| Author |
Message |
|
James R.Fox
Location: Youngstowm,Ohio Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
 Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 10:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Sirs- the only thing I can say is read my source"Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World" Its available at Amazon, which is where I got it. The expers who wrote it all agree that buff, as it was made and used 1500 to 1800 could turn saber slashes, and long range pistol and arquebus shot, but not the musket which fired a ball twice as heavy as the arqubus ball, and was intended as an armour piercer.If you have an arguement with that, please write the men who made the statements. I agree however,that, all their illustrations of buff look Very heavy and stiff.
Ja68ms
|
|
   |
 |
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
The only instance of firearms being specifically intended as an armour-piercer was when steel shot was used - regardless of the weapon they were fired from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The expers who wrote it all agree that buff, as it was made and used 1500 to 1800 could turn saber slashes, and long range pistol and arquebus shot, but not the musket which fired a ball twice as heavy as the arqubus ball |
I don't doubt it could turn saber slashes, but how often? I think it would really matter as to how effective of a slash was made, whcih can vary greatly.
With the tests I have seen on leather - the tester clearly indicated he was "cutting", not "chopping", which means the cutting attack has more blade draw on the target, a pure chop would have very little.
My guess is the leather resists chopping better than cutting. This is kind of interesting, as a draw across mail would be useless. Not that a chop from a sword would cut through the mail - but it will deliver more percussive force.
So one would think that the type of attacks you made against someone would vary, trying to chop at someone in mail, cut someone in leather. A cut vs. mail will due little of anything unless it catches exposed flesh - and leather or quilt might be able to turn a solid chop.
As far as the coat being able to turn pistol shot at long range - I guess the important thing would really be at what range. At long enough range, a parka might be able to turn a spent pistol shot 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Parramore
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think to some extent people are losing the point, There is a pair of gothic gauntlets in the Royal Armouries that is only .5 to .8 of a mm thick and they think it was never much more than that, so a 32nd of an inch I think.
I don't think that would stand a chop or a slash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | There is a pair of gothic gauntlets in the Royal Armouries that is only .5 to .8 of a mm thick and they think it was never much more than that, so a 32nd of an inch I think.
I don't think that would stand a chop or a slash. |
Metal or leather? If leather, soft or hardened?
Either way, if of leather, they would be better suited for decoration than armour.
If of metal, that's an entirely different story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Parramore
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Iron, if somehow it managed not to be cut, the wrist would be damaged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Iron, if somehow it managed not to be cut, the wrist would be damaged |
,5 to .8 mm iron or steel is a far cry from 16 weight leather!
The Earlier Breastplates were in the 1 mm thickness range when worn under mail, going to 2+mm if worn on their own. Gauntlets are listed as generally being 1.3mm, so those gauntlets alse appear a bit on the thin side. These thicknesses are per Alan Williams.
The penetration numbers for these different types of armour vs. an arow are 30 joules for buff leather, 55 joules for 1 mm of mild steel, and the impact for mild steel is assumming a perpendicular impact, which on a gauntlet would be very difficult.
So it looks as though .5-.8mm of mild steel is better than the buff leather coat. Even at .5mm the numbers would probably be similar, but once again it takes the perpendicular impact to be penetrated by 55 joules for 1 mm. Assuming a non-perpendicular impact, the numbers needed to penetrate would be higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Parramore
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
That is only a fraction thicker than a tin can, I do not think a intended hit with a sword would be turned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006...uscle.html
| Quote: | Energy delivered:
Stabbing:
Underarm: up to 63 J
Overarm: up to 115 J
(These are maximum values. PSDP testing suggests that a stab resistant vest rated at 43 joules should be able to stop stabs from 96% of the male population. These standards assume typical commercial knife handles. A fighting handle with a well designed guard to prevent slipping might add another 5 J to the effective attack.
English bows:
70 lb bow: 52-55 J (Hardy)
70 lb bow: 46-47 J at 10 m
80 lb bow: 70-83 J (61 J at 50 m)
140 lb bow: 99-104 J (Calculated from Soar et al) |
Well, I thik you are right, neither would apparently be real effective against many attacks.
As mentined though, it's how solid of a hit achieved.
Think of a baseball bat and ball - how many times do you get that "perfect" hit in - more often than not it's not a full impact hit. Something like a buff coat or very thin metal could turn some of the hits.
