Chainmail in GURPS
Peter Meilinger
ten I figured I'd post it.
Why does chainmail protect better against crushing than against piercing/
impaling? It doesn't make sense to me. As I understand it chainmail is like
a T-shirt made of metal links and is worn over padded armor. If this is wrong
so be it but bear with me. I don't see why this would have trouble stopping
a dagger or an arrow. I guess I can see why the links wouldn't give PD
against such an attack since the point could get stuck between links instead
of being diverted. But is the armor so poorly made that any dagger attack
automatically rips open the links and penetrates? It seems to me that that's
the only way to justify the lowered DR vs. Impaling - the links are too small
for daggers to penetrate without ripping the armor open.
And crushing is another problem. I would think that chainmail would have
a bigger problem with crushing attacks than with impaling. If I'm wearing
an armored T-shirt it's gonna hurt if someone hits me in the chest with
a club or mace because those attacks don't have to penetrate the armor to
hurt and non-rigid armor wouldn't really slow it down too much. I mean sure
the armor is between you and the blow, but the blow would just cause the
armor to impact against your chest. I don't see how that would significantly
lessen the damage.
If I'm wrong in my assumptions please tell me so.
Pete
Steve Anderson
restricts movement and starts getting more expensive as more links mean
more labor). And only a few links face the full force of impact when an
arrow or impaling blade goes in. Cutting and crushing are intercepted by
more links and are about as effective as scale. Until faced with Welsh
longbows and crossbows, impaling attacks were rather uncommon.
A more efficient form of scale (Mascled) came into favor as the more
telling attacks came in, along with plate as metalurgy and armouring
improved. The big advantage chainmail had over 4th century (ad or bc
doesn't really matter) scale was it is a bit lighter and a lot cheaper
and NEARLY as good. Once it's weakness could be exploited it started
getting rare.
Matt Borselli
: Why does chainmail protect better against crushing than against piercing/
: impaling? It doesn't make sense to me. As I understand it chainmail is like
: a T-shirt made of metal links and is worn over padded armor. If this is wrong
The simplest explaination is basic physics. Using Shakespeare's *Henry V* and
the Battle of Agincourt as an example (and as my chief example), the badly
outnumbered English were armed with longbows (which accourding to my memory,
had about a 75 lb pull - very possible, even today). The French numbered in
the thousands and charged the English lines. The English fired *lots* of arrows
at the French. The French were *wiped* off the battlefield, with major
casualties. The English relied on the Longbow, while the French relied on
their mounted knights. I don't care what anyone tells you, but when an
arrow is fired from a 75 lb pull longbow, and the arrow has a broad headed tip
with a point on the end, that 75 lbs is concentrated at that point, so, if
for simplicity, we determing that the average arrow point takes up (1/8)^2
inches (= 0.0156 square inches) and by the time it hits its target, Bob
the French Knight in his chain (or even plate) mail, it still has 50 lbs
behind it, the pounds-per-square-inch hitting Bob's armor is around 3200 lbs!
Assuming that Joe the armourer was good at his job and produced forged links of
chainmail that were a half an inch diameter, which when linked, left small
holes of about an 8th an inch diameter, the arrow point whould hit, or be
deflected into, this hole and the 50lbs per 0.0156 square inches would break
the link and sink the arrow deep into our friend Bob. That's power. I knew
a man who built a 500 lb pull crossbow. He could send *aluminum* arrows
throught a truck's thick engine block *WITH NO PROBLEM*. Deer hunters who
use bows will tell you that they can get a killing shot off and send the arrow
completely through the deer, and the deer with run off, not knowing that it
is already dead. They have to follow the deer till it finally collapses.
: And crushing is another problem. I would think that chainmail would have
: a bigger problem with crushing attacks than with impaling. If I'm wearing
Against crushing attacks, chainmail distributes the damage over a larger
area, and the padding beneath it softens the damage. Maces, spiked clubs,
and morningstars were designed for blunt trauma work. Bob the Knight in
his Plate Mail became Bob the Dead Knight in his crushed and staved in
platemail. Maces were designed to make plate a coffin. Anyone in either
chain or plate is vulnerable to blunt trauma, but on the whole, most
warriors would probably prefer broken ribs to implaled vitals from an arrow.
