A Report of the Findings of the Defence Academy Warbow Trials Part 1 Summer 2005

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie

sArms amp Armour Vol 4 No 1 2007

A report of the findings of the DefenceAcademy warbow trialsPart 1 Summer 2005

Paul Bourke and David Whetham

Cranfield University Kingrsquos College London

In 1992 Peter Jones established a scientific benchmark for the discussion about theeffectiveness of the medieval longbow Since then it has often been employed as the basisfor those seeking to demonstrate compare or contrast or re-evaluate the historical roleplayed by this weapon system While the authors of this paper acknowledge theimportance of Jonesrsquos tests in establishing a foundation for the scientific analysis ofthe effectiveness of the medieval longbow it must also be acknowledged that some of theassumptions in the tests made by Jones are now considered flawed or have otherwise beencalled into question by shifts and developments in historical opinion The aim of thesetests was to complete a series of trials repeating the work done by Jones to a standardthat is satisfactory to traditional archery experts historians blacksmiths and academicsalike allowing a new evaluation of the power and effectiveness of the longbow and itsperformance against armoured targets concurrent with current historical opinions from arange of disciplines Once the tests were completed the team would try and recreate theresults in the laboratory to provide a basis for future testing

Introduction

There has been much debate over many years as to the effectiveness of the latemedieval (14thndash15th century) longbow In addition there has been some wellintentioned but flawed research published by scientists over the past fifteen yearswith little or no grasp of archery or history or worse instances of lsquoTV sciencersquowhere the requirements of televisual narrative appear to have been allowed todictate what is recorded as the outcome of experiments (for example Granada2003)

One of the more respected bodies of work on the effectiveness of the medievalwarbow was a paper published by Peter Jones in 1992 It has since often beenquoted by those seeking to substantiate their arguments with scientific evidenceand has therefore proven to be an influential piece of work in guiding the debate

copy 2007 The Trustees of the Armouries DOI 101179174962607X177436

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie

s54 Bourke and Whetham

surrounding the weapon (eg DeVries 1997 454ndash470) While the authors of thisexperiment acknowledge the importance of Jonesrsquo tests as establishing a founda-tion for the scientific analysis of the effectiveness of the medieval longbow itmust also now be acknowledged that some of the assumptions in the tests madeby Jones are flawed or have otherwise been called into question by shifts anddevelopments in historical opinion

The aim of these trials was to take the Jones tests as a starting point and tomake a new evaluation of the power and effectiveness of the longbow and itsperformance against armoured targets concurrent with current historical opinionsfrom a range of academic historians traditional archery experts and blacksmithsOnce the tests were completed the team would try and recreate the results inthe laboratory to allow more thorough investigation of impact velocities soeffectiveness at various ranges could be determined in a consistent manner as it isextremely difficult and inefficient to conduct such tests at longer ranges in thefield

Review and critique of Jones 1992

For his 1992 paper Jones conducted tests using replica medieval arrows loosedfrom a longbow into various unsupported iron plates at a range of 10 m Thiswork whilst thorough and containing valuable analysis of the metallurgy of someperiod arrowheads is now seen to fall short in a number of areas and can nolonger be accepted as representative of the effectiveness of the medieval warbowThese areas include the style and power of the bow employed the weight of thearrow the choice of arrowhead and the lack of support of the target

Based on current historical opinion it is felt that Jones used far too light a drawweight of bow with a modest drawlength mdash a design similar to Victoriantarget archery bow rather than a medieval warbow The Victorian target bow isthe pre-eminent lsquolongbowrsquo of modern times It has a stiff centre section and limbswhich bend The bow is drawn to the chin (approx 28 in) This makes for aforgiving accurate bow which is not fatiguing to shoot However medievaldesign bows are said to lsquocome compassrsquo A compass bow is one which flexes asone from tip to tip thereby storing more energy as the entire bow is being loadedincluding the area of the hand grip This flex through the grip makes these bowsmore challenging and fatiguing to shoot and is the reason why they are no longercommonly found particularly at heavier draw weights in modern lsquotraditionalarcheryrsquo As a lsquowarbowrsquo these bows are also drawn to the side of the face usuallyin excess of 30q The compass and target longbows are illustrated in figures 1aand b

As a result of the chosen bow the arrows used by Jones were rather small whencompared for example with those found on Henry VIIIrsquos Tudor battleship theMary Rose which had an average shaft length of 30 in (762 cm) Jonesrsquo experi-mental arrows were also roughly 23 of the weight of these arrows (Mary Rose2006) It is now widely believed that the Mary Rose arrows are very similar totheir medieval predecessors Jones also used only a single type of arrowhead mdash a

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie

s55Defence Academy warbow trials

long bodkin known as a Type 7 However this head was of a very specific typesuitable for penetration of only mail or soft armour and which would have beenpractically obsolete by the late 14th century Jones used this head against somequite thick plate armour and unsurprisingly found that the level of penetrationachieved was small The size and weight of these heavier arrows indicate thatthey not only required a very powerful bow to loose them but also that they werecapable of delivering a considerable amount of energy to a target (see Table 1)

Figure 1 (a) Compass bow and (b) target bow (Greenland 2001 13ndash14)

Table 1 Impact energies

Weapon Kinetic energy J

Swordaxe 60ndash1301200 lb 15th century Genoese crossbow2 100Longbow arrow 80Head 1 (Long bodkin) 75Head 2 (Short bodkin) 86Head 3 (Lozenge) 92

Williams 2003 945to nearest Joule

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


The experimental approach used by Jones for target mounting is believed to beless than ideal It was stated (correctly) that flesh on its own puts up relativelylittle resistance to penetration From this it was decided that the presence of fleshbehind the target was also irrelevant Unfortunately this ignores the effect of fleshin supporting the target A target plate supported on a flesh body simulant willbehave differently to an unsupported plate An analogy could be made with tryingto press a pencil through a loose sheet of paper mdash because the paper will moveit can be difficult to penetrate the paper When the paper is backed with some-thing like a soft eraser it becomes far easier to push the pencil through the paperas there is now some resistance against which to push even though the eraseritself provides very little resistance to a sharp pencil on its own It is feltthat supporting an armour plate in a similar way to if it was worn on a body isimportant to understanding the performance of the armour against arrowpenetration In the science of modern body armour testing it has been establishedthat a backing makes a significant difference against ballistic and stabbingperformance (Croft 2003) As a result all police body armour in the UK is testedon a flesh simulating backing because of its effect

Jones also conducted an analysis of the thickness of period armour from thelate 1300s to the late 1400s of German and Italian provenance (Jones 1991 115)This analysis covered several helmets (bascinets) but only a single breastplateJonesrsquo helmet analysis sits well with the opinions of one of the UKrsquos mostexperienced armoursmiths Roy King who corroborates the findings of an extrathick portion at the back of some helmets indicating that this region is a functionof manufacture due to it being the point at which the helmet is drawn outfrom (King 2005) In his magisterial work on metallurgy Williams conducted acomprehensive study of the thickness of later breastplates (front) for bothhorseman and infantry applications (Williams 2003) The breastplates surveyedwere taken from a range of collections from Germany Italy and the UK to givea spectrum of European armour from the late 1400s through to the late 1600sWhilst the later data is not relevant to medieval armour it is included for interest(especially regarding the thickness of certain pieces) Research conducted byWilliams indicates that breastplates from the period of the later part of theHundred Years War and the Wars of the Roses were around 2 mm in thickness(Williams 2003 913ndash915) Other parts of the armour would of course havebeen different thicknesses for example Table 2 details artefact A22 from the

Table 2 Thickness of Wallace collection artefact A22

Location on artefact Thickness mm

Breastplate 13Backplate 10Helmet skull 15Legs 08Shoulders 11Cuisses (thigh) 07Tassets (upper thigh) 08Collar 11

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Wallace Collection (Jones 1995) This information is not included to representsome kind of lsquostandardrsquo but to give a very general idea of the distribution of metalone might find within the same suit of armour

