-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
Back in middle school I watched a video about the crusades which states that European knights wore thick felt pads over their armor which made them virtually immune to arrow fire as the arrows would simply stick in the felt, however during the crusades the knights had to abandon this tactic because it was simply too hot in the middle east to wear both armor and felt, and thus they were at a big disadvantage to Muslim archers.
I have never heard anything about these felt pads since. Was this a real thing?
Metal armor that isnt covered up by cloth tends to get really hot in the desert sun but I suppose it's possible that they replaced them with something lighter.
However I think it was a muslim source in the first place that described Frankish soldiers being stuck full of arrows but remaining unharmed due to the felt over their mail.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rrgg
Metal armor that isnt covered up by cloth tends to get really hot in the desert sun but I suppose it's possible that they replaced them with something lighter.
However I think it was a muslim source in the first place that described Frankish soldiers being stuck full of arrows but remaining unharmed due to the felt over their mail.
I would think that the sun would make the armor heat up, so a light colored cloth covering would probably help in the hot climate.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
I've noticed some shields have a handle and a strap, while others have two straps. Would there be advantages to either one other than personal preference?
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Figgin of Chaos
I've noticed some shields have a handle and a strap, while others have two straps. Would there be advantages to either one other than personal preference?
Throughout much of the history, at least in general Europe and Mediterranean Sea region, shields without any straps at all would be most popular. Just grip just behind the boss (if boss is present, although it usually was).
Straps appeared in 'classic' hoplite aspis/hoplon, for example - in such case we can assume that more stable grip, with support of whole arm and body behind shield, was considered more important than general mobility, reach and so on.
Which fits what we know/suspect about phalanx tactics.
Strapped shields in medieval Europe very often still had central grip, and strap was used if necessary - to hold the reins in hand, grab two handed weapon while still bearing shield etc.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
And you don't mention the T-34? The T-34 was probably the single most important tank of the war. The design of the best German tank, the Panther, was mostly copying lots of good ideas from the T-34. The T-34 was easy to make (no other tank comes even close to the numbers in which the T-34 was produced), it was fast (it had the same unique suspension mechanism that the earlier Russian BT tanks had), it was one of the first tanks (after some BT tanks I believe) to take full advantage of sloping armor. As a result it was light, fast, very well armored, and there was an enormous amount of them. As a medium tank, it was competitive with much more expensive heavy tanks. It's the tank that could do almost everything, and as such it's basically the predecessor of all modern main battle tanks.
In sheer firepower and armor it was eventually surpassed by later tanks of course, but for most of the war, the T-34s dominated the east front. Who knows how the war might have turned out without it?
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Autolykos
Came in way too late though (IIRC later than the Tiger II). At that point the only advantage it had was that it was reasonably cheap to produce (compared to those over-engineered monstrosities like the Tiger series). Good from a strategic standpoint, but nothing spectacular.
Being cheap is an enormous advantage when you're strapped for resources, which the Germans were. Their obsession with over-engineered heavy tanks hasn't done them any good. The Tiger, feared though it was, wasn't really all that important, because there just weren't all that many of them. They were too expensive to make, and not even all that reliable.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mcv
Being cheap is an enormous advantage when you're strapped for resources, which the Germans were. Their obsession with over-engineered heavy tanks hasn't done them any good. The Tiger, feared though it was, wasn't really all that important, because there just weren't all that many of them. They were too expensive to make, and not even all that reliable.
and after a while the "Tiger Phobia" they caused among allied troops started hurting them. Rumors of a Tiger being in a location were all that was needed to convice allied forces to bring obscene amounts of firepower to bear. A tiger is a tough tank, but no vehicle can survive the amount of firepower allied forces would direct at a Tiger that they located. There were instances of entire towns being leveled due to a soldier thinking he saw a Tiger tank in it. There is such a thing as being too powerful for your own good.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mcv
And you don't mention the T-34? The T-34 was probably the single most important tank of the war. The design of the best German tank, the Panther, was mostly copying lots of good ideas from the T-34. The T-34 was easy to make (no other tank comes even close to the numbers in which the T-34 was produced), it was fast (it had the same unique suspension mechanism that the earlier Russian BT tanks had), it was one of the first tanks (after some BT tanks I believe) to take full advantage of sloping armor. As a result it was light, fast, very well armored, and there was an enormous amount of them. As a medium tank, it was competitive with much more expensive heavy tanks. It's the tank that could do almost everything, and as such it's basically the predecessor of all modern main battle tanks.
