[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Taken From Spotlight: Oakeshott Type XVI Swords.
<<Oakeshott describes this combination by saying, "While the point is sharp enough even to penetrate armor plate, there was enough width and edge at the 'center of percussion' or 'optimal striking point' to enable the blade to strike a very powerful shearing blow. ">>
My question is: a sword thrust, could really pierce a plate armor?
I think he was talking of the thrust to find vulnerable gaps. Is it so?
help is appreciated

[Hugh Knight]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Jared L.]

'I don't know if you used half-swording you could penetrate. In Talhoffer's books you see the penetration of armour with the tip of the sword. And in paintings like the one about the battle of Barnett you see swords puncturing armour.

http://images.encyclopedia.com/getimage.aspx?...p;hero=yes

So I don't think Mr. Oakeshott was wrong. I think he was observant.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

I think it was possible to penetrate only thrust, finding vulnerable gaps.
Perhaps this is what is represented in the drawings, then there are always exaggerations.

[Bryan W.]

I'm certainly no expert but Id be surprised if armor was built to the same quality as modern steel is today. Furthermore I'm sure there were weak spots in armor beyond things like joints especially after repeated use and prolonged combat, denting, etc. I could totally see half swording and piercing armor just perhaps not consistently (still would be concerning for the armored person though). Also you don't need to run the sword through someone to cause enough damage to disable, not to mention the percussion alone may knock someone off balance.

[Hugh Knight]

Sorry, guys, but there's no evidence for penetrating plate. The Fechtbuch masters tell us how to fight a man in armor, and you know what? There's nothing about stabbing through plate. Ringeck said:
"If you want to place an attack on a prepared man, then you must detect his openings quickly. First attempt to attack him in the face, but also under the shoulders, in the palms of the hands or from the rear in the gloves, or in the hollows of the knee, between his legs and to all the members there, where the amour has his joints inside. Because it is best to attack him at these places." (Ringeck, fol. 89r)

And this from Goliath:
"Mark that where the armored man is best overcome is through the harness that is under the face or under the shoulders or in the hollow of the hand or on the arms behind the gloves or in the knee hollows or below to the soles of the feet and in the joints of the arm and between the legs and in the knowledge that his harness has joints you should thus seek the openings so that you need not work but stab when you next have one before you." (Goliath fol. 58v)

You see? It's the gaps in the harness. I think we do much better to listen to what the experts who lived and fought this way for real had to say rather than trying to guess what it "might" have been like. Some friends of mine (some of them *real* thugs) and I took a heavy steel pollaxe with a sharp dague and used it to thrust at a 16-ga. mild steel breastplate (meaning thinner than the center of a real breastplate) that was locked firmly in place (much better for hitting than anyone would be in a real fight, in other words). We slammed the dague into the breastplate with super-powerful single and double thrusts using a big, heavy step, and not a single thrust penetrated the breastplate (although they did leave amazing little dimples). If you can't penetrate with a pollaxe, you sure as *hell* couldn't do it with a halfsword.

[Markus A]

hello
allow me to point out
if plate armour can not be stabbed then why are swords made with stiff blades.and tip on swords strenghtened like chisels to break armour.sure while many blows will deflect or blocked with shield weapon whatever i would be very sure that an capable man which did know how to use his weapon best ,could delver armourbreaking stabs.
even if one did try to hit face and gapy in armour
but if an fallen adversary lies at ground and an hard and powerfull trust with such an armourbreaking sword is delivered ,this can break through.
in battle weapon was used in furror with lots of adrenalin
so if an beaked hammer breaks up an helm -have seen in zeughaus graz such helmets whits sqaure holes my self -why not an sword
and even if only with 10 percent chance.even the bow could break armour from 100 arrows maybe 2-5 penetrated and not all men where fully clad in armour plate.
cheers

[Hugh Knight]

[Nat Lamb]

regarding "if a beaked hammer can penetrate, then so can a sword"
I read a thread on the forum recently where someone quoted the force generated with and underarm or overarm thrust (seem to remember it was in association with spears, not sure though). The numbers were pretty unnimpressive compared to force generated by a swing, and iirc the indication was that thrusts from the arm were not a great armour penetration option, a point at right angles to a long lever being swung in an arc were just the ticket.. Addmitedly, with a downed opponent one could clench the hilt to the torso and "ab crunch" down with the trunk (like ringing a curch bell I guess), this would pressumably have more force, but I am not sure how viable this manouvre would be.

