Results 631 to 660 of 2635
-
2010-01-05, 01:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
-
2010-01-05, 02:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Duvall, WA
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Surviving the catch, that's another issue. "Message for you, Sir"
I know it's cool and all that, but I never really understood why you'd *want* to catch a javelin. Given how that would work, you'd have to move aside from it and catch it as it goes past. Why not just let it continue past? You're already out of the way of it. If you're that desperate to have a javelin of your own I think you've got bigger problems.Fhaolan by me! Raga avatar by Mephibosheth!
-
2010-01-05, 02:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
So you can throw it back quickly.
So long as the point is past you already (or beside you) it's not that risky to catch it.
When I was in high school we used to do it as a (very irresponsible) game with athletic javelins. Thrown at long range it's about as hard to catch one as it would be to catch a football, albiet with much direr consequencess if you miss. I'm hardly the only one to have noticed this.
http://regia.org/bow.htm
The art of the javelin is to throw them in a mass. This ensured that despite their slow speed through the air, some or all could not be avoided. The overall weight of the thrown spear is small by comparison to the fighting spear, however the added pace that the thrower imparted to the shaft, more than made up for it's lack of weight (snip) ... Oddly enough, a single javelin is easy to side step, and depending upon how it was thrown (a fairly flat trajectory), it can be caught and thrown back. The man in the shield wall didn't have the luxury of space to move or the choice of only one javelin to avoid. Tests we have carried out demonstrate all of these aspects, resulting in some sickening findings.
That is one problem you never have with bullets, or arrows, or crossbow bolts, or sling-stones, for various reasons.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-01-05 at 03:01 PM.
-
2010-01-05, 03:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Duvall, WA
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Yes, but I would think the wiser choice would be to pick it back up again after it had landed, rather than snatching it out of the air.
Fhaolan by me! Raga avatar by Mephibosheth!
-
2010-01-05, 03:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Agreed... if you were wise though you probably wouldn't be on the battlefield to begin with, which is why war is a young mans game.
G
-
2010-01-05, 03:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- Belgium
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Actually, the roman javelin bended upon impact.
One of the reason romans threw pilums at all was because it would stuck in an enemy's shield, bend and then making said shield unwieldy and heavy, forcing the warrior to drop it or to be impeded. Both results made the warrior a fair game for the well-armored legionnaire. The "barbarians threw javelin back at us" simply means they pick it up once on the ground (or in a dead comrade...)
I don't know if it's easy to catch a real javelin in mid-air but it doesn't seem to be worth trying in the middle of a battle.
If your opponent throws a javelin at you from far enough for you to have the time to prepare to catch it, it means you have the time to raise your shield. If you don't have a shield to hide behind, just hide behind your next comrade. If you have no comrade next to you, that means you can step aside, even if it means to roll on the ground. Since your opponent is far away, you'll have the time to get up.
If your opponent throws a javelin at you at blank range, you really better jump aside and charge him while he's still out balance.
For you and your suicidal friends, I got a game : try the same but with throwing axes.Last edited by Johel; 2010-01-05 at 03:51 PM.
-
2010-01-05, 04:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I would agree with this statement, with the caveat that they weren't willing to sacrifice rate of fire for a more accurate rifle. Much is made of the American riflemen during the Revolutionary War, but the British quickly learned that unsupported riflemen couldn't stand up to a bayonet charge. Even though their fire was more accurate, they just couldn't lay down enough fire to prevent their opponent from quickly closing. Rifles remained in armies as weapons for select light infantry units, until the development of the minie-ball.
The Brown Bess's bayonet lug makes a crude front sight. But also it's fairly easy to sight down the length of the long barrel. Yes, volley fire was supposed to occur against a massed formation, but the timing of the volley was generally considered more important than individual aim. I know of people who win shooting competitions against rifles with smoothbore muskets (it sounds pretty crazy). It's not impossible to get decent accuracy out of them . . . especially if you keep the range under 100 yards. It's beyond that range that muzzle-loading rifles start to get a serious advantage. At around 40 yards buck-and-ball becomes effective, and that was the standard musket load at least since the Napoleonic times.
An interesting note: The French were the first to adopt the minie-ball and muzzle loading rifles as standard armament. They actually adopted two kinds of ball. The light infantry (skirmishers) got a very accurate minie ball (almost identical to the kind the US adopted). The line infantry, however, got a flatter shooting ball with greater horizontal deviation: they were expected to be shooting at massed regiments.
Yeah, in a lot of WW1 rifles the battle sights are set really high. The Italians realized that most fighting was occurring at less than 300m, with heavy machine guns being preferred for longer ranges. The M1938 carcano had fixed sights set at 200m for this reason.
-
2010-01-05, 04:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Where ever trouble brews
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Old Viking game, catch the spear. Or at least, I heard it was an old viking game. Could be one of those common un-facts that filter around medieval culture.
As experience, it isn't that hard to catch a spear, nor to block with shields. Done both. However, if the spear catches, even a light one will pull your shield arm down, so the spear after that is probably going to kill you. Catching it with your bare hands isn't hard, it is just very hard to judge distance, as depth perception is slower than horizontal or vertical movement. A thrown spear is remarkably dangerous thing to catch, and I doubt you could do it when lots of people are throwing them anyway.~~Courage is not the lack of fear~~
"In soviet dungeon, aboleth farms you!"
"Please consult your DM before administering Steve brand Aboleth Mucus.
Ask your DM if Aboleth Mucus is right for you.
Side effects include coughing, sneezing, and other flu like symptoms, cancer, breathing water like a fish, loss of dignity, loss of balance, loss of bowel and bladder control."
-
2010-01-05, 07:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Laughing with the sinners
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I agree.
The switch from precision rifles that could hit a man at 800 yards to a rifle that could put a 30 round mag in the general direction of the enemy was a conscious choice.
It's true that studies showed that the average infantryman wasn't adjusting his sights, carefully aiming and trying to hit foes at long range, and, as the tactics evolved, infantry weren't engaging infantry at long range in daylight, so the average rifleman was less likely to be taking deliberate shots at a distant enemy and more likely to be taking panicked shots at a close enemy.
Given the choice between a bolt action Springfield with a five round magazine, or a semi automatic M1 Garand with an eight round magazine, I know what I'd pick to repulse a midnight Banzai charge coming screaming out of the jungle.
The change from accuracy to rate of fire makes sense, given the changing nature of combat. That doesn't change the fact that the Springfield just is a more accurate weapon. Some observers of the tests didn't want to switch because of that.
-
2010-01-05, 08:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Bottom of a well
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Well, Fusilier, I really appreciate the response. I know I asked a hard question, but hopefully you've given me a jumping off point.
-
2010-01-05, 08:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
IIUC, it was possible to train soldiers to shoot fairly effectively at 1000m, but it took a ridiculous amount of effort. Two million guys who can shoot straight at 300m forms a more effective fighting force than 200,000 guys who can shoot straight at 1000m.
I have a question of my own though. Why was the firearm adopted to start with, and why did armour go out of fashion?
I'm pretty sure firearms weren't solely responsible for armour going out of fashion. They also weren't the only way to deal with it, although I can see the need for something like a firearm in the situations where armour is most useful.
At the same time, armour still had uses for a long time. If you're standing on guard over a tiny gateway in a fortress, plate armour starts to sound much more attractive.
-
2010-01-05, 09:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Where ever trouble brews
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
You'd be surprised what you can learn from wiki, and from checking out websites that sell modern reproductions of this kind of equipment.
Please give me a range of weights of mail armour, such as a hauberk without coif.
www.darkagecreations.com
How flexible is mail?
Often I've read that elves in roleplaying games and novels specialize in making a light chainmail armour. How can it be light and still be protective? Elven chainmail is usually explained as being made of some fantasy metal like mithral, correct?
I think they make some mail suits out of titanium now. But wait, I heard that although titanium has a high strength to weight ratio, it is not as strong as carbon steel at the same volume. Would titanium armour be not as strong as steel armour of the same thickness?
Titanium would never have been used in ancient and middle ages armour, because the technologies used to refine/smelt/forge it were not developed until the 19-20th Centuries, correct?
___________
It seems to me that the Wet is not just bad for bows, it is bad for all iron based items. Any iron/steel equipment must be protected against corrosion. It was less of a problem during the Bronze Age because bronze corrodes more slowly than iron. When did humans recognize the relationship between moisture and rust?
How are metal objects protected from rusting? I think that oils and greases were applied to things such as swords and armour. Which raises the question: what kind of oil/grease did people hundreds of years ago use? Animal fat? Vegetable oils? Oils from the ground?
I would imagine mail is highly susceptible to rust because of the great surface area of the rings?
Most common way to clean chain mail was stick it in a barrel with baffles and sand, and roll it down a hill. Then roll it back up the hill. Then roll it back down. You'd be amazed how clean it gets this way. Other forms of iron armor have been cleaned this way too, though they would be affixed inside the barrel, rather than falling about loosely.
Cheers.~~Courage is not the lack of fear~~
"In soviet dungeon, aboleth farms you!"
"Please consult your DM before administering Steve brand Aboleth Mucus.
Ask your DM if Aboleth Mucus is right for you.
Side effects include coughing, sneezing, and other flu like symptoms, cancer, breathing water like a fish, loss of dignity, loss of balance, loss of bowel and bladder control."
-
2010-01-05, 10:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Don't know how this slipped by...
Titanium is an amazingly poor material to make weapons or armor out of. Like aluminum, it is strong for it's weight. They don't build airframes out of titanium because it's strong, they do it because it is light and strong for it's weight. There's a reason cruisers are made from good old steel. Also like aluminum, almost any product produced and billed as titanium is in fact a complex titanium alloy. Not that ancient weapon and armorsmiths would want to work with it if they could.
When it comes to weapons and armor, even titanium alloys fall far short of steel. To achieve the same strength as a weapon or armor piece constructed of steel, a titanium alloy piece would need to be many times thicker, which would of course make the piece heavier, and counteract the titanium alloy's one advantage, it's weight (not to mention giving the piece unwieldy dimensions).
Not to belittle your titanium chain-shirt experience, but I highly doubt you guys are swinging steel weapons with the intent to kill eachother. Titanium alloy protective pieces are fine for industrial applications where accidental laceration protection is the intent, but it goes without saying that this is far different from mortal combat. Bottom line, when big dudes are swinging steel your direction, with the intent to kill, you want to be wearing steel too.Avatar by Aedilred
GitP Blood Bowl Manager Cup Record
Styx Rivermen, Feets Reloaded, and Selene's Seductive Strut
Record: 42-17-13
3-time Division Champ, Cup Champion
-
2010-01-05, 10:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Oak Harbor, WA
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
What about armor made of thin tungsten alloy, basically the same weight as an item made of steel but much thinner? Maybe even with a coating of tungsten carbide to increase surface hardness.
I know it'd bepretty muchimpossible to make using medieval production techniques, but would modern metallurgy be up to the task?
EDIT: Or, for that matter, a sword?Last edited by Zincorium; 2010-01-05 at 10:35 PM.
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Thomas Jefferson
Avatar by Meynolds!
-
2010-01-05, 10:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Tungsten, while quite hard, is still quite brittle when compared to steel. This makes it unsuitable for most melee weapons and armor. Like stainless steel, which is also brittle, a tungsten alloy could make a decent material for a knife (which wouldn't be expected to endure the same forces as say, a sword). I am not certain on that though, as it has been a while since I studied metallurgy.
A coating could feasibly give some advantage, but then how do you maintain the weapon or armor as it undergoes regular wear and tear without further expensive tungsten carbide treatments?Last edited by Crow; 2010-01-05 at 10:55 PM.
Avatar by Aedilred
GitP Blood Bowl Manager Cup Record
Styx Rivermen, Feets Reloaded, and Selene's Seductive Strut
Record: 42-17-13
3-time Division Champ, Cup Champion
-
2010-01-05, 11:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
A javelin that is thrown at you, as opposed to being thrown at your foot, is likely to sail past you and land behind you. Or possibly wind up embedded in the hapless fellow standing behind you who forgot to duck because he couldn't see the javelin because there was a Fhaolan standing in the way.
Either way, hunting it down and reusing it gets considerably more difficult than trying to intercept it as it goes past, I imagine. Moreover, it might well require you to turn over or bend down... which is likely to be when the enemy throws the next javelin.
You missed the critical point that I was referring to the bolt-action rifles of a century or more later, after the problem of breech-loading had been solved. Hence my use of the word "machinists;" so far as I know, the pre-Minie muzzleloading rifles of the 17th and 18th centuries were not machined in the modern sense of the term.
The snipers certainly didn't. My impression is that some of the world's sniper corps are still using bolt action rifles... but then, they're the only ones for whom being able to vaporize a gnat at half a mile or whatever is actually a major part of their job description.
Since there's no evidence that titanium was even known at the time, and since it cannot be easily refined from ore in an oxygen atmosphere... I kind of doubt that they could have worked it. At least, not unless someone had specifically gone far out of their way to develop a "medieval" titanium-working technique using modern knowledge of chemistry.
Tungsten carbide is even worse, because it's similarly hard to work and brittle. Well, relatively brittle. The stuff would be pure gold* for abrasion resistance, but that's not a key parameter for armor design unless your enemies are trying to kill you with belt sanders.
*rhetorically speaking
-
2010-01-05, 11:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- NC
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
To put it simply, it was a more efficient method of killing.
I'm pretty sure firearms weren't solely responsible for armour going out of fashion. They also weren't the only way to deal with it, although I can see the need for something like a firearm in the situations where armour is most useful.-
I laugh at myself first, before anyone else can.
-- Paraphrased from Elsa Maxwell
-
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.
-- Paul Graham in Keep Your Identity Small
-
2010-01-06, 12:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Agreed 10000% on all points. People today really don't grasp what an extraordinary material steel really is, probably because they almost never deal with anything other than fairly low quality chromium (stainless) or industrial steels like in rebar or car doors. Very few people (including most re-enactors) have ever seen or held anything like a real Medieval sword let alone armor.
I happen to know for a fact that the DoD did look into using tempered steel armor, specifically examining (and in the process, destroying) some pieces of Renaissance European armor, not for body armor for individual troops but for armored vehicles as an alternative to industrial rolled steel etc. Their conclusion was it was too expensive to produce that way, but the tempered steel was far superior to modern materials for the purpose of ballistic resistance.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-01-06 at 12:34 AM.
-
2010-01-06, 12:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Agreed, although there is evidence that some steel alloys used historically apparently included trace amounts of very rare elements such as molybdenum and vanadium (which in and of themselves were unknown to the ancients), including notably in wootz steel.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...even-9809.html
These elements seem to have come from the clay used to make the crucibles used to forge the steel billets, and may have been an important part of what made wootz steel possible.
Phosphorus also shows up as a key element in many pattern welded swords, the Vikings used to introduce it using bird dung, this is even mentioned as a 'secret trick' of dwarves in some of the Icelandic Sagas.
Regarding armor, it's also worth pointing out that there were indeed two grades of armor in Medieval / Renaissance times; ordinary iron armor (probably 90% of armor that was made) and tempered steel armor. The latter could be made much thinner and lighter. Some complete gothic harnesses still around today weigh as little as 40 lbs, which is comparable to some modern body armor and helmet, with much more coverage and I can guarantee vastly better fitted and better distributed weight. But it still can't stop a modern armor piercing rifle bullet (neither can most modern body armor for that matter).
I have also seen very fine linked tempered steel mail, such as was often worn by Italian lords in civilian attire, as protection against surprise knife attacks and the like.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-01-06 at 10:53 AM.
-
2010-01-06, 04:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Where ever trouble brews
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
And belittle you didn't, but I'll address this anyway. It was more a point that I know someone who owns the stuff and has experience wearing it. As for reinacting not striking with force that can kill, occasionally things do go wrong, blows not properly pulled. I'd say his vest gets more wear and tear at the metal shop, odds are. The point I was more trying to make is, yes it is available in the modern sense, yes, it is somewhat effective (though in no way would I say it is superior compaired to steel other than weight, and when you are wearing it, weight can make a bit of a difference difference), and it is tough enough for at least reinactor purposes. That was more where I was going with that.
~~Courage is not the lack of fear~~
"In soviet dungeon, aboleth farms you!"
"Please consult your DM before administering Steve brand Aboleth Mucus.
Ask your DM if Aboleth Mucus is right for you.
Side effects include coughing, sneezing, and other flu like symptoms, cancer, breathing water like a fish, loss of dignity, loss of balance, loss of bowel and bladder control."
-
2010-01-06, 04:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Duvall, WA
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Fhaolan by me! Raga avatar by Mephibosheth!
-
2010-01-06, 06:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Good luck, and if you find any really stellar info, please let us know. I'm curious to see if there is any detailed info out there. Personally I'm often suspicious of modern tests, because they rarely attempt to recreate all the historical details. The good tests are honest about this, however.
Originally Posted by Dervag
Speaking of WW1 era bolt-action rifles, there are a couple of things that impress me about them. The first is that they experimented with almost every kind of ballistics you can imagine. Bullet size and shape, different kinds of propellent, bore sizes, etc. A friend of mine (who is a serious collector of French WW1 era rifles), told me an illuminating story: A friend of his sent him the ballistic charts for the new 6.8mm round the US Army is going to introduce. My friend thought these charts looked really familiar. Sure enough, he found identical ballistic charts from a prototype French carbine. The army's "new" round was a recreation of an 1890s French one!
The other thing that amazes me is how well built the guns were. Most were designed (and many produced) during peace time, and a lot of effort seems to have gone into making weapons that would last a long time.
Originally Posted by Mike_GLast edited by fusilier; 2010-01-06 at 06:57 PM.
-
2010-01-06, 07:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Laughing with the sinners
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
-
2010-01-06, 07:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
You are correct. The Germans got a rude awakening when the first US Marines appeared in the trenches of WW1, as they had been trained in long range marksmanship. Maintaining that level of marksmanship during wartime was just not possible. However, there are other issues. A lot of old military rifles were designed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Prior to WW1 there was still a sense that massed infantry formations would be fighting against massed infantry formations at long range. So a lot of these guns have what are referred to as "volley sights." The theory was that the officer would determine the range, tell the soldiers to set their sights, and then have them blast away at the target -- which was supposed to be some kind of blob of enemy infantry, and not individual targets. My 1891 Carcano has an adjustable sight up to 2000 meters! WW1 demonstrated that those tactics didn't make any sense . . .
I think your first question has been pretty well answered already: guns were cheap and effective, soldiers were easily trained how to use them.
I believe that firearms were the primary reason armor went out of fashion, but there were other factors that were changing as well. More troops were being employed. Armor cost more and weighed them down. Also it's effectiveness was diminished with the increased use of firearms (and field artillery as Galloglaich will point out). Armor wasn't totally useless, but you had to spend more money on it.
Finally, armor never disappeared entirely. Cuirassiers were still wearing armor in the French Army in 1914. And armor also survived for the use by sappers as "siege armor," well into the 19th century. Armor made a kind of resurgence in WW1, often times for sentries, but sometimes as an attempt to crack the stalemate of trench warfare. The only piece of armor generally readopted though was the helmet -- trench warfare led to a lot of head wounds. Likewise armor made another resurgence in the form of tanks and even armored ground attack aircraft (yes they had those in WW1).
-
2010-01-06, 07:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- The Forest City
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Originally Posted by fusilier
Does mail armour exist that had more than one layer of mail? Particularly made of high quality tempered steel? Too heavy?
Was scale mail, brigandine, jack of plate or lamellar armour flexible at all? Could the plates be leaf shaped?
Could it be worn over a mail shirt? Was silk used as a back material for scale mial? Which of these similar armours would you prefer?
I notice that brigandine and similar armours are similar in design with modern bullet resistant armour, in that having metal plates inside layers of cloth.
On a related note, would silk make a good material for armour?
Thanks for the answers!
Edit: Would slightly conxex scales on scale armour be better?Last edited by Kurien; 2010-01-06 at 08:06 PM.
-
2010-01-06, 08:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Oak Harbor, WA
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
The KRISS V is a wonderful theoretical weapon. However, it has a small ammunition capacity for a submachinegun, and a short barrel. And while it does redirect some of the forces down, it still has recoil to the rear, which isn't going to change unless the bullets come out somewhere other than the front of the gun.
The Thompson was significantly heavier, but this along with a muzzle brake reduces the practical recoil significantly. It's also fairly accurate and extremely reliable. It also has the advantage of massive testing on it's side, and it's passed admirably.
The KRISS may very well be the superior gun overall, but it's not a black and white situation."It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Thomas Jefferson
Avatar by Meynolds!
-
2010-01-07, 02:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Duvall, WA
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Yes, although it was more a case of extra layers to reinforce specific areas, rather than all-over. No point in have double-layers in areas that are unlikely to get hit. There's also different 'weaves' of maille where the rings can be doubled up for more protection, or have a different pattern that the simple 4 rings in 1 ring which is the most common. 6 in 1, 8 in 2, japanese 4 in 1, etc. Maille can be complicated, and there are entire books devoted to just different patterns of maille. Some of which have survived in jewlery manufacture.
Yes, although not as flexible as straight maille. Jack of plate being the least flexible of the set, as it had largest plates, but lamellar tends towards stiffness as well, as the plates tend to be interlaced on all sides, rather than at the top likeregular scales.
Yes. Scale varies from square-like plates to triangular, so leaf-shaped isn't completely unreasonable. See my answer below for a similar concept.
Yes. In fact, the Romans had a form of scale armour called lorica plumata. This was very small scales that gave the impression of the wearer being covered in feathers, all attached to a maille shirt rather than a cloth backing.
It's possible, but it would be relatively rare. For cloth backing, you're more likely to deal with a canvas or duck-cloth like material.
I have several different types of armour that I work with. Lorica plumata is very pretty, but to be honest brigandine and coats of plates are more practical. Scales and lamelar are a pain to clean.
Yep. There ain't much new under the sun, to be honest. There's only so many ways to build armour that fits the human body due it's shape and the ways human joints move, so when you strip off the decorative elements and reduce it down the the basics, there's really only a few different 'designs' of armour. Everything else beyond that is just down to material science and decorative elements.
Silk was a common, if somewhat expensive, material used for quilted armour, and for the under-armour gambleson-equivalent in Oriental armour (I don't remember, unfortunately, the name for it. Sorry.) Silk is relatively cut-resistant when compared to other cloths, and the story is that samurai would wear silk so that when they were hit by arrows they could be pulled out easier because the silk wouldn't tear. I have no idea if that's true or not, but it is one of the common stories.
To some extent, yes, and many scale armours (like the plumata above) did have convex scales, or had ridges and other similar things. However, the more complex the scale, the more this armour is going to cost you.Last edited by Fhaolan; 2010-01-07 at 02:50 AM.
Fhaolan by me! Raga avatar by Mephibosheth!
-
2010-01-07, 09:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Agree with Faholan.
The 8 in 2 mail is essentially double mail. It was called "doubled mail" or "kings mail". Several eyewitness accounts during the Crusades make it sound all but impenetrable, but it was very heavy (almost twice as heavy as ordinary mail)
Lorica Plumata was a kind of prestige armor worn by officers and standard bearers (Aquillifers and Signifiers). It's very painstaking to make, with each scale bent 90 degrees and literally wired into the mail behind it. Something you could only make a lot of with slave labor.
The Romans also had another type of scale armor called Lorica Squamata which was worn by cavalry and other special troops.
The oriental armor he was speaking of is called Khazaghand. I'm working on an RPG book on armor right now so I collected some data on it. It was also known as Jazerant or Jazeraint. It's mail sandwiched between to layers of textile armor, plus some padding, and silk was indeed a common material. This was invented by the Muslims but was imported to Europe where it was also used.
And that kind of cultural exchange went both ways. Here is an interesting descriptin of a double Khazaghand, made of one coat of Frankish mail, and one coat of Arab mail.
“Salah Al din (Saladin) stood in his place until a part of the army joined him. He then said, "Put on your armor". The majority of those did so while I remained standing by his side. After a while he said again, 'How many times do I have to say "Put on your Armor?'' I said 'Oh my Lord, surely thou does not mean me?' 'Surely' said he. I replied 'By Allah, surely I cannot put on anything more. We are in the early part of the night, and my quilted jerkin (kuzaghand) is furnished with two coats of mail, one on top of the other. As soon as I see the enemy I shall put it on.' Salah al Din did not reply, and we set off. ‘
In the morning we found ourselves near Dumayr. Salah-al Din (Saladin) said to me 'Shall we not dismount and eat something? I am hungry and have been up all night.' I replied 'I shall do what thou orderest.' So we dismounted, and no sooner than we had set foot on the ground, when he said 'Where is thy jerkin?' Upon my order, my attendant produced it. Taking it out from it's leather bag, I took my knife and ripped it at the breast and disclosed the side of the two coats of mail. The jerkin enclosed a Frankish coat of mail extending to the bottom of it, with another coat on top reaching as far as the middle. Both were equipped with the proper linings, felt pads, rough silk, and rabbits hair.'
Frankish mail was popular with the Arabs during the crusades because it was made of better quality iron.
Good thread on Islamic armor here:
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewto...er=asc&start=0
GLast edited by Galloglaich; 2010-01-07 at 09:47 AM.
-
2010-01-07, 12:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Stockholm, Sweden
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Me and a group of friends are working on our own fantasy setting, modelled after Europe and the near east around the 9th century. We decided some time ago back that we wanted to use technology that suited the period and not mix and match stuff from the late middle ages and the early.
So I was wondering, what types of weapons and armour would be suitable and which ones should we try to avoid?
-
2010-01-07, 03:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- The Forest City
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I would definitely avoid side-swords and rapiers, as they did not appear until the 15-16 centuries. Other than that, nothing comes to mind immediately.
Just how protective was mail, anyway? Can it stop broadhead or bodkin arrows fired from a warbow with a 150 pound draw weight? A slicing attack from a light curved sword? A heavy two handed chop of a bardiche, pollaxe or voulge? A thrust from a pike? A swing of a flanged mace, flail or warhammer?