Jones does not comment on the provenance of the armours from which hedraws his hardness data Assuming that this is from the same collection of armourfor which he has thickness data (German and Italian) this leads to an interestingcomparison with research done by Williams on pre-1400 German and Italianarmours (Williams 2003 62ndash65 331ndash332) This research has found armours ofsomewhat higher hardness between 130 and 399 Hv compared with thosearmours tested by Jones of between 100 and 250 Hv for the period 1400ndash1550One of Williamsrsquo findings of additional interest is that English armour from themid to late 1300s is in general quite soft from 108ndash200 Hv with the occurrenceof the occasional exceptionally hard piece of 290 Hv and 430 Hv (Williams 2003731) By the early 1500s armour appears to be somewhat uniformly harderWilliams lists some of Henry VIIIrsquos early armours as ranging from 217 Hv at thebottom end to 295 Hv (Williams 2003 733ndash735) However this variety inarmour hardness is indicative of the problems with research in this area Most ofthe surviving armour available to test are unique pieces in their own right and assuch it is hard to define an lsquoaveragersquo armour from any given period It shouldalso be noted that it is likely that more of the lsquogoodrsquo armour has survived as itwould have been looked after even after it had outlived its usefulness

This project concentrates on plate armour rather than mail for several reasonsThe limitations of mail armours were beginning to become apparent by the 13thcentury (Williams 2003 42 942ndash943) At the same time heavy longbowswere beginning to make their mark on the European battlefield Gerald of Walesdescribes how dangerous facing the longbow was becoming even before the 12thcentury At the siege of Abergavenny in 1182 Gerald famously comments onhow arrows were piercing an oak door 4 in (10 cm) thick In another incident hecomments how a knight was pinned to his horse by an arrow which went thoughhis long mail shirt through to pierce his mail breeches his thigh throughthe wooden saddle and on into the horse (Gerald of Wales 1978 112) Whilstthis sounds similar to the JFK lsquoMagic Bullet Theoryrsquo and no doubt has beenembellished with time the story still gives an idea as to how little protectionagainst arrows mail could give Curry attributes three of the four factors leadingto an increased use of full plate armour in the 15th century to missile weaponsciting the growing use of the longbow by the English the crossbow by theFrench and the trend towards dismounted combat itself a result of the vulner-ability of horses to missile weapons (Curry 2001 422ndash426) Williams commentson the number of links required to make a knee length mail shirt (28ndash50000)and the fact that up to 100 days of labour could be required to make a single shirt(Williams 2003 43) After the Black Death labour costs and thus the cost of acoat of mail increased significantly It appears to the authors that it is valid tobelieve that a point was reached at which plate armour not only offered betterprotection than mail but was also cheaper As such (and as the experimentaltesting of mail requires much effort and expense in procuring suitable test

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


material of the appropriate pattern) Part 1 of this study will look at plate armouronly

Jones concentrates his investigation on the long bodkin (British Museumcategory lsquotype 7rsquo) style of arrowhead this head was in use at the beginning of theHundred Years War but rapidly became obsolete as plate armour became morecommon because it provided good protection against this lsquodelicatersquo arrowhead1The needle bodkin was therefore rapidly superseded by a shorter stouter (lsquotype10rsquo) bodkin and more bespoke lozengendashshaped plate piercing arrowheads as theHundred Years War progressed As in any arms race as soon as a weapon forcesthe development of an armour to protect against it a new weapon to defeat thenew armour will be born out of necessity There is however evidence of thesesupposedly obsolete long bodkin arrowheads being in use far longer than thedevelopments in armour might suggest In addition to this bodkin arrows of adecidedly unfeasible length also exist for example one is a full 14 cm in lengthsurely too fragile to achieve penetration through plate armour of any thickness(Jones 1992 113) Heads of this length will fail due to buckling and this is almosta certainty with an oblique impact inducing a bending moment in the slenderhead A square and true impact will also fail the arrowhead by buckling if theplate is sufficiently strong enough to resist initial penetration This continuedoccurrence of long bodkin arrowheads which are inferior to require morematerial and take longer to manufacture than short lsquoType 10rsquo bodkins may beexplained by work and exhaustive testing carried out by Stretton who makesthe fascinating suggestion that this type of arrowhead was used as the core forcreating very effective fire arrows (Stretton 2005b 16ndash20)

Arrowheads themselves are exceptionally difficult to quantify in terms of qual-ity relative to one another not only due to the wide ranging design sub-groupsbut also the variance within each sub-group What investigation has been donehas often concentrated on hardness and microstructure This is a fair way ofgrading the material quality as it has been known from an early time thatthe hardness of an arrowhead is important for its performance In 14056 therewas an Act of Parliament passed by King Henry IV which would commit anarrowsmith to jail should his products be found to be soft (Starley 2000 179)There has been a limited degree of testing of this type on extant arrow headsReferring to small broadheads Jones says lsquoThe blade is always hard typically 350Vickers Hardness Numberrsquo (Jones 1992 112) Practical tests by Starley on periodcrossbow and arrow heads found levels of hardness ranging from 100ndash250 Hv(Starley 2000 178ndash186) Testing by Bourke Whetham amp Stretton have foundhardnesses of 105ndash158 Hv in a larger lozenge-shaped medieval arrowhead(Bourke Whetham Stretton 2005) However there is very little data on longlsquoType 7rsquo bodkins The process used to manufacture these arrowheads suggeststhat they could be quite hard especially at the tip due to the forging process

Test equipment

Bow The heavy draw-weight bow used was hickory backed lsquocompassrsquo yew asopposed to being self yew This is a concession to reliability as a result of the

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


scarcity of suitable quality yew It has a draw weight of 140 lb at 32 in and has astrung length of 80 in This is a well shot bow and has come down from a lsquonewrsquoweight of 160 lb Jones used a bow with a draw weight of 70 lb at 28 in This wasa modern style of longbow (figure 2) influenced by Victorian designs andshooting technique (stiff handle for a forgiving loose upright stance straight drawto the face as opposed to a lsquofull compass bow canted stance draw past the face)Current historical opinion backed up by the Mary Rose findings support aweight of between 90 and 150lb and a drawlength of around 30 in

Modern bow string materials were used in preference to a more traditional silkhemp string It is felt that this is a justified concession to practicality Consideringthe draw weights and arrow weights being used any benefit afforded by alightweight string material is likely to be so small that it can be ignored If thesetests were using a modern target recurve bow with light weight and quick-actinglimbs then string weight would be of importance

Arrow shafts (figure 3 andashc) are 315-in-long aspen 7 in Turkey pinion flightsstring bound 1-in horn nock insert in accord with the British Long-Bow Societystandard arrow based on findings from the Mary Rose (British Long-Bow Society2001) Ash is considered to be an lsquoidealrsquo arrow-shaft material in terms of strengthto weight and durability The use of aspen was not expected to perform signifi-cantly better than ash and is still a historically correct material The arrows usedby Jones were roughly 23 of the weight of these arrows and as such the arrowsused here will carry significantly more kinetic energy than those used by Jones Anumber of identical arrows were made for the purposes of this testing All wereshot before the test to confirm their consistency

Figure 2 Mark Stretton with his 140-lb bow

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


All arrowheads were made by experts with a large degree of professionalexperience The heads were made from Victorian iron The lozenge arrowheadwas intentionally hardened using a traditional technique of heating in a pot ofbonemeal Lozenge heads like these were in use from the end of the HundredYears War and were employed throughout the Wars of the Roses They aresimilar in appearance to heads commonly found on crossbow bolts (figures 4ndash6)

Figure 3andashc Arrow shafts

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Hot-melt glue was used to allow testing to continue should the arrows or arrowheads be damaged The main heads used for the testing (lozenge and shortbodkin) were kept as a constant and a number of identical arrows were availablefor maintenance The use of a hot-melt glue as opposed to a more conventionalhard-setting glue raised issues which will be discussed later

Armour

The initial thicknesses of armour were chosen to reflect those used by Jones a flatplate is employed as it is somewhat more scientific than shooting at a breastplate(where the angle of impact obliquity can vary wildly making consistency difficult)The iron available today is generally of Victorian provenance In general thismaterial is of a poorer quality than that which would have been used in the 14thcentury as it was mass produced with low emphasis on quality Higher-endmaterial (such as charcoal-rolled iron) is somewhat more refined as it is closer inquality to medieval iron It was important that some of this expensive materialwas tested to allow the results to be as relevant as possible to medieval materials

Jones annealed his armour plates The authors believe that it would bedetrimental to the performance of a metallic armour system to be in a softened