In sheer firepower and armor it was eventually surpassed by later tanks of course, but for most of the war, the T-34s dominated the east front. Who knows how the war might have turned out without it?
Differently. no doubt, but it was not a tank without flaws.
First, thier was the typical russain disregard for Ergonomics, which ment the crew tired much more quickly in prolonged conflict compared to other tanks of the era (let along later tanks).
Second, and more serious, thier was the two man turret, which basically lowered proformance across the whole board. Quite simply, in a two man turret, where the commander is also the gunner, your commander can't fight the tank very effectively becuase he is too busy being a gunner. he#s not keeping his eyes open for new threats/targets, he's not steering the driver, and so his tank is not fighting as well as he could, because he too busy stareing down his sights.
the three man turret was introduced with the t34/85 model of the late war, which is why a poster last page claimed it was amoung the best tanks of the war.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Storm Bringer
Second, and more serious, thier was the two man turret, which basically lowered proformance across the whole board. Quite simply, in a two man turret, where the commander is also the gunner, your commander can't fight the tank very effectively becuase he is too busy being a gunner. he#s not keeping his eyes open for new threats/targets, he's not steering the driver, and so his tank is not fighting as well as he could, because he too busy stareing down his sights.
the three man turret was introduced with the t34/85 model of the late war, which is why a poster last page claimed it was amoung the best tanks of the war.
I think this claim tends to be over exaggerated. French tanks had one-man turrets, and people attack them as "disastrous" design flaws. But the French themselves didn't complain about it (they did complain about the lack of a top hatch), and their tanks actually did quite well when they could get into battle. I think people tend to confuse "differences" for "flaws", and we should be careful about that.
If I remember correctly, most of the tanks from that period couldn't really fire on the move (until perhaps later in the war?), so having the commander direct the driver to a position, then operating the gun, rather than directing the gunner, is neither unfeasible, or illogical. It also allows a smaller turret, which means less weight.
I'm not saying that having the commander also be the gunner (and even the loader), is better, I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't bear out that it was a serious flaw. Nowadays it may be, but at the time it seems to have not caused serious problems, and the historical context is necessary in our evaluation.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Storm Bringer
Differently. no doubt, but it was not a tank without flaws.
First, thier was the typical russain disregard for Ergonomics, which ment the crew tired much more quickly in prolonged conflict compared to other tanks of the era (let along later tanks).
Second, and more serious, thier was the two man turret, which basically lowered proformance across the whole board. Quite simply, in a two man turret, where the commander is also the gunner, your commander can't fight the tank very effectively becuase he is too busy being a gunner. he#s not keeping his eyes open for new threats/targets, he's not steering the driver, and so his tank is not fighting as well as he could, because he too busy stareing down his sights.
the three man turret was introduced with the t34/85 model of the late war, which is why a poster last page claimed it was amoung the best tanks of the war.
Yes, the T-34 was pretty much a death trap, too. Required human wave tactics with tanks to overwhelm German tanks, from what I recall. Yes, it was mechanically reliably -- got you very quickly to where you were going to die burning.
That's why the Soviet troops called the SU and ISU self-propelled assault guns "nyekrasivo, no spasibo" -- "ugly, but thank you" -- because they could take on the German tanks with them and have a chance of winning and not dying in the process from inferior fighting capabilities of their equipment.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mcv
Being cheap is an enormous advantage when you're strapped for resources, which the Germans were. Their obsession with over-engineered heavy tanks hasn't done them any good. The Tiger, feared though it was, wasn't really all that important, because there just weren't all that many of them. They were too expensive to make, and not even all that reliable.
While I agree that the Tiger (and later, even more expensive constructions like the Tiger II) didn't have much effect on the war, they might still be a more effective use of resources than mass-producing "cheap" designs. What makes them cheap is generally a low need for industrial/manufacturing capacity (which was pretty much the only thing Germany was not short of), but they might need more raw materials and crew for the same "combat value".
I might over-simplify here a little to get the point across, but I doubt you could build more than two or three Shermans or T-34s from the materials needed for a Tiger (and would need more crew and perhaps even fuel to use them). And numbers alone won't do them much good if they can only hurt the Tiger on a lucky hit (unless you have such masses that luck will become statistics - which the allies had towards the end of the war).
