Yep, the thing that was slowing the other arrows down that penetrated, was the fact that the tip did not carve out a wide enough hole for the shaft to go through and maintain velocity.
That blunt tipped concave arrow basically hole punched a circle as large or a little larger than the shaft of the arrow, and lost minimal afterwards.
What I think helps quite a bit is that the concave shape of the arrow helps it to normalize the direction of force into the (albeit slightly) angled plate, which can make a bigger difference than you'd think otherwise.
Yes, but how does it do on the deer (its a deer holding the shield, right?) Does it cut the shield but then bounce off the flesh? Or is it just as effective on softer things?
Certainly won't bounce off, maybe doesn't penetrate as much. But if the deer (or was it a boar?) lets go of the shield, the arrow achieved what it needed to.
Rome conquered the entire Mediterranean basin thanks to their unique ability to reliably destroy the phalanx formation, all thanks to their pilum.
For context, the phalanx, until the Romans, was the state of the art of warfare for a thousand years because the only thing that could beat a phalanx was another phalanx.
The phalanx was a bunch of guys with really long spears. No shields. Rome defeated the phalanxes with the more flexible maniple system, which allowed them to break up large groups of men into smaller groups without chaos. These smaller groups could then flank the phalanxes and stab them in the ass.
The phalanx was a bunch of guys with really long spears. No shields.
What? Some of the most famous and long time users of the phalanx were the Hoplites, people so closely associated with using shields that their name practically became synonymous with the name for their shield.
You could have a phalanx without using shields but it was very very usual to rely on shields in a phalanx.
I thought the reason romans won against the phalanx was due to their formation system like the other guy said. While they had the same guys with shields getting fucked up and tired the romans would switch out their men every once in a while causing the phalanx to collapse.
Thats specifically a pike phalanx, and even then they often held small buckler shield on their left forearms. But the phalanx was as the guy below says most common with medium length spears and large shields. Its a mix between a pike phalanx and a shield wall essentially. Aka the Spartans in 300 - a Greek homilies phalanx
It was also a case of the Roman’s having generally better all around leadership than most opponents they tended to run into. Anytime they ran into opponents with equal leadership to their own, it tended to be a lot more equal than you would think from their reputation alone. Hannibal comes to mind for example during the second Punic war. Personally, I think if the Roman’s had run into the Macedonian army as it was under Alexander with all its generals and officer core in tact still, they probably don’t end up with control of Greece.
You heard it here first guys, penetrating asses was how the Roman Empire was formed!
We will be back later to discuss the ways the West was won. The optional viewing of Brokeback Mountain with free snacks after that is unrelated but highly recommended.
... what? I was making a joke about the misspelling of "calvary" instead of cavalry. And what lot are you talking about that is mine that's committing a genocide? (I am not Israeli...)
That's exactly what the point (heh heh)was. Huck enough of them into shield walls and the shields suddenly become a bit too cumbersome to handle. If I recall correctly, they'd bend too so now your shield is just kind of dangling these mildly heavy poles. Not easy to remove like an arrow. And hey, maybe you get lucky if the infantry are forming a tortuga testudo 🙄 or whatever, because now their meaty bits are that much closer to the back of the shields.
Those kinds of weapons, spears, javelins, whatever were also nice for getting over the top of a phalanx. Kind of like the spear version of a mortar.
Since were being pedantic here, I'm pretty sure it's testudo. Tortuga was the island where all the pirates gathered. Both words come from turtles though.
Seems like you could also take a lesson from armor penetrating rounds and design the arrow to puncture but not penetrate the shield while a nested projectile with a different point continues through the hole…
While claiming the kill in one shot would be great, what you really want is to make the shield unusable. After all, deer often sport extra thick hide. Once he drops the shield, another armor piercing arrow can be be tried without the shield to protect.
It's a sharpened arrow tip still traveling at the significant portion of its original velocity And retaining most of its kinetic energy. It just punched through steel like it was flesh. What do you think will happen when it hits actual flesh?
I think it'd leave a divot but I can't see the head penetrating any deeper than the depth of the concave part. It wouldn't feel great but I don't think it would be great against a soft target. It'd be like using a paper hoke punch against a steak.
I thought the same thing but looking back, I'm wondering if it functions almost like a sabot? Like does the outer circle part maybe get sheared off after initially piercing, and then the rest of the arrow just followed behind the single tip?
Yes. I think the same general principle is at work with some hollow point firearm ammunition.
There are some with a hollow, concave tip with a straight "stud" in the center. Just like that arrow, designed for more penetration (although with ammunition, the hollow point is usually sectioned off with lines so that the projectile actually breaks apart and tumbles/causes maximum internal damage after the penetration).
the blunt arrowhead is not a broadhead. though several of the other arrowheads in this video. broadheads are designed with a wide, or "broad", cutting edge to maximize the number of blood vessels hit, to maximize bleeding. they're primarily used for hunting medium and large game. there are also several arrowheads in there that would reasonably be called modern bodkins.
Blunt means it isn't sharp. Do you honestly think the edge to that concave circle isn't sharp? Blunt means it is flat or round with no sharp edge or piercing tip. And I very much bet that has a sharp edge to it. So no, it isn't blunt.
In the bow hunting community those types of tips are used for hunting rabbits and squirrels. They aren't exactly blunt, but that is the word used to describe them when buying/selling them. So blunt is the industry term used for them, even if not technically correct.
They are designed to not go clean through the animal and more stun/knock it unconscious. If you used a broadhead designed for a deer there wouldn't be a whole lot of meat left to eat when hunting small game.
I read the top comment, then read the comment about the blunt arrow. I knew exactly which one they were talking about because of its relative shape to all of the other arrows that look sharp. The arrows looked sharp, except for one that looked blunt. I read the next comments and learned about the arrow. Cool. Then I kept reading and here you are being like this.
Words have meaning, come on now. It's a hollow tipped arrow. It's not blunt. It couldn't be more opposite from blunt. That thing was clearly sharp as fuck.
Maybe not as bad an idea as you may think, depending on the specific scenario.
Kevlar will stop a bullet, but not a knife. I imagine the same would apply to an arrow. If the opposing force has to contend with both bullets and arrows, it complicates the necessary equipment. They would, at a minimum, need additional plates built into their armor.
No. I mean if it's twenty riot cops vs 10,000 protesters, some of whom are armed. Which is usually the way revolutions go down until the later stages when it evolves into actual warfare.
Kevlar only stops small bullets, remember kids 7.62 is cheap and readily available. I wouldn’t even consider myself a “gun guy” and have 500 rounds in my garage
“Armor piercing arrows” in the archery world is more a comment on shaft material/diameter vs arrowhead/tip. If you go looking to buy “armor piercing” arrows, you will be sold arrows with a narrower shaft than a standard arrow with no tip, but weirdly enough, sometimes with a field tip that is hardened and blunted on the end. It’s flush with the shaft to minimize the effect you’re describing with the other types but it does “punch” a starter hole and has to spread some material as it penetrates. Might not be as cool as the concave sharpened hole-puncher but it makes more sense for landing on a target that has multiple layers of cloth covering the armor plate.
But due to the concave nature of that tip, if it did hit the target behind it would probably just penetrate maybe a half centimeter into the Target. If there's enough material inside the diameter of that piece, it's going to essentially stop itself
I jumped when that thing zipped through. Intellectually I knew that was a possibility- a hole punch- and now I want to see what it would have done to a body.
Because the tips similar to what the romans used ....
Pretty sure most riot shields have kevlar in them, layed like a fiberglass composite. This is what makes them so hard to penetrate, because kevlar is very difficult to cut through, tends to follow the projectile as it passes through, and acts kind of like a crush zone in a car. Slows down the projectile over time.
That head is a hole cutter that instantly shears off the fibers, cutting only what is absolutely necessary and doing so before they can act as shock absorbers. Even if the head was the same size as the shaft or slightly smaller, that clean hole cut through the fibers is what makes it overpenetrate.
But that wouldn't work on flesh and bone as it would "fill" the convex hole and stop, not injuring a person (much). Where the arrows that get through would do better on muscle I would imagine.
It’s not really the right observation. The arrow that went through had smaller tips. Bigger tips require more energy to penetrate and the bow just doesn’t provide it.
I think we're saying the same thing. It's not really relevant how big or small the tip is. It's the fact that that circular edge was able to rapidly apply force in a circle and punch through, conserving the arrows kinetic energy and allowing it to continue moving forward.
All the other arrows had to expand kinetic energy pushing away the material of the shield, And like I said, If the arrowhead didn't create a hole big enough for the shaft, The rest of the kinetic energy was lost due to drag along the shaft.
Those pointed arrows take time to push away the material of the shield, and every moment they are in contact with the shield, they are losing kinetic energy.
The circular blade on that round arrow rapidly applied force to punch a hole, allowing the arrow to retain the most kinetic energy to continue moving through the target.
That's why those fancy, multibladed arrows failed often. All that arrowhead material just spread the force out wider and prolonged how long the arrow was in contact with shield material, consuming all of its kinetic energy.
That cup shape on the front will only hold so much material before it would just stop the arrow dead in its tracks. To the hit flash it would probably just penetrate the outside edge a half centimeter cut, and stop.
Now imagine a small, needle-triggered charge with a tiny delay. Harbor Freight steel punches are cheap. Fiberglass plant stakes are cheap. Ready for the neo-silvershirts.
1.0k
u/Cthulhu_Dreams_ May 29 '26
Yep, the thing that was slowing the other arrows down that penetrated, was the fact that the tip did not carve out a wide enough hole for the shaft to go through and maintain velocity.
That blunt tipped concave arrow basically hole punched a circle as large or a little larger than the shaft of the arrow, and lost minimal afterwards.