: If I'm wrong in my assumptions please tell me so.
If someone dropped a 75 lb weight from 5 feet abouve you onto your chest while
you were wearing chainmail, you'd probably have broken ribs, extreme pain,
and large bruises. If instead, someone dropped that weight from the same height,but attached an arrow to the bottom of the weight, YOU'D STILL have extreme
pain, but you'd also be impaled to the floor, and if the arrow hit your stomach,heart, spleen, liver, groin, lungs, etc you'd be in shitloads of trouble, and
possibly dead soon).
Yes, you are wrong in your assumptions.
Hope that this little physics lesson helped clarify some things. If not, don't
try the above experiment at home, instead try it at school, then you'd have someone to place blame on if someone got killed.
Later,
Matt
--
.sig under construction <psu0...@odin.cc.pdx.edu>
Sakura
>Ok, this has bugged me for a long time and since I've got a free moment or
>ten I figured I'd post it.
>
>impaling? It doesn't make sense to me. As I understand it chainmail is like
>a T-shirt made of metal links and is worn over padded armor. If this is wrong
>a dagger or an arrow. I guess I can see why the links wouldn't give PD
>against such an attack since the point could get stuck between links instead
>of being diverted. But is the armor so poorly made that any dagger attack
>automatically rips open the links and penetrates? It seems to me that that's
>the only way to justify the lowered DR vs. Impaling - the links are too small
>for daggers to penetrate without ripping the armor open.
Well, as some of the other posters have noted, if you compare, say a
staff and a sword, both thrust with the same about of force against a
piece of chainmail, the sword (or dagger, or arrow, or whatever) is
putting that force against a much smaller area, making it more efficient
- this is, after all, why we commonly used swords rather than maces.
>And crushing is another problem. I would think that chainmail would have
>a bigger problem with crushing attacks than with impaling. If I'm wearing
>an armored T-shirt it's gonna hurt if someone hits me in the chest with
>a club or mace because those attacks don't have to penetrate the armor to
>hurt and non-rigid armor wouldn't really slow it down too much. I mean sure
>the armor is between you and the blow, but the blow would just cause the
>armor to impact against your chest. I don't see how that would significantly
>lessen the damage.
Chainmail works along the same principles as modern Kevlar armor - which
is also non-rigid (assuming there are no ceramic plates) yet remarkably
effective at stopping bullets as well as blunt trauma. The reason it
works is that it spreads the impact out over a larger area than it would
normally have, signifcantly softening the impact.
--
Jeff Johnston Freedom of Speech Support the Blue
http://www.io.com/~jeffj R.I.P. Ribbon Anti-Censorship
je...@io.com 1781 - 1996 Campaign!
Philip Masters
against impaling attacks; one can find a number of cases, in history,
where people took to wearing chain armour sections to protect against
assassination or whatever, when the opponents they were worried about
specifically used impaling weapons.
The case I can think of off-hand involved the Hashishim, who more or
less invariably stabbed their victims with daggers that were small
enough to conceal easily - sounds like a GURPS "Dagger" to me, and that
means impaling. Saladin, and I think a number of other potential
Hashishim targets, took to wearing chain "vests", throat protectors, and
so on - presumably with rather limited padding underneath. Under GURPS,
they'd have done better to buy leather. Bryan Maloney's piece on
Elizabethan fencing in the latest *Pyramid* mentions mail vests to
protect against rapiers.
The fudge I put into *GURPS Arabian Nights* was to come up with
high-quality, close-mesh chain that provides PD 2, DR 2 or 3 against
*all* attacks, with low weight - but very high cost. Bryan came up with
something similar, although there's a (rather odd) fudge in there about
them not working vs. blades less than an inch wide (which surely means
most rapiers). I think there might be a case for making something like
this available in any sophisticated society with good armourers.
--
Phil Masters
http://www.taynet.co.uk/~gdx/users/masters/index.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Quotation confesses inferiority."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Letters and Social Aims", 1875.