[Markus A]

hello
the polish husars did use an PANZERSTECHER or STIFFED TUCK
I ASUME NO ONE OF US DID EVER PARTICIPATE IN AN REAL BATTLE NOR WAS ANY ONE PRESENT WHEN SWORDS WHERE USED
I THINK ITS VERY SURE IF THE ANCESTORS DID INVENT STIFF BLADES THEY COULD THINK TO USE THEM
I DO NOT THINK THAT THEY FEARED THEIR BLADES WOULD SNAP AND BECAUSE OF THIS MADE THEM STIFF
i will not persist in my oppinion
but i would say if one is so sure
an test would the best thing
one puts on an breastblade takes an good stiff blade and invites and good muscled agile man in best training in handling swords to deliver some trust against the plate
i would not consider this the best idea.....nor would i want to wear the plate
but i do not insist on my oppinion this is absolut hypothentical.
i have learned that anything invented in weapon making is done for an reason.
while chaps are clad in mail blades are wide
when clad in plate blades will start to me made stiff with pointed tips
why?because of fashion?or because of an new challenge for the sword
i think because they where used for their purpose.even an trust entering the belly 1-2 cm is absolutly lethal
such an would did cause certain dead therefore the blade does not to have ramed fully through the poor chap
I MEAN THIS WITHOUT ANY PUN
I THINK THEY CAN -YOU SAY NO-
THATS ALL NO HARD FEELINGS
ONLY AN OPPINION
best regards

[Markus A]

worth to mention might be
that maximillian armour is fluted as gothic armour this to enlarge the strenght to withstand armourbreaking stabs.the fluting deflects blows and the fluting makes the metal more stiff....
i think this was done to try to lower the danger to trustings beeing delivered by stiff blades
not only because of fashion they have this flutings..
why if never an blade can break armour open
then the men of this date where used to hard work and i think had more power in their arms
an middle longbow has an draw weight of 100 pounds up to even 120-130 pounds
while today even good archer draw up to sixty pouns
please do not forget those mean di not walk out in the field on sunday afternoon
they lived with this weapon they used them in their trade and they did know how to use them to their best ability
if today one say i can no do it-this must not mean that they could not do it either
those chaps where experts in their trade.as snipers today which hit an ballon from 1 mile distance while the normal chap can not...
only my last thought
bad english i know
cheers

[Dan Howard]

[Hugh Knight]

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Mr. Markus,
welcome among us.
I invite you to read here. Is an excellent article on mail.
It is not, armor plate, but gives an idea of what an mail is resistant against any misinterpretation.
May help to understand the resistance of an armor plate.
Regards

[Markus A]

hi
if i write it in big letters i no not yell
its only that i want to point out that this is in my oppinion an aspect i consider more important in my guesswork
why should i have the need to quarell
chances are equal
so say no
i say yes
thats all.i have no need to start an new crusade about this matter.i have some time at moment this matter is interesting to me and so i write.not more.
i have no intentions to yell or to quarell about such an thing.the result is as senseless as to try hammer an soft cushion with an peacock feather
i learned in my life and in handling orginal weaponry never say never.i admitt that from 100 stabs maybe only 5 did penetrate.i saw albion workers pierce modern steeldrums with ease......and it did not look like they had to much problems with this
you will see people which say
this is absoluty impossible
i say simply
no one of us was present at an medieval battle
and if paintings and old woodcuts show us such stabs i would not consider this as artistic guesswork
this artists did live in this times and did know about the weapon capabilities
they where present at this date
we not
so i consider their picturing not as sience fiction but simply as painted war reports
all written in small
again no hard feelings
again i asked myself- why i as amourer would work my ase out in hammering and fluting armour,if i do know that no chap will ever pierce my armour
then i spare myself this labour and leave those flutings simply off.because even plain armour is secure.i admitt that i have to consider the warhammer lance and axe as opposing force as well.
why shall i add reactive armour on my abrams if the chaps can not pierce it with their panzerfaust
so i spare me this waste of labour and money
if the armourer did those flutings then because it was more than decoration
i still say the could do it
best regards
again i have no interest to offend anybody

[Markus A]

dear maurizio
thanks.
i see it so.in combat situation one fights not in pairs.like in weird knight movies.when one is finished one searches an new partner on the field and leaves anyone beneath unscathed untill you find an new adversary...one knows this in battle totals
and nor did knights fight in pairs and if the seldomst-and had the chanche to deliver exact trusts which had armpit visorslit ect as primary target.
they fought tightly packed and shoved against each other.while hacking stabbing trusting in any direction.so it was not possible in such battle situation to aim for an special weak point.
one simply trusted hacked blocked enemies blades and tried not to loose balance.if falling you where for certain an dead
man.simply trotted in the mud and hacked to pieces.
considering that an trusting sword with very stiff blade is not to effective in slashing ,one truts with it.and of course all hits on an plate armour are to divide in their effects as full effctice middle and inferior.
this is due to they distance of an trust the angle the force of its delivering ect.and because flashing iron is coming from many sides this is then an hailstorm which rains on men in first ranks.hard knocks weaker ones glancing ones.full hits ect
so if such weapons would not be able to break armour i think no one really would use them.
because if i would take an weapon in battle which is only capable to deliver stings in weak points.very unpleasent in such an raging battle.it would take to much time to try to locate an weak spot to stab at...
i would then use an hammer an axe an mace and go for the brutal
but the sword was the mainweapon of an knight.the axe was wielded by the rank an file.
i cannot think an man even an knight-as best equipped fighter-would go in an fight handling an sword which is only able to harm its opponent when he deliver such delicate stabs......
so from logical reasons it should be able to break up plate.even again i admitt only in an ideal situataion
surely most stbs did glance off but some surely hit and broke the plate open.
i think this is all
i try this way to dust of the meager english left over from school-
cheers

[Luka Borscak]