Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
Yes, certainly measurements in joules only give a very rough estimate of weapon power. For example, if you want to punch through a breastplate, it's much easier to use a sharpened steel lance point than a ball of lead. That's why muskets can have such force and still fail to penetrate at times.
Thanks for the info on pistols, Gordon. As I thought they are far weaker. Interestingly enough, Williams says the lance was only very slightly less powerful than the pistol... |
Benjamin;
You are very welcome, happy to oblige. :)
Indeed, Sir Roger was definitely in favor of his "Launtiers"! On the other hand, Francios de la Noue had little respect for the lance, stating that "(I)t would be a miracle if any were slain by the spear in these days" (late 1580's), while strongly advocating the pistol. Both solid old soldiers with lots of experience to back up their opinions. I think one thing is that while, if given a solid purchase the lance point would be effective, the fact that by this time so much of the armour was so well designed with glancing surfaces that it had very little chance for that, while a bullet could smash it's way through with little regard, if big enough and of high enough velocity (i.e. close enough). Hmmm... sounds like tanks today... ;)
As I recall, one of the big changes made in the late 16th Century to armour was a return to wrought iron for "proof" armour, since it was more likely to give a little, rather than crack and break like hardened spring steel would, when hit by bullets. There certainly were attempts to "sandwich" both spring steel and wrought iron together to make breastplates in the 17th Century, and one wonders how much of that was done in the 16th as well, but no one has noticed it yet.
Cheers!
Gordon