BR...@ucs.isu.edu
padded armor undergarment is being worn. I think this is the one you are refering
to. Down near the bottom of the page (or the section, in the quick start charts) is
the rating for when this underarmor is not worn. The combination of the links of
chain and the padding create an armor that is fairly effective against crushing
attacks. The links absorb most of the blow, and the padding cushions against the
links and helps absorb the rest of the force.
Chain has such a poor rating against impailing attacks because the links are not
very thick (about 1/8-3/8") and in most cases are riveted together. The force of an
arrow, being enough to go through some plate, just ignores most of the protection
chain offers. Against dagger and impailing sword attacks, the same pretty much
applies. The force behind the point and edges of the blade allow it to just slice
through the links as it penetrates. Chain will slow a sword or dagger down, just
not that much.
Phillip Bridges
Pocatello, ID
Pat Bunt
(snip)
>Chainmail works along the same principles as modern Kevlar armor - which
>is also non-rigid (assuming there are no ceramic plates) yet remarkably
>effective at stopping bullets as well as blunt trauma. The reason it
>works is that it spreads the impact out over a larger area than it would
>normally have, signifcantly softening the impact.
Okay, here's another one along the same lines: Given that chain is
easy to poke through, especially since medieval technology didn't have
galvanized Bessemer steel to work with, why the same rule for Kevlar
(and Monocrys, for that matter)? I have heard (Rumor, the Reliable
Source) that olympic fencing jackets are made with kevlar in them in
case the blade breaks and the broken blade finds its way to the
opponent's chest... A silly thing, it seems, if kevlar has a lower DR
against impaling...
Pat Bunt
pb...@indiana.edu
Steve and Melanie Bucey
Yeah, one of the first things I noticed when starting in a friends high tech
game was that if my opponents used blaster or laser pistols even, kevlar use
strangly useless.
Philip Fenn
: je...@io.com (Sakura) wrote:
: (snip)
: >Chainmail works along the same principles as modern Kevlar armor - which
: >is also non-rigid (assuming there are no ceramic plates) yet remarkably
: >effective at stopping bullets as well as blunt trauma. The reason it
: >works is that it spreads the impact out over a larger area than it would
: >normally have, signifcantly softening the impact.
: Okay, here's another one along the same lines: Given that chain is
: easy to poke through, especially since medieval technology didn't have
: galvanized Bessemer steel to work with, why the same rule for Kevlar
: (and Monocrys, for that matter)? I have heard (Rumor, the Reliable
: Source) that olympic fencing jackets are made with kevlar in them in
: case the blade breaks and the broken blade finds its way to the
: opponent's chest... A silly thing, it seems, if kevlar has a lower DR
: against impaling...
: Pat Bunt
: pb...@indiana.edu
Good point, except that the majority of broken fencing blades break with a
blunt (or at least cutting) edge, rather than an impaling point. Modern
Olympic grade blades are specifically made to do so. We are therefore
looking at eith blunt or cutting damage here, which means that the kevlar is
a good protection (and lighter than the equivalent DR value from nylon or
cotton). On the question of penetration by genuine impaling damage, at
least one fencer in recent times (ie in the last ten years) died when a
blade which did break into a sharp point went straight thorough his MASK. A
fencing mask has a mesh with gaps of around 2mm, which is considerably
smaller than the holes in normal chainmail and on this particular occasion
offered virtually no resistance to the incoming blade. Makes you wonder
whether the rules for chainmail might be over generous.
Mark E. Anderson
: In article: <4id9hu$i...@clarknet.clark.net> smb...@clark.net (Steve
: and Melanie Bucey) writes:
: > Note that the Romans started to replace it with segmented plate in the
: > first centure AD. They did this for two reasons. The first was that
: > they had lost a considerable amount of chain armors in Germany in the
: > debacle of 7 AD, and armor got a lot of reuse in those days. Also,
: > chain is very time consuming to make, and the so the cheaper (in time)
: > alternative. They also noted the lack of effectiveness against the
: > Pathian horse archers in the mideast.
: Do you have references for this? It may be true, but I don't recall,
: from my wargaming days, any Roman writers being this specific on the
: effectiveness of specific technologies. I also note that the Byzantines,
: who faced a *lot* of eastern horse-archers, cheerfully re-introduced
: chain for their heavy infantry.
