Effectiveness of armour

[duncan.gill]

How effective are the various types of armour? Does being hit with a sword whilst wearing mail still hurt? What about upon plate? Could mail stop arrows in antiquity?

[LordCurlyton]

Pretty effective
I'd presume so. Still would get the blunt trauma, though its definitely not as bad as getting stabbed on naked flesh.
You probably don't feel it at all. Plate is a rigid, solid armor as opposed to mail. Its also why as Medieval times went on and production capability increased, far more soldiers were equipped with some level of plate. You can blunt trauma a person in mail to death, even if you never truly cut them. Technically you can do that to plate too but you need to apply enough force to crumple the armor into them-"the beer can approach"-since plate is basically not going to get stabbed through.
Mail most definitely could stop arrows. Remember, they had a linen/leather undercoat usually to prevent chafing. And a loosed arrow is far different from a held weapon (ie a one time impact vs a continual force). Modern ballistic armor has the same effect (and except for maybe the newest armors can't stop a stab, thus why a light chain shirt + ballistic armor is very useful).

[AqD]

Did early romans and gauls wear leather protection beneath their mail? I read from somewhere it wasn't until probably 3rd-4th century but couldn't confirm it. Also, anyone know how good the scale/lamellar armours were compared to mail?

[LordCurlyton]

Lamellar is comparable to plate and scale is more like mail. And even if it wasn't leather underneath, anybody at any time wearing mail would wear some decent padding of some sort underneath, unless you're keen on extreme chafing.
The main difference between lamellar and scale is the size of the plates and backing. Scale has small plates, usually rectangular or scalloped, usually stitched onto a leather/quilted backing. Thus it is very flexible, like mail, and has much the same properties as mail. Lamellar, however, has bigger (albeit not severely) plates, but most importantly it is not laced onto a soft backing. Lamellar is probably one of my favorite armors invented in terms of protection vs. mobility as it can/could achieve protection in the range of plate and still would allow a decent mobility of joints/torso/etc. depending on how big or small you make the plates. The trade-off between protection and mobility is achieved in many ways, and scale vs lamellar just happens to show a particular style's evolution. I'm sure most are familiar with the various Western European methods ranging from (studded) leather to mail to partial plate to full plate. In general Europeans tended to tank up in armor for their nobles, especially as weapons became deadlier. Seen those pictures of scarred 15th century armors? Most of those didn't happen in battle, they were the armorer musket-proofing the set of plate by firing a musket point-blank into it! Basically, wherever metalworking developed, armor equivalent in function to the Western Euro versions developed. Heck you can even make lamellar out of horn if need be.

[ziegenpeter]

Just think about how much iron you need for an armour. It was prettey expensive, so I guess it wouldn't ne used if uneffectiv.

[Intranetusa]

Note that not all bows are created equal. The general rule of thumb is that western bows tend to suck, and the more to the east you go geographically, the better the bows become.

I've heard that the nomadic bows - Hunnic and the better Mongol bows both could easily penetrate iron armor such as various forms of chainmail.

[Mecha Pope]

Well, one can only say that western bows sucked untill the eastern bow was exported west, in which case western archery suffered only because of the lack of a strong archery tradition in that part of the world.

In general, untill the development of the bodkin arrow, a person wearing chain was fairly safe from arrow fire. (I said fairly, not completly, and if you had a brain, you'd carry a shield for insurance) I've seen some demonstrations of a eastern style steppe comopound bow punch straight through chain and LS with my own two eyes, however, so these supierier bows can be used to bridge the armor gap as well. (Allthough one has to be careful about demonstrations, as the demonstrater can arrange a "test" to provide the results he wants. There was a special on the history channel once where an "expert" "proved" that an english longbow could punch straight through a steel breastplate by holding the bow a whole six inches from the blasted thing)

[Ibrahim]

Well, one can only say that western bows sucked untill the eastern bow was exported west, in which case western archery suffered only because of the lack of a strong archery tradition in that part of the world.

In general, untill the development of the bodkin arrow, a person wearing chain was fairly safe from arrow fire. (I said fairly, not completly, and if you had a brain, you'd carry a shield for insurance) I've seen some demonstrations of a eastern style steppe comopound bow punch straight through chain and LS with my own two eyes, however, so these supierier bows can be used to bridge the armor gap as well. (Allthough one has to be careful about demonstrations, as the demonstrater can arrange a "test" to provide the results he wants. There was a special on the history channel once where an "expert" "proved" that an english longbow could punch straight through a steel breastplate by holding the bow a whole six inches from the blasted thing)

agreed about the longbow; the bow cannot normally penetrate the steel plates that late medieval knights wore. though something unusual does happen if you're overwheight and a suit of armor.

