Best rifle bullet for use against medieval armor?
Brendan Stone
currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms brought
about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
Here's what they said:
British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
short range against an armored opponent.
So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
them?
Bren
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
r...@rmkhome.com
# This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
# currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms brought
# about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
At the Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, Massachusetts there is a suit
of armor that was hit by a firearm of that period. Looks like it was a
ball of about .50+, and made a dent around 3/4" deep. Probably stunned the
guy who was wearing the armor.
--
r...@rmkhome.com http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk
Christopher Morton
<brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
#British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
"British"?
I suspect that USGI .30-06 armor piercing will penetrate at a
substantially greater distance.
--
"If she's elected, I'll make a point of putting "D-Israel" after her
name." - Brian Zepp Jamieson referring to Black liberal Democrat, Denise Majette.
Charles Bruni
never have anticipated in a million years. Will medieval armor stop rifle
rounds? Boooooooy, do they teach ANYTHING in school anymore? Heaven help
us.
Russ Frazier
the several current calibers at ranges greater thand 15 - 20 feet. I would
assume they'd also be effective at much longer ranges also. So how conclude
they're useless?
Sorry, I won't be dressing in one of them and feel safe from a .30-06 at any
practical range.
Back to the video parlor.
"Brendan Stone" <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b2rfhn$rrp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
brought
> ...
exceptionally
> ...
knights
> ...
want
> ...
trainees
> ...
Mysterion
..30-06 will zip through a knight's armor like a hot knife through butter.
fred
Fred
John Oliver
# This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
# currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms brought
# about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
Not so. Pikes were around for as long as there's been cavalry... the
ground-pounders needed to keep cavalry at a distance. The firearm did
bring about the end of the age of armor, but it was on its way out
anyway... there are too many other ways to deal with a man in a can.
Armor is of little use against blunt smashing weapons like maces... hit
the knight hard enough, and you still break bones, give him a
concussion, or knock him out (or down, which is a *very* bad place to be
when wearing 70+ pounds of metal!) Axes could punch right through
plate. You can only make armor so thick before it becomes too heavy to
be usable.
# Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
# outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
# traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
# material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
# available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
#
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
#
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
A short bow firing an arrow with a hardened steel tip will punch right
through plate armor at reasonably close distances (maybe 20 yards?)
Also, remember that in the 14th-15th century, when armor was on the way
out, firearms were basically had cannons... you'd fire a ball of lead
the size of a golf ball through your arquebus at your target knight. It
doesn't have to penetrate... even if the shock doesn't kill him, once
the knight is lying on the ground, he's dead meat. A peasant with a
dagger can quickly kill him.
Armor was useful against slashing, stabbing weapons. You had to keep on
your feet and keep moving. With the advent of firearms, armor became
useless since you can't move faster than a bullet. You might as well
ditch the armor and be able to move. heck, it's only in maybe the last,
what... 20 or 30 years, maybe, that we've come to the point where we can
start giving armor back to our soldiers in the form of composite
materials light enough to be worn but strong enough to stop a bullet
from penetrating *and* able to spread the force of impact out to prevent
serious injury.
--
John Oliver, CCNA http://www.john-oliver.net/
Linux/UNIX/network consulting http://www.john-oliver.net/resume/
*** sendmail, Apache, ftp, DNS, spam filtering ***
**** Colocation, T1s, web/email/ftp hosting ****
Giampingjack
of Giovanni dalle Bande Nere, a rinascimental Captain of soldiers of
fortune, and his death caused by the new firearms
--
Ciao, Giampingjack
personal Home Page:
http://digilander.libero.it/giampingjack
"Brendan Stone" <brenda...@cogeco.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:b2rfhn$rrp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
brought
> ...
exceptionally
> ...
knights
> ...
want
> ...
trainees
> ...
Peter McMullen
Brendan Stone wrote:
# This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
# currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# knights on horseback would wear.)
<snip>
#
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
#
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
I have a reeeely hard time believing .50 BMG will not penetrate a kight's steel
armor at a range beyond 50 feet, or 500 feet for that matter
#
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
#
# So is this true?
I highly doubt it. Most historians I have read consider firearms to have been
the final nail in kights armor
from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm :
"The new -(SS109 5.56mm NATO cartridge)- projectile can penetrate the standard
NATO 3.45mm steel plate up to a range of 640 meters (704 yds) and one side of
the U. S.steel helmet up to a range of 1,300 meters (1430 yds)"
:o)
Austin Danger Powers
to 50 feet. If you're speaking of .50 BMG, and not a muzzle loading
firearm, your source is totaly ignorant and all the "claimed" results
are suspect at best.
It's doubtful your source has ever even fired a real gun, and took
this drivel out of some SCA newsletter.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:09:27 +0000 (UTC), "Brendan Stone"
<brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> ...
Greylock
mount set of M2 - .50 BMG machine guns.
In most American terrain, you can hit them if you can see them. If you can
hit them you can perforate them.
After the battel you can go into the pasta business, cause God knows you're
gonna have plenty of collanders.
"Brendan Stone" <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b2rfhn$rrp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
brought
> ...
exceptionally
> ...
knights
> ...
want
> ...
trainees
> ...
Mr Apol
#charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
#to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
#with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
#them?
#
#Bren
I'll take that bet. I'll only need a couple dozen men, six Gatling guns in
.45-70, (late 19th century technology, by the way) and about 20,000 rounds.
Just point, crank, and spray. None of the noble lunks will lay a gauntlet on
me.
Seriously, firing against a hunk of metal is no test. Even today, cops who wear
modern body armor get the fight taken out of them when hit by a high powered
round that doesn't penetrate. And don't forget the horses . . . the French
knights at Crecy and Agincourt were slaughtered because of longbow arrows,
which have a lot less kinetic impact than modern small arms.
Modern .223 caliber rifles wouldn't be the best choice. In lieu of the Gatling
squad, I could take a World War I era company of British, French, or German
infantry, well drilled in the use of bolt action rifles, and destroy your
hypothetical knightly charge. A 8mm Mauser bullet with a steel core would punch
through any Renaissance plate armor front and back. The disruption to the
tissue in between would be massive. The slaughter would commence at 1,000 yards
and continue until no rider were left. Long barreled infantry rifles of that
era often came with volley sights graduated out to extreme ranges. They could
saturate a slow moving target in short order.
What do you think happened to French cuirassiers in 1914? German rifles and
machine guns slaughtered them. What happened to the brave Polish cavalry in
1939? They were massacred by panzers, machine guns, and dive bombers. Plate
armor could not survive in the 16th century, much less today.