: > Note, however, that the segmented armor only covered the upper torso.
i don't have any refs to support the effectiveness argument, only a bit
on the lorica segmentata being produced because it was cheap and fit the
roman model of production. the romans were merchants first, soldiers
second and tended to approach war that way. lorica s. were easy to produce
in an almost assembly line fashion and they were easy to transport, collapsing
down into nice little "rings". if you're familiar with rocky russo and his
old columns in the ... "the sorceror's apprentice"(?) frp mag, he was my source
for this information. he did a nice lecture series at gencon 95.
the chain they obtained... wasn't that mostly of celtic origin?
or at least, an import rather than a domestic product? speculating on that one...
--
mark anderson * Incorrigible punster. *
wom...@nmrfam.wisc.edu * Please do not incorrige. *
http://www.nmrfam.wisc.edu
Steven Anderson
In a previous article, Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk (Philip Masters) says:
>Bryan Maloney's piece on
>Elizabethan fencing in the latest *Pyramid* mentions mail vests to
>protect against rapiers.
--- What type of mail though? Mascled had been in use for a century or
two by Liz' time.
--- A tight linked chain vest would also work. The limbs would be
unhindered. It would be heavier and a LOT more expensive than regular chain.
--
Buddha went to a fig tree and became enlightened. Christ went to a fig
tree and cursed it. Is it purely coincidence that man who realized the
fundamentals of gravity, motion and calculus was named Newton?
The Seeker
> Any comments by people who've worn chainmail and been hit with arrows,
> or something?
>
> - Ian
I am one such person. Here are my comments.
Chainmail is great stuff for stopping edges and points.
Chainmail is lousy stuff for absorbing impact.
Chainmail switches you from cuts and bruises to bruises and more bruises.
Based on experience, I'd say the most realistic way of handling chainmail
DR is to void the damage multiplier of edged/pointed weapons used against
someone wearing chainmail. This can be nit-picked, of course, but should
stand up well for general purpose use.
Warmest personal regards,
-= The Seeker =-
-= (i/pi)^inf =-
**************************************************************************
* Actually, you're right; I haven't the foggiest idea what I'm doing but *
* I'm having an awfully fun time doing it. Pass the jellybabies, please! *
* ====================================================================== *
* My E-mail -- har...@lurch.winthrop.edu OR zzha...@acad.winthrop.edu *
* My wholly unremarkable Home Page -- http://lurch.winthrop.edu/~harrist *
* My RL Address -- 112 South First Street -- Fort Mill, SC -- 29715-9391 *
* Phone 1 (803) 547 7676 -- Best after 6pm EST -- Collect calls accepted *
**************************************************************************
Eric Robert Sylwester
: This looks a lot more realistic. I made myself a chainmail bracelet using
: 14 gauge steel around a 3/8" rod, I admit it was pretty shoddy work, but
: it was six-link, and even when fully stretched out I couldn't push a nail
: through it (and I'm not talking about railroad spikes guys -- carpenter's
: nails). Also, I tried to see how far my knives would go through: the
: thinnest one made it one and a half millimeters past the links.
: Making a shirt out of this would be very effective at stopping impaling
: weapons (except maybe needles), the problem would be the colossal weight and
: cost.
The Australian robber Ned Kelly made himself what was effectively plate
armor out of cast iron. Complete with bucket helmet. It weighed some
godawful amount and was evidently hot as hell, but it stopped the bullets
(for a while). They got him in the end, though.
Just an unrelated thought.
--
| (#) -Eric
=/ /===_)----- Oh better far to live and die,
\_/ under the brave black flag I fly,
// \\ than play a sanctimonious part,
/ / with a pirate head and a pirate heart.
Damon Kosheleff
<axed>
: The fudge I put into *GURPS Arabian Nights* was to come up with
: high-quality, close-mesh chain that provides PD 2, DR 2 or 3 against
: *all* attacks, with low weight - but very high cost. Bryan came up with
: something similar, although there's a (rather odd) fudge in there about
: them not working vs. blades less than an inch wide (which surely means
: most rapiers). I think there might be a case for making something like
: this available in any sophisticated society with good armourers.