Though as I mentioned, that .5-.8mm seems awful thin even for gauntlets. Where these in any way parade type armour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Parramore
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is my point with the leather.
They were for field, not real fancy.
They would be fighting not trading blows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | This is my point with the leather.
They were for field, not real fancy.
They would be fighting not trading blows. |
Don't quite understand what you mean here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Parramore
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah that Kind of came out the wrong way, the gauntlets were for field use, but when people talk about armour it is as though it would stop everything, but it was meant to protect but not encumber, the guy still had to move and defend himself, armour as I understand it was designed to protect against glancing blows, tournament armour was designed to take it full on.
So some are discounting leather based on modern tanned leather and not oil tanned and also not with regard to it being defensive as opposed to it being completely impenetrable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most metal armour will stop most battlefield threats, at least not being penetrated.
My guess is 1mm of mild steel would be tough to pentrate for most weapons, though in a chaotic battlefield some pretty high impacts could happen, such as the issue with Robert the Bruce using the momentum of his opponents horse to add to the force of the blow as discussed on another thread.
Of course a lance from a charging horse while the other rider is also charging could generate a lot of impact as well.
| Quote: | | armour as I understand it was designed to protect against glancing blows |
Reminds me a little of the joke (may have been true) where the Germans uparmoured either their halftracks or trucks to protect against .50 caliber machine gun fire. When asked how it was working, it was answered "Great! The bullets used to pass clean through, now they only go in one side and rattle around a bit" 
But I guess its how well it protects, I mean does it slow the blow enough to prevent serious injury in general? And if it does not do much to prevent the serious injury, is it worth the cost and the fatigue caused by wearing it as opposed to wearing nothing?
My problem with leather armour is that compared to textile based armour, it seems to protect no better if as well, it's more expensive I would think, and any thickness that offers "decent" protection is not only heavy but also stiff in comparison.
| Quote: | | So some are discounting leather based on modern tanned leather and not oil tanned |
From what I know though, does not this vegetable oil not only make it stronger to resist penetration but stiffer as well?
I just would think to get it to the point where it gives good resistance you are looking at something that is rather inflexible and would not wear well as a hauberk. I think of things like stiff police style holsters here.
But the one thing I really was impressed by was the hardened leather lammelar. Blows that cut through other leather based armour or severly stressed it in the case of a hardened leather plate only seemed to scar the leather lammelar, though of course it did not hold up as well as mail.
I could see it as fairly effective for the Asiastic horsemen, though I'm not sure how prevalnet it was. I wonder why it never made it's way to western europe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Mearkle
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even if it was a .380 (90 gr (5.8 g) JHP 1,000 ft/s (300 m/s) 200 ft·lbf (270 J), could you hold on to the buckler if it could?
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh Warren
Location: Manhattan, Kansas Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
0.8mm of hardened steel will indeed stop a sword cut. You need to see what some reproduction armourers are doing with ultra-thin spring steel these days.
Non Concedo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Parramore
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think that much of the steel produced back then would be upto modern standards and case hardening if used was still quite patchy?
And yes I would love to see some examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Josh Warren wrote:
| Quote: | | 0.8mm of hardened steel will indeed stop a sword cut. You need to see what some reproduction armourers are doing with ultra-thin spring steel these days. |
I'm not sure what you are spreaking in reference to with spring steel. What is the Carbon Content? Is it equivalent to the Mild Steel made in the middle ages?
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spring steal has 0.52-0.60% carbon. It's used to make items that need to constantly return to their normal shape. Silicon is the major alloying element (around .7 to 1.0 %).
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
    |
|
Brawn Barber
Location: In the shop Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Jan, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Agreed, Hunter. You would think that this type of claim would be substantiated by proof at the outset of the claim, at least a docmentation of the incredibly fashioned piece during and after deflection of the high velocity projectile
|
|
 |
|
|
Josh Warren
Location: Manhattan, Kansas Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Jan, 2009 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I recommend Dr. Alan Williams' The Knight and the Blast Furnace for an in-depth treatment of medieval military metallurgy. Yes, they could indeed achieve satisfactory results with hardening and heat treatment of steel armour. No, it wasn't as pure a steel as modern manufactured steel, but it was still sufficient to allow a 0.8mm plate gauntlet to resist a sword cut.
Non Concedo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic