Is a Highlander Shield Bulletproof? Targe vs Flintlock Musket & Pistol - Historical Myth Busting
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Thank you to Wondrium for sponsoring today’s video! Signup for your FREE trial to Wondrium here: ow.ly/S1yV50O5mUC
WIN THE OAK TARGE- Buy a ticket for the prize draw here:
www.tomlanghor...
TARGE CRAFTSMAN & PARTICIPANTS PAGES:
-Vaughn Morphett "Hammer and Hand" (Targe 1 and 3):
/ v.m.metalcraft
/ hammerandhandhobart
-Graeme Biggerstaff "Alba Targes" (Targe 2)
/ albatarges
-Paul MacDonald
macdonaldarms.c...
/ 323500131086
"FANDABI DOZI T-SHIRTS":
fandabidozi.te...
If you would like to SUPPORT THE CHANNEL, you can become a PATRON via my Patreon page:
/ tomfandabidozi
Or you can make a one off donation via the Paypal link:
www.paypal.com...
If you would like to get in contact with me and keep up to date with events, here is my Facebook page: / fandabidoziwildernessa...
You can also follow me on my Instagram page: / fandabiwilderness
#highlander #history #mythbusting
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 80 | คู่เอก "รักษ์ vs ยอดนำชัย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ckLMRorsMeY/mqdefault.jpg)
40:03 "if only school was like this"... Actually, my 11th-grade history teacher brought our class outside to shoot muskets back in 1992. We started off shooting a 1/4 charge of powder (with no ball). He let every kid in the class shoot it if they wanted to. Then he moved up to a 1/2 charge and only a couple of the guys dared shoot it. Finally he offered a full charge and I was the only one who accepted. I clearly remember the sensation. When it fired off I saw a flash of bright red through my closed eyes. I felt a wave of intense heat roll over my face. When I opened my eyes I saw that the blast from the muzzle had torn the leaves off of the trees in front of me and there was a huge cloud of smoke around me, and it stank like rotten eggs. The blast had singed off half of my eyebrows and for the rest of the day (we did this at 10am) I reeked of sulfer. It was probably the most fun any teacher ever made a school day to be.
wonderful bit of practical archaeology. fascinating insights. Even some protection against some battlefield threats is better than none.
This is not accurate targe. The leather is not hardened. And that is obvious by the damage. Properly hardened leather will break, like iron. The hardest layer of the targe is actually the leather.
@@nick3175do you have sources for that by chance? To me, the leather covering looks more like it's mainly there to make it waterproof
@@nick3175also, the second targe definitely had more brittle leather
Black powder was also of lower quality in those days than what we use now. And the wet weather in Scotland could also have an effect. But the test shows how accurate a smoothbore flintlock could be.
Ya, I loved this.
Wasn't expecting the shield to stop anything at all so the results are impressive.
Supposedly the leather shields used by African tribes would repel shot if they urinated on them before hand
@@benm5407 I'm guessing that was more or less a "placebo effect". In other words, they likely superstitiously thought it had some kind of efficacy. But I can't see how that would make any sort of difference. Like, at all.
@@willsofer3679 you'll have to try it and let us know
@@benm5407 Not sure that myth needs busting. Because, y'know, physics. It's just a wet shield. lol
@@willsofer3679 They probably urinated on them while they were being shot at. :)
It's fantastic to see this tested in live conditions! Thanks so much for your time and commitment in making this video. Always sad to see such beautiful pieces damaged- but all in the name of proper science and history! I suppose the ones back in the day would see much more abuse than this.
It looks like an awful lot depended on the angle the targe is held up to, so definitely worth examining the historical record to see just how aware the men were of this and to what degree they altered their approach to reflect it. I also wonder how effectively a man would be able to keep that slope when on a charge, or if he was hit by multiple shots in a volley.
Brandon this goes great with your video on why didn't 18 century armies use shields as this is a time when shields were used by armies.
any video on jacobites vs indians ?brandon?
Fantastic work! Thanks for doing this chaps.
