Armor-piercing arrows

Intriguing mention, but pretty much undecipherable as is:

When archaeologists began sifting through relics for a new exhibition at Helmsley Castle, they made a startling discovery which has transformed expert assessment of the strategic significance of the 800-year-old fortress. For the English Heritage team noticed that arrowheads, traditionally made only of iron, were braised with copper alloy at the point where the head mated with the wooden shaft.

That should be "brazed" (soldered together with molten brass), not "braised" (browned, then simmered).

The copper turned the arrowhead into a lethal weapon capable of splitting chain mail and armour.

But how? If a two-part construction is meant -- arrowhead and socket or tang -- how would that be any more efficient? The picture with the article shows an arrowhead proportioned more like a crossbow bolt than a conventional bodkin, and so better adapted against plate armor. Perhaps this is the significance of the find, and the story just got (badly) garbled in the press release.

The discovery is of national significance – similar arrows have only ever previously been found in the wreckage of Henry VIII's flagship Mary Rose – and added to the growing body of evidence that the tranquil market town was an unlikely cradle of military technology.

Can't find any reference to brazed construction or the use of copper in the Mary Rose arrowheads. Anyone have any suggestions? From the Yorkshire Post. Other briefer but equally opaque writeups here and here.

Posted by David on April 15, 2004 10:12 PM