Figure 4 Head 1 Long bodkin (similar to lsquoType 7rsquo) 71 g 315 in from nock to start of arrowhead Ash shaft bobtailed (12 in head 38 in at nock) Vickers hardness 190ndash200 Hv (Tip isharder approx 300 Hv) Head Araldited on This was the arrow head type originally employed

by Jones

Figure 5 Head 2 Short bodkin (similar to Type 10) 70 g 315 in from nock to start of arrowhead Vickers hardness 230ndash250 Hv aspen shaft bobtailed (12 in head 38 in at nock)

Arrowhead attached with hotmelt glue (see text)

Figure 6 Head 3 lozenge 87 g 315 in from nock to start of arrow head Vickers hardness480ndash500 Hv (hardened in bonemeal) aspen shaft bobtailed (12 in head 38 in at nock) The

lozenge head is a long heavy diamond bodkin Arrowhead attached with hotmelt glue

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


state rather than a hard one The likelihood of any medieval armour intentionallysoftening his product seems unlikely and as a result of this all plates tested in thiswork will be in as supplied condition (figures 7ndash9)

Figure 7 Metal plate 1


Figure 9a Plate micro ID b Vickers machine

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Metallurgy of target plates

The thinnest plate tested also appears to be the hardest This is thought to be dueto working of the metal by rolling to final thickness Conventional ballisticarmour theory suggests that the harder the armour is relative to the projectile thebetter it is Therefore metal plate 1 (figure 7) is the lsquobest qualityrsquo material of thattested

Microstructure

The aim of this section is to observe the size and structure of the iron comprisingthe target plates By performing microscopic examination any quality issues suchas slag inclusions etc will be visible

Method

Small samples from each material tested were taken and encapsulated within abakelite cylinder (figure 9) The samples were encapsulated in such a way thatobservations could be performed on the flat struck face The thickest materialtested was also included in bakelite in such a way that the through thicknessstructure could be examined Once encapsulated the bakelite cylinder is groundtill the samples are flat and flush with the cylinderrsquos surface After this the surfaceis ground with a diamond suspension abrasive fluid down to a surface coarsenessof 3 microm Following this the surface is polished and etched in lsquoNitalrsquo a nitric acidbased mixture The result of this process is that the grain structure and internalfeatures of the material is shown in sufficient contrast to be observed

Thin puddle iron (figure 10) has a reasonably large grain size there issome slag distributed throughout the iron with some localised concentrationsCharcoal-rolled iron (figure 11) has a small regular grain size some slag

Figure 10 Thin puddle wrought iron 115 mm good quality Victorian provenance Vickershardness 206 Hv (max 221 min 191) microstructure large irregular grains slag inclusionsIron ore smelted in coke furnace to cast iron then furnaced and reheated to remove impurities

through stirring (about 98 pure iron with slag) (left x20 right x50)

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


deposits Carbon content estimated below 01 In thick puddle iron(figure 12) there does not appear to be much difference in grain size betweenthis plate and the thinnest plate However there does appear to more slag

Composition

These spectra taken from samples of the target plates give a general assessmentof the material used for testing More detailed investigation is possible howeverat this stage the general quality of the target iron is of interest

The overview of the thin puddle iron (figure 13) shows that it is fairlyclean and free from significant amounts of slag the presence of trace amounts ofphosphorus can be seen Investigation of slag deposits has found typical amounts

Figure 11 Charcoal-rolled wrought iron 195ndash2 mm probably similar to medieval quality about99 pure iron with slag Vickers hardness 180 Hv (max 187 min 170) Microstructure fine

regular grain structure with few slag inclusions Good quality strong material This wouldprobably represent some of the thickest parts of the breastplate

Figure 12 Thick puddle wrought iron 325 mm As 115 mm plate but of lesser quality (requirednumerous attempts to get good hardness readings due to inconsistencies) Vickers hardness 172 Hv

(max 182 min 163) Microstructure large amounts of slag inclusions the through thicknessstructure of the material is lamina in its appearance

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


of silicon phosphorus sulphur and small amounts of manganese Some smalliron oxide deposits were also found at grain boundaries indicating that this maybe recycled material or have been made in a dirty environment These depositsalso had large amounts of silicon and calcium which are likely to have beenintroduced through the smelting process

The overview of the charcoal-rolled iron (figure 14) shows it to be cleanerthan the puddle iron previously discussed There is a trace of silicon visible butotherwise there are few impurities The carbon content is notable Carbon is thehardest element to detect using this technique and as can be seen is significantlymore prominent than seen in the puddle iron

From the overview spectrum of thick puddle iron (figure 15) it can be seenthat the presence of silicon and phosphorus impurities indicates the presence ofslag The slag deposits were in general very dirty containing very significantamounts of silicon phosphorous calcium manganese oxygen (in the form ofoxides) and even chlorine

Testing and results

Jones made no allowance for the armour to be supported by a body as if itwas being worn lsquoNo allowance was made for ballistic resistance of flesh becausethe medical advice was that it is extremely smallrsquo (Jones 1992 115) This

Figure 13 Thin puddle overview

Figure 14 Charcoal rolled overview

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


statement was made on the basis of a single private communication with a profes-sor of forensic medicine but it appears to have been applied without takinginto account the context of the experiment The ballistic resistance of flesh itselfrelative to that of the plate is indeed small However what is not accountedfor is the support that flesh would give a plate (see above) The clay backinglsquoPlastalinarsquo being used in these tests is the closest that can be obtained to ahuman torso (short of using prohibitively expensive instrumented crash testdummies) and is an oil-based flesh-simulating clay used in modern day policebody armour testing against ballistic and knife threats The compliance of thisclay models that of the rib cage as a whole and has a similar resistance to fleshObviously a strike on bone will not be simulated by this arrangement This clayis a standard simulant developed for body armour testing and to be valid for thepolice testing standard (PSDB) this backing has to be used at an elevatedtemperature in this case 35degC to provide the correct degree of resistance There-fore the blocks need to be changed after spending approx an hour outside of theheating oven as their temperature (and their compliance) will change over time

Target plates were mounted on 90 mm depth of Plastalina at 35degC in awooden backless frame (the backed steel box was quickly discarded as a test itemafter it was found that arrow penetrations were deeper than the box thicknesshence the arrow heads were striking the back of the box and giving falsereadings) Once the arrow velocity had been clearly established for each arrowtype the remaining figures were taken as representative rather than reconfirmedat each test Impact energies were calculated using the standard equationKE=frac12mv2 where KE is kinetic energy (J) m is mass (kg) v is velocity (ms)

Arrow 1 (long bodkin) was the first arrow retired from the test (Table 3)due to repeated damage to the point caused by failure to penetrate As the leasteffective arrowhead type this was not a significant issue The shattering of arrow2 (short bodkin) against the 2-mm plate at 60deg was near the end of the dayrsquosshoot and it had already performed very effectively (although slightly outper-formed by the lozenge) We did not determine whether or not it would have beenable to defeat the 115 mm plate at 60deg although the authors are confident that itwould have achieved this along with the lozenge based on previous performanceand similar characteristics

Figure 15 Thick puddle overview

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Repeat of penetration tests in laboratory

For test 2 (Table 4) sponge sabots were placed around the nock end of the arrowto provide a seal for the compressed air canon Efforts were made to ensure thatthis provided a lsquopushrsquo force from the correct part of the arrow The nock wasflush with the back of buffer with a pin used to equate to string The front bungwas 70 mm from the front of the socket

Discussion

MetallurgyThe hardness of the plates tested in this experiment falls in the lower half ofthe hardness range of period armours which have previously been tested This isespecially the case when compared with later medieval and early modern armourswhere even the hardest of the plates used here would be softer than the softest ofHenry VIIIrsquos armours This is important as the hardness of an armour is one ofits prime methods of defeating a projectile Jones annealed his plates to the fullysoftened condition and it is therefore anticipated that his plates were softer thanthe plates used in this work

The 2 mm thick plate tested was lsquocharcoal-rolledrsquo rather than puddle iron andtherefore had a far finer and more regular grain structure This is better thansome of the grain structures seen in some 15th century and earlier plates butat the same time worse than that seen in some later pieces This plate is also

