrows as opposed to being stationary.
LOL clearly mathematics isn't your thing.
Try comparing arrow speed and a knight charge speed.
@@AKUJIVALDO Lol clearly physics isn't your thing.
Yes an arrow and a knight travels at different speeds, obviously.
Recurve bow arrows can travel at speeds up to 150 mph.
So if shot at a stationary target, the arrow will hit it a bit below 150 mph (it loses horizontal velocity the longer it travels due to gravitational pull and air resistance).
A horse galloping speed however is somewhere between 25-30 mph.
If a knight is charging at the archer, then the target is no longer stationary. It's moving TOWARDS the archer (and the arrow) at a significant velocity.
Meaning that when the arrow hits the charging knight, it hits it at slightly below 150 + 25 or up to 150 + 30 mph, because the opposite velocity of the knight is added to the velocity of the arrow when determining energy transfer to the target, according to the laws of physics.
as per usual, great video and also... great shirt i might add, you wouldnt happen to remember where you got it?
It’s a 15th century arming doublet based on the paintings by Piero della Francesca. I got it from Medieval Design
Metatron is getting pretty darn good at intros and comedy skits
I understand Lar's video is not very scientific, but I also think this video is a bit needlessly pedantic, I'm more interested in the historical implications rather than the criticism of the scientific method.
When I first saw Lar's video, I'm was quite surprised that making a stiffer metal shaft arrow increased the penetration so drastically, and it did make me beg the question why they didn't use full metal arrows, medieval full metal jackets if you will. I understand that in a historically accurate test it might be found that the arrows hardly do any better at all so it would be pointless, but I doubt that.
It would open the question to how, of course they couldn't make the typical millions of arrows an army would have all out of metal, but if they were so drastically better at penetrating armour, maybe they could just make 1% of their ammo full metal, just to be used as a special shot when they have a good position on heavily armoured opponents, or when the field has been cleared of most of the lightly or unarmoured poor infantry.
It could also be experimented on, perhaps you don't need a full metal shaft, but just a metal jacket, that would give enough rigidity for a huge increase in penetration, perhaps not even the entire shaft need be jacketed, just the front 6 inches or so, maybe even try a new type of arrow head similar to that of a pilum, something like a 4 or 5 inch solid metal needle head, like an oversized bodkin. I just think it's very interesting to see the possibilities.
It doesn’t provide that, because the armour doesn’t represent the real armour used on the field of battle. You are proving exactly my point with this comment. You saw the metal arrow penetrate something that looks like Medieval armour and now you started questioning real Medieval tactics. That’s the misinformation part. The test does not count. The result does not count. If he could do that on a real Medieval armour then we could talk and speculate.
@@metatronyt No, you're assuming what you think I'm assuming. I didn't say these arrows would penetrate historically accurate armour, I literally said "I understand that in a historically accurate test it might be found that the arrows hardly do any better at all", but I openly admit that I doubt that.
This test doesn't prove anything about historically accurate armour penetration, Lars himself mentions that at the end of the video. But the video (and just basic science) does demonstrate that typically a more ridged arrow penetrates better than a flexible one. That I feel is the main point that should be taken away from the video. (Historically speaking, hence, crossbow bolts).
This alone is more than enough to simply question and experiment to see what might of been possible 500-1000 even 2000 years ago. Like I said at the beginning, I'm less interested in a review of scientific methodology than I am in the possible historical implications, simply asking questions and experimenting, which I see as perfectly reasonable and fun.
I don't see it as "questioning real medieval tactics" as you put it, though there is absolutely nothing wrong in doing so, questioning and debating is the ethos of good science, not choosing a standard and only researching points that reinforce that standard. We know they didn't typically use full metal arrows in the past, we've got that information, so its only sensible to ask why not, and for funs sake to see how and if they could of been of any use anyway, so as to answer that question.
I find the idea that we cant theorise or question anything, especially largely anachronistic fun things, before first having a full fledged entirely historically accurate highly expensive practical demonstration, too to be needlessly pedantic.
@@Alfred5555 I find your constant use of the word “pedantic” off putting. Also at the end you built a strawman and attacked it. I don’t see any sense in continuing the debate. Thanks for watching
"Constant use"? I'm sorry but I simply do think it is needlessly pedantic, I said it once and then reiterated that comment, and I'm now forced to reiterate it again.
What strawman? I can only say, no I didn't. Surely saying "Also at the end you built a strawman and attacked it", would prove the relevance of my previous comment, "No, you're assuming what you think I'm assuming.". @@metatronyt
@@Alfred5555 I understand the thought you have put into this and I even agree with you to an extent but you and metatron from what I can gather were arguing about different things.
From what I can gather, in this video and in his response to your comment his main that “testing” videos like this can lead to a large amount of widespread misinformation as people take what they see on CZcams as fact (even videos that tell their audience that what they are doing shouldn’t be taken as historical evidence) because people don’t actually do their own research.
But what your trying to argue is that it could be interesting to see what full metal/re-enforced arrows would look like but that it can be very expensive to test and thus we should cut people some slack for not testing with 100% historical armour.
I agree with what your saying, armour is expensive. but even a low production cost video that is trying to test a consept like reinforced/metal arrows still needs to follow the scientific meathod.
The video that is being discussed here isn’t even trying to be scientific at all and that is what metatron was attacking, he wasn’t trying to attack the idea that it should never be tested or that all tests must be done on 100% historical armour.