Paul Thompson
Thomas M. Reynolds
# This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
# currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms brought
# about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
#
# Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
# outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
# traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
# material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
# available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
#
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
#
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
#
# So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
# charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
# to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
# with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
# them?
#
# Bren
The data are suspect...worthless in my opinion. The reasons for this opinion
are extensive. But for one example, the .50 cal used by the military would be
worthless and taken out of service if your data were correct given how it is
used.
Nick Hull
<brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
# This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
# currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms brought
# about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
#
# Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
# outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
# traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
# material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
# available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
#
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
#
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
#
# So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
# charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
# to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
# with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
# them?
30-06 AP in a Garand. Also shoot the horse; it brings the knight down &
feeds your army.
--
Free men own guns - slaves don't
http://www.geocities.com/nickhull99
Werner Van der Cruyssen
who told you about how pikes brought down the knights was right.
Bottom line was that the armor they were wearing while sitting on their
horse was very heavy (around 50-60 pounds) and above all, not extremely
flexible (I'm not talking about chain mail now, but about the harnass
itself). People were also a lot smaller than today. If a knight was
pushed/pulled out of the saddle by a pikeman, his goose was cooked because
he wouldn't have been able to get up quickly. Behind the pikemen was
infantry, who'd club/stab him to death. Falling in 10" of water was also
often fatal.
I'm a bit surprised about the low performance of the ammo, though....if we'd
be talking about harness, chain mail and tough leather that was usually worn
beneath the chain mail then I could understand it. But just the harness?
I'd have to see it with my own eyes before I could believe that a medieval
breast plate would stop a .50 BMG round at over 50 feet.
Anyway...I'd give part of my trainees old fashioned M1 Garand rifles, the
good shots take an overwatch position with .338/.50 rifles and meanwhile the
rest of the grunts would have been busy digging a trench (or even better, a
moat ;-). Hard to attack when you're on horseback and the horses'bellies
were not armored. A lot would depend on the terrain. If you could put a
patch of boggy ground or a small stream between you and the charging knights
you could stop an army with just a couple of grunts (at least it worked in
flanders in 1302 and the defending force sure didn't have rifles back then).
Dr JP Hrisoulas
Knowing what I know about REAL armour, not the extra heavy stuff the SCA
uses... but actual armour, I have to say that in reply to the following:
#However, there is
#currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
#knights on horseback would wear.)>
1: REAL armour was not very thick, most would fall in 16 to 18 guage thickness,
with on the better pieces, areas of high threat were fabricated to be a tad bit
heavier in that area, and thinner in areas where the threat level was less,
even on the same individual piece.
#Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
#outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
#traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA,
#using
#material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
#available.>
Unless it was made from IRON, not mild steel, but actual IRON, NOT 1010, NOT
A-36,NOT 1018 or any other mild steel, then it really is not comparable. (And
yes, there is a BIG difference between the two, both in working and in end line
durability) And here's the real eye opener..the SCA is not what I would call
anything near a good source for information on armour, yes, there are a few
really gifted metalworkers involved in that group (I know most of them..) but
on the whole, take whatever members of the the SCA say with more than a few
grains of salt..
#Apparently, pikes and not firearms brought
#about the downfall of the knight>
There are alot of "reasons" why the mounted knight became obsolete, tactics
changed, weapon technology changed, alot of reasons most certainly, but not ONE
reason.
#
#They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#Here's what they said:
#British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
#due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
This is very misleading indeed...it makes things sound that this is the only
range(s) that projectiles will penetrate. There are numerous examples of armour
being penetrated by both arrows and spears, and believe me there is more force
behind a modern, high velocity projectile than an arrow.
Most modern handgun cartridges will penetrate sheet steel in the thicknesses
involved in real armour, and as far as rifle go, NOT a problem at "rifle
ranges" either, (well the 5,56 NATO might have some problems..that's why they
came up with the heavier 62 gr projectile) and as for the .50 cal (I am
thinking you mean .50 BMG), stiking real armour of this period wouldn't even
upset the bullet's flight path at the range you mentioned.
#Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
#short range against an armored opponent>
Not hardly..
#
#So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
#charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
#to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
#with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
#them?
I wouldn't give them a weapon at all...just some gasoline in a couple of
trenches with an elephant or two behind the lines. But I am just that way...but
to answer your question..a couple of M60's would do more than an adequate job
of decimating said oncoming charges...and they wouldn't start the actriual
charge until they were alot closer than a mile..more like 150 yards...usually
closer still.
In all seriousness now, take what these "SCA experts" say and think about it..
IF metallic armour was that effective, would we be wearing all that ballistic
kevlar and spectra? No..
Armour had its place, and that time is over. It wasn't as heavy as most people
have been lead to believe (I am talking about real armour, NOT the extreme, end
of the period, "jousting" armours), and it allowed the wearer the luxury of
making a minor mistake or two in combat, that was about it.
Anyway, there is alot more than this as far as high velocity projectile vs
medieval armour...
Hope this helps..
JPH
Dr JP Hrisoulas
Metallographer, Lecturer
Author: The Complete Bladesmith
The Master Bladesmith
The Pattern Welded Blade
HCI: Dedicated to seeing a woman dead, rather than alive and legally carrying a
handgun.
COL. NVDoM
http://www.Atar.com
Scott R. Keszler
What .50? Muzzleloader? If it was .50 BMG I can guarantee penetration at
ranges greater than 50'.
#So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
#charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
#to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
#with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
#them?
Max range, wimpy trainees - easy. Jeep mounted Ma Deuce (.50 BMG full-auto)
with AP ammo. If budget is not a problem, Raufos rounds. Mix in tracer every 5
to 10 rounds. One fire team vs armored army - no problem if the ammo holds
out.
Aamund Breivik
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
Are we talking .50 BMG here, or some old blackpowder calibre? A .50 BMG
should easily penetrate a half inch of armor steel at 1000 yards or more-
and I'm talking modern armor steel, not medieval-type blacksmith stuff. If
they claim a max range of 50 feet for .50 BMG to penetrate, they're either
bullshitting or noone would be able to wear said armor
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but
exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
Nah. Steel armor was used for quite a while after firearms were adopted, but
since a useful thickness of steel was bloody heavy, they kept reducing the
coverage to keep weight down. I believe steel chest plates were still in use
during the US civil war, though not in large numbers- and they proved to be
inadequate as they'd stop a round musket ball but not a minié.
As the effectiveness of firearms developed further, steel armor became
impractical due to the high weight needed to stop a rifle bullet, so such
armor was eventually phased out.
Sure, you could make a chest plate out of 1/4" to 1/2" steel and that would
stop most light rifle rounds at range, but you wouldn't be able to cover
much more than your chest and perhaps your back. Remember, a modern soldier
has to carry more than just his armour- a full plate armor alone might not
be too cumbersome, but with a full battle load on top it will be.