Table 4 Test 2 Laboratory1

Arrow head Weight Velocity Target Kinetic Penetrationg ms thickness energy mm

mm J

2 Short bodkin 70 50 115 875 8022 Short bodkin 70 492 115 847 802 Short bodkin 70 478 2 80 ndash33 Lozenge 87 4287 115 799 703 Lozenge 87 421 115 771 703 Lozenge 87 444 115 858 9043 Lozenge 87 4384 115 836 713 Lozenge 87 4384 2 836 1253 Lozenge 87 4324 2 813 363 Lozenge 87 4324 2 813 1073 Lozenge 87 4324 2 813 1073 Lozenge 87 4776 2 992 137

1For these and all subsequent shots absolute max velocity measurement error=26220 mm less than achieved by the bow although velocity and therefore kinetic energy was higher3No penetration bounced out and dulled tip Bow had same result except managed to penetrate 9 mm4Suspect result as the arrow struck very close to previous hole in the plastalina clay5Penetrated 12 mm but bounced out Bow managed 16 mm and remained in target6Dented plate and bounced off Not seen as representative as arrow sabots believed to be wearing andleaking air so replaced7Dented plate and bounced out Bow managed 16 mm and remained in target

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


not especially hard Jones comments on seeing spall from his armour and this isinteresting as his plates were annealed and therefore relatively soft a conditionwhich does not lend itself to spallation There was no evidence of spall from thematerials tested in this work However due to the backing it was not possible tosee any spall from the rear face

The micrographs of 15th and 16th century breastplates in Jones (Jones 1992114) and Starley (Starley 2000 181) show a microstructure which is somewhatfiner than the iron used in this trial This suggests that the penetrations achievedagainst the armour thicknesses tested would be less impressive against betterquality medieval armour While starting from the position that much of thearmour that has survived to today is the lsquocream of the croprsquo and that muchmunition or low-grade armour has been lost to time or recycled the authors alsoaccept the observation made by eminent metallurgist Alan Williams who notedthat even the best plate tested here is only of munitions-grade 15th centuryarmour and that Milanese suits of this period would have been of substantiallybetter quality accounting for their popularity (Williams 2006)

The arrowheads used are of varying hardness but in general it appears that thehardness of the modern replica arrowheads is slightly greater than the periodpieces The hardness of heads 1 and 2 is equivalent to the very hardest of theheads tested by Starley (Starley 2000 182ndash184) Head 3 is especially hard butthis head was intentionally surface hardened The difference in these findingsmay be due to the fact that any surface hardening of the period arrowheads testedhas been lost due to corrosion over time Jones comments that the hardness ofthe blade portion of the small broadheads was 350 Hv and one might surmisethat hardened heads for defeating medieval armour may have been at least ashard (Jones 1992 112) As a result of his conclusions Jones heat-treated all hisarrowheads to 350 Hv significantly harder than the heads used in this trial Fromthe investigations of period pieces this is considered to be sound practice aslong needle bodkins require a lot of working to achieve their final shape This isusually accompanied with an increase in hardness in the highly worked areas dueto the resulting fine grain structure It is assumed that designs which required lesswork will consequently be softer (and also therefore less brittle)

Penetration testsSeveral of the arrows on impact bounced out of the target plate or achievedpoor penetrations It was observed that after these impacts the socket of thearrowhead had opened up and the arrow forced into the head It was concludedthat the hot melt glue (used to allow quick changing of arrowheads) was toosoft for purpose There was general agreement amongst the test team that noexamples of period arrowheads had been found with this sort of socket damageThe arrowheads were re-attached using an epoxy resin glue which gave a strongerjoint and no further sockets were forced open Penetration was then improvedwith those arrow heads Stretton has completed some interesting tests on this areaand concludes that the kinetic energy stored in an arrow is normally transmitteddirectly to the head Where no glue is present the socket is more likely to slip upthe taper of the shaft forcing the socket open and taking energy away from thearrowrsquos attempts to pierce and drive through the plate (Stretton 2006)

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Figure 16 Type 7 headed arrow yawing as it approaches target plate

Against the thinnest plate tested (115 mm ie 015 mm thicker than the plateJones used) penetrations were more than double that which Jones recorded(for all heads tested) Against the medium plate (2 mm the same as Jones but ofsignificantly better quality charcoal-rolled iron) Head 1 (long bodkin) failed topenetrate unlike Jonesrsquos work where 11 mm of penetration was achieved This isexpected to be due to two factors firstly the target plate was significantly betterthan that used by Jones and secondly the use of a heavier bow and faster arrowspeeds overpowered and buckled the arrow head rather than penetratingthe armour Jonesrsquo Long bodkin had approx 60 of the kinetic energy (KE) ofthe long bodkin used in these tests (the rest of the arrows used here have approxi-mately double the KE of Jonesrsquo arrow) The failure of the arrowhead occurswhen a slender column is loaded in compression (such as a needle bodkin with anormal impact against plate) as it has a tendency to buckle A column willhave a lsquocritical buckling loadrsquo below which it will not buckle and fail (and thuscontinue to apply force to the armour leading to penetration) Above this loadthe column will buckle and as soon as this occurs the strength of the column ismassively reduced and the column fails rather than penetrating the armour Assoon as an arrow strike is not perfectly normal to the plate the head will bucklefar more quickly At a range of 10 m the yaw of the arrow due to the lsquoarchersparadoxrsquo effect is still strong enough to cause a non-normal impact (figure 16)

However the correct heads for piercing of plate armour performed wellwith the lozenge (Head 3) performing the best although the really significantpenetrations still only occurred against the 115 mm plate Against the thickestplate (3 mm) neither Jonesrsquo tests nor those detailed in this paper succeeded inpenetrating the armour

As discussed above the thickest part of a breastplate is likely to be around2 mm though this is variable (see Table 2 for artefact A22 in the Wallacecollection no part is thicker than 15 mm) If the breastplate is made of particu-larly good iron the penetrations achieved in their own right are unlikely to befatal If the breastplate has thinner regions or indeed is of a thinner metal all over(as plenty of examples are) the penetrations recorded in this work would certainlyprove disabling or fatal Despite the possibility of a non lethal arrow strike ona thick breastplate a heavily armoured solider brought to the ground by a non-lethal arrow impact in a muddy chaotic battlefield would find his chances ofsurvival severely impaired Additionally the energy carried by the arrows testedis so significant that even a non-penetrating impact in the right place might besufficient to cause death by blunt trauma due to internal injuries (see Table 1)

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


The data recorded during these tests corroborates the figures quoted byWilliams very well indeed The Health and Safety Executive lists an impact of 80Jas a level of energy sufficient to cause death by blunt trauma (ie a non penetrat-ing impact) (Health and Safety Executive 2002) Whilst a breastplate is likelyto dissipate this somewhat there is still a good chance of a serious injury from anon-penetrating impact Against the 2 mm charcoal rolled iron plates there is verylittle deformation around the impact site indicating that there is relativelylittle energy absorbed by the impact rather it is transferred to the breastplate andtherefore on to the wearer This energy is obviously spread over a fair area andthe type of padding or undergarment worn may also have a significant effecthowever it evidently could potentially still be dangerous

Repeat of penetration tests in labIt is interesting to note that the attempt at re-creating arrow penetration in alab environment has so far failed to accurately simulate real world testingFor example experiments conducted for a the 2003 series Battlefield Detectivesinvolved lsquodroppingrsquo the arrow head onto sheets of metal in an attempt to simulatearrow strikes against armour (Granada 2003) Unsurprisingly these tests lsquoprovedrsquothat the longbow was ineffective ignoring the fact that the wrong arrowhead wasemployed (a long bodkin rather than the short armour-piercing bodkin found onthe battlefield) the armour was backed with a solid piece of wood rather thansomething that could simulate a person and that simply dropping an arrowheadonto a metal plate in no way replicates the action of the bow even if the sameenergy levels can be achieved in this way The Defence Academy test teamwanted to see if it was possible to provide a more realistic laboratory test thatwould at least take into account the above factors