Thanks for watching Matt! Always nice to see channels I watch commenting :) keep up the videos
With this and the Tod's Workshop Agincourt video it's so nice to see people actually doing things like this. It make me think of all the history documentaries I've seen with someone shooting some historic weapon into some historic armor with nothing beyond an assurance that everything is "authentic," while some excited but clueless host goes on about what a great approximation everything is.
tods also doing a shield test as well
Here is another small channel that does similar tests to Tod.
Here is their Shield test with a 100lb Warbow
th-cam.com/video/3cgLz4l649A/w-d-xo.html
Bingo..
Fantastic! Thoroughly enjoyed watching all three targes being put through their paces. Hopefully my reputation as a targe maker has not been as damaged as much as my targe but I am very satisifed that the targe was fairly effective against the musket and flintlock. Very interesting and surprising to see the results produced from targes made with hardwood and softwood. Well done guys on producing a very well made and informative video!
Questions: How thick is the wool layer, and is it felted? Also what type of wood did you use?
Thank you for engaging your targe as a target. Also, I've the same queries as Robert Rrrobertson.
If they prefered soft-wood for their targes, that means that was for a reason.
And when you look at Medieval shields, they used preferably Lime-wood for their shields to make them more lighter, nimbler and sturdier against missiles because of the "softness".
Another reason could also have been that soft-wood traps a blade better than a hard-wood.
i'd bet it's got a lot to do with the tensile strength, the wool layer adding a substantial tensegrity layer to the system. the brittle structure of the hard wood probably has to do with its cells being rather small, making it a sturdy thing that can't spread the incoming forces all that well over a larger area.
the whole thing makes me shudder thinking of all the lead people shot around battlefields all over. as awful as war is for people, its effects on the more-than-human world is just as terrible...
A shield is not a wall, the dynamic movement lightweight enables you to prevents more damage to shield and fighter than slightly more resistance at the price of weight will.
The Highlanders almost certainly didn't prefer softwood to hardwood for their shields. However hardwood is vanishingly rare in Scotland. Already by AD87 fully half the Caledonian Forest was gone, it had nothing to do with the English, nor the Royal Navy, it was climate driven, replaced by peatlands. By the period covered by this video the forest was entirely gone
So. Hardwood is just not available/affordable in this period, and you should not read overly much into them selecting softwoods without an understanding of the conditions in the country.
Even today broadleaf forest is very slow to reestablish in Scotland, we primarily plant softwood lumber species (pine). As a 21st century Highland bowyer, I have to import staves from the Borders as I still cannot source hardwoods other than the occasional Rowan
@@celem1000 - Ok, that's good to know.
It was more a lack of resources than preference then.
I guess it must have been the Romans that perpetrated the Climate Change at this time.
Oak splinters did massive damage in ship engagements. Interesting that it does something similar at much lower energies. Great video
From what I've seen, hardwood shields are more resistant to being damaged in repeated use - so modern re-enactors who usually don't hit them with the full destructive power (weapons are blunt, no firearms or high draw weight bows and crossbows) are better off with them. A good shield isn't cheap, and not having to replace it once or twice a year does help a lot. But for resisting relatively few but powerful hits, soft woods usually work out better because they are a little bouncy and spongy.
One additional thing to think about is that this is the test with the best gunpowder and the targes are just on the verge of being musket-proof anyway. If your powder is slightly wet, or the mixture is a bit off, a targe may well stop a musket when angled at 45 degrees.
I want to say that I like that the target was NOT so solidly placed. In principle, that makes the realism more accurate. This was to simulate a person holding a shield. And that person would have been moving with the arm not so rigid. I believe this actually made a more accurate simulation than any “Armour vs projectile” test I’ve ever seen.
Also, a shame to abuse those beautiful shields. Great work and so entertaining watching you all.
That is a beautiful targe!
A friend of mine with knowledge of creating armored vehicles once told me that the ideal angle for any armor plating is 33 degrees because this creates the highest probability for safely deflecting projectiles up and away from the target.
Not surprised at all by how well the targe's did. ^_^ Thank you all for a lovely video!
But 33 degrees from the expected direction of projectiles, or just 33 degrees from the ground?
@@DG-iw3yw from the direction of projectiles, which is actually almost impossible to achieve, because lands are not flat, and guns dont shoot straight but curved :(
Fantastic work Tom.