[ziegenpeter]

There are many factors, such as steel quality, skill of the armourer, quality of the weapon etc. playing a role
for the german speaking members, you could check this
http://www.larpwiki.de/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Panzerbrechend

[Intranetusa]

Well, one can only say that western bows sucked untill the eastern bow was exported west, in which case western archery suffered only because of the lack of a strong archery tradition in that part of the world.

In general, untill the development of the bodkin arrow, a person wearing chain was fairly safe from arrow fire. (I said fairly, not completly, and if you had a brain, you'd carry a shield for insurance) I've seen some demonstrations of a eastern style steppe comopound bow punch straight through chain and LS with my own two eyes, however, so these supierier bows can be used to bridge the armor gap as well. (Allthough one has to be careful about demonstrations, as the demonstrater can arrange a "test" to provide the results he wants. There was a special on the history channel once where an "expert" "proved" that an english longbow could punch straight through a steel breastplate by holding the bow a whole six inches from the blasted thing)

I really hate the history channel sometimes. They did two documentaries on Agincourt - in one result, they said the longbow COULD penetrate through 15th cent plate. In the other, they said the longbow could NOT penetrate through 15th cent plate. ...wtf

And whenever they show Romans, they show them in shiny LS...even during the freking Punic Wars.
And they even did a retarded test when they fired a scorpion bolt at a LS made of modern high quality steel (LS back then were made of iron of varying quality)...obviously the bolt didn't penetrate and the ppl started swooning over the LS. bleh!!!

[LordCurlyton]

Yeah don't trust the History Channel much for more than maybe pointing you in where to look for the correct answer. 15th century plate was generally impervious to all weapons (guns included) and anyone wanting to recreate the armor of any period would need to use period materials, tools, and techniques in any case. I hate it when they use regular modern steel, which is far better than even medieval steel 9some lower quality mild steels of today are a good base point if you are serious in recreating). In any case think of non-15th century full plate armor in terms like we do modern body armor: you are resistant, not immune.

[Praetor Diego]

History Channel plays in the same league of Wikipedia. Im more toward Mith Busters. They made a few tests about archery. I will try to find a video to post it.

Edit: I keep finding the Robing Hood test, but I know they made other archery tests.

[Celtic_Punk]

Well what about the French noblemen at Agincourt, they were butchered by the longbow. and they would have had the best armour money could by a dirty frenchman at the time :clown:

[Cbvani]

Well what about the French noblemen at Agincourt, they were butchered by the longbow. and they would have had the best armour money could by a dirty frenchman at the time :clown:

Would the longbow be fired in a high parabolic arc (go high, come down like rain a relatively short distance away - over 45 degree firing angle) or a low one (low height, longer range - under 45 degree firing angle)? I imagine that getting hit from above would be pretty devastating to a knight on horseback, because the armor might be thinnest on the skull (who can reach the top of your head on a horse, anyway? Other than another horse guy.) Or maybe they shot the horses out from under them with low shots - I bet warhorses reacted pretty badly when they got shot, just like people. Arrow head type also contributed - narrower is better!

Also, I bet the mud, narrow corridor of battle, and general stupidity of the French helped. Just saying in heavy mud, I'd rather be the lightly armored guy than the mounted metal monstrosity.

[LordCurlyton]

Mud was the biggest reason the French lost. And the armor is not a perfect seal around a knight. Saturate an area with enough arrows and casualties WILL happen. In fact, according to eyewitness accounts the French force still managed to slog through the mud under the shower of literally tens of thousands of arrows while suffering relatively few casualties. It was the longbowmen's ability to actually engage the knights on the muddy ground, plus the use of palings, which turned the day, not to mention a bit of balls by Henry V. Don't blame the armor for keeping them alive, but they WERE exhausted as all hell by the time they engaged, and the broken cavalry charge didn't help matters either.
EDIT: Plus Agincourt was a narrow field with lots of forest around it, so no chance of a flank maneuver.

[Pontius Pilate]

And whenever they show Romans, they show them in shiny LS...even during the freking Punic Wars.
And they even did a retarded test when they fired a scorpion bolt at a LS made of modern high quality steel (LS back then were made of iron of varying quality)...obviously the bolt didn't penetrate and the ppl started swooning over the LS. bleh!!!


hahaha. I saw that episode of the scorpion hitting the LS too. I think the history channel always shows the Romans wearing the same armor is because they are too lazy to get new armor or it is not in their budget. You can actually tell that they reuse alot of their equipment in the various shows they produce.