In this spirit it was decided for the tests to employ a compressed air cannon asit could be calibrated to reproduce the same velocity consistently while at leastallowing the arrow to lsquoflyrsquo However even employing this technology the arrowsconsistently failed to achieve the same degree of penetration that the bowpropelled arrows managed There was a small degree of velocity error ndash the testswith Head 3 (lozenge) were on average 3 ms (10 fts) slower than the velocitiesrecorded out of the bow however this is small error (less than 6) and is notexpected to be wholly responsible for the differences seen This is backedup with the tests using Head 2 (short bodkin) where speed error was close to05 ms (16 fts) Here the same reduced penetration for the lab tests wasrecorded

Whilst the air cannon trials replicate the arrow speed to sufficient accuracy itdoes not replicate a bow propelled arrow in terms of acceleration characteristicsthe flex of the arrow is not the same and nor is the axial rotation of the arrow dueto the spin stabilisation of the fletchings An interesting phenomenon recorded bythe high speed camera was that bow propelled arrows rarely struck the targetstraight and square mdash there was often a visible degree of yaw to the arrow Thisyawing is due to the effect known as the lsquoArchers Paradoxrsquo caused by the simplefact that the arrow has to travel around the bow stave Whereas the string returnsto the centre of the bow obviously the arrow has to go past the bow to continue

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Figure 17 Type 7 headed arrow fired from cannon not yawing as it approaches target plate (thefront sponge sabot can be seen preceding arrow)

on to the target At first inertia causes the arrow to buckle while the bow pushesthe arrow head to one side The arrow shaft begins to vibrate and it is herethat it is so important that the arrow has the correct spine (flexibility) so that itcan recover from this and straighten out in flight as soon as possible With heavydraw weight bows (say over 90 lb) matching spine is of less importance than theneed for an arrow to lsquostand-inrsquo the bow (ie be strong enough to withstand theconsiderable forces applied to the arrow) As a result the bending of the shaft andparadox is reduced because of the necessary stiffness of the arrow however ayawing will still take place because of the effect of shooting around the handle(Greenland 2001 2ndash3) At which point this deviation in lsquocleanrsquo flight dies out isyet to be determined by further testing

In contrast to this effect all arrows propelled by the air cannon travelledstraight and struck the target square (figure 17) It appears valid to conclude thatwhilst counterintuitive the angle of strike not being exactly 90deg might actuallycontribute to the effectiveness of the arrowhead penetration in some way whencombined with the acceleration profile spin and oscillation Clearly more testsare required on this phenomenon

Conclusions

The longbow tests carried out by Jones in 1992 provided an important referencepoint for debates about the effectiveness of the medieval weapon The intentionof the 2005 Defence Academy Warbow Tests was to bring Jonesrsquo tests up to datewith contemporary opinion regarding the type and power of the medieval bowweight of arrow type of arrow head and the way the target itself was supportedIt was then attempted to recreate these results under laboratory conditions

Metallurgical examination of the Victorian iron plate available for modern daytesting indicates that it is of poorer quality than medieval plate Surviving armourin general appears to be somewhat harder than the plate available to test Char-coal-rolled iron plate is a better representation of better quality medieval armouralthough it would still not compare with the best Milanese armour Modernreplica arrowheads appear to be a fair representation of good quality original

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


arrowheads although it is unknown how hard average period arrow heads wereor whether they would have been routinely surfacecase hardened with the addi-tional work this would have entailed The replica arrowhead which was intention-ally hardened using traditional methods is significantly harder than those periodpieces tested The techniques required to harden metals to this extent werecertainly known about at the time so this could be due to surface hardening beinglost (perhaps up to 1 mm) over time due to heavy corrosion

Against thinner plate (~1 mm) likely to be found in many areas of a suit ofarmour penetrations of 80 mm or so into flesh can be expected with any of thearrowhead types tested Against thicker plate (~2 mm) likely to be found on thefront of the breastplate penetrations achieved are unlikely to be fatal in their ownright however the energy of the impact may still be lethal (further tests arerequired) Against thick plate (~3 mm) likely to be found only on the thickestparts of the breastplate and helmet penetrations are unlikely The effect of thearmour quality on the penetration performance is something that deserves moretests However for the thinnest of the plates tested here this factor in theauthorsrsquo opinion is of less significance than the thicker plates simply due to thehuge degree of overmatch After the initial penetration the shape of the arrowhead means that there is little arrowarmour contact until penetration reaches upthe socket of the arrowhead By the time the penetration has reached most ofthe way up the socket the hole in the armour will be almost fully developed andas such the only influence of iron on slowing the arrow will be due to frictionbetween the shaft and the plate

The long bodkin arrow (Head 1 Type 7) is effective against thin armourhowever as the thickness increases the effectiveness of this arrowhead reducesrapidly until a point at which it fails by buckling rather than penetrating Jonesactually achieved better results using this type of arrow head with a lighter arrowshot from a lighter bow and it is believed that a heavier bow just overpowers thistype of head The short bodkin (Head 2 Type 10) performed significantly betterthan the long bodkin against metal plates either in this test or in the originalJones 1992 tests and demonstrated the ability to punch through to a lethal depthagainst thinner plate at an oblique angle of at least up to 40deg The lozenge-shapedhead penetrated the thinner plate even at an extreme oblique angle of 60deg (if thetest arrows had survived it may have been possible that the short bodkin wouldalso have been able to achieve this degree of penetration) Clearly both the shortbodkin and the lozenge arrow heads performed significantly better than theresults achieved back in 1992 Arrow heads that were securely glued on to thearrow shaft outperformed those that were merely hotmelted on and it was alsoclearly established that war arrows loosed from a heavy bow possess a significantamount of energy and are theoretically capable of killing by blunt trauma aloneshould enough energy be applied to a critical area

Some questions arose as to the distance of the test At a range of 10 m thearrow flight has not fully stabilised and therefore this may have a detrimentaleffect on impact performance However the decreased performance of the testarrows in the laboratory when shot at similar velocities may indicate that strikingthe target lsquosquarersquo is less important than other factors such as arrow spin stored

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


energy in the arrow shaft or even the effects of the Archerrsquos Paradox itself Thisraises some intriguing questions (to be explored in future tests) that show thatlaboratory testing is not currently suitable for simulation of arrow impacts or foraccurately gauging the effectiveness of the medieval warbow

Acknowledgements

The project co-ordinators were David Whetham (Kingrsquos College London) PaulBourke (Cranfield University) and Hilary Greenland (bowyer and fletcherSPTA) The test team comprised Mark Stretton (heavy bow expert blacksmithand fletcher) Hector Cole (master arrowsmith and archaeological blacksmith)and Hugh Soar (archery historian) Thanks are due to Roy King (consultantarmourer) Dr Ian Horsfall James Shattock and the Bashforth Laboratory

Notes

1 The British Museum numbering system introduced in 1940 and commonly used forthe categorisation of arrowhead types is now considered to be slightly misleading(Ward-Perkins 1940 65ndash73) The Jessop numbering system introduced in 1996 is nowconsidered to be more useful (Jessop 1996 192ndash205) However to avoid any confusionthe arrowheads used in this work are described individually below with photographs withsimilarities to convention being noted

2 Williams quotes work by McEwen suggesting a 200-J limit for crossbow bolts based onexperiments using a modern crossbow (Williams 2003 919) No data is available for thevelocity of the Payne-Gallwey Genoese bow but using the weight data provided andestimating a 50 ms velocity (similar to our longbow) energy has been calculated by stan-dard formulae Due to the 18-lb weight of this weapon it is unlikely to have been commonon the battlefield

References

Bourke P D Whetham and M Stretton 2005 Analysis of medieval arrowhead un-published report Defence Academy of the UK Cranfield

British Longbow Society 2001 Rules of shooting 4th Edition Annex B 11 RotherhamFactandfiction

Croft J 2003 PSDB Body armour standards for UK Police Pt 2 ballistic performance Publica-tion Number 703B Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch

Curry A 2001 The Hundred Years War in Holmes R (Ed) Oxford Companion to MilitaryHistory Oxford Oxford University Press

DeVries K 1997 Catapults are not atomic bombs towards a redefinition of lsquoeffectivenessrsquo inpremodern military technology War in History 4 454ndash470

Gerald of Wales 1978 Journey through Wales and the description of Wales Translated by LThorpe Harmondsworth Penguin