I was absolutely so excited when I got to hold that targe with a musket ball stuck... This is an excellent practical history lessons
I'm glad that you took angles into account, and that your rig allowed for flex, as a human arm would have. I was surprised at their effectiveness.
May I ask which softwoods were used, and if they were green , well-dried, or somewhere in between?
In addition to the standard pine species, I wonder if Willow's famous shoch-resistance would be applicable here?
Willow is also lightweight.
I am assuming that the layers of wood have their grain 'crossed' or perpendicular, to form a primitive plywood. (something the local wheelwright or cooper would be well-attuned to).
Are the pegs made using the same wood as the shield-body, or are they fashioned from a low-shrinkage wood?
About the brass studs : Do we know if the 17th-18th century Scots temperature-hardened their brass?
- I understand heat hardening brass takes a few hours at 580C, or
- cold hardening can be done, by applying heavy weight/force to create a case-hardened surface.
Sorry for all the questions.
I'm just a Yank with a wee bit of MacDonald way back in the ancestry (3 gens back).
EDIT : .... and I guess we could get into the time-honor battle between Moreno and proper Shetland wool for the felting, and if it matters if it was collected after the rue. Of course, having raised Shetland's for their wool on my little farm here in Oregon for 20 years does make me a touch biased !! This looks like a GREAT use for all those felted bits we used to skirt off the belly and brisket of the fleece.
BTW, we just had to put down our oldest wether, Griffin. He was within a few weeks of turning 19, and he still had a great appetite, right up to the end. Arthritis fused his hips and knees, and I couldn't keep lifting/moving him 2-3 times a day... This old man's back isn't what it used to be.
Could be interesting to see a combination of softwood in the front, wool core and hardwood on the back - that's more or less how modern tank armour is constructed, with soft steel in front, rubber like layer between and hard steel layer behind. Well... At least in the case of some tanks which armour packets aren't classified. Very cool tests overall! Great to see someone putting some work into it.
Very interesting experiments! From what I've seen, the 10 bore Brown Bess muskets of this period fired ~71 caliber balls and used cartridges with ~200 grains or so of powder. An equivalent of standard modern-made black powder would probably be at least ~150 grains including priming. A formidable opponent indeed!
Volleys could start in excess of 200yds, where the ball is starting to impacting at quite an angle. In this case, not angling the shield might actually provide better protection. Musket balls can also skip fiercely when they hit the ground, so I can see a shield being practical even if it only stopped pistol and deflected musket shot.
Yes. I suspect the musket charge used here is on the low side.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427It is, even with good modern powder.
Duelist1954 has a great recent video on the minutae of British loadings in this period. A Charleville or Brown Bess would typically see well over 100 grains in each charge.
I use about 100 in my .50 rifle, and 120-160 in my .69 muskets and .58 rifle.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Indeed, the recoil looks extremely small here - if they aren't using a full charge then surely there's not much point in the test?
@@bigjo66 even back then they would reduce charges if they were running low on powder or weren’t sure when they could get another delivery of powder. Called powder conservation
Great video. Thanks. As your musket man said, the thing is not to aim at the targe but at the exposed part of the enemy. The more the targe is angled, the more of the enemy is exposed. I wonder how much the prominent central boss and the concentric rings of studs would draw the eye of the shooter, making him more likely to hit the targe in the heat of battle.
If I had the energy I'd leave a comment like this on every one of your videos I would, but you've quickly become one of my go-to channels on YT. Really awesome to see how far the quality of your videos has come! You deserve all the success
This is brilliant! Kudos for all the hard work.
Loved this! Great experiment. One thing to perhaps consider, regarding the angles the large was held at.. Whilst the angle did indeed see a beneficial effect, in angling it, one actually decreases the amount of the body it is covering, leading to a increased chance that the bullet would miss it entirely and hit the man... Again,.. great project! Thank you.
Yo it's you
Thank you for setting this up lads! Amazing historical content. Shows the older generations weren't stupid bringing shields into a firefight. Now I want to see a historical movie based off of this.
There’s a targe with no metal studs at Culloden which has several musket ball holes and no sign of them coming through the back (which can’t be seen as it’s displayed unfortunately). My suspicion is that this was hit at the longer range of musket range by a volley of fire, but we’ll never know.
Eh, could also have a steel or iron plate under the hide. Hide is better at griping spear points so even with metal there is still a benefit to a hide outer layer
Also possible, unless there is provenance against it, that it was used as a targeT for shooting practice at some point. Wouldnt be the firat item used in that way
if it were me id put a thin plate of metal after the soft wood, soft wood absorbs most the energy and the metal is tough but will also stretch so it could absorb the rest
I fully expected the first two to be effective, more so the second one. I use a Targe with wool insert in full contact fighting. Between the studs, leather, wool and red deer pelt on back, I feel nothing through it. Even if it's hot by a mace or halberd.
As Paul says at the end, lots of studs. They deflect balls and blades 😁
With metal armour often pistol proof armour was musket proof at 100+ meters, not too far to run before they reload.
The same layering happened with armour, there's a number of duplex armours held together with rivets.
I do wonder if a oak backed with soft wood and wool lined would be a good combination.
I'd think you'd reverse the layering there: softwood -- wool -- hardwood-- that way all the shock absorption happens first, before it hit the hard wood, but yeah, would be interesting to mix and match to see what variations worked best.
"Well; we did not qualify what type of whiskey, nor the size of the bottle." 24:24.... I fell off my chair laughing. Great all round on this vid, engaging presenters, solid knowledge base, fascinating subject matter. I just wish I could smell the Scots Pine, heather and black powder smoke. Thank you all. I have entered... I hope that helps you out. m out
Here in the US, during the American Revolution, before he switched sides, some of the most decisive battles for the Colonials were fought and won by none other than Benedict Arnold. One where he was in command was the Battle of Valcour Island, where Arnold was in charge of a makeshift fleet of gunboats and he put his fleet up against the larger and better armed British fleet on Lake Champlain, New York and the majority of the battle took place near Valcour Island. Arnold's gunboats had makeshift armor made of fascines that were hung from the rigging to protect the crews from musket fire from the shoreline from the Mohawk warriors who were aligned with the British. Last year I tested some fascine armor with a .58 roundball and found that the ball was more likely to be deflected. But recently I've seen some more examples of the fascine that were thicker than I made mine so I plan to retest it with a .75 doglock musket, something that would have been likely to be in the hands of a Mohawk in 1777. I recently witnesses a live fire exercise at Fort Ticonderoga where they were shooting at a large single pieces of wooden plank some two inches thick with Brown Bess muskets using paper cartridges and .69 roundballs. It was shocking that some made it through and some didn't.
I love your videos. I found you going down a TH-cam rabbit hole on Scottish history. Hope you keep making these wonderful videos. Love from across the pond in America!
Excellent shooting from that chap
I was thinking hardwood all the way, as well, Tom. Really surprising! Super video!
Fantastic video, seeing how close range the shooting was back then with the powder and shield splinters flying everywhere... they really were a different breed back then.
I predict pistol stopped by all, but only hardwood and felt shield stopping the musket ..... editing in results now......
Putting in extra lines to prevent spoilers for those who haven't watched the video ....
And nailed it for the pistol, but off on the musket. That softwood flex advantage surprised me.
Conclusions: At longer ranges maybe the targe has some battlefield merit, but given the lacklustre overall protection against muskets (and canister from small cannons) and small coverage, it doesn't really seem worth it. Still super epic that next-level hectic dudes with swords and shields were charging gun formations. I'm all stirred up thinking about it.
Gather a bunch of grown men, armor and weapons and you have a bunch of big kids having a laugh and enjoying the nice weather outside.
I love your videos and it just makes me want to go revisit Scotland!
Outstanding video! You gentlemen showed the very Scottish way to entertain selves in a countryside. Interesting, authentic, picturesque - all what expected from this great channel.
Greetings from Ukraine! 🇺🇦🤝🏴
Absolutely loved this video, excellent mix of education and charm. One of the bits that surprised me the most was how effective the studs were, I knew they weren’t just decoration but I hadn’t imagined how useful they would be.