[Pontius Pilate]

Mud was the biggest reason the French lost. And the armor is not a perfect seal around a knight. Saturate an area with enough arrows and casualties WILL happen. In fact, according to eyewitness accounts the French force still managed to slog through the mud under the shower of literally tens of thousands of arrows while suffering relatively few casualties. It was the longbowmen's ability to actually engage the knights on the muddy ground, plus the use of palings, which turned the day, not to mention a bit of balls by Henry V. Don't blame the armor for keeping them alive, but they WERE exhausted as all hell by the time they engaged, and the broken cavalry charge didn't help matters either.
EDIT: Plus Agincourt was a narrow field with lots of forest around it, so no chance of a flank maneuver.


yes, the mud did play a huge factor in the English victory. the French were very tired when they reached the English. but I wouldn't compleletly exclude the longbow from some credit. some people say the arrows could penetrate 15th century armor, while some historians disagree.

[Gleemonex]

hahaha. I saw that episode of the scorpion hitting the LS too. I think the history channel always shows the Romans wearing the same armor is because they are too lazy to get new armor or it is not in their budget. You can actually tell that they reuse alot of their equipment in the various shows they produce.

The History Channel reuses a lot of the footage in the various shows they produce.

-Glee

[Cbvani]

Mud was the biggest reason the French lost. And the armor is not a perfect seal around a knight. Saturate an area with enough arrows and casualties WILL happen. In fact, according to eyewitness accounts the French force still managed to slog through the mud under the shower of literally tens of thousands of arrows while suffering relatively few casualties. It was the longbowmen's ability to actually engage the knights on the muddy ground, plus the use of palings, which turned the day, not to mention a bit of balls by Henry V. Don't blame the armor for keeping them alive, but they WERE exhausted as all hell by the time they engaged, and the broken cavalry charge didn't help matters either.
EDIT: Plus Agincourt was a narrow field with lots of forest around it, so no chance of a flank maneuver.

on a related note, what exactly are the mechanics of exhaustion in RTW (and therefore EB)? What does it effect?

[LordCurlyton]

From what I can tell it starts penalizing attack, defense, and morale (the last I presume because you will see the "Unhappy because of exhaustion" tag on units). But I have definitely noticed that when a unit gets more and more tired their kills go down and casualties go up. The biggest bumps I seem to notice are from Winded to Tired and Very Tired to Exhausted. Of course, I'm still not sure how it affects charges.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

About the History Channel demonstration of LS. Yes armor quality differed, but it showed it was plausible that LS could deflect a scorpion if it was built well and the dude could afford it. Using the best possible sample of steel seems the more scientific way of testing. You have to give it the best chance of succeeding. We are finding out that people like the Romans and others were more modern than we think. I like when they test the effectiveness of ancient weapons. The H-Chan has another good one where they show how a trireme could bust another ship at slower speed than previously thought. I can't really get into bashing these episodes because that means they'll make more Ice road truckers and other non historical or sensationalized shows about the Bible. If we don't watch quasi historical shows, it will all be The History of the Universe.

[LordCurlyton]

The problem is that the "highest quality steel" that we can pick from (and they used) was a technological impossibility for the Romans. And "giving it the best possibility to succeed" is completely not the scientific method. If the hypothesis is "Roman Lorica Segmentata could withstand a direct shot from a scorpion artillery piece" then one goes out and tries to replicate as closely as possible the conditions, materials, and techniques used in making a suit of LS and the scorpion, at which point test firings could be done. In fact, since the statement is a blanket one covering all levels of quality, one would actually try and simulate the worst conditions for the LS and if that didn't withstand, keep working up until you find one that does (assuming you do). The goal of a scientist is to keep trying to fail by subjecting your hypothesis to repeated tests. If you fail at failing (and others fail at failing your hypothesis) then it can eventually become accepted as a theory or even a fact.
And if History Channel wants to keep me, show more things like the old "Battlefield" series (that I saw on PBS incidentally). Stuff like that is both interesting AND historical. None of these quasi-"science" history specials.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

Yeah, that makes more sense testing it that way. What is the force transmitted to the human body by a scorpion or other ballista? If the armor stayed intact what about the soldier dying from internal bleeding or broken ribs? That's what I wanted to hear.

[LordCurlyton]

I would imagine it feels like getting hit by a very large animal, assuming the armor holds. And since even people can cause internal bleeding from punches (one of the very real dangers of the pugilistic sports), I would think that the person hit by a ballista bolt is pretty well done for the fight one way or another. Also, wouldn't the scorpion be fired in a mildly parabolic arc? That would expose the unprotected face/head rather than the well-protected torso.

[Olaf The Great]

I think the whole myth of the British Longbow was just because it was the only bow in Europe that could actually work -well- against armoured targets.
...Not plate though.


Oh, and I hate the new History channel shows, Ice-road Truckers and Axe-men does not a history channel make.

[Ibrahim]

Would the longbow be fired in a high parabolic arc (go high, come down like rain a relatively short distance away - over 45 degree firing angle) or a low one (low height, longer range - under 45 degree firing angle)? I imagine that getting hit from above would be pretty devastating to a knight on horseback, because the armor might be thinnest on the skull (who can reach the top of your head on a horse, anyway? Other than another horse guy.) Or maybe they shot the horses out from under them with low shots - I bet warhorses reacted pretty badly when they got shot, just like people. Arrow head type also contributed - narrower is better!

Also, I bet the mud, narrow corridor of battle, and general stupidity of the French helped. Just saying in heavy mud, I'd rather be the lightly armored guy than the mounted metal monstrosity.

it was fired parabolically for much of the distance, as far as I gather. the closer you got though, the flatter the trajectory gets, until it gat as flat as possible (less than 50 yrds).

as for knights in Agincort: the mud didn't just tire them out; it literally glued them in place; If you take metal and plunge it into the flanders mud, it will letterally stick to the mud, like super glue. the same test (it was conducted in the UK), determined that walking with armor in the mud was like walking with 15 sacks of sugar strapped to each leg. the reason the armor "sticks" is due to it being smoothish and polished (like real armor should). It didn't help that the french crammed 20,000 people on a smallish battle field, that bottlenecked towards the English line. similarly, the 3rd battle of Ypres (I can't spell the more famous name) was disastrous to the british army due to the same mud type.

as for LS: its a fat chance if they can stop a ballista: if it were made of mild steel or above, yes it could, but considering the wrought iron or otherwise veriaties the romani used-the ballista would leave a nice 1'' hole in the soldier's armor (you're using a scorpion bolt). I leave it to the descerning reader the fate of a soldier hit that way. and even if it didn't, as one of the posters here said, the guy would still die or be badly wounded: internal bleeding, possible cracked ribs, and even collapsed organs.

[russia almighty]

I don't think the horses getting hurt from the arrows didn't necessarily help either (what was the prevalence of felt, or metal barding amongst the French knights anyway?)

[desert]

Ok so, people keep saying that missiles fall in a parabolic arc.

But isn't that actually false?

For a missile to fall in a parabolic arc, the Earth would need to be flat.

Missiles fall in elliptic, almost parabolic arcs. Right?

[Ibrahim]

I don't think the horses getting hurt from the arrows didn't necessarily help either (what was the prevalence of felt, or metal barding amongst the French knights anyway?)

cloth coverings were the predominant "barding". IIRC, iron barding became more common after 1450.

[kekailoa]

Ok so, people keep saying that missiles fall in a parabolic arc.

But isn't that actually false?

For a missile to fall in a parabolic arc, the Earth would need to be flat.

Missiles fall in elliptic, almost parabolic arcs. Right?




Well, I would think that it doesn't matter the earth is curved. The arrows fall in such a minuscule percentage of the earths surface that there is no real curve. You would have to shoot miles to achieve an elliptic shot, while an arrow firing only two hundred yards would adhere to the flat(ish?) ground and fall in a parabolic arc.

I think. Someone shed light on this.

[Cbvani]

Well, I would think that it doesn't matter the earth is curved. The arrows fall in such a minuscule percentage of the earths surface that there is no real curve. You would have to shoot miles to achieve an elliptic shot, while an arrow firing only two hundred yards would adhere to the flat(ish?) ground and fall in a parabolic arc.

I think. Someone shed light on this.

The variance in terrain is much more important than the curvature of the earth over this distance. It is such a miniscule amount of curvature over, say, 500 yards that it follows a parabolic arc.

Besides, parabolas are easier to calculate.

[desert]

Ok, so it's very very close to parabolic. :2thumbsup:

[mcantu]

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131

^^^this thread has a lot of good info...

[Gleemonex]

Ok, so it's very very close to parabolic. :2thumbsup:

If one were to look at the parabolic vs. elliptical debate with enough rigour to distinguish them with any degree of clarity, analytical dynamics (viz. fluid dynamics and soft body dynamics) [1] would quickly become far more significant factors in determining the trajectory.

Just figured I'd take the pedantry to its logical extreme and save us all the trouble :holmes:

As for the use of the Scorpion against armoured enemies: for lack of reference, I'm inclined to agree that anyone hit by a scorpion is in for some serious pain, no matter where it hit -- even one's shield or weapon. That's just my unverified suspicion though. Re-enactors (not that I know of any re-enactors who have been shot by Scorpions) might have more to say on this issue.

-Glee

==========================
[1] Some details here: aerodynamics and the archer's paradox