Greenland H 2001 The traditional archerrsquos handbook a practical guide Bristol Sylvan ArcheryGranada 2003 Battlefield detectives Agincourt 1415 Grenada Television Product for Five and

the Learning ChannelHardy R 1986 Longbow a social and military history London Patrick Stephens LtdHolmes R 2002 (commentary in) Royal Armouries Arms in Action Series II Bow Yorkshire

TV LeedsJessop O 1996 A new artefact typology for the study of medieval arrowheads Medieval

Archaeology XL 192ndash205

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Jones P 1992 The metallography and relative effectiveness of arrowheads and armor duringthe Middle Ages Materials Characterization 29 111ndash117

Jones P 1995 The target In Hardy R Longbow a social and military history Appendix 3London Patrick Stephens Ltd

King R private communication with authorsMary Rose Trust 2006 Electronic archive wwwmaryroseorgmary_rose_archivehtmlMonstrelet 1840 The chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet Vol 1 Translated by T Johnes

LondonPayne-Gallwey R 1995 The book of the crossbow Dover PublicationsRees G 1993 The longbowrsquos deadly secrets New Scientist 5 June issue 1876 24Soar H 2004 The crooked stick a history of the longbow Pennsylvania Westholme PublishingStarley D 2000 Metallurgical analysis of medieval quarrel heads and arrowheads Royal

Armouries Yearbook 5 Leeds Royal Armouries 178ndash186Stretton M 2005 Practical tests mdash part 2 The Glade No 108 52ndash56Stretton M 2005b Fire arrows The Glade No 109 16ndash20Stretton M 2006 Practical tests mdash Part 4 The Glade No111Strickland M and Hardy R 2005 The great warbow from Hastings to the Mary Rose Stroud

SuttonUK Health and Safety Executive 2002 Controlling risks around explosive stores review of the

requirements for separation distances London HMSOWard-Perkins JB 1940 London Museum medieval catalogue London HMSOWaurin J 1868 Anchiennes croniques Vol II ed ELCP Hardy London LongmansWilliams A 2003 The knight and the blast furnace a history of the metallurgy of armour in the

middle ages and the early modern period Leiden BrillWilliams A 2006 Private correspondence with the authors dated 111006

CommentsKelly DeVries

Department of History Loyola College Baltimore MDReply

David Whetham and Paul Bourke

The following comments by Professor DeVries on the above paper are addressed in turnby the authors and are published here (with references to the page numbers of the paperand to the list of references at the end of the paper) in order to provide additional insightinto the study

DeVries As the authors say at the beginning of this article several historians sincehave used the 1992 experiments conducted by Peter Jones to justify their ownwork But they are also in need of review and updating especially as the study oflongbow archery use and effectiveness has produced some interesting mdash andsometimes controversial mdash results Now I should say from the outset that I havea few problems with some of the methodology used by the team making thisreport as will become somewhat clear below but having said this I actually thinkthat it is important to publish any new results so long as they follow the rigour ofthese tests thus allowing the debate over effectiveness to continue

The debate is here in this article too although the authors in stating theirthesis indicate only a willingness to revisit Jonesrsquos findings I do have a slight

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


criticism of this as by the time one reaches their conclusions it becomes clear thatin fact they claim not only to have revisited Jones but to have proved the lethalityof longbow archery even if no penetration of armour occurred They also claimto have shown that the bows used by English archers at the end of the MiddleAges were very heavy some 120ndash140 lb This is not entirely surprising as inusing Mark Stretton and others who have biases towards these heavy pull bowsit might appear that such a thesis was preconceived before the tests began Noris it surprising in that the authors sometimes dismiss methodologies withoutdetailed reasons which at least from the text at hand seems to show somewhatmanipulated results to support their preconceptions Hence my criticismsBourke amp Whetham The purpose of the 2005 tests was to revisit the excellentgroundwork done by Jones back in 1992 and bring it up to date To do this ateam was assembled that would allow us to draw upon more than simplyacademic experience It consisted of experts in their fields as blacksmithsbowyers fletchers physicists and archery historians After reviewing Jonesrsquos workwe agreed to use an appropriate heavier bow of the right design the correctarrow design and weight to match the bow (the bow and the arrows have tobe lsquomatchedrsquo or they do not work efficiently) the correct arrow head (ratherthan an obsolete and mismatched head designed for a different purpose) againsta properly supported target plate

There were of course still some limitations to these tests One of the mainones being not having a real suit of medieval armour on a real person to shootagainst (of course we would need a representative suit in itself a whole area ofdebate and several weeks to allow the consistency of the shooting in each sectionof the armour and allow for the repairs between each shot) The enormous prob-lems associated with addressing all of the potential difficulties led us to acceptmuch of Jonesrsquos original methodology mdash specifically metal plates shot at 10 mthen angled to provide an increasingly oblique surface for accurate and consistentmeasurements The metallurgical analysis of the target plates was then providedOur second series of tests done in 2006 (to be published in the next editionof Arms and Armour) do employ a range of bows from 110ndash150 lb shot at anumber of differing ranges to provide a broader spread of results and we are alsohoping to secure funding for another series of tests against some replica armourspecially forged using appropriate methods and materials However back in2005 we had to start somewhere

We are a little more concerned with the charge of manipulating results mdash muchof DeVriesrsquo criticism seems to be aimed at our assumption that heavier bows werethe norm The authors accept that there is a healthy debate about the effective-ness of the medieval warbow but we are also surprised that people still contendthat professional archers in the late middle ages might have been using such alight weapon The Tudor period bows recovered from Henry VIIIrsquos flagship theMary Rose have an average length of 78q and estimated pull weights of 100ndash180 lb (Pratt in Hardy 1986 209ndash217) The argument for smaller bows is neitherborn out by the evidence (some more of which is addressed below) or commonsense Both of the authors (hardly the most athletic of specimens mdash Paul weighs

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


in at under 10 st) happily pull a 70-lb medieval-style self-yew bow on the type ofirregular basis that most amateurs today have to settle for This is a heavy pull forus but we donrsquot do this professionally With eight hours of daily practice a gooddiet and the incentive of a continued salary it is difficult to see why a professionalmedieval archer would stick to something this light when he had the capability ofpulling a larger bow with its greater range and penetrating power Our test archerMark Stretton routinely pulls 150 lb or more The technology does not get morecomplicated to make a bigger bow Do people really think that someone capableof pulling a lsquorealrsquo bow like this would be happy with such a 70 lb lsquotoyrsquo whentheir livelihood (and life) depended upon it In short the bowyers feel these bowscan be made the archers demonstrate such bows can be shot and the historiansgenerally agree that the archers were well paid professionals rather than thewizened and weak peasants portrayed by HollywoodDeVries The statement at the bottom of p 54 that lsquoIt is now widely believed thatthe Mary Rose arrows are very similar to their medieval predecessorsrsquo needs areference As the Westminster arrow is of similar size this may well be accuratebut without a date on the Westminster arrow and the late dates of the Mary RoseI think the statement is too bold without some substantiationBourke amp Whetham Relevant references are Rees (1993) and Strickland amp Hardy(2005 27) Moreover why would the arrows be significantly different The onlyextant archaeological evidence shows arrows of this length If someone believesthat at the height of the weaponrsquos popularity it was less effective because thearrows used were smaller (thus indicating a smaller bow and the resulting reduc-tion in power etc) surely the onus is on them to prove this as this goes againstthe extant evidenceDeVries I appreciate the team using something to represent skin in these tests(p 56) but what about other clothes or padding Armour was not placed onskin alone and all layers need to be factored into the tests mdash also probably thepotential movement of all of these layers in imitation of a man in battle Againthese omissions should not keep the findings from being published but a reasonwhy one layer was imitated but not the others might keep readers such as mefrom worrying about the incompleteness of the test targetsBourke amp Whetham The Plastalina was not for representing the penetrativeresistance of flesh but rather to assess the penetration of the plates themselveswhen supported by a human torso It was also hoped that we could determine thelevel of trauma behind the armour but this proved difficult to assess so the teamemployed a Behind Armour Blunt Trauma (BABT) rig for the next series of testsAdditional layers of cloth protection beneath the plates may or may not make adifference To determine this further tests are required and we look forward tobeing able to do this We also would love to know how to imitate the movementof a man in battle for future testsDeVries Is the softness of English armour (p 56) relevant without a similarindication of continental European armour softness especially as most Englisharrows were shot at those targetsBourke amp Whetham Williams (2003) cites figures for European armour hardnessHowever the point here was to demonstrate the problems of accounting for the

