Slow motion round ball VS steel armor

[exMember]

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/slow-motion-magnificence-flintlock-firing-on-armored-breastplate/

 

[BrownBear]

I was greatly unimpressed by the amount of spark coming off the frizzen, but it did fire. Eventually. I sure couldn't live with that.

Neat detail on the ball strike though, as you said!

 

[Kentucky Colonel]

Agreed. That flint/frizzen needs attention. 

However, it was fun after that. 

My understanding of history provides some (maybe) interesting context 
and a question.

The famous three finger insult of Britain (think 'the bird' with three fingers) 
dates back to the English bow and the French response to its deadly impact. 
'The Battle of Agincourt' immortalized by Shakespeare in Henry V, introduces 
the military power of the British bow. 

Afterward, the French made it policy to cut off the bow fingers of any Englishman 
they chose to release upon capture. Those English bows that had cost them so much 
required years of training. (Hence the English three fingered insult... "We've still got 
our fingers, you dicks!" is the meaning.) Crossbowmen, on the other hand, were put 
to death. They defeated noble armor and took no time learning how to do it. Nobles 
considered it a 'cheat' when they died at the hands of a crossbowman. 

To my limited knowledge? Black powder weapons did not encounter the same response. 
And, I know, despite the failure to penetrate armor in the video? Black powder weapons DID. 
I have seen the results on armor myself in the Metropolitan Art Museum in New York and 
history books also record the impact of BP on noble armor.

So, know the indisputable and readable truth. BP firearms ended traditional nobles' armor. 
Kevlar is the modern equivalent, but does not carry the same social context.

Yes, I enjoyed the video. It raised a lot of interesting thoughts.

So, why, did they choose to show a round ball defeated by simple armor? 
Why was the strike on the angle? And, WHY were BP soldiers treated differently than 
crossbowmen?

 

[Okie Hog]

Thanks for the video.   The armor wearer may have gotten a good bruise from that shot.

 

[BrownBear]

And, I know, despite the failure to penetrate armor in the video? Black powder weapons DID. 
I have seen the results on armor myself in the Metropolitan Art Museum in New York and 
history books also record the impact of BP on noble armor.

I'm a retired commercial photographer with a little experience in photographing bullets in flight. Here's my reaction to the vid:

Unless the folks doing the photography owned or invested mega-bux in high speed cameras, it's a pure setup. If the ball was fired at anything like standard shooting velocities, they better have a very special camera.

Idle speculation because I really don't know what kind of camera gear they used. But dollars to donuts based upon the impact of the ball on the armor, they were trying to overcome their limited camera budget with vast reductions in powder charge.

 

[Marty1]

8)

 

[davet]

this is my first post here i am from England and as a young man i served in the household cavalry part of the uniform is fronts and backs as in the video in the english civil war all fronts had to be proofed by gunshot if a ball did anything but dint the steel it was rejected underneath was worn a buff coat that could turn a sword so you did have some padding tho i wouldnt fancy being the one to test the theory, I  will be asking some questions soon as i intend to import a track of the wolf kit as soon as i get the go ahead from the local police thanks to our rediculous laws

 

[Kentucky Colonel]

Nice to have you here, Davet.

 

[davet]

thanks very much good to be here

 

[Buck Conner1]

Keep us informed on the process of getting your TOTW kit. You folks are between a rock and a hard place with anything that's labeled with the word "gun". Have friends in Germany and Spain that have restrictions but nothing like yours.

As already mentioned nice to have you here, Davet.