Mildly Interesting

26924 readers

234 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

marcar@lemmy.world

Jimbabwe@lemmy.ml

WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world

Zerlyna@lemmy.world

Arrows vs. Armor 3 (www.youtube.com)

submitted 6 months ago by sylver_dragon@lemmy.world to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Third video in Tod Cutler's fantastic Arrows Vs. Armor series. They are doing some amazing work answering the question "how well did armor work?"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure if they have tried a crossbow on the breastplate or brigandine. I do know Tod Cutler has, in the past, created a crossbow specifically to mimic the longbow Joe Gibbs shoots. So, my bet would be on it being pretty similar. At the end of the day, armor really did work and worked well. There is a reason it stuck around so long in history. Even to the point of firearms showing up. Some armor could stop early muskets.

[–] DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth 1 points 6 months ago

They aren't totally impervious, but yeah, they mostly work pretty well. As metallurgy made better steel, we kinda came full circle with trauma plates in carriers and ballistic shields too, they pretty reliably stop most small arms.

Now I'm wondering how modern armor would do against something like an English longbow.