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


clear variance in thickness and hardness in different suits of armour not to estab-lish if one countryrsquos armour was harder or thicker than anotherrsquos an assertionthat we doubt could be made authoritatively precisely due to this problem(although we would be delighted to be proved wrong)DeVries Gerald of Wales is not a reliable source for judging the effectiveness ofweapons (p 57) He exaggerates almost all of what he writes ndash what do theymean embellish with time One might as well use the Maciejowski Psalter as anaccurate portrayal of combat wounds or the Song of Roland for sword penetra-tion (through a helmet armour and the horse too) Gerald certainly can not betrusted Far more sources talk about the effectiveness of mail such as Joinvillewho mentions arrows sticking out of every bit of the Crusadersrsquo mail but nonepenetrating it or the layers below itBourke amp Whetham Gerald of Wales probably does exaggerate but one mustalso not simply dismiss everything he says While there are obviously many vari-ables involved practical tests demonstrate it is feasible to shoot a long bodkinarrowhead 2q into seasoned oak Not quite a palmrsquos breadth (taken to be about35q) but not too far out either (Stretton 2005 52ndash56) Joinville is a fascinatingsource but here he is talking about arrows shot from a short composite bowrather the type of bow we are talking about Even allowing for the better armouravailable in the 15th century at Agincourt Monstrelet recorded that lsquonumbers ofthe French were slain and severely wounded by the English bowmenrsquo (Monstrelet1840 342) The eye-witness Jean de Waurin also recorded that many were dis-abled or slain by arrows before they could come to close quarters (Waurin 1862213)DeVries Again there is the problem of substantiation when it comes to a state-ment such as lsquoit is believed that a point was reached at which plate armournot only offered better protection than mail but was also cheaperrsquo(p 57) Whobelieves this I have never read this nor do Claude Blair or Alan Williams say itA reference is necessaryBourke amp Whetham We believe that given the economic facts this logicallyfollows combined with practical tests that demonstrate that riveted steel mailprovided little or no protection against any of the arrowheads from crescent-shaped through to heavy bodkin when they were shot from a heavy bow(Stretton 2005 23) Obviously plate can provide better protection than thisDeVries There are no historical references to fire arrows (p 58) in the lateMiddle Ages shot by longbows Hollywood likes them but historians really needproof and something more than the obscure and inaccessible articles of Strettonin The Glade (Stretton 2005b)Bourke amp Whetham Rather than flights into Hollywood fantasy this was simplya suggestion to try to explain the existence of an arrow that otherwise appearsto be unusable Used in this way it does work mdash and very effective it is too Asto the work being inaccessible does the reader mean hard to read or hard to findNeither of these is a valid criticism given that The Glade is an internationalpublication Just because Stretton is not an academic does not mean that one cannot understand what he is saying mdash a charge non-academics can rightly put tomany of us

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


DeVries Again substantiation is needed when the authors write lsquoCurrent histori-cal opinion backed up by the Mary Rose findings support a weight of 90ndash150 lband a drawlength of around 30q (p 58) Strangely mdash or maybe not mdash when theauthors claim to be citing lsquocurrent historical opinionrsquo or lsquoit is believedrsquo they areglossing over something that calls to question their conclusions or methodologyIn fact there are many scholars who consider this opinion to be erroneousmyself John Waller Valeacuterie Serdon (her book Armes du diable Arcs et arbalegravetesau Moyen Age Paris 2005 should really have been consulted somewhere in thisarticle)Bourke amp Whetham See aboveDeVries Modern bow strings are not the same as traditional silkhemp string(p 59) and they do not give the same results For one thing they do not breakas regularly and they do not need the same thickness as earlier strings mdash espe-cially important as the thickness is determined by the nock size with a modernstring filling the nock certainly more powerful than its medieval equivalentAgain this makes one question some of the results of these tests Where is theevidence to substantiate this claimBourke amp Whetham Indeed modern bowstrings are not the same as medievalones From the size of the nock on the arrows that did survive on the Mary Rosewe can deduce that the strings could have been no wider than 18 of an inch(32 mm) This is similar to the thickness of many modern strings once wrappedin serving thread (a reinforcing thread added to the string at points of wear)The nock size is a red herring as this would be matched to the string size gener-ally in use or it would be inefficient (fletchers were professionals who knew whatthey were doing) If we knew how to make the strings and their protective resinsin the same way we would Again it seems that to assume they were not as goodas today is to take a worse case scenario to the extreme The concession to amaterial that does not break as often appears to be both practical and fairDeVries Why is aspen not used instead of ash Again the two woods are quitedifferent and would produce different results with aspen expected to performless well than the harder ash Also aspen was the standard wood for Englishlongbow arrows mdash see Henry Vrsquos prohibition against using aspen for anythingother than arrow shafts More substantiation to support their claims here isneededBourke amp Whetham Aspen and ash are both employed in the testDeVries Were any of the arrowheads steeled (p 59)Bourke amp Whetham We are not sure which definition of steeling the reader isusing but the test report clearly states where the arrowheads are case hardenedand the materials used to do thisDeVries Why are the authors confident that such an arrow (p 66) wouldpenetrate armour 115-mm thick when shot at such an oblique angle as 60degTheir findings do not suggest that they should support such a finding when therewas no penetration on the 2-mm plate when shot at this angleBourke amp Whetham We are confident that the short bodkin would have pen-etrated the plate at 60deg because as the results show it had consistently performedin a similar way to the lozenge The lozenge achieved 80 mm of penetration atthis angle

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


DeVries The assertion of better armour quality (p 68) should probably beweighed against the Rhodes armours studied by Chip Karcheski and ThomRichardson (Walter J Karcheski Jr and Thom Richardson The MedievalArmour from Rhodes [Leeds Royal Armouries and Higgins Armoury Museum2000]) before categorically claiming suchBourke amp Whetham Perhaps it shouldDeVries I find it rather odd that on p 70 and later the authors assert a lethalityfigure that has been increased due to their estimation of wounded or lsquoknockeddownrsquo soldiers dying from their injuries This is unsupported by any evidencein the article (or actually elsewhere) In fact the healed wounds found on theexcavated bodies at Towton and Visby would suggest that it was quite likely thata soldier could survive his wounds even to the head and even from arrowsMeanwhile the idea that non-lethal arrow hits to armoured soldiers caused deathsat a high rate mdash as seems to be indicated by the authors ndash simply is not supportedby contemporary evidence Finally the Health and Safety Executive was unlikelyto have considered the very small impact of an arrow when determining theirblunt force trauma index

I also question the use of a 1200-lb pull crossbow which was unlikely to havebeen used in many military conflicts This does however indicate once again apreconception of heavier weapon useBourke amp Whetham The tests demonstrated that while there was no penetrationof the thickest plate the thinner plate could be pierced to at least a depth of 80mm even at the most extreme oblique angle of 60deg Due to the less critical areaslikely to be covered in this thickness (although again this not easy to substantiateon a representative basis) this might not prove fatal but the recipient of such awound is unlikely to be taking an active role in the ensuing encounter and beinginjured or at the least knocked off onersquos feet would likely be vulnerable to furtherattack on a medieval battlefield even if not by a longbow missile The commentregarding the HSE is probably valid However under armour the impact willlikely be one of blunt trauma rather than point impact due to the spreadingout of the force of the impact Finally Payne-Gallwey (Payne-Gallwey 1995)certainly believed the 1200-lb crossbow he was shooting was of medievalprovenanceDeVries On p70 the authors begin to hedge their bets on the non-lethal impactsbeing lethal because they finally and for the first time introduce padding andundergarments on the soldier These have not been factored in elsewhere in theirexperiments This also seems to contradict what they have already said aboutthese wounds and what they go on to say over the next couple of pagesBourke amp Whetham It is correct that we did not use padding See aboveDeVries The section entitled lsquoRepeat of Penetration Tests in Laboratoryrsquo(p 68)is rather confusing While criticizing the experiments of Battlefield Detectives mdash acriticism I wholly support mdash the authors then seem to rationalize some of themodern techniques they used in the lab only to indicate some doubt of themethods at the end of the section with lsquoclearly more tests are required on thisphenomenonrsquo One might suggest that this undermines the confidence in theirresearch that they exhibited earlier in the article

