Armor Effectiveness: Realism vs. Balance

Gameplay
#41

I was under the impression most modern day stuff did indeed have that carbon content range. As for hardening I know most of the custom guys do that, maybe some off the rack gear today isn’t hardened but I haven’t found a nice harness in any of those shops yet. The whole Milan equipped 6000 soldiers thing I’ve heard off but 4000 of those were cavalry whom I assume wore at least a hardened breastplate. If not then the shock of a lance would get through it. Another thing is that those 4000 cavalrymen might just be the richest. If we take French nobility as an example then you are looking at the top 1-0.4% of the population. Wealth varied between nobles but they usually earned “a bit” more than your rank and file foot soldier. Another thing i’d like to bring up is that most so called munitions armor is from the 16th century and not the early 15th century, the second thing is that almost everything listed as munitions grade armor is quite evidently made for wear of footman and not cavalry (with the exception of some demi-lancers). Now I still need to look into the subject of swords more carefully but so far it appears the majority is heat treated which goes to show that the technique is doable (which is certainly probed by modern day blacksmiths).

Now if we take this into videogame realms then it would logically mean that munitions grade armor would be cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain.

As for Tobias Capwell, well for one his armor has a nice black finish to it. Another factor would be that he doesn’t charge other cavalry with sharp lances, gets shot at with live ammunition, crossbow quarrels, gets stabbed by pikes, halberds and poleaxes, smacked by horseman’s and hammers/maces. Other things such as sieges and sleeping outdoors during a multiple day battle might also factor in.

You said hardness results in it being brittle which is exactly as I stated.

As for the rest that’s mostly true but he tested armor penetration with Joule required to penetrate and measured it at various angles.

As for penetration not correlating with damage what you mean?

Anyways this guy took an enormous amount of data from museum pieces (600) and even got permission to test on some antiques. What I said about the softer armor being a weakspot is something of an elementary truth which is backed by both modern science and common sense, why bother with hardening and tempering if a cold hammered piece of softer steel works the same?

#42

Well, this could be the Problem … I was under the Impression. If you state something as a fact, it better should be a fact and not something you thought is. Most replica armour is “nomal” ST1204 or something similar and just hasn´t the carbon content to change. So no hardening!. And even if a shop is capable of doing it, it doesn´t mean that it is done. Most of the armour use around the SCA is either mild steel or stainless steel. Hardend materials are starting to be used around ACL or BotN. Hardening drives the cost of armour to stellar hights. A “nomal” set of leg armour cost about 200-300 Euro, the same hardened is about 800-1000 Euro, if made using casts of your legs goes up to 2000 Euro…

Well, how do you draw these conclusion? At the start of the 100 year war - 1337 - 1453 - the armies evolved normaly around something called “The Lance”. At the very start that was about 1 man at arms, 1 Squire and at at least 2 Archers. The ratio changed as the war dragged on to 1 Lance, 1 Squire and 6 Archers.
So if you would equip an army the figures would be quite a others. And to get this things further off, the man at arms had to bring their own Equipment. Either you were armed cap a pie or you weren´t a man at arms. Simple.
So no hardened armour at all.

There was ever a demand of munitions grade armour, not only in the 14th Cent. And the hardening of swords is done in another, different way. First you should look into the things you think you know and correct a lot about that befor you move on to another matter.

Yes and no, Munition grade armour should be cheaper to buy, but that changes next to nothing about the maintainance. You have to polish the thing, oil it and care for the leather. It takes about the same amount of time with low end Equipment as with the high end ones.

Okay, Tobias Capwell doesn´t have that armour any more … the new one is another matter one. And if you had googled a little and not only watched the pics you should have learned that these guys do the things. They attack each other with real Lances - blunted ones, agreed, use polaxes against each other and swords, even maces.

It would be better if you don´t always use the “The Knight and the Blast Furnace”. Don´t get me wrong, it´s a good one, it stands in my shelf, but the metalugy it provides is waaaay ahead of the time the game is going to be. There aren´t as many guys capable of hardening armour as of 50 - 110 years later. In this period the change from mail clad Knight wearing some gutter shaped armour pieces and something along a wisby coat of plates, just happend 15 - 20 years ago. Thordemans book about the armour of the battle from wisby could be a better choice. Or Goll´s new PhD treaty about the metalurgy. Goll does know what he is writing about, having worked with Dr. Peter Müller and done some heat treating himself. Or Doug Strongs Books about the surviving armour of the 14th century.