Scotland genuinely looks like a colder version of where I live in East Tennessee in the United States. Which is appropriate because the area was predominately immigrated to by Scottish people. We still have regular Scottish games here too, including sheep herding, the hammer throw, HEMA events, and of course the caber toss.
Very interesting. Minor point given the results but 90 grains is rather a low charge for a musket. The British land service musket was charged with just under (due to priming allowance) 6 drams, or 164 grains (again, minus a small amount for priming). That would carry it a lot further than 150 yards (accuracy notwithstanding) - out to 600 yards, albeit with very little effect at that distance. The bullet is certainly low at 150 yards, but more like striking the legs than hitting the ground.
Putting in another comment ..... the musketeer is an excellent shot, very impressive shooting with sightless smooth bores. And highly enjoyable video, thanks very much
Just to correct you on one thing - the 1728 muskete *did* have a sight. As did many other contemporary firearms. It's an absolute myth that people in the 18thC didn't aim their firearms.
@@rorybutcher5909 Yes, that lump near the muzzle is a front sight and bayonet lug all in one. The lack of a rear sight forcing the user to "shotgun" line up their eye down the length of the barrel, is sub optimal compared to more modern arrangements with an actual precise rear reference point. Ergo, i give the musketeer his dues for doing such a great job with such an imprecise arrangement.
@gussie88bunny except...the rear barrel screw is the rear sight. Soldiers were taught to use that - you're right it's more imprecise than modern sighting but to pretend that the people of this period hadn't applied the slightest bit of logic is doing them a massive disservice.
@@rorybutcher5909 nobody's slagging off our ancestors in this particular thread. Aided handsomely by the bayonet lug blob and stock screw, the musketeer in this video did a great job.
Good video, only thing is they would of been using heavier charges in their muskets than 90 grains of powder. The standard charge was 165 grains of powder.
20 grains for priming the rest down the barrel. Tests in 1811 showed they would penetrate 1inch of wood at 300yards.
These heavier charges are not that uncomfortable to shoot and probably go along to explain why being shot by a musket resulted in amputations as they really do break up bones. Smoothbore guns are also quite a bit more accurate than they are usually given credit for.
Cheers keep up the great videos.
Thanks for seeking out answers to questions I didn't know I wanted to ask!
This may not be related but I read in "The Comanches, Lords of the South Plains"(I think), that they (and presumably other Plains tribes) used to reinforce their shields with sheets of paper (from a book). So an inch or so of pressed paper between two specially thickened sheets of buffalo rawhide. Just a thought.
That low kneeling shooting position is perfect! as a former Marine infantryman and rifle instructor I thought I’d let you know
Cheers!
Great work! The results of this practical demonstration were surprising. The second softwood targe performed better than I expected and as for the hardwood targe - well, hopefully, you live learn. Thank you.
13:20 I am reminded of tank armor that is often slanted at an angle, so that any projectile has to punch through a slightly thicker piece of armor. The possibility of "bouncing" a shot is higher when they are not a perpendicular hit.
The targe's design and materials made a huge difference in how the firearm's force impacts. Fascinating how the wool and soft wood functioned!
Little bit of context for people that might not have familiarity with blackpowder firearm loads. Round balls from a smoothbore barrel have significantly less range and accuracy than modern bullets, and they lose energy faster due to the sub-optimal aerodynamics, but I want to talk about the powder charge.
The 50 grain charge in the pistol is basically a medium game load. The .38-55 (.38 caliber bullet with 55 grain powder charge) is still in production today for whitetail deer.
90 grains in the musket is a large game load. Sharps developed the .50-90 back in the 19th century to hunt buffalo.
I love this video! Such thorough testing! I wasn't expecting them to work THAT well. If I were a musketeer I'd actually be pretty worried about a Targe-Charge, even against a normal amount of studs!
What is the bore of the firearm, what's the weight of the ball, and what's the charge type and weight?
These variables are rather important.
These Lads, had fun making this presentation!
Well done, I say!
I think this definitely also proves that you don’t need to cover the whole shield in metal. The amount of times that Raymond hit a stud was quite impressive. Well done to all of you, and thanks for the time and effort put in to bringing us a lovely, informative video. Really interesting stuff, cheers!
Great experiments, great video! The fact that these shields can reliably stop those pistol bullets is already impressive, and while i wouldn't exactly call them bulletproof, they certainly give you a much better chance at survival than not having a neat little shield like this.
When a big superior office pushes you with a shield..... its a "large Sarge Targe Barge"
Interesting point that may demonstrate why the soft wood was better. While in college a lecturer once told me that athe true test of a sharp chisel was if it could cut through the grain of pine without compressing it, a blunt chisel (even one that felt sharp) would compress the pine "bruising" it, sort of curving the edge of the cut, while a truly sharp chisel sliced through leaving a crisp edge...whereas the same blunt chisel would cut clean across hardwoods like oak, while it required more force to cut through the hardwoods, it would still cut yet leave a crisper edge. I think it's possible that that "sponge-yness" of the pine is what helped here, the pine compressed more from the impact of the bullet while shearing away, instead of resisting the bullet and blowing out under the strain like the oak. Oak always seemed "brittle" to me, it feels like the difference between a well tempered steel vs a very hard yet brittle one.
This is a fandabi-fabulous piece of practical testing, very well done! An excellent watch that's answered a LOT of questions, great job guys.
(Also might be the most Scottish thing I've ever seen between the three of ya's)
*Fandabulous
Amazing video! My Grandad used to make Target's but he always said he didn't think they could actually stop bullets. He'll be chuffed to find they can actually have worked.
Okay, I used to hunt with a black powder muzzle loading rifle, in .50 caliber. When I used round ball, I would have to be very careful with bullet placement. Often the round ball would make the same sized hole going out, as it did going in. Unless it hit bone. More people back in the day of the smooth bore musket died from a wound festering, and getting infected. Then from the ball itself.
Absolutely loved this video ballistic shields of the 1700's and that's probably why in days gone past even with leather armour and plenty of layers and padding you were able to move fairly freely but still somewhat protected. I think way more damage was done by artillery and bayonet even as a military veteran who with modern body armour close up hand to hand combat was the most scary thing. Thanks a million for doing this video. It was truly fandabbydozy
i love your videos, personally I am a Canadian/Portuguese citizen and I practice portuguese martial arts. Right now im on Godinhos book and im currently trying to get into jogo do pau. thank you for inspiring me to go down the path of self discovery.
Musket definitely has a better chance of penetrating the targe than the pistol does, but only when fired at 10-15 yards, maybe a bit further. However, in the context of battle both guns would have still been formidable if the way the shields moved when the bullets hit the shields was anything to go by. It might not have passed through every time, but the force of the bullet hitting the shield could have injured someone's arm or thrown the person holding the shield off balance. Even if it did not do anything worse than knock the person holding the shield off his feet, it would have certainly bounced off and hit either the person with the shield or the guy next to him.
Really cool test. I'm not sure they'd usually have held it at the shallow angle in battle- it's great when you're aiming at the shield, but if the enemy's actually aiming at you, then it won't cover much of your body. Lots of 17th and 18th century breastplates designed to be bullet-resistant also had a two-layer construction, so it'd make sense that they'd try something similar with targes during that period. The targe is obviously not going to make you musket-proof, but if I was being shot at, I'd much rather have it than not.
When early-mid 17th century armoured cavalry were up against other armoured cavalry, they were encouraged to actually bring the end of the barrel into contact with the enemy's armour before firing to ensure the ball went through, so they seem to have been aware of the limitations of the weapon against hardened targets. But I don't know whether this would still have been common knowledge by the Jacobite period, when less armour was generally being worn anyway. The relative rarity of shields on the battlefield by that point may have made some of the Highlanders' enemies underestimate their effectiveness.
That is a nice and impressive result👍 How about a test with a brown bess first pattern. That would be more or less the weapon of the oponing red coats. The load is somewere about 120 to 150 grains. The 75cal ball has a diameter 19.2mm and is much more heavy than the 69cal from the charleville musket. The chrlevile is clearly the technical better weapon with a better acuracy but the impact from the brown bess is way stronger. For sure i do not want to hold that targe not against both of them 🤣🤣
Your poor old Figure 12 'witness plate' copped a hammering for the cause. ;) Great video from three people I'm very lucky to call friend. : )
It was absolutely fascinating to see how the different materials/construction fared.
