Author |
Message |
Ian S LaSpina
|
Posted: Mon 07 Oct, 2013 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | But see the fourteenth-century bascinet measurements by Robert Hardy I linked to above: 2.44-4.57mm on the top front. A uniform 16-18-guage helmet doesn't provide the same protection. |
Nice find! Yeah, that's definitely a thick and heavy helmet for the 14th century. Differential thickness in plates is definitely something reproduction armor loses but was very common in the real thing.
My YouTube Channel - Knyght Errant
My Pinterest
"Monsters are dangerous, and just now Kings are dying like flies..."
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
Posted: Tue 08 Oct, 2013 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also note that by my understanding the best armors of hardened steel would be less likely to dent and deform as the tested helmet did. On the other hand, a sharp edge would focus the force of the stroke on a smaller area. Regardless, there's hardly any reason to believe that halberds and like weapons clove heavy helms, though they could certainly incapacitate men through even the best protection with one or more mighty blows.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|