Reading one book is a good starter, but maybe you should cross reverence this with other ones and look where it leads you. There are a few People around this Forum who have a lot more experiance about that thing, they seam to know what they talk about. Having read about a thing is one thing, having read about and done it another. I have build some suits of armour and hardened it … and maybe I just own a few more books about armour than you do, have handled a few real pieces and spoken with some other guys why build armour.

You can disagree with a lot of the things I write, I know I still have a lot to learn myself and I would be pleased to be corrected by someone who knows better. But please research some more, think about that and than look if you still disagree with me…

Greetings

#43

Perhaps this explains why you and I see it a bit differently. Where I live there is one (small) SCA group and a larger multitude of Historical reenactors and HEMA Enthusiasts. The former strive for historical accuracy and avoid full armor if they don’t have the cash for it which leads to the few that do have it walking around in museum/effigy/woodcut based pieces. Most guys I met at those reenactments had 1050 spring steel armor, mostly custom made with a few having a store bought item here and there. Most of them did not get all pieces at once because of the said cost but blowing 10k on a hobby is relatively normal.

Maybe the SCA scene is different and honestly I don’t blame them for getting low carbon or even stainless steel.

Pfaffenbiehler, Mathias, Medieval Craftsmen, Armourers, 1992, Toronto.

I believe it’s on jstor.

I think you misunderstood, I meant that of all the equipment they wore a breastplate would be one of the first items that qualifies for hardening. I don’t have a 15th century source on cavalry training but the 16th century ones all advise men-at-arms to aim the lance at the chest.

I think we’re getting all tangled up here. I said I never found any references to munitions armor around 1403 and that the munitions armor from the 16th century was mostly for footmen. So saying munitions armor was unhardened is correct but the said munitions armor is not something from 1403 AD Bohemia.

Does a double positive make a negative?

Nah just kidding, but now I am curious how they differ.

But if there is a hole in the thing than that would be more easy to repair by your average village blacksmith would it not?

You convinced me with this last bit. Perhaps 1403 is a little to early to consider wide usage of hardened plate armor.

However regarding the whole Wisby thing, wouldn’t it be closer to the Caroline era of the Hundred years war? There they certainly wore the predecessor to the plate armor and not a coat of arms as during the battle of Wisby. However I can see how in terms of armor development Bohemia might be closer (progressive wise) to Scandinavia.

Anyways thanks for pointing me to those other articles/books, they are on my reading list.

#44

Hi!

Test Conditions were 16 gauge breastplate, properly mounted on a dummy, and shot at with a 60 Lb Longbow & 80 Lb Warbow with Bodkin, Standard tips and a barb for fun. Surprisingly, alot of the hits actually glanced off due to the design of the breastplate itself and we were at a slight angle to it, not dead on, but then came the good hits where standard tips achieved partial penetration at the centre line of the plate, with the Longbow and warbow (Firing from approximately 20 ft which isn’t that far). quite a few of the arrows broke when they hit plate (When not glancing) which is another thing which was observed. And a few good full penetrations from the Warbow and Longbow using standard tip, and some bodkin. It was really lets shoot something fun instead of a straw target kind of mess about test.

And to me armour is armour, it works, it’s styled authentically and that it fits well (And a nice gauge also helps :wink: ). And I do know some people with hardened armour on field, although not an entire harness, just a few select pieces (Because of tewksbury before Health & safety stepped in). But I agree with PrasCo, on most of what he said.

Regards,
Warrior Rose.

#45

What kind of bodkins and what grain are we talking about? I’ve seen both narrow virtually pencil like and blocky diamond like arrows get called bodkins.

Anyways if you want to work up poundage start now :slight_smile: Barbell rows, lot’s of em,

#46

Hi!

Ow… 170 lb Warbow… It’s very possible for this to be done, but warbows had a poundage rate of around 230 lb if I remember right. However a Longbow is alot more tough to draw, especially the higher poundage, in the UK there are only 8 people in the communities that I and alot of others know of that can draw a 180 LB Longbow, properly, and a true longbow. I can draw 80 Lb warbow, and a 60 lb Longbow comfortably and repeatedly.

And our Bodkins are proper ones, well some got knackered :wink: But they were / are about 3 - 5 inch bodkin points. And proper Bodkins.

Regards,
Warrior Rose.