This looks a lot more realistic. I made myself a chainmail bracelet using
14 gauge steel around a 3/8" rod, I admit it was pretty shoddy work, but
it was six-link, and even when fully stretched out I couldn't push a nail
through it (and I'm not talking about railroad spikes guys -- carpenter's
nails). Also, I tried to see how far my knives would go through: the
thinnest one made it one and a half millimeters past the links.
Making a shirt out of this would be very effective at stopping impaling
weapons (except maybe needles), the problem would be the colossal weight and
cost.
: --
: Phil Masters
: http://www.taynet.co.uk/~gdx/users/masters/index.htm
: --------------------------------------------------------------
: "Quotation confesses inferiority."
: - Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Letters and Social Aims", 1875.
Damon
---
Keep America beautiful, swallow your beer cans.
Philip Masters
In article: <4imsps$r...@news.doit.wisc.edu> wombats@rana (Mark E.
Anderson) writes:
> ... the romans were merchants first, soldiers
> second ...
I rather doubt that many Romans would have agreed with this. I get the
impression that they preferred to portray the Carthaginians, and later
assorted easterners, as the money-grubbers; they liked to see themselves
as robust farmer-soldiers who happened to carve out an empire.
(Of course, self-image rarely conforms to reality, and it's hard to run
an empire on negative cash flow.)
> the chain they obtained... wasn't that mostly of celtic origin?
I sincerely doubt *Celtic*. Every available account that I've seen says
that Celtic warriors had very little armour.
Celtic regions did have a fair number of iron mines, I suppose, and the
Romans doubtless exploited these. Is this what you're thinking of?
> or at least, an import rather than a domestic product? speculating on
> that one...
Imported from where? Rome had the largest and most highly industrialised
economy in its region, by a long chalk. I can't see them importing much
military equipment for long; far cheaper to set up a manufacturing
system of their own. The only neighbours they faced who seem to have
produced metal armour in any quantity were the Persians, who had a
quasi-feudal society - so their armour would probably have been produced
by village blacksmiths on the order of the local lords.
(Okay, the Sarmatians seem to have been able to mobilise a remarkably
well-armoured noble cavalry corps, but that seems to have involved
mostly leather or horn *scale* armour.)
Scratch
punctures from weapons, but less effective against the bruises
and broken bones they may cause. Plate would go some way to
stopping this also. I have read one book which spoke
of the phenomenon(sp?) of a chainmail wearing knight emerging
from battle with arrow hafts protuding from him so he looked like
a porcupine. In fact, chain mail was cited as better protection,
or at least equal to plate against arrows. As the arrow penetrated
a ring, the force stopping it was increased as the tapered end
filled the ring more. Then there's the padding underneath. Plate
was a bit like "Once it's thru' it's thru." However, it only needs
the armourer to make one dodgy ring, the ring pops and Shish-kebab
(sp?) There are loads of technicalities, but chain mail is not
simply a series of holes. (I'm not saying plate is WEAK, BTW)
I still love Pratchett, tho'.
Suggested rules? Until it starts getting bullet proof I'm better off
without any of it. (Remember, gunpowder heralded the end of armour)
Keep having fun. Scratch.
Rich Crosby
: I am one such person. Here are my comments.
: Chainmail is great stuff for stopping edges and points.
: Chainmail is lousy stuff for absorbing impact.
: Chainmail switches you from cuts and bruises to bruises and more bruises.
Are you sure this couldn't be said of any armor? I once draped some
chainmail over the back of my hand (without padding) and was able
to whack it pretty hard without feeling any pain.
Rich
Philip Masters
> --- What type of mail though? Mascled had been in use for a century
> or two by Liz' time.
Well, there were also the Crusades-era Muslim anti-dagger protections
that I mentioned.
> --- A tight linked chain vest would also work. The limbs would be
> unhindered. It would be heavier and a LOT more expensive than regular
> chain.
Fine. Then GURPS needs to distinguish between types of chain, or
something. The point is that the type defined in the rules does not
adequately represent mascled or tight-linked chain.
Peter Dell_Orto
Steve and Melanie Bucey
>
>In article: <4id9hu$i...@clarknet.clark.net> smb...@clark.net (Steve
>and Melanie Bucey) writes:
>> Note that the Romans started to replace it with segmented plate in the
>> first centure AD. They did this for two reasons. The first was that
>Do you have references for this? It may be true, but I don't recall,
>from my wargaming days, any Roman writers being this specific on the
>effectiveness of specific technologies. I also note that the Byzantines,
>who faced a *lot* of eastern horse-archers, cheerfully re-introduced
>chain for their heavy infantry.
Concerning the effectiveness, no, I don't (read it somewhere and can't
recall where.). Thus, since I can't prove it, I'll retract it. But I'll
try to recall where I read it.
Concerning the Byzantine infantry, they really counted on their own
considerable horse army, which was a dual class heavy cavalry and horse
archer also, to keep the Persian/Turkish horse archers at bay. (For a good
description of how the Byzantine army operated read Arher Jones 'The Art of
War in the Western World'. It represented a very fine combination of
moble warfare using horse and foot units).
>
>> Note, however, that the segmented armor only covered the upper torso.
>> A chain shirt could cover the whole torso. Warriors just felt more
>> comfortable and 'safe' in it.
>
>The references I have to hand show Roman chain and scale armours
>stopping anywhere from waist to lower thighs. The also frequently show
>lorica segmenta, leathers, and other armours with pteruges - overlapping
>studded leather strips providing substantial protection to the groin and
>thighs.
>
Chain and scale, yes. The segmented, no. If the hip and thight protections
added to the segmented armor were really just as effective, then why not
cover the whole torso. They didn't, which suggests to me that the Romans at
least considered the segmented better armor, and the other needed to provide
the flexablity.
As to some armor covering only down to the waist, that may be just economics
or weight. The short shirt would be cheaper and lighter, either or which
are good reasons to 'skimp' on protection. Note that they tended not to
wear any armor at all on the arms, and often not on the legs. They were a
marching army, after all.
The real point I should make is that after the germanic peoples overran
Europe they adopted chain based armor until the introduction of the crossbow
and then the longbow forced the attempt to add protection by adding plate.
It is important to note that in the interviening years the germanic
tradition of close in fighting as the only true worth of a warrior precluded
missile weapons. Ie, they simply did not have to worry about them until the
later middle ages. There seems to be a conection there.
Peter V. Dell'Orto
>Chainmail is great stuff for stopping edges and points.
>Chainmail is lousy stuff for absorbing impact.
>Chainmail switches you from cuts and bruises to bruises and more bruises.
>
>DR is to void the damage multiplier of edged/pointed weapons used against
>someone wearing chainmail. This can be nit-picked, of course, but should
>stand up well for general purpose use.
Nit-picking....
Why only for chainmail? Is it easier to pierce scale than to pierce chainmail?
If you eliminated the multiplier because the weapon does not pierce, then what you
are saying is that the DR sucked up enough of the blow to make the edge or point not
penetrate. In GURPS, this is represented by the DR being 4 versus cut and crush and
2 versus impaling. Getting rid of the multiplier for chain means it is the most
effective armor in the game. If you take 6 cut in chain, you would take 2 pts of
damage past the armor. If you take 6 cut in scale, you take 3? Ooff!
However, blunt trauma needs to be addressed in GURPS. If you get nailed with a
sword blow while wearing plate, it does not matter if it does not penetrate-you will
still bruise, right? Any ideas on this point? The "6" rule from High-Tech is swell
for high-tech armor, but for low tech any "6" against flexible armor penetrates.
Peter V. Dell'Orto
"There's no future, no future for me"
Stephen M. Arenburg
<dell...@concentric.net> writes:
> Nit-picking....
> Why only for chainmail? Is it easier to pierce scale than to
> pierce chainmail?
Actually it is. Scale armour is typically made up of heavy leather
while mail (chainmail is a D&D term) is made up of steel links.
> If you eliminated the multiplier because the weapon does not
> pierce, then what you
> are saying is that the DR sucked up enough of the blow to make the
> edge or point not
> penetrate. In GURPS, this is represented by the DR being 4 versus
> cut and crush and
> 2 versus impaling. Getting rid of the multiplier for chain means it
> is the most
> effective armor in the game. If you take 6 cut in chain, you would
> take 2 pts of
> damage past the armor. If you take 6 cut in scale, you take 3?
> Ooff!
> However, blunt trauma needs to be addressed in GURPS. If you
> get nailed with a
> sword blow while wearing plate, it does not matter if it does not
> penetrate-you will
> still bruise, right? Any ideas on this point? The "6" rule from
> High-Tech is swell
Not necessarily. Ever heard of a gamezon? This is a padded tunic
worn under most armor to absorb the impacts of blunt weapons. On good
steel
armour, a mace is rather worthless as a weapon. It is typically used
on
opponents who are unarmoured, or are only wearing body armour, and
typically
used to break arm/leg bones and crush hips.
--
___
___/___\___ ******************************************
/ \ * Stephen M. Arenburg, B.Sc. *
\ ______/ * aren...@phobos.astro.uwo.ca *
\ / * SCA: Benjamin Hammerfield *
/ \ ----/ \ ******************************************
/ \ / \ * http://phobos.astro.uwo.ca/~arenburg/ *
\___/\___/\___/ ******************************************
Uncle Misha
>In article <4id9hu$i...@clarknet.clark.net>
> smb...@clark.net "Steve and Melanie Bucey" writes:
>> From what I've read, it was possible to make chain heavy enought to withstand
>> a stong bow, due to text that refer to 'proffing' chain against bows and
>> crossbows. However, the result, called double mail, was what led to the
>> discriptions of knights so encumbered that they had trouble getting up if
>> knocked down, implying weights in excess of 120 pounds. A good suit of
>> plate, while more effective, often weighed in at only 70 pounds. Less than
>> the standard kit carreied by modern combat soldiers.
>And had the added advantage that the weight is a lot better distributed
>than even modern military kit allows. The encumbered knight myth does
>show up in the Olivier version of Henry V, and the Renaissance jousting
>armours were heavy enough to make mounting a horse very difficult
>without help, but I've seen people demonstrating plate armour, and it
>doesn't restrict movement.
You also have to keep in mind that at Agincourt, the French were
"charging" across a muddy, recently-plowed cornfield, after it had
been raining for the last few days. Big heavy horses don't do well in
mud anyway, and when you split your force into three different groups
so that the later groups can advance across the muck that your earlier
groups turned into an even worse mire, you gotta expect trained
missile troops to turn your forces into pincushions <g>.
Michael
alw...@gil.com.au
: Suggested rules? Until it starts getting bullet proof I'm better off
: without any of it. (Remember, gunpowder heralded the end of armour)
: Keep having fun. Scratch.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Bullet PROOF?????
Don't you mean bullet resistant.
Just love the image of a lawyer complaining about false advertising after
being shot though a "bullet proof" vest....
Al, Knife.
Peter V. Dell'Orto
>In article <4it3sg$5...@tribune.cris.com>, "Peter V. Dell'Orto"
><dell...@concentric.net> writes:
>
>> Nit-picking....
>> Why only for chainmail? Is it easier to pierce scale than to
>> pierce chainmail?
>
> Actually it is. Scale armour is typically made up of heavy leather
>while mail (chainmail is a D&D term) is made up of steel links.
Scale armor is not just heavy leather, it is metal scale or rings sewn onto leather.
Backed by padding, I suppose, like most armor. It *is* heavier and more expensive
than chainmail on the armor chart. If it is easier to pierce, than obviously PD3/DR4
is not appropriate. What would you suggest as stats?
(and if it is a worse armor choice than chain, we are indeed back to D&D, with chain
being AC5 and scale being AC6....)
Yes, I was considering a gambezon. I was also considering the fact that one
frined of mine pointed out that regardless of how thick your plate is in the SCA, and
how much padding you wear, you still will end up limping off the field after a good
impact weapon hit. Also, I believe that slings made excellent weapons against the
crusaders simply because the impact hurt the target without needing to penetrate. I
assume that this is represented in the game by the high damage caused by a sling.
With regards to maces, why bother using them at all if they are poor against armored
opponents? If you intend to hit the limbs you might as well use something with an
edge, and against unarmored foes use a cutting or impaling weapon-I can live with
broken ribs, but not so well with disembowlment.