And of course there'd be a ricochet problem- chances are you'd get wounded
by anything that hit even if it didn't penetrate.
--
Aamund Breivik
Skip Hammond
# about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
Pikes were cheap enough for common issue, firearms were not. It was tactics
combining pikes, archers and muddy ground to slow the horses that made the
difference. Modern firearms would be just fine for use on armored knights.
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
nonsense snipped
This may be the range at which they tested the armor, but is certainly not a
maximum effective range. Plaster's book lists
223 ball as penetrating 1/4 boiler plate at 100 yards and a steel helmet,
with liner at 200. Current issue is even more penetrating. I would
estimate a modern steel helmet as being at least as strong as a medieval
breast plate. 30 cal ball will punch those targets at 200 yards and 400
yards. 30-06 AP will penetrate 1 inch of soft steel at 100 yards and a 50
cal AP will defeat 1/2 inch of face-hardened armor plate at 600 yards.
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but
exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
incorrect conclusions
#
# So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored
knights
# charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You
want
# to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy
trainees
# with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
# them?
Anything issued since WW1. But the modern weapons most effective would be
belt fed and crew served. A couple of 30 cal machine guns, properly used,
would cut the charge into hamburger at 1/4 mile away. 50's would do it at a
half mile, or more.
Pikes and improved tactics may have brought about the downfall of the
armored knight, but firearms are why plate armor has not been used for 300+
years.
Richard I Landon
of course if I had to plan on going up against someone wearing plate armor, and I had my
choice of weapon, I would pick something 30 cal or larger with Tungsten solids..
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:09:27 +0000 (UTC), "Brendan Stone" <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
#They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
#Here's what they said:
#
#British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
#5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
#7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
#50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
#12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
#due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
#Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
#short range against an armored opponent.
#
#So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
#charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
#to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
#with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you
A group of chess enthusiasts checked into a hotel and were standing in the lobby discussing their recent tournament victories. After about an hour, the manager came out of the office and asked them to disperse. "But why?" they asked, as they moved off. "Because," he said, "I can't stand chess Nuts boasting in an open foyer."
nataS
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
#
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
How thick is the breatplate on this stuff? I've shot one of those little
metal plates hanging from a frame with a 9mm when it wasn't free to swing,
and it now has a nice, clean 9mm hole in it, with copper around the edges.
.50 cal has some increadible energy to it. When hitting a piece of metal
that can't easily get out of the way, (i.e., a breastplate on a person), I
have a really hard time believing that it won't penetrate at longer ranges
than 50'. Remember, this caliber can penetrate light armor on modern
vehicles (say, at least an inch?). The last time I picked up a 1" steel
plate, I thought I was going to have to see a surgeon to return my
intestines to my abdominal cavity.
Just looking at the ranges, I have to doubt their conclusions, or their
tests. Did they even try the .50 past 50'? Or the 5.56 past 15'?
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but
exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
#
# So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored
knights
# charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You
want
# to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy
trainees
# with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
# them?
#
# Bren
If these ranges and conclusions are correct, I'd take steel core 5.56
bullets (SS109, I think?), neck a 7.62x51 NATO down to 5.56, get some new
barrels for M14's or FAL's, and see how well the armour stands up to
something really, really fast. I'd wager that the above combination won't
kick to hard (less than a .30-06 or 7.62 NATO, by a ways), and pokes nice,
clean holes into the armour at 100 yards, and nice, big, gaping exit wounds
out of the back of the silly english kinnnniggit!
Wilbur
"Brendan Stone" <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b2rfhn$rrp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but
exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
#
FRANK
<brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
#This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
#currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
#knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms brought
#about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
#existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
#
#Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
#outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
#traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
#material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
#available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
#
#They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
#Here's what they said:
#
#British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
#5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
#7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
#50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
#12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
#due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
#Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
#short range against an armored opponent.
#
#So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
#charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
#to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
#with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
#them?
#
#
Baloney- I am not certain about all of the other calibers, but .50
cal will penetrate 1/2" modern armor plate at 50'. Further, 30-06 AP
will penetrate 1/4" modern armor plate at 100 yds. This is not
theory, I have seen the holes. No medieval armor was as strong as
1/4" rolled armor plate.
Frank
Ragnar
# currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms
brought
# about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
#
# Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
# outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
# traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
# material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
# available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
#
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
#
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but
exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
#
# So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored
knights
# charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You
want
# to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy
trainees
# with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
# them?
I really, really, really, doubt your numbers. Medieval armor was penetrable
by armor-piercing arrows fired by longbowmen at ranges of a little less than
100 meters. Arrows of that type travelled at about 300 meters per second.
Using any modern .30 caliber (and even 5.56mm) rifle against mild steel of
about 1/2 inch of thickness will result in penetration at ranges way beyond
your numbers. You might want to re-check your numbers and testing methods.
Just for an example: The M2 .50 cal machine gun fires a SLAP (sabot light
armor piercing) round that will penetrate 3/4 inch of armor at over 1500
meters.
Mike Corey
They must be kidding!
Mike Corey
NRA ~ USA Shooting
Appointed Pistol Coach
Tom S.
# Bren
Cast handguns bullets would penetrate Medieval armor. The stuff was only
protection against swords and the like. If it were heavy enough to protect
against modern arms, it would have taken six horse to cart the rider around.
Tom
--
"A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner,
so if one's life is cold and bare he can blame
none but himself." -- Louis L'Amour
Brendan Stone
And those who sent hostile replies, I think you should cool down. I'm
arguing _against_ the figures I provided; that's why I posted them here.
What better place to tear up asinine gun vs armor figures?
Bren
Ron Seiden
"Brendan Stone" <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b2rfhn$rrp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
G. Lock
I think your information is seriously flawed. Most medieval armor could
be penetrated with a hand axe. Even modern body armor has a difficult
job withstanding any military rifle round without going to hardened
steel plates and ceramics, both of which are extremely heavy and
generally impractical. If you have a source for the information you
quote, please post it.
bdl300wmag
chink's anyway, hence the phrase " chink's in his armor", well placed round
is the key IMO, as always. Not sure it would be practical to shoot some one
dead in the strongest part of the armor, might be fun to watch though. Like
this thread I'd guess.
--
Going to war without France is,
well,
Like going hunting without an accordion
"Brendan Stone" <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b2rfhn$rrp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
brought
> ...
exceptionally
> ...
knights
> ...
want
> ...
trainees
> ...
Karen harris
ft.?
We are talking about the same round that is fired from the Browning M2
machine gun?
If so, I'm sure it would penetrate at 40-50 ft. it would most likely do the
same at 400-500 meters.
Marek Stanek
news:b2rfhn$rrp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there
is
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against
them?