#47

Now now, 230 pounds for regular warbow…

Mark Stretton from English longbow society performed some research on this - most warbows in Medieval times were around 80-100 kgs, as men were smaller and a bit weaker than we are (due to bad nutrition, too much heavy work on child age etc.)
Surprisingly, this draw weight is enough to penetrate the armor if struck dead on, but from his conclusions. the strenght of the longbowmen was not in the penetration, but in the amount of the projectiles.

As the price of the proper harness was high, most of the soldiers on battlefield did not have proper protection against arrowhail, and thus the battle was won not by piercing an armour, but simply by decimating the “weaker” protected majority of soldiers, while your infantry / cavalery only needed to worry about better armoured ones.

As an old Czech proverb says, every swordsman is worthless, when there is too many enemies.

Btw: Mark can pull to full draw 225# warbow, and on Medlanky airfield in Brno, he shot with it whole day on the tournament 2012, if I remember correctly. But, this surely was not standard in Medieval times.

#48

Hi!

From the research I’ve done, and some others (With Doctorates in Archaeology) that people in the middle ages, (Medieval Era) were not tiny people, but average sized people; like we are. But more so, it’s like saying in a thousand years, how tall were we all? We have dwarves (Sorry, can’t think of a better term) and the tallest man, reaching 8ft something, and it depends on regions and everything else; people became shorter around renaissance era (Example: London Museum of Knights of Saint John, a breastplate for an adult, the size of a childs). Now what I can tell you, is that English Longbowmen had a high draw weight due to the note in remains, showing that some longbowmen had crooked shoulders, meaning that one arm (and shoulder) is stronger than the other by a decent amount, and that they had the bone in their drawing fingers, developing from pulling the string back, and loosing; forming a hook like appearance on the bone of the fingers. If you want, I can bring in an expert on Medieval Archery to help clear some things up if you wish.

Regards,
Warrior Rose.

#49

Heavy work as a child does not make you weaker as an adult, on the contrary all evidence points to kids doing some work in their youth makes them fitter. As for the nutrition, if longbowmen were indeed mostly recruited from the yeoman class than it wouldn’t have been that bad. Sure it had a lot of cereals but they got enough protein to grow stronger.

1 Like
#50

For comparison, please see report from Mary Rose Warbows…

http://www.archers-review.com/magazine-articles/june-2010-longbows-of-the-mary-rose

#51

I don’t see anything to suggest the archers on the Mary Rose had poor nutrition or back breaking labor as a child in that article. He doesn’t even talk about them.

What this picture does show is a 6 feet tall individual with a twisted spine and malformed scapula.

#52

Right, point taken. Lets leave aside strenght of medieval common man and return to armor piercing.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/warbow_EN.html

#53

Well I was actually surprised at how good a gambeson fares against a longbow.

#54

I hope they will add heat stroke and things like that if you are wearing full plate. That would also be cool if tired quicker than someone with lighter armor on.

#55

I hope they dont make this like war of the roses where a person in full plate can out run out jump and is much much quicker than a person in light or no armor.

#56

Plate is not especially heavier, bulkier and may be more flexible than many padded/hardened leather armours with chain/ring/scale reinforcements.

Bulky, padded cloth armour is hot, heavy and restrictive. Chain mail is heavier than plate and needs heavier padding to provide equivalent protection levels, while plate can be worn with a light arming doublet (with reinforcement built into joints only)

1 Like
#57

They can’t do that in war of the roses, either you are in a server populated entirely by hackers or you are playing a different game.

#58

why would you need an armor, battle skills an shit when you can provide sneaky backstab :3

#59

try backstabbing a knight in full plate with his buddies around. see how that works out for you :wink:

2 Likes
#60

I tend to feel that realism has its own sort of balance. Lining yourself in thick high quality armor is going to inhibit your vision, mobility, and purse, but It provides a lot of protection against many types of weapons.A lightly armored player could dictate on what terms the engagement happens on. Stamina is supposed to play a big role in Kingdom Come, so say you’re fighting three armored knights and all you have is a bow and a quiver of bodkin arrows. Keep putting distance between yourself and your opponents. They cannot keep pace with you and will tire very quickly.At this point you can just take your time and fill them full of arrows at your leisure.

That said there is the inherit choice of character development. If you’re a not fighter then you’re always going to be at a disadvantage in battle. On the flip side a non-fighter will be at an advantage outside of battle. People will like you better, you’ll be able to do things a fighter won’t. There is a trade-off.

1 Like
© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz