"Effective Against Armor" Nonsense..

What is the deal with so many armor piercing weapons?

Some of the choices make sense, like poleaxe type things, cleaving style polearms, warhammers, heavy x-bows, higher end longbowmen and firearms.

However some of the choices are really off the wall. Almost every non-sword/spear hand weapon is armor piercing (Hand axes, maces, hatchets) and the most ridiculous one of all: javelins :furious3: ! Yes, a light spear made for distance is more than a match for that plate armor that stands up to spears and two handed swords. A 1000+ lbs of charging knight doesn't get "effective against armor" but if that knight stops his charge and throws his lance, he would?!:dizzy2: I have completed the campaign as Russia and Spain and the effectiveness of javelins against the heaviest armored troops was really just foolish.

It is rather silly... and don't even get me started about hand axes or clubs...

Maces are armour piercing if you've seen the ones that knights used.

Yes some of the later period maces are specifically meant to smoosh armored opponents. I should have listed them in the sensible group :yes:

Depends on what kind of armor you're talking about. I couldn't seriously see a javelin piercing a piece of plate armor, but if we're talking about a javelin piercing a chainmail shirt, then most definitely.

The chain links on the chainmail were really effective against slashes from say, swords, but when something like a javelin was thrown at them, the head of the javelin would bust the links it came in contact with and would pierce the armor. It's the same sort of idea with a crossbow bolt or with a bodkin arrow.

Now when you start moving up to plates of armor, the utility of certain weapons change. Axes, which probably weren't as effective against a chain hauberk, now focus a lot of weight and force on one narrow part of the armor. Hammers and heavier axes/swords would completely negate the fact that there was even armor in the first place by causing blunt trauma. The blunt trauma might not be enough to kill a man, but knocking him to the ground senseless is enough time to smash in the front of his helmet with your weapon, crushing the man's skull.

Certain weapons were designed with sharp spikes, that worked like can openers. A huge amount of force would be focused on one point, which had a greater chance of piercing armor.

Later on, with the increased usage of gunpowder, it was common for an armorer to actually test his plate mail by shooting it with a musket himself. Knights would search for the plate mail with the round indendation on it, which meant that it had been tested against musket fire. I'm sure that this practice came about because of the effectiveness of muskets against armor in the first place.

Javilens shouldn't be effective against armor; when the 100 years war spilled over into Spain the Castilian's found their Jenites utterly useless against the English men-at-arms. On the other hand the Men-at-arms couldn't catch the Jenites because they could scamper so fast. CA seems to be big on this for some obscure reason.

The English is Spain? Well read about it here
http://paginaspersonales.deusto.es/a...najera1367.htm

Mmmh, it depends.

Smashing plate armour is not so easy. If someone is so lucky to possess SWM No. 1 (Swiss Weapon Magazin) one can read about the testing of an original halberd of ca. 1600 against an original munition half-harness for foot soldiers of ca. the same period. The armour was placed on a straw rack. The halberd was refitted with a modern shaft and swung by a bulky person. Not that great against the armour. The axeblade was nearly useless only producing small scars with the heaviest strokes. Thrusts with the point produced small holes not deep enough to wound the wearer. But a heavy blow with the spike on the back of the halberd axeblade indeed pierced the plate with ease and would have disabled a man.

If the harness would have be worn by a real human being the impact of a heavy blow, even without denting the plate, could (but must not everytime) lead to momentary disorientation or unconsciousness which would have been followed by a deadly stroke against unprotected parts of the body. That is what PaulTa rightly said before although it is not exactly a "blunt trauma" (which happened when a soft armour stops a stroke/bolt/arrow/bullet but the energy is transferred into the body without penetration; this results in bruises and is mostly overrated in its effect). One great advantage of plate is to avoid blunt traumata because of the rigidity of the material.

So the heavy two handed weapons of the later middle ages could mostly not smash plate or pierce it but knock down the wearer momentarily so that he can be dispatched. If a joint was hit or a small dent was achieved near it the movement of the harnessed man could be restricted, too.:dizzy2:

Two handed swords are very debatable weapons. They are the least effective weapons against plate compared with halberds or bills (no concentration of force) but are on the other side also quite dangerous for the friends around the user. There is a strong opinion that "Zweihänder" were mostly weapons of representation for guards and seldom used for actual fighting.:juggle2:

As javelins are concerned: if it would be a heavy javelin perhaps with a very sharp head or a pilum or something all metal like a soliferrum the piercing of plate would be possible - more possible than with longbow arrows or crossbow bolts. Lets assume the javelinmen in M2TW use something like that.:sweatdrop:

But historical facts apart: M2TW needs a system of its own. The abundance of good plate armour must be met by an abundance of anti-armour weapons, otherwise it would perhaps be realistic, but not fair and thus boring. Would you f.e. like a unit of longbowmen shooting all their arrows against perhaps Gothic Foot Knights or Scottish Noble Pikemen and killing only 5 or 10 out of 90?

I don't have M2TW yet but I really think that by now CA would be using different types of armour piercing by now. What pierces early armour won't pierce gothic armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Maces are armour piercing if you've seen the ones that knights used.

---

Maces are for sure effective against armour, not neccessarily for the reason that they penetrated armour but the sheer impact can cause blunt force trauma on the victim leaving them with internal damage or hemorraghing.

I'm no expert on the issue, but from my days of watching the history channel and reading articles on the internet (mostly wikipedia), I've gathered that blunt weapons weren't effective against armor, but effective against an armored opponent. The blunt trauma would be enough to knock an opponent down, and a now prone opponent could have his face mask smashed in. I'd guess, from what I've seen and read, that the face mask is one of the most vulnerable parts of a heavily armored opponent.

The key is to get an opponent prone. The mace would knock an opponent senseless, the billhook would pull an opponent down, and a large axe or hammer would serve as a means of knocking an opponent down.

Like others have said, a large spike on a polearm has the same effect as a can opener.


So as far as I can see, the only thing that armor has been consistantly effective against throughout the years is swords.

Except the armour piercing short swords.

Javelins are one of the few things that would be completely ineffective against plate armor. Short stabbing swords would be another, as would spears.

Maces, axes, and bastard/long swords would most likely not go *through* the armor but would dent/mangle/bash it in enough to break bones beneath the armor - which is certainly an effective way of slowly defeating your opponent.

The absolute best weapons for getting through armor were military pick style weapons : a heavy mass that was swung, with all the force concentrated on a sharp spike at the end. That *would* punch right through armor.

A man just standing and jabbing with a spear would not be able to generate enough force to go through plate armor. A hurtling knight with all the weight of his horse providing impetus? His lance might penetrate armor, if it didn't break. But the mere force of the blow could finish off the opponent even if it didn't penetrate the armor.

Ever make the mistake of throwing your lawn-dart into your car? Right through the hood and PD box (at least for me). Think of that on a much greater scale. Javelins were pretty damn good at peircing armor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Ever make the mistake of throwing your lawn-dart into your car? Right through the hood and PD box (at least for me). Think of that on a much greater scale. Javelins were pretty damn good at peircing armor.

---

:juggle2: Didn't do it.

Javelins may not go through armor. But you can bet your boots that darts will. By even the end of the Roman period the latter legionaries started to carry darts. The irish were renowned for their darts. By M2TW greek like javelins were not used, heavy plate piercing darts were. If you doubt that lead and iron darts wont pierce steel, I'd suggest vuk's experiment.....

Someone with some spare cash and a big lawn needs to do some practical tests before this matter can be laid to rest i think!

some things should be clarified:

Mail is almost invulrable against most weapons, it is left mostly unharmed by spears and swords as well as axes and maces.
But the latter ones do a lot of blunt damage. So you could kill a mail clad knight with an axe, without doing any damage
to his mail.

And actually axes are more effective against a mailed knight than against a knight in alwhyte armor, because
plate offers greater protection against blunt trauma (due to its stiffness) and also most plate amors are constructed
to deflect blows.
Against a full plate armor in melee only halberds, warhammers, pollaxes and other heavy pole weapons would be effective.
Blunt damage could stupify and sometimes kill through plate. Thats why maces are more effective against plate than swords.
For the same reason the romans hired germanic mercenaries with clubs to fight against parthian asavaran (cataphracts);
the barbarians would simply bash them in through their armors.



Cutting through mail, even with two handed swords or axes, is a myth.
Everyone interested in medieval armor should read this:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

Mail armour is as underrestimated as katanas are hyped.


@Geala:
Its called blunt trauma, because its not penetration trauma.
And if you use a very heavy pollaxe, it can deliver more damage to a plate clad man than just a little dizzyness.
Shockwaves strong enough to damge his intestines will be transferred through the stiff armor.

watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqCM68-UoUA


Two handed swords:

I presume you are talking about Schlachtschwerter/"Zweihänder" (Historically called "Schlachtschwerter", but not "Bidenhänder, Zweihänder" etc. until the 19th Century).

It is right that the use of two handed sword to hack through pikes is a myth and that they are not effective against plate (except maybe some of the rare danish "awl swords"), but they were in fact very effective battle weapons.
We have do distinguish between actual two handed fighting swords and the ritual swords you were talking about, also called bearing swords/Paradschwerter.
Schlachtschwerter meant for battle had a length of 1.4 - 1.7 metres and did not weight more than 3 kg. Such weapons can be used to do sophisticated fencing.
It can be used against multiple opponents and is very versatile (One has a lot of different reaches: normal grip, ricasso grip, half swording).
Because of that it was often used by bodyguards called Trabanten and near banners. It was also used in street fights and in pike battles. Schlachtschwerter and halberds were used together by contigents of light infantry or support units for pikemen.


additional reading:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html
and
(german)
http://www.schwertkampf-ochs.de/Essa...schwert_v1.pdf



Javelins:
No javelin hurled by a man could penetrate plate, but a crannequin metal crossbow maybe could. The last crossbows actually had a similar penetration power to contemporary handguns.