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Bourke amp Whetham This is what happens when you test something Had wewished to lsquoproversquo a thesis this would not have been difficult but it would alsonot have been appropriate We do not have doubt over our lsquoreal worldrsquo resultswe were simply attempting to recreate them in the laboratory We were unable todo this despite matching the velocity of the arrows We did not set out to proveit was impossible to replicate the results in the laboratory with this equipmentDeVries If the vibration of the arrow is important (pp 71ndash72) to consider inthe tests then wouldnrsquot the wood used for arrowheads be important too Theauthors dismissed aspen above despite the fact that it would have vibrated morethan ash because of its densityBourke amp Whetham We were merely commenting that the laboratory testing didnot replicate the (substantial and very visible on the slow-motion camera) flexingmotion of the arrow shaft achieved in the lsquoreal worldrsquo and that this is somethingworth exploring furtherDeVries What is the lsquocontemporary opinionrsquo (p 72) the authors are referring toat the beginning of their conclusion From recent work I would say opinion isevenly mixed between those who believe a lighter bow was used and those whobelieve it was a heavy bow Again this indicates a preconceived thesisBourke amp Whetham The lsquocontemporary opinionrsquo includes Strickland amp Hardy(2005) Soar (2004) and Holmes (2002) as well as the team of experiencedpractitioners involved in these tests It is difficult to see what evidence the thesisof a lighter bow actually enjoys in its favourDeVries Once again (p 73) non-lethal wounds are said to be lethal somethingnot proven by the tests above or any other study As the authors seemed to beconsidering that padding and undergarments might add protection on p 56(I would say considerable protection adding to that of the movement of the bodywhich is unconsidered by the authors) the introduction of lethality here seems tohearken again to a preconceived thesisBourke amp Whetham See above

Conclusions

DeVries As I indicated above I do think that studies such as these shouldbe published However I remain unconvinced that they have achieved muchto advance the argument Usually if one sets out in a laboratory to achieve apreconceived thesis one will achieve itBourke amp Whetham We are confident that alas the eminent Kelly DeVrieswill remain unconvinced of the heavier bow thesis no matter how compelling theevidence presented We will however continue to try Part II of the DefenceAcademy series of tests conducted in the summer of 2006 will further add to thedebate

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


surrounding the weapon (eg DeVries 1997 454ndash470) While the authors of thisexperiment acknowledge the importance of Jonesrsquo tests as establishing a founda-tion for the scientific analysis of the effectiveness of the medieval longbow itmust also now be acknowledged that some of the assumptions in the tests madeby Jones are flawed or have otherwise been called into question by shifts anddevelopments in historical opinion

The aim of these trials was to take the Jones tests as a starting point and tomake a new evaluation of the power and effectiveness of the longbow and itsperformance against armoured targets concurrent with current historical opinionsfrom a range of academic historians traditional archery experts and blacksmithsOnce the tests were completed the team would try and recreate the results inthe laboratory to allow more thorough investigation of impact velocities soeffectiveness at various ranges could be determined in a consistent manner as it isextremely difficult and inefficient to conduct such tests at longer ranges in thefield

Review and critique of Jones 1992

For his 1992 paper Jones conducted tests using replica medieval arrows loosedfrom a longbow into various unsupported iron plates at a range of 10 m Thiswork whilst thorough and containing valuable analysis of the metallurgy of someperiod arrowheads is now seen to fall short in a number of areas and can nolonger be accepted as representative of the effectiveness of the medieval warbowThese areas include the style and power of the bow employed the weight of thearrow the choice of arrowhead and the lack of support of the target

Based on current historical opinion it is felt that Jones used far too light a drawweight of bow with a modest drawlength mdash a design similar to Victoriantarget archery bow rather than a medieval warbow The Victorian target bow isthe pre-eminent lsquolongbowrsquo of modern times It has a stiff centre section and limbswhich bend The bow is drawn to the chin (approx 28 in) This makes for aforgiving accurate bow which is not fatiguing to shoot However medievaldesign bows are said to lsquocome compassrsquo A compass bow is one which flexes asone from tip to tip thereby storing more energy as the entire bow is being loadedincluding the area of the hand grip This flex through the grip makes these bowsmore challenging and fatiguing to shoot and is the reason why they are no longercommonly found particularly at heavier draw weights in modern lsquotraditionalarcheryrsquo As a lsquowarbowrsquo these bows are also drawn to the side of the face usuallyin excess of 30q The compass and target longbows are illustrated in figures 1aand b

As a result of the chosen bow the arrows used by Jones were rather small whencompared for example with those found on Henry VIIIrsquos Tudor battleship theMary Rose which had an average shaft length of 30 in (762 cm) Jonesrsquo experi-mental arrows were also roughly 23 of the weight of these arrows (Mary Rose2006) It is now widely believed that the Mary Rose arrows are very similar totheir medieval predecessors Jones also used only a single type of arrowhead mdash a

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie








Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Test equipment


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Armour




by Jones





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie








Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Test equipment


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Armour




by Jones





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Test equipment


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Armour




by Jones





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Test equipment


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Armour




by Jones





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Test equipment


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Armour




by Jones





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Armour




by Jones





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Armour




by Jones





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Armour




by Jones





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Microstructure


Method





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Composition







Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Testing and results




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie


Tab

le 3

Tes

t 1

War

bow

at

10-m

ran

ge

Arr

ow h

ead

Wei

ght

Vel

ocit

yT

arge

t th

ickn

ess

An

gle

of o

bli

qu

ity

Kin

etic

en

ergy

P

enet

rati

on

gm

sm

md

egre

esJ

mm

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

460

(cla

y on

ly)

075

100+

1

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

0 (c

lay

only

)0

8610

0+1

3 L

ozen

ge87

460

(cla

y on

ly)

092

100 1

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

461

150

7510

012

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

81

150

8610

013

Loz

enge

8746

115

092

1001

1 L

ong

bodk

in71

462

075

-2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

86-

3

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

20

8694

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

092

161

Lon

g bo

dkin

7146

30

75-

2

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

30

86-

5

3 L

ozen

ge87

463

092

-5

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

1086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

1092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

1086

753

Loz

enge

8746

210

9213

6

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

2086

823

Loz

enge

8746

115

2092

942

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

2086

653

Loz

enge

8746

220

9213

7

2 S

hort

bod

kin

7049

68

115

4086

853

Loz

enge

8746

115

4092

852

Sho

rt b

odki

n70

496

82

4086

-8

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

4092

512

9

3 L

ozen

ge87

461

1560

9280

10

3 L

ozen

ge87

462

6092

-8

1P

enet

rate

d th

roug

h to

the

oth

er s

ide

of t

he c

lay

(90

mm

thi

ck)

2B

ounc

ed o

ut

poin

t cu

rled

3H

ot m

elte

d he

ads

boun

ced

out

twic

e A

rrow

soc

ket

forc

ed o

pen

by i

mpa

ct4A

rald

ited

hea

d pe

netr

ated

th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut5B

ounc

ed o

ut6B

ounc

ed o

ut o

n fi

rst

atte

mpt

but

str

ike

was

ver

y cl

ose

to d

efor

mat

ion

in p

late

cau

sed

by p

revi

ous

pene

trat

ion

Sec

ond

stri

ke p

enet

rate

d an

d re

mai

ned

inta

rget

7P

enet

rate

d th

en b

ounc

ed o

ut

tear

ing

plat

e as

it

left

8S

crap

ed a

cros

s pl

ate

spa

rks

no

pene

trat

ion

and

arro

w s

hatt

ered

9P

enet

rate

d bu

t fa

iled

to s

tick

in

cut

kit

e sh

aped

hol

e du

e to

ang

le o

f im

pact

10T

his

was

rep

eate

d w

ith

and

wit

hout

wax

on

the

arro

w t

ip w

ith

no d

iffe

renc

e to

the

res

ult

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Discussion





mm J



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Conclusions



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie






Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Acknowledgements


Notes



References











Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie
















Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie





Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie




Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey P

ublis

hing

(c)

The

Tru

stee

s of

the

Arm

ourie



Conclusions


Documents

A Report of the Findings of the Defence Academy Warbow Trials Part 1 Summer 2005