Epic video!!! What wonderful lessons we can learn by getting out and experimenting. Interesting to think that hundreds of years ago men may have done similar experiments as they pushed for better and better equipment.
Biggest thing most laymen struggle with is understanding that a shield or piece of armour can completely stop a projectile but also completely fold and let it through like paper. The reason being armour is context. Range, elevation, angle/trajectory, how much energy has been bled off, has it's dimensions altered due to already passing through something else etc. Many modern plate carriers that are rated for 5.56 and 7.62 for example can take .50's from machine guns and high-velocity rifles under certain circumstances. Basically if something is bullet proof it's either yes or no but with heavy caveating as to how it could also be the opposite.
Really interesting and informative! So I should be smothering my targe in studs!
Having the grain of the wood be crossed is exactly what is done in making plywood. Wood swells and shrinks according to atmospheric conditions. The cross grain approach reduces it considerably, by fighting against the movement of the different layers making it stable.Then it gives it more structural strength than a typical piece of solid wood pf the same thickness. The only weakness being the glue or other method that adhered it together. The WWII Mosquito Fighter Bomber was covered in furniture grade plywood and was known for the strength of the material. Aircraft grade plywood has exceptional strength and is made from birch or similar woods not known for their strength.
Fascinating! Probably worth considering that even if the targe didn't stop the bullet, it might have drained it of enough energy to let it be stopped by any body protection the holder might be wearing.
This was brilliant!
If you had asked me a few days ago about the effectiveness of wooden shields against bullets I would have been dismissive of them... It seems I was wrong.
The tests seemed to be competently executed and I liked the explanations and theory crafting between. These really gave it a lot of extra value.
Also, is there anyone with an explanation for the amount of times it hid a stud? I would have assumed that the odds of hitting a stud were very small. Lucky strikes so to speak. Instead it seemed like the bullets were almost drawn to them. I am willing to assume that the angle might have made them into a bigger target (percentwise) than they otherwise would have been, but even then that's a large amount of times those studs were shot.
I say, the Chap under that blue cap is a damn good shot..!
Now who would have EVER thought, that the those rather quaint little targes, "shields" that look more fitting in the ancient world.
Than the enlighten times of the 17th 18th Centuries. With Firelocks that punch VERY hard and heavy, large chunks of flying lead. But yet the increased chances of survival for the combatant holding one is greatly increased..
A very smart design...
Very interesting testing. I wonder how an oak over softwood with a felt core would work targe would work. The hard oak face to deform the ball and the softwood as splinter protection.
I was born in Aberdeen, living in Australia, love your videos!
As always, another great video. Keep 'em coming, mate.🧙♂
I always wondered where the word target came from, perhaps or maybe it derives from the word Targe.
that is the etymology.. it's a very common word in all languages so it's hard to say if it's French, Germanic, Latin or Arabic in first origin
Aye the words are related :) I discuss it a little in my old video on the Targe :)
“Angus. You figure we should put a label on the wool core?”
“What for?”
“What if our descendants go looking for these and they don’t know why the wool’s in there?”
“Och, it’s a targe, not a bloody headstone, Harris.”
keep in mind the shield would have been effective against musket fire at distance especially out past 100 yards, the same way it stopped the low energy pistol round. if the enemy soldiers were not disciplined enough to hold their fire until close range, the targe may very well have stopped the musket balls. the highlanders would also have been sprinting their fastest to close the distance before the next reload could be performed. at a full sprint going an average of 15mph, it would only take about 15 seconds to cover 100 yards of distance. either way you cut it, the targe would have been effective at protecting the vitals of the highlander for most of the battle distance until their charge, in which case the defending troops would realistically only have 1 volley before hand to hand to hand combat. i also believe one of the primary uses of the targe was to aid in blocking and capturing the bayonet of the enemy muskets, allowing the highlander to cut the soldier down with his broadsword. i believe for this purpose softwood would have been superior which is probably why it was used. hardwood would have been more resistant to blades and not captured them stuck as easily.
Outstanding video! Your hard work and dedication to detail really shows cheers!