In this video they don’t tell us anything about the armour or the arrows and they don’t even shoot the same spot, nor do they fire a sufficient amount of non metal arrows at the target.
In summary, don’t bother trying to debate metatron on this as you are not even talking about the same core problem.
As for my thoughts on metal arrows? Real war arrows are very thick and hard anyway so metal would mainly just be adding weight, the arrows used in the video were thin and flimsy arrows that were not made for war.
Sorry if I miss represented any of either of your arguments, and I hope we can all understand each other are coming from a well meaning place.
Yeah that "armor" sounds thinner than the baking tin I use for making cookies.
It's one of my pet peeves with those tests... They take cheap larp armor and expect it to behave like historical armor...
Strength doesn't really matter... you don't get more lb out of a bow by being stronger, if you pull it the same length... no sense in using a "not so strong archer"...
I think that bit was about longbow vs compound bow and the mechanical advantage provided by the compound bow's cams. They were just glossing over too much stuff.
@@MorbidEel they were using the same bow though?
First
Second
You bastard, have my upvote.
I think the only time period where body armor was really obsolete was from the late 19th century to the middle of the 20th century. Firearms became so powerful that there was just no way to reliably protect a soldier AND have him able to move himself around on his own power with the materials (steel) available. But even then you had flak jackets, to protect from shrapnel, and helmets, to protect the heads when peaking over cover (allthough, getting hit by a full power rifle (like a Mosin Nagant or a Mauser 98) will (depending on impact angle) give you a concussion, break your neck, bash in your skull or go clean through the front of the helmet, possibly through the back as well, but definetly everything in between). And in WW1 they even had some assault squads wearing brestplates to protect them from shotguns and pistols/SMGs, once they entered the trenches. But in general, body armor was obsolete in this time frame. On any other period armor was at least generally preferred to going unarmoured, unless speed or endurance was the top priority.
The bow modifications are roughly like saying "We're going to remove the pistol grip from this sub machine gun because historically muskets didn't have them, so we can show how awesome a sub machine gun would have been in the 1700s."
your mastering even the comedy aspect of history video reacting. well done sir !
Another thing - penetrating the plate armor doesn't mean we have defeated the knight - those arrows did not go deep. There is no guarantee they would even touch his skin, not mentioning serious wound. So - surprise, surprise - even as it is low quality costume of a breastplate it did protect the wearer and allowed him to avoid serious injury or even death :).
IN regards to the archer video, this is one of those videos a kid watches and argues in middle school lunch period. I think it's something more done in fun and less in the search for innovation. No need to tear it apart. That being said, I enjoyed the video. Keep it up.
That lady archer wasn’t just slinging arrows, she was slinging cake
Metatron ,Another flaw in the test is that a knight would be on horseback so the target would be bouncing up an down insead of a station target in the X and Y axis that provides a much easier target to hit since it is only moving in the Z axis and the so called target is not posing a threat of killing the archer with a sword or a lance or war hammer which would present the archer with much more stressful enviroment were if the archer missed he would be dead.
Not always. English dismounted to fight on foot, and at Agincourt many of the French also dismounted.
@@docstockandbarrel That is good to know however you would still be moving in a more pronounced up and down motion
especially in the mud at Agiacourt or any terrain that was not billiard table flat.
@@rickmckee8270 yeah, in that particular battle they weren't moving very fast because the mud was thick and they were eating from all sides, but it wasn't the bowmen that killed them, over 2k were taken prisoner and Henry had his men cut their throats.
"I know, let's make arrowheads out of depleted uranium."
"But, my liege, that hasn't been invented yet!"
Fun fact, arrows penetrate better down range after the paradox settles. This has to do with the spine or stiffness of the arrow. In general, at approx 0-15 yards, you will see less penetration than at 16 and beyond, up to a certain extent of course. In an arrow barrage from distance, say 50-80 yards, medieval archers would have potentially gotten better penetration than at point blank because their arrows would be flying much straighter upon impact. Another factor would be broadhead choice. The golden ratio in arrow heads is 3:1 or the head being 3 times as long as it is wide. This has proven to be optimal for penetration and strength. Man kind through trial and error has always kept their heads near this ratio. Small tweaks are made depending on the intended use.
You are right, on the 14:45 time mark of your video we can see on the light the Lars “armor” deformed in waves like a thin sheet of tin, around the perforation holes. This betrays probable use of a press on thin soft metal, rather than blacksmith’s work on proper metal.
even on top of using poor quality armor there are several other errors in the testing as the plate wouldn't have been the only armor that they wore and the knight would know of the weaknesses so looking at an archers with bow draw i find it likely that he'd place himself so that the parts facing the archer would be those that are more difficult to penetrate or the angle the archer would hit from would be more difficult(such as lowering the head to make it more difficult to hit anything other than the skull cap).
On the point of metal arrows, I once wrote a fantasy story for a friend where one character builds a compound bow made of spring steel and due to the power of the bow used metal arrows so they wouldn't break when shot. Even then it was just something that was used on occasion and not as a main weapon
I recently came across this video too... thanks for the video response, always great to hear your views
Whatever your girlfriend tells you, thickness does matter, for armor.
On a more serious note, Indian smiths do sometimes make very good armor.
Also, those arrows are really sticking out a lot. What is behind it that keeps them from getting further in? Because those look like they wouldn't go deep enough to hurt the person inside.
No mention of the 100 lb "warbow" that they conceded couldn't pierce armor. Anyone using a bow that light would be laughed at unless he was still a growing boy.