I don't think the results would've been much different if the Germans
had continued building Pz III and Pz IV while the Soviets ignored the T-34 and focused on the KV and IS series (the Americans didn't have that much of a choice since they had to ship their tanks across the ocean). The decisions were (mostly) sensible, given the relative constraints of manufacturing capacity, raw materials and manpower.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Autolykos
While I agree that the Tiger (and later, even more expensive constructions like the Tiger II) didn't have much effect on the war, they might still be a more effective use of resources than mass-producing "cheap" designs. What makes them cheap is generally a low need for industrial/manufacturing capacity (which was pretty much the only thing Germany was not short of), but they might need more raw materials and crew for the same "combat value".
I might over-simplify here a little to get the point across, but I doubt you could build more than two or three Shermans or T-34s from the materials needed for a Tiger (and would need more crew and perhaps even fuel to use them). And numbers alone won't do them much good if they can only hurt the Tiger on a lucky hit (unless you have such masses that luck will become statistics - which the allies had towards the end of the war).
I don't think the results would've been much different if the Germans
had continued building Pz III and Pz IV while the Soviets ignored the T-34 and focused on the KV and IS series (the Americans didn't have that much of a choice since they had to ship their tanks across the ocean). The decisions were (mostly) sensible, given the relative constraints of manufacturing capacity, raw materials and manpower.
But more weak tanks lets you use tanks in more places than a few strong tanks. It's not a simple question of two or three Shermans fighting one Tiger, it's the fact that there were enough Shermans to support attacks at multiple points in the line, and the few Tigers couldn't be everywhere. Or if the tried, they'd burn precious fuel getting there, and run the risk of being caught on the move by Allied air power.
Twice as many Pz IV tanks, spread out to cover more ground might have been a better use of resources.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike_G
But more weak tanks lets you use tanks in more places than a few strong tanks. It's not a simple question of two or three Shermans fighting one Tiger, it's the fact that there were enough Shermans to support attacks at multiple points in the line, and the few Tigers couldn't be everywhere. Or if the tried, they'd burn precious fuel getting there, and run the risk of being caught on the move by Allied air power.
Twice as many Pz IV tanks, spread out to cover more ground might have been a better use of resources.
Actually, German military doctrine that was actually successful dictated that they wouldn't try to be everywhere. They performed best where they were able to focus a decisive hit at a dispersed enemy. Even if they had enough tanks to reinforce every force, they wouldn't have wanted to ideally.
Dispersing numerous tanks across a wide area is what cost the BEF and the French France.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yukitsu
Actually, German military doctrine that was actually successful dictated that they wouldn't try to be everywhere. They performed best where they were able to focus a decisive hit at a dispersed enemy.
Which is nice when you're attacking, but not when the enemy are threatening you on several fronts.
A concentrated reaction force to use in a counterattack is a good idea, but not when American fighter-bombers are just waiting for a chance to kill some Tigers on the move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yukitsu
Even if they had enough tanks to reinforce every force, they wouldn't have wanted to ideally.
Dispersing numerous tanks across a wide area is what cost the BEF and the French France.
Without a decent tactical reserve, yes it can spell disaster. But a defender more or less has to cover a lot of ground or the enemy will just hit where he isn't. The trick is have enough forces to slow the enemy attack wherever it comes, and a reserve that you can move to meet it.
If the British and French defended the wide front with a speedbump of infantry and anti tank guns and used their tanks as a fire brigade to oppose German attacks when they revealed their position, that might have been a better plan. Unless superior German air support hit those tanks on the move.
By the time Germany was on the defensive in '44 and '45, they didn't have the fuel to keep moving a quick reaction force, or the air cover to protect it. Hull down light tanks or tank killers are hard to root out. Tanks on the move, even heavy ones, can be spotted and knocked out by good tac air.
If superior German close air support
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike_G
Which is nice when you're attacking, but not when the enemy are threatening you on several fronts.
A concentrated reaction force to use in a counterattack is a good idea, but not when American fighter-bombers are just waiting for a chance to kill some Tigers on the move.
At that point after Kursk, realistically, they couldn't have done much about fighter bombers cleaning up a good deal of their tanks whether they were dispersed or in concentration, the air superiority was simply too complete. (and even assuming it weren't, Bradley would have rolled over France about as fast as Patton later did, owing to the larger number of lighter, softer hitting dispersed tanks having to fight equal quality American tanks that were concentrated.)
Quote:
Without a decent tactical reserve, yes it can spell disaster. But a defender more or less has to cover a lot of ground or the enemy will just hit where he isn't. The trick is have enough forces to slow the enemy attack wherever it comes, and a reserve that you can move to meet it.
Germans were slowing down the advance on that front more with the panzerfaust and bocages along the countryside more than they could have with panzer IIIs, and at any rate, most of the French countryside was exposed enough that a tank based rather than infantry based speed bump would be far too obvious a target for bombers. Even then, you didn't need a whole tank for those speed bumps. The Germans used their flak cannons to good use in those engagements without taking up anywhere near the resources of a full group of tanks or tank destroyers.
Quote:
If the British and French defended the wide front with a speedbump of infantry and anti tank guns and used their tanks as a fire brigade to oppose German attacks when they revealed their position, that might have been a better plan. Unless superior German air support hit those tanks on the move.
By the time Germany was on the defensive in '44 and '45, they didn't have the fuel to keep moving a quick reaction force, or the air cover to protect it. Hull down light tanks or tank killers are hard to root out. Tanks on the move, even heavy ones, can be spotted and knocked out by good tac air.
At that point in time, simply focusing production on flak cannons (which to a very large degree they did) was a superior option. Even then however, the lighter tank wouldn't necessarily have been superior to the heavier tanks dug in, simply because the panzer 3's 76mm gun didn't have the same stopping power as the tiger's 88mm anti-tank cannon.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike_G
If the British and French defended the wide front with a speedbump of infantry and anti tank guns and used their tanks as a fire brigade to oppose German attacks when they revealed their position, that might have been a better plan. Unless superior German air support hit those tanks on the move.
The French actually did something like that, if I remember correctly. They had infantry and cavalry tanks. The infantry tanks were spread out to support the infantry, but the cavalry tanks (mostly if not all Somua S.35's), were concentrated into a reaction force. They rushed them to the lowlands, where they achieved tactical success at the Battle of Hannut, but the Germans outflanked them and passed through the Ardennes, they rushed them back, but by then the hard driving started to take it's toll it was too late anyway. In hindsight, the French basically committed their cavalry tank forces too early.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike_G
Which is nice when you're attacking, but not when the enemy are threatening you on several fronts.
I think that's the important point here. The whole Blitzkrieg concept is based on being on the attack pretty much all the time. It's really the only thing you can pull off if you don't have the resources for a long war. You can compensate a little by staying on the offensive at a tactical level while defending at a strategic level, but that's expensive, and generally inferior to a force built for defense.
German military doctrine failed once initiative was lost, and no change in tactics or designs alone would've helped. The Hetzer might have been meant to fill that gap, but it didn't really fit into doctrine and was outdated before construction started. Plus, it was basically a deathtrap and everyone knew it. The StuG III on the other hand was a great design that had the mobility to be used effectively with the German doctine (and the already existing material).
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fusilier
The French actually did something like that, if I remember correctly. They had infantry and cavalry tanks. The infantry tanks were spread out to support the infantry, but the cavalry tanks (mostly if not all Somua S.35's), were concentrated into a reaction force. They rushed them to the lowlands, where they achieved tactical success at the Battle of Hannut, but the Germans outflanked them and passed through the Ardennes, they rushed them back, but by then the hard driving started to take it's toll it was too late anyway. In hindsight, the French basically committed their cavalry tank forces too early.
Apparently most of them were taken out by Stukas, if I remember correctly. Shame that!
For the record I do think the T-34 was a very important, frankly brilliant design, though obviously it did have many flaws which have been mentioned. It was at pretty close to the 'sweet spot' for mass production I think. Good armor, including armor on the sides, very good speed and cross-country mobility, and a pretty good gun. That is a lethal combination. The T-34/85 was an exceptionally good tank by WW II standards, ergonomics issues and production problems notwithstanding, it had all the virtues of the original T-34 plus a bad ass gun.
But I think that Su-100 is just a beast... a beast! That 100m gun can kill just about anything the Germans had and at long range, and it's really fast and well armored. Generally I think the tank-destroyers with the hull-mounted guns are pretty good, better than static AT guns because they can be moved around and some of them had good armor (though it's hard to overestimate the value of the Flak 18/36 88mm gun for the Germans at the critical early phase of the war, it gave them near perfect anti-tank defense. The panzerfaust was really important and effective as well).
The US design of the Wolverine was also interesting along the same lines, because it was so fast and I think (?) it had fixed the turret traverse problems that plagued the earlier M10. It was like a very mobile ATG.
The open top thing is seen as a major design flaw, which in a way it was, but it also seems to have helped enormously with situational awareness and that is critical for tank to tank combat.
G
EDIT: oh and by the way the PZ 3 had a 50mm gun, not a 75, you are maybe confusing it with the Pz IV. Which had a 75mm but only a really useful one from the F2 model on out.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
What kind of weapons would be used in medieval dueling? Both street and upper class duels.
edit: Were there any western swordsmiths that were held in particularly high regard we still know of?
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
deuxhero
What kind of weapons would be used in medieval dueling? Both street and upper class duels.
In official duels, all kind of stuff, often really weird, would be used. That's kind of to be expected.
There were all kind of duels though, often horsemen duels as well.
On 'the street' all kind of swords, daggers, knives, messers and all other more or less sophisticated portable blades would be popular.
That entirely depends on place and period though, obviously, so hard to give precise answer.
Here you have account from 1370 Germany
http://www.thearma.org/essays/theobald-seitz.html
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
EDIT: oh and by the way the PZ 3 had a 50mm gun, not a 75, you are maybe confusing it with the Pz IV. Which had a 75mm but only a really useful one from the F2 model on out.
The PZ III increased the size of its cannon over its service life. By the time Normandy rolled around, the tanks they were producing to block the British and Americans would have been 75mm main guns had they decided to mass produce PzIIIs instead of focusing on heavy tanks with the 88.
Do like the Su100 more than either though, but wouldn't want to focus production on it. A bit too purpose built when compared to the panzer 3 or T-34.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
I think you are confusing Pz III's with Pz IV's
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
I think you are confusing Pz III's with Pz IV's
No, the panzer IV was designed with the 75mm in mind. When they upgraded the PZ IV to the 75mmL, they put the old 75s on the PZ IIIs.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Which was a low velocity HE only version, basiclaly, which was all that the turret ring on the Pz III could handle.
G
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
For some context here, I'm going to be doing a physics project explaining the mechanics behind medieval weaponry. Finding sources through Google has been a bit difficult, so I figured I'd come here. If anybody can point me towards some thorough or in-depth discussions on the physics of such weapons, that'd be great; otherwise, I'll probably start out asking broad questions and get more in depth, asking a series of questions based on responses to earlier ones. Anyway, a few questions to start off:
Would it be accurate to say that slashing and piercing weapons (swords, axes, arrows) function largely off of the concept of pressure; that is, a force applied to a small surface area applying a great pressure?
Would it be accurate to say that armors were developed to reduce the forces suffered when attacked by spreading the force out to a larger surface area?What is the practical difference between a flexible armor and a rigid armor (chain versus plate, for example)?
How did shields work? Did they protect the wielder through the application of pressure, as I assume armors did, or were they more meant to change the angle an attack landed at, reducing the force applied? A combination thereof? Was the force delivered still enough to cause injury?
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Dark Fiddler
Would it be accurate to say that slashing and piercing weapons (swords, axes, arrows) function largely off of the concept of pressure; that is, a force applied to a small surface area applying a great pressure?
If generalizing it like that, then generally about all weapons can said to function like that - 'bludgeoning' ones as well.
One can smack something good with a frying pan, but actual maces and hammer will be shaped in a way that concentrates force on smaller area.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spiryt
If generalizing it like that, then generally about all weapons can said to function like that - 'bludgeoning' ones as well.
One can smack something good with a frying pan, but actual maces and hammer will be shaped in a way that concentrates force on smaller area.
Good point, I guess a more accurate question would be why piercing and slashing weapons have such extremely small surface areas, while bludgeoning weapons don't. Are bludgeoning weapons less effective because of it, or do they compensate in other ways?
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Dark Fiddler
Good point, I guess a more accurate question would be why piercing and slashing weapons have such extremely small surface areas, while bludgeoning weapons don't. Are bludgeoning weapons less effective because of it, or do they compensate in other ways?
Bludgeoning weapons also have small surface areas.
Compare a real war hammer (link) with a fantasy one (link) to see what I mean.
Edit: For your physics project, consider also the length of the weapon's handle.
The warrior's grip is on the lower end of the hammer or axe, not high up as often depicted in fantasy art.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Dark Fiddler
Good point, I guess a more accurate question would be why piercing and slashing weapons have such extremely small surface areas, while bludgeoning weapons don't. Are bludgeoning weapons less effective because of it, or do they compensate in other ways?
They have different surfaces to transfer energy in different ways and thus have different effect.
If they were "less effective" they wouldn't be used.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Hey welcome to the forum. Good luck on your project. I'll try to chime in on a few of your questions.
First and foremost, there have been several good physics studies done on Medieval and pre-industrial weapons, probably the best and most thorough (at least that I know of in English) were done by the Royal Armouries at Leeds in the UK. You can contact them for data. Alan Williams, the author of "Knight and the Blast Furnace" did several carefully calibrated tests of weapons against armor, some of which you can find in the partial copy on google books here. If you are a grad student and have access to JSTOR you should be able to find several more recent studies, it has become somewhat of a hot topic in Academia in recent years.
As the others pointed out, blunt weapons, at least dedicated military weapons, tended to have a small surface area for striking and this area got smaller over time. Late era war-hammers concentrate a great deal of force on a very small area, late era maces were made 'flanged' with surfaces almost like blades.
Armor generally protected near-total protection, it's an unfortunately persistent myth that armor only protected against 'glancing blows' and so on. This has been thoroughly debunked in recent years. Armor could be defeated however, usually by dedicated armor-piercing weapons such as military picks, roundel daggers and estocs. But this wasn't very common and by far the most reliable way to deal with armor was to go around it: open the visor, cut the helmet straps to take the helmet off, attack unarmored lower legs or armpits or back of the thighs, and so on. Most types of armor in wide use were pretty effective.
"Chain" armor isn't really a word, definitely not used in academia. The more correct term is mail. Mail was typically used with some kind of textile armor, sometimes worn under, sometimes worn over, sometimes both or sandwiched in between (which was typical among the Arabs). It was still quite effective, though slightly less against blunt trauma to places like elbows or knees, which not coincidentally were the first parts of the body to receive supplemental armor going way back.
When armor does fail it tends not to fail so much incrementally as catastrophically, i.e. one is either not wounded, or just trivially wounded, or else the armor doesn't work at all. To get an idea how effective even amateur re-enactor armor can be at withstanding repeated blows from steel weapons and leaving the wearer unharmed (including both stiff and flexible armor) look up "battle of nations" on youtube.
Shields work one of two ways generally speaking. Against missiles (arrows, javelins, darts, rocks) they worked as passive defense somewhat in the manner that you alluded to. They were made out of light but fibrous woods such as linden (lime wood) which was very hard to penetrate, and / or rawhide and other substances which could stop most missiles. Later in the age of firearms and high velocity crossbows shields were increasingly made of steel or laminated wood and textile. Outside of Europe and further back into antiquity shields could be made of lighter substances like wicker and animal hide.
Against hand weapons shields are used actively, like a defensive (and sometimes offensive) weapon. If one just held a shield in place the opponent will just go around it. The exception to this is in jousting, and to some extent in Hoplite era phalanx combat where the shields were held in ranks. Shield use in the medieval context is dynamic and aggressive, one seeks to protect the body, the weapon hand, and the head, while attempting to bind the enemies weapon and / or shield. You can get some hint of an idea how that worked here and in a little more detail here.
Edged weapons don't cause damage through impact really, again this hearkens back to a persistent Victorian myth about Medieval swords being something like 'sharpened crowbars'. Swords cut like cleavers or slice like razors, most can do both. Some specialize in one type or cutting or the other, sabers for example are specialized for slicing but can also cut. Most swords can also pierce like a needle. For a good primer of what swords were really like I recommend the works of Ewart Oakshott who invented the modern typology of Medieval swords and who still has several books still in print.
For a good primer on the European martial arts manuals, I recommend this book by Dr. Sydney Anglo.
Hope that helps,
G