There's a French Courassier's steel breastplate on the wall in the hall at Abbotsford, Sir Walter Scott's home, it has a bullet hole made by a Brown Bess musket straight through the strongest part.
Somewhere on TH-cam a reproduction steel curiass (back and breast) made with modern (stronger) steel is shot at with the sort of handgun used in the 1470s a sort of handheld cannon. The redults are devastating to the armour even using reproduction 15th C black powder.
A properly loaded and charged military (as opposed to sporting) matchlock will go straight through a wood and leather targe. It was guns like this that made steel battlefield armour redundant. There are ample accounts during the War of the Nations and the 30 years war of matchlock balls defeating the steel chest armour of pikemen.
Excellent!! Very interesting experiments. At those calibers, I'm surprised they stopped anything. Great video work to show what happened also. Thanks for this.
I love the way the hair stands on end in that last high speed shot. It’s fascinating.
These results is a good information for my own Display as a Highland Gentleman. Thanks for That!
Outstanding investigation surprising outcome!!!!!! Thank you.
Really interesting experiment! Fascinating stuff!
Fantastic to all who were evolved in this, keep them coming.
15:37
"that saved his heed"
man i love me some scottish accent
I expected the tilted targe to have some success, absorbing most of the muskets energy and maybe stopping the pistol. I very much did not expect the targes to be pretty much pistol proof.
The first time I watched this I was thinking that the best one would do the best. I love Highlanders and Targes and knew that the Targe would be bulletproof.
I don't know if nayone else has said this (or even if I'm right), but I think the reason the soft wood was better at stopping the musket shot could be because it's less brittle, so when it's hit by the ball more energy is dispersed over the targe, rather then focused on one point, effectively taking more energy out of the shot. This is just a hypothesis though, and I could be wrong.
Fab video, absolutely fascinating!
Cool! I was surprised that the angle made such a difference.
Soldiers with broadsword and shield were an important part of Spanish and Austrian armies during the early modern era. I think there was a brief period when these continental soldiers carried bulletproof shields before the whole concept of swordsmen disappeared.
Scottish irregular forces carried this medieval style of warfare well into the 18th century which is pretty amazing.
Back in 1987, I visited Scotland,and at a history museum on Edinburgh, there where three Targe's with embedded musket balls. Now these where either .69 or .75 caliber ball, fired from a smooth bore musket. Stopped the ball, but I'd hate the be the guy holding the Targe :)
Outstanding video! I knew they would be able to deflect the bullets but out right stopping them! 🤩 so glad to see the highland way is still the pinnacle of 18th century volley an charge.
Jeez, where was Mr. Finlayson when I worked in an art gallery? With how good he is at stud-finding, he'd have saved us lots of time!
:P
But seriously: it's interesting, but it occurs to me that the pistol's effect is little different to that of a typical bow and arrow on a simialrly good shield design. I know in the middle ages, the recommended range for Mamelukes to shoot at French knights was under 10 yards--not to dissimlar to the pistol.
One would think as a gunpowder weapon this would still be more powerful, but it really isn't.
The musket though? I was surprised the best shields stopped it at 20 degrees, but the rest wasn't all that surprsiing, to be honest. Still: that was impressive from the targe nonetheless.
You can see this in ship hulls as well where they had pine on the outside and oak on the inside, the reason is believed to be that oak turns to dust but pine shoots large splinters over the gun deck
26:42 would have plywood helped in that situation ?
having two thinner layers of hardwood offsetted 90° , i think that could have prevented the wood splitting like that ...
Keep up the good work, effort pays of man. Realy enoy your videos.
YES, the Musket is mightier than the shield!!(most of the time )😊 Cool review, guys!
32:30 this was a great moment, from what I understand not properly loading your firearm was not uncommon in those times.
Ah man, I follow so many of ya'll shown in this on so many different social media platforms.. this is awesome!
Tom: I don’t know why I’ve never asked which area of Scotland you’re from. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard the dialect. Thanks. And thanks for what you’re doing for us. Wonderful information;)
Steep angles didn't surprise me, though plenty of fun to watch! Was surprised how well they fared against the pistol though.