David G. Bell
Plate armour, once pistols and such became available, was made, and
sold, as bullet proof. And it was tested. "Look, sir, that's what a
pistol ball does to this breast-plate."
Obviously, range and powder charges were a factor which might allow a
certain economy with the truth.
If you dig into the etymology, that's where 'bullet-proof' comes from,
with the proof/prove element meaning 'test'.
And armour doesn't necessarily have to stop a projectile to be
worthwhile. The introduction of helmets in WW1 came about because
people noticed that troops that still wore the somewhat impractical
helmets, pickelhaubes, etc., suffered from fewer serious head injuries.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Steve Anderson
>sold, as bullet proof. And it was tested. "Look, sir, that's what a
>pistol ball does to this breast-plate."
>
>Obviously, range and powder charges were a factor which might allow a
>certain economy with the truth.
You were also dealling with smoothbore barrelled guns and round bullets,
not rifled guns firing aerodynamically optimized slugs. Quite probably
they were marketed as bullet proof because the plate was capable of
stopping the bullets then in use.
Philip Masters
> Scale armor is not just heavy leather, it is metal scale or rings sewn
> onto leather. Backed by padding, I suppose, like most armor.
As defined in GURPS, yes. However, one thing that the book as written
doesn't cover is non-metal scale. The fact is that you can cut scales
out of anything flat and rigid, and sew them onto a backing. Hard
leather *was* used historically, as was beaten horn. (Same comments
apply to certain types of segmented armour, of course.)
As to whether most historical scale armour was metal, leather, or what,
I don't know - and given variable rates of survival for different
materials on archaeological sites, and the disinterest of classical
writers in "obvious" details, I doubt that anyone else knows, either.
Peter V. Dell'Orto
>In article: <4j1vvf$9...@tribune.cris.com> "Peter V. Dell'Orto" =
><dell...@concentric.net> writes:
>> Scale armor is not just heavy leather, it is metal scale or rings sewn=
>> onto leather. Backed by padding, I suppose, like most armor.
>
>As defined in GURPS, yes. However, one thing that the book as written =
>doesn't cover is non-metal scale. The fact is that you can cut scales =
>out of anything flat and rigid, and sew them onto a backing. Hard =
>leather *was* used historically, as was beaten horn. (Same comments =
>apply to certain types of segmented armour, of course.)
>
>As to whether most historical scale armour was metal, leather, or what, =
>I don't know - and given variable rates of survival for different =
>materials on archaeological sites, and the disinterest of classical =
>writers in "obvious" details, I doubt that anyone else knows, either.
You are correct, the rules do not specify that the scale are metal. I ha=
ve always =
assumed that they are, especially because the armor description specifies=
either =
*scales* or *rings*. Rings would be metal-is there any reason to make th=
em out of =
anything else?
Besides, if the armor is made of leather with horn scales, you can use th=
e =
stats for the Sarmatian armor from Imperial Rome: PD3/DR3, 30% heavier th=
an heavier =
leather for each area (Imperial Rome pg 84, sidebar.) The sidebar does s=
tate that =
the Sarmations used scale "This was sometimes made of metal, but more oft=
en of bone =
scales sewn over leather". To me, this implies that if it was metal scal=
es the stats =
on B210 would be appropriate.
In this case, it would be easier to penetrate than chain, but not as easy=
to pierce =
as scale made with metal. I think my original point about removing the m=
ultiples for =
impaling and cutting from chain is still correct. If this is done, chain=
is more =
effective than plate, never mind scale. Why wear PD4/DR7 heavy plate whe=
n =
PD3(1)/DR4(2) chain will eliminate those pesky multiples? Sure, if your =
opponent =
does 7pts or less this is fine, but I have yet to play in a campaign were=
most =
serious combatant do less than 2+1 cut (at least), usually more. If you =
get wacked =
for 12 pts of swing/impale from a warhammer or 13 pts of cut from a sword=
, the chain =
is equal if not superior. And those wounds *will* bleed.
Making this change makes chainmail into Dwarven Chain from Magic Items, a=
set of =
armor my players were drooling over once they found the description.
Peter V. Dell'Orto
"See my face, not a trace, no reality"