#
# Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor
that had
.50BMG machineguns, BAR's and Dragunov with steel-core AP rounds.
For short range 12 gauge semi-auto (like Saiga) / pump-action shotguns
with GoldSlug sabots and 6" .357 SW 686's loaded with IMI FMJ
steel-core rounds as backup.
Mark
jercamp45
> ...
Tricked out AK-47 with STEEL core ammo!!!!!
Or string a nice series of trip wires in light brush, and let them
charge. After they all hit the ground. Shoot flaming arrows behind,
beside and in front. Basted Baron, Roast Duke! The armor should make a
fine cooking surface! Then go collect all those handy Chastity Belt
keys, so you can free the damsels from their 'armor'-I am sure they'll
be grateful!!!!
There are many choices! But do not think I'll be running into the
need anytime soon!
DVC,
Jercamp45
Peter H. Proctor
#what... 20 or 30 years, maybe, that we've come to the point where we can
#start giving armor back to our soldiers in the form of composite
#materials light enough to be worn but strong enough to stop a bullet
#from penetrating *and* able to spread the force of impact out to prevent
#serious injury.
The French found a thick angled Cuirass useful for cavalry
in the Napoleonic wars. While primarily for sword fights, It would often
deflect rifle bullets. The Germans used similarly armoured cavalry in the
Franco-Prussian war, about 1870. By WW1, modern rifle rounds had made
it useless at any useable weight, though some snipers used an armoured
shield. Airmen used "flack Jackets" in WW2. Modern armour is primarily to
stop schrapnel, although it will stop rifle rounds at distance.
PHP
Peter H. Proctor
#From: mra...@aol.com (Mr Apol)
#Subject: Re: Best rifle bullet for use against medieval armor?
#Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:28:35 +0000 (UTC)
#What do you think happened to French cuirassiers in 1914? German rifles and
#machine guns slaughtered them. What happened to the brave Polish cavalry in
#1939? They were massacred by panzers, machine guns, and dive bombers. Plate
#armor could not survive in the 16th century, much less today.
Armoured cavalry was used quite late. Although the Germans ( and
the French ? ) heavy cavalry used curiasses as late as the Franco-Prussian
war, I was not aware they used them in WW1. Such cuirasses would deflect
Napoleonic round balls, but were intended mostly for cavalry fights with
edged weapons.
BTW, I do not recall the exact story, but the Polish cavalry
charged the tanks for a reasonable ( if desperate ) military purpose.
E.g., either to divert their fire or to plant charges on them....
PHP
Brian Nolen
"John Oliver" <jol...@john-oliver.net> wrote in message
#
# Not so. Pikes were around for as long as there's been cavalry... the
# ground-pounders needed to keep cavalry at a distance.
Effective pike tactics also signaled the return of dispilined infantry
tactics, probably a greater blow to the preeminence of armored Chivalry on
the battlefield than the firearms of the period.
The firearm did
# bring about the end of the age of armor, but it was on its way out
# anyway... there are too many other ways to deal with a man in a can.
# Armor is of little use against blunt smashing weapons like maces... hit
# the knight hard enough, and you still break bones, give him a
# concussion, or knock him out (or down, which is a *very* bad place to be
# when wearing 70+ pounds of metal!)
Properly fitted field plate armor had that 70 pounds distribuited across the
whole body. Yes it slowed you down some, but it was not the stereotype
picture of the kniggit being lowered onto his destrier with a winch and
crane. Those mideval knights trained in armor from boyhood and were
conditioned to its weight and flexibility limits. Kind of a period version
of the competition shooters that burn a thousand or more rounds a day in
practice.
I only tried armored fighting once in borrowed armor. I've never been what
you would call in great physical shape, but I had no problems getting up
from the ground unaided in the stuff. (By the end of fighter practice sweat
was pouring off me and like Fallstaf I larded the earth...<G> But I could
still get up unaided.)
Tournement armor of the late period ment to protect from the sporting use of
lances OTOH... That was heavy specalized gear with limited mobility but
great protective ability. (What's the FP energy of a galloping heavy draft
horse, a fully armored man, and a long heavy stick focused down on about a
square inch or less of impact area? Double it at least since the target is
charging back at you at the time...)
Axes could punch right through
# plate. You can only make armor so thick before it becomes too heavy to
# be usable.
#
True. Proof armor was modestly common in the era. Brestplates were tested
by firing the heaviest arbalest style crossbow the maker could find and the
resultant dent stamped with his hallmark. (Provided it survived the proofing
however...)
One could always pack more powder behind the ball to increase its power
though... Hard to make a winch wound crossbow more powerful.
I'm willing to bet however that the tested armor in question, even if made
with period techniques was made out of steel that mideval armorers would
would have given their left nut to posess...
I also agree with your comments at the end of the post. One item you
skipped over. I doubt that the horses they rode much cared for the roar and
smoke of gunpowder weapons either.
Firearms were weapons suited for mass armys of infantry. You could train an
arquebusier up to quite decent proficency in a few weeks with a weapon that
could kill anything on the battlefield short of the sketchings from
DaVinci's notebooks brought to life. It took years to train a knight,
literaly a lifetime to forge a boy into a weapon that way.
And all of this technical discussion also ignores the point that society
itself was in transition in this period. Middle class merchants were on the
rise and the landed gentry were loosing their grasp on power. It took
centuries to accomplish but they were on their way out already by then.
Damn I got long winded in what started as a smiple refuting of your
implication that a man in armor on the ground was doomed... <G>
<Stand back! I've got a vocabulary and I know how to use it! <G>>
Brian Nolen
Dale Glover
heavy metal breast plates. Everyone that I have seen had a bullet hole
through it. And what about steel helmets, such as the "old" GI head bucket,
made of better steel than medieval armor - many got punctured. The History
Channel has been having a series on medieval arms and armor and their
effectiveness(?) against such weapons as maces and war hammers, etc. One
ugly weapon used by some peon grunts was a "gutentag" (sp? - my German isn't
what it used to be) - a long pole with a heavy wooden end containing iron
spikes. With a round house swing it would penetrate any armor.
Dale
"Brendan Stone" <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b2rfhn$rrp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
brought
> ...
exceptionally
> ...
knights
> ...
want
> ...
trainees
> ...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Glover
defeat a pistol ball at so many feet. In real life, the armor didn't work
out so well!
Dale
Doug Haxton
<brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
#British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
#5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
#7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
#50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
#12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
#due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
This seems rather odd; the bullets listed will still have 90% of the
velocity at 100 yards that they do at point-blank range. From what I
know, I would speculate that a .30-06 would penetrate at any practical
range.
Doug
Thomas M. Reynolds
Reports from the12th century say that bolts fired from a crossbow could pierce
through a man's shield and armor and into the wearer. (Hardy 1976, 5) The church
saw the power of the crossbow and how it challenged the dominance of the knight
on the battlefield. This prompted the Pope to make a stand against crossbows and
he declared the Anathema, which stated that the use of crossbows against
Christians was against God's will.
Ross
#about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
Um... anyone ever hear of Agincourt and Crecy? The longbow started the
downfall of the armored knight; the firearm finished it.
#existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
Exceedingly.
#Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
#outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
#traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
#material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
#available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
Um... let me jump on this real hard. As an ex-SCAdian, I have NEVER
seen any armor made using "traditional European metallurgy". Most SCA
armorers use cold-rolled steel, which I believe is a much more modern
technology. In fact, over the last 10-15 years, it's become very
popular to use STAINLESS steel for armor. (yes, I did it too - I
didn't have to worry about it rusting).
I don't think that there's an armorer out there who would make his own
sheet steel... and there are damn few SCAdians who could afford what
that armorer would have to charge to stay in business. (FYI, my coat
of plates was made out of 17ga mild steel & leather. Did very well
against wooden swords, but I'd run if I faced someone with a modern
gun)
#Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
#short range against an armored opponent.
Bull... products.
#So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
#charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
Well, since their chargers will be exhausted from a one mile charge...
I think a 30-06 or a .308 will do the trick.
BTW, I've seen a few comments about how helpless an armored knight
will be on the ground... that, too, is bull. I mean, think about this!
What idiot would wear armor that would leave him helpless if he fell?
Wearing my 60 lbs of armor, I can run, sprint, twist, turn, even
dance. I can also get up quickly if I fall, too. Been there, done all
that.
After all, how much did you GI's carry in your packs? And it probably
wasn't as well distributed as the weight of armor is, either.
So, no, sorry. The armored knight will forever more be an anachronism.
And an armored knight in the 21st century is *ahem* a "Creative
Anachronism".
(this should NOT be considered as a bash on the SCA - some of the most
fun times in my life were spent in armour with 2000 other lunatics
trying to bash me with rattan "swords". However, the average SCAdian
is nowhere near as knowledgeable about ancient arms and armor as the
average Civil War re-enactor is about the 19th century.)
Ross
sometimes known as Lord Donal MacDaniell, squire to Sir Gaius
Auklandus.
Ross Schacher
Marlboro, MA
dwar...@attbi.com
http://telecomanimal.home.attbi.com/
Albert J Scott
in the main hall stands a suit of armor with a nice neat .38 caliber hole. this
was done sometime in the 1800s at close range with a 38 S&W. On the other hand I
just saw a report about a young man taking several 9 mm rounds at point blank
range to chain mail then getting back on his feet to disarm the shooter (using a
sword, talk about taking a knife to a gun fight). with the end result of a few
bruised and broken ribs.
John Oliver wrote:
> ...
WVanhou237
Oliver) writes:
#
#Also, remember that in the 14th-15th century, when armor was on the way
#out, firearms were basically had cannons... you'd fire a ball of lead
#the size of a golf ball through your arquebus at your target knight. It
#doesn't have to penetrate... even if the shock doesn't kill him, once
#the knight is lying on the ground, he's dead meat. A peasant with a
#dagger can quickly kill him.
#
In Japan about a hundred years later basicly the same thing happened.
A Warlord with a shortage of mounted Samurai but access to the
newfangled weapons trained a bunch of commoners to use them.
At the big battle he stationed his "gunners" behind staggered series
of pillars and supported each one with a swordsman. They slaughtered
the mounted warriors. Won the battle too.
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Politics is the science of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it,
and
misapplying the wrong remedy.
SutureSelf
# ...30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
# 5.56 NATO...10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO...30ft.
#
# 50cal...40-50ft.
#
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
I simply reject these results. I've seen what .50bmg rounds do to
inch-thick modern steel plate at 150 yards. I've seen steel plate torn
up by .30-06 at closer ranges. I'm sure many posters to this board
have shot up plenty of steel
While well-crafted, a medieval knight's armor was relatively thin and
of primitive-quality metal. I have no doubt that most, if not all,
handgun fmj ammo would penetrate such armor at any reasonable handgun
range. I wouldn't be surprised if an armored knight were a dead duck
at 150 yards against any centerfire rifle.
Ross
<ajs...@cygnusgroup.com> wrote:
#just saw a report about a young man taking several 9 mm rounds at point blank
#range to chain mail then getting back on his feet to disarm the shooter (using a
#sword, talk about taking a knife to a gun fight). with the end result of a few
#bruised and broken ribs.
Do you have a link to this?? I'd like to read that report. Most mail
made today is "butted"; that is, the links are merely circles of steel
that are not fastened closed. There is some "riveted" mail that is
being imported from India, but at $700+ a shirt, I haven't seen many
being worn. The riveted links withstand being spread better than the
butted from stabbing blow, but I didn't think that they'd stand up to
9mm.
Ross
Ross Schacher
Marlboro, MA
dwar...@attbi.com
http://telecomanimal.home.attbi.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Glover
What a shame that you received some "hostile replies". It is hard to
imagine that anyone can be that rude. But in every banquet there are always
a few nuts and fruitcakes. This was fun thread to follow; and isn't that
what the name of the game is? We must never forget the hard work our
moderator does in keeping the posts on a high plane.
Dale
"Brendan Stone" <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b2t9i3$irr$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
Neil Maxwell
#horse, a fully armored man, and a long heavy stick focused down on about a
#square inch or less of impact area? Double it at least since the target is
#charging back at you at the time...)
So, is this the last hand-held weapon with actual "knock-down" power?
I suppose maces and morningstars count as well.
Finally, some positive answers for folks asking for what weapon has
the best knock-down power! I'm not sure you can carry them in
California, though.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Charles Bruni
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
#
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but
exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
Brendan,
To hell with all this nonsense opinion crap! These fellas you know have the
goods - field tests! Just tell your friends to catch the first available
flight to D.C., take their test results to the Pentagon, and set those Bozos
straight. That's what I say! This is a time of war, Man. A discovery of
this magnitude mustn't be kept from our military-industrial complex! Jeez,
it would border on treason. I can see the headlines now - EXTRA! EXTRA!
MIDDLE AGE ARMOR PROVEN TO DEFEAT MODERN FIREARMS! MILITARY IN TURMOIL!
PRESIDENT IN EMERGENCY MEETINGS WITH JOINT CHIEFS! DEFENSE SECRETARY
RESIGNS! SAMLL ARMS INDUSTRY ANTICIPATES MASSIVE LAY-OFFS! What a thing,
huh? Damn..
Better yet, I hear Saddam will pay good money for secret weapons, you know.
Your buds could become wealthy men if they're shrewd and handle this right.
And, if you play your cards right, well, maybe they'll cut you in on some of
the action. Actual field tests don't lie. I'm certain this may be just the
sort of breakthrough Saddam is looking for. Revolutionary, simply
revolutionary. Medieval armor stopping .30-06 and even .50 BMG(!) at fifty
feet - who'd a thunk it??
Hey, just a word to the wise - and don't worry, my lips are SEALED. ;-)
Philip Munts
# Here's what they said:
#
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
[snip]
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
I think somebody is pulling your leg. I have a shooting gong that I
made from a end of a girder I bought from a scrap yard. It appears to
be mild steel, and about 3/8" thick. I originally bought it for
hundred yard pistol practice. A couple of years ago my cousin and I
decided to use it for testing some rifle loads, to save running down
and changing targets. We set it up, paced off 100 yards and fired at
it. He was shooting a 7mm Mag IIRC, but I don't recall what load.
His bullets left huge dents, but didn't quite penetrate.
I was shooting a 375 H&H, with the Speer 235 grain soft point, with
less than maximum loads. This is a fragile bullet, designed for deer
sized game. It penetrated, and left huge craters on both sides of the
gong. This from a fragile *soft point* bullet, mind you. I have no
doubt that something like the tungsten cored solids from Speer or the
bronze solids from Barnes would penetrate twice at much metal.
The .50 (BMG, I presume) was originally designed as an antitank round.
It would penetrate any human armor (and wearer) like a paper bag.
Mr Apol
#the French ? ) heavy cavalry used curiasses as late as the Franco-Prussian
#war, I was not aware they used them in WW1.
#PHP
-
I've seen photos taken in 1914 of French cuirassiers in the field, their
burnished breastplates and helmets covered by non-glare canvas covers . . .
Joseph Lovell
Albert J Scott wrote:
#
# Folks I think I can answer this question. Go to Warwick Castle in Warwickshire UK
# in the main hall stands a suit of armor with a nice neat .38 caliber hole. this
# was done sometime in the 1800s at close range with a 38 S&W. On the other hand I
# just saw a report about a young man taking several 9 mm rounds at point blank
# range to chain mail then getting back on his feet to disarm the shooter (using a
# sword, talk about taking a knife to a gun fight). with the end result of a few
# bruised and broken ribs.
#
# John Oliver wrote:
#
Do you have a cite for that? I've heard (and read) too many of the SCA
"No shit, there I was" stories to believe on without reading the
supporting police report.
Joseph Lovell
Werner Van der Cruyssen wrote:
#
# I'm not a metallurgist but I've seen my share of medieval armor. The guy
# who told you about how pikes brought down the knights was right.
#
# Bottom line was that the armor they were wearing while sitting on their
# horse was very heavy (around 50-60 pounds)
Which is about the load an infantryman carries today - all on his back,
not fairly evenly distributed over the body as with decent armour.
and above all, not extremely
# flexible (I'm not talking about chain mail now, but about the harnass
# itself). People were also a lot smaller than today. If a knight was
# pushed/pulled out of the saddle by a pikeman, his goose was cooked because
# he wouldn't have been able to get up quickly.
That isn't the armour. Getting thrown from a horse can leave a person,
even one not in armour, dazed. If some unfriendly soul "helps" you
dismount that can add to the dazed effect you get from hitting the
ground. Then some little jerk with a Mk I pointed stick puts paid to
your account either through your arm pit or through your ocular.
Anthony
"SutureSelf" <fried...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:b2u88d$3qa$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
#
# While well-crafted, a medieval knight's armor was relatively thin and
# of primitive-quality metal. I have no doubt that most, if not all,
# handgun fmj ammo would penetrate such armor at any reasonable handgun
# range. I wouldn't be surprised if an armored knight were a dead duck
# at 150 yards against any centerfire rifle.
#
I'm with you on this. I once shot a very clean hole in a 1/4" mild steel
plate that a friend of mine was using as a hanging target for his .380 auto.
I nailed it with my .30-06 at about 60 yards the hole in it had sharp edges
and the flowing of the steel looked like the bullet had melted it's way
through. Later I took that same plate and propped it up on a brick and shot
it with a 7.7mm Arisaka at the same distance. There was another clean hole
and the brick turned to a cloud of red dust. Both of these were loaded with
soft point Speer bullets and about as far from AP as you can get.
Most plate mail was not more than 3/16" thick and made of steel that would
be mild at best. I would bet that my 06 would (barring bullet deflection)
punch through the breast plate and still have enough energy to make a clean
hole out the back plate. Even the best Gothic Plate is no match for a
modern rifle and magnums aren't required.
Tony
John Oliver
# In Japan about a hundred years later basicly the same thing happened.
# newfangled weapons trained a bunch of commoners to use them.
# At the big battle he stationed his "gunners" behind staggered series
# of pillars and supported each one with a swordsman. They slaughtered
# the mounted warriors. Won the battle too.
...and was then dishonored for fighting in such a "cowardly" fashion,
so that firearms almost completely disappeared from Japan until the US
arrived and dragged them kicking and screaming into the Industrial
Age...
--
John Oliver, CCNA http://www.john-oliver.net/
Linux/UNIX/network consulting http://www.john-oliver.net/resume/
*** sendmail, Apache, ftp, DNS, spam filtering ***
**** Colocation, T1s, web/email/ftp hosting ****
Jens Goerke
# I highly doubt it. Most historians I have read consider firearms
# to have been the final nail in kights armor
The first nail was the longbow, right after they started using forged
steel tips. Those tips were basically pyramid-shaped in front, round
in the back (to accomodate the shaft of the arrow), and that pyramid
shape cut a square-ish hole in the armor (then expanded to a round
hole by the rest). Chain mail was affected in a similar manner.
Jens
--
You can't out-sarcasm reality.
NotClauswitz
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
I'm not getting much of a feeling that they tried beyond 30 feet.
I think my Garand would do as well at 200 yards with old M2 ball, but maybe I'm
wrong.
-k
NRA, GOA, GOC, CRPA, SJ Zouaves
Larry Caldwell
# This may be the range at which they tested the armor, but is certainly not a
# maximum effective range. Plaster's book lists
# 223 ball as penetrating 1/4 boiler plate at 100 yards and a steel helmet,
# with liner at 200. Current issue is even more penetrating. I would
# estimate a modern steel helmet as being at least as strong as a medieval
# breast plate. 30 cal ball will punch those targets at 200 yards and 400
# yards. 30-06 AP will penetrate 1 inch of soft steel at 100 yards and a 50
# cal AP will defeat 1/2 inch of face-hardened armor plate at 600 yards.
That sounds like the performance I would expect. My dad used to say that
the 30-06 was nice in combat because if the enemy hid behind a tree, you
just shot him through the tree. The .50 BMG is effective against light
armored vehicles.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
NotClauswitz
#> to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide
#> wimpy trainees with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What
#> kind of rifle do you give them?
#
#Anything issued since WW1.
Yeh but be fair, you could do it with a 30-40 Krag too, and the action is such
a delight.
The main thing in the training-requirement against some "Armored Knights" who
were *also* burdened with a horse would be accurate 200-yard marksmanship, so
you train to avoid flinching.
#> So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of
#> heavily-armored knights charging from a mile or so away.
After their overloaded beasts had charged 3/4ths of a mile they'd be well
within range, and very tired, and slowing down to walk.
If they were "charging" on foot, I'd send in the bugler to try and wake them up
- need them to fight with a bit of spirit.
Zzzzz
-k
NRA, GOA, GOC, CRPA, SJ Zouaves
-----------------------------------------------------------
NotClauswitz
#And those who sent hostile replies, I think you should cool down. I'm
#arguing _against_ the figures I provided; that's why I posted them here.
#What better place to tear up asinine gun vs armor figures?
#
#Bren
Are knights as thick as freight-trains?
To help additionally, P-38 Lightnings and P-47 Thunderbolts equipped with .50
caliber Brownings routinely attacked German 'Kriegslok' Locomotives built
specifically to haul vital armaments and supplies to the battle-front, with
good success -- from a distance further than 50 ft...
The 20th Fighter Group was tasked with ground-attack campaign and "between
April 8 and July 24...the 20th. destroyed or damaged 315 locomotives, 100
ammunition cars, 87 oil tank cars, 1,000 frieght cars, and 370 motor vehicles,
including armored vehicles."
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6940/wilson2.html
I've seen wing-camera footage, and it's a helluva sight to see a
fire-breathing, steam-blowing, metal dragon getting the smithereens blowed-out.
rob lewis
the SCA represents tended to be 18Ga or thinner wrought iron (they might
make critical sections of the breastplate a little thicker, but they kept
the material used to the practical minimum). There is a piece of Russian
armor from the 17th century that was proofed against muskets, the torso
plate armor alone weighed 20 Kg, and in order for it to protect against
bullets you also had to wear chainmail and padding under the plate. In the
Napoleonic wars the French had heavy cavalry that wore musket proof
breastplates and there were a small number of bullet proof breastplates sold
privately at the beginning of the American Civil War but they were too heavy
for any real use.
Now add in the number of people who report shooting through 1/8 and 1/4 inch
thick steel gongs with standard military ball ammo in rifle calibers at 200+
yards and this experiment becomes really suspect. My guess is that the
pieces of armor were setup in such a way that they fell or spun easily,
converting what would be a penetrating blow when the piece was strapped to a
person into a glancing blow that just moved the target.
The .50 caliber bullets in military use do serious damage to manhole covers
which tend to be over 1" of cast steel.
If I were training this theoretical force to resist a charge by Knights, I
would have them use the British L4a1 (a 7.62 NATO version of the No4
Enfield), the Indian L2a1 (a 7.62 NATO version of the No1 Enfield), or maybe
one of the FAL variants, all firing ball or AP ammo, combined with support
from Vickers and M2 machineguns. If all else fails, aim for the horses, they
will have to have lightly armored spots to be able to move at any real
speed.
BTW can you tell that I am fond of the Lee-Enfield?
Rob
Ted Gittinger
# On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:09:27 +0000 (UTC), Brendan Stone wrote:
# # This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
# # currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# # knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms
brought
# # about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# # existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
#
# Not so. Pikes were around for as long as there's been cavalry... the
# bring about the end of the age of armor, but it was on its way out
# anyway...
The Swiss infantry had a weapon known as a "halberdier," which in English
would roughly translate as "pole-ax." You still see dress models being
carried by the Pope's Swiss Guard.
A good man could unhorse a knight with one, even without penetrating the
armor. Then he easily finished him off with the pike which formed part of
the weapon.
This was common enough so that a number of Swiss families had "Halberdier"
as a surname. I knew the descendants of one such, in South Texas.
The English longbow could give armored knights fits, but required years of
practice before a man became proficient with one. The musket required much
less skill and at short range was as effective. In the 16th century serious
thought was given in England to reviving the longbow, because it outranged
the musket. Impractical, it was decided. Took too long to get good with
the bow. The musket gave more bang for the buck.
ted
ted
Brian Nolen
"Joseph Lovell" <sub...@sonic.net> wrote in message
# Do you have a cite for that? I've heard (and read) too many of the SCA
# supporting police report.
#
That was posted here a week or two back in either the stopping power for
trolls or armed for middle earth threads.
Brian Nolen
Joseph Lovell
NotClauswitz wrote:
# SJ Zouaves
Jesuit Zouaves?? No wonder they style themselves as the Soldiers of
God.
Doug Haxton
<techn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#Most plate mail was not more than 3/16" thick and made of steel that would
#be mild at best. I would bet that my 06 would (barring bullet deflection)
#punch through the breast plate and still have enough energy to make a clean
#hole out the back plate. Even the best Gothic Plate is no match for a
#modern rifle and magnums aren't required.
"This...is my BOOM STICK!"
Case closed.
Doug
Kevin Baker
"Brendan Stone" wrote
# This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
# currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms
brought
# about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
#
# outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
# traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
# material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
# available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
#
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
#
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
Having actually shot a 6" I-beam with a 16" barreled AR-15, using both 63
grain Swiss FMJ and 55 grain Ballistic-tip loads (at a chronographed
2900-3000 fps) at a range of 75 yards - and witnessing BOTH rounds penetrate
the approximately 3/8" mild steel easily, leaving a .30 caliber hole, I call
BS on this one. I doubt seriously that mideval knights wore AR (rough duty)
plate. I'd have to believe that the stuff they hand-formed was relatively
soft steel.
--
Kevin
The Constitution may not be the greatest work ever set to paper,
but it beats what the government is using now.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:26:33 +0000 (UTC),
Ross <dwar...@attbi.com> wrote:
# On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:20:14 +0000 (UTC), Albert J Scott
#<ajs...@cygnusgroup.com> wrote:
#
# #just saw a report about a young man taking several 9 mm rounds at point blank
# #range to chain mail then getting back on his feet to disarm the shooter (using a
# #sword, talk about taking a knife to a gun fight). with the end result of a few
# #bruised and broken ribs.
#
# Do you have a link to this?? I'd like to read that report. Most mail
# made today is "butted"; that is, the links are merely circles of steel
# that are not fastened closed. There is some "riveted" mail that is
# being imported from India, but at $700+ a shirt, I haven't seen many
# being worn. The riveted links withstand being spread better than the
# butted from stabbing blow, but I didn't think that they'd stand up to
# 9mm.
#
Probably would if they were hollow points, which has a (deliberate)
drastic affect on the penetration...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+Uv/ad90bcYOAWPYRAmLwAJ46/PvXeCrjtauPl+oFwhjsQZj1SQCg3umZ
hiTX7FLzyao6oN9LDShiVmM=
=5/zV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A bad day, is when aliens attack, the dog bites you, and your boss tells
you that the new client wants to make a few changes before delivery.
Linux, super computers, office computers, or home computers, it works.
Jim Richardson
# This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
# currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms brought
# about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
#
# Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
# outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
# traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
# material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
# available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
#
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
#
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
"British" 30-06? When did the British military ever issue 30-06
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
If you are talking about the .50BMG, as I assume you are, it will go
through that armour like a hot knife through butter. Probably won't even
deform the round enough to be visible, heck, it'd go through the
breastplate, the knight, the backplate, the breast plate of the guy
behind him, etc, all the way back to some spoor squire 6 rows back.
Most of the armour of the period, (ignoring the ultra thick tourney
plate, which wasn't used in combat) was abuot 16ga, a little thicker
than a modern car hood. Other than my .22LR (and I'm not certain about
that) I don't think I own a rifle or handgun that *wouldn't* punch right
through.
If it was as good as you say, they'd still be using it...
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
#
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
#
# So is this true?
No, not really.
# Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
# charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
# to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
# with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
# them?
#
# Bren
#
Sure, I'd take a Bren gun :) A bunch of mags, a spare barrel or two, and
a spotter/helper. Instant can opener.
Ed Stasiak
# > mra...@aol.com (Mr Apol) wrote
# >
# > What happened to the brave Polish cavalry in 1939?
#
# BTW, I do not recall the exact story, but the Polish cavalry
# charged the tanks for a reasonable ( if desperate ) military purpose.
# E.g., either to divert their fire or to plant charges on them....
Except that this never happened. Polish cavalry was mounted infantry
and fought on foot with the horses being kept 1-2 km behind the lines,
like every other military of the time.
Osmo Ronkanen
#
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
#
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
When bhave British used that caliber?
#
# 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
I agree they will all penetrate at those distances. That is no wonder.
Of course if you claim that they do not penetrate at longer distances
you are making things up or at leats the test was not done in a proper way.
(like firing unsupported armor). 7.62 mm ball will penetrate a helmet up
to about 800 meters. In fact the penetration of a typical rifle bullet,
at least in wood, is not at its optimum at very close range, typically it
is best at about 100 meters.
In anyway ball is wrong ammo to use against armor. One should use armor
piercing ammo. It can penetrate in 5.56-7.62 mm up to 12 mm of RHA and in
.50 cal up to 30 mm. RHA is much stronger than any medieval armor. In case of
construction steel they do much better. In a test done by a Finnish gun
magazine AP ammo from 7.62x39, 7,62x51 and 5.56x45 all penetrated 16 mm
steel plate. Ball ammo did not penetrate in any caliber.
#From what I have heard kinds were defeated because uns could be used to
break their castles.
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
That is a myth. Show me a case of non-penetrating slug killing someone.
# Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
# short range against an armored opponent.
#
# So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
# charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
# to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
# with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
# them?
Some machine guns with 7.62 mm AP rounds and that would make Kitchener
smile in his grave.
Osmo
Ragnar
"Ross" <dwar...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:b2u8e9$3sa$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...# #just saw a report about a young man taking several 9 mm rounds at point
blank
# #range to chain mail then getting back on his feet to disarm the shooter
(using a
# #sword, talk about taking a knife to a gun fight). with the end result of
a few
# #bruised and broken ribs.
#
# made today is "butted"; that is, the links are merely circles of steel
# that are not fastened closed. There is some "riveted" mail that is
# being imported from India, but at $700+ a shirt, I haven't seen many
# being worn. The riveted links withstand being spread better than the
# butted from stabbing blow, but I didn't think that they'd stand up to
# 9mm.
You have to take into account that when wearing chain mail you also wear a
padded "shirt" underneath. The padding can be quite thick and may slow or
stop an already slowed 9mm after it hits the mail.
WVanhou237
<brian...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
#"John Oliver" <jol...@john-oliver.net> wrote in message
##
## Not so. Pikes were around for as long as there's been cavalry... the
## ground-pounders needed to keep cavalry at a distance.
#
#Effective pike tactics also signaled the return of dispilined infantry
#tactics, probably a greater blow to the preeminence of armored Chivalry on
#the battlefield than the firearms of the period.
#
One of the things that made the Swiss the most respected mercenaries
during the Dynastic fights during the Reformation. That and the fact that
they weren't in the habit of changing sides for a few dollars more.
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Politics is the science of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it,
and
misapplying the wrong remedy.
Q
"Mr Apol" <mra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b2t8tj$igr$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# What happened to the brave Polish cavalry in
# 1939? They were massacred by panzers, machine guns, and dive bombers.
They didn't charged the tanks, the horse was nothing more then a mean of
transportation.
Well, maybe for the cavalryman it was more then that but they fought on
foot.
;)
Q
Clark Magnuson
# steel-core rounds as backup.
# Mark
The '94 crime bill is making it harder to find those .357" steel core
bullets. [and harder to find a Demo controlled congress].
Brendan Stone
detectors in the SCA figures.
1. The claim that .50 cal [unspecified type] will only penetrate at 40-50
ft. .50 BMG, of course, was designed for use against tanks. At 40-50 ft, it
would probably blow through at least a dozen suits of armor.
2. This is the one that set me off. "British military 30-06 ammo"??? As far
as I know, the British used .303 and .308 for their .30 cal military
applications. I've never heard of any British-military-specific .30-06
cartridge. I think the SCA probably didn't even know what they were shooting
with if they were shooting anything at all.
3. The general unscientific manner of the tests. Apparently they just shot
at suits of armour, moving them up a few feet, until the shots penetrated
[or hit the target!]
4. The claim that a "12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft. but will kill anyone
wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate." As
experienced shooters E-mailed me back, the 12ga wouldn't have such an
advantage energy-wise compared to 7.62 NATO or especially .50 cal.
5. The obvious fact that if these claims were true, soldiers would still be
wearing battle armor!
Bren
Aamund Breivik
"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:b2vthe$mm9$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# # British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
# #
#
# "British" 30-06? When did the British military ever issue 30-06
WWI, IIRC. Not sure if they made .30-06 ammo though, as the rifles in
question were all US made. Bonus points for those who can name the rifle :-)
--
Aamund Breivik
200...@wongfaye.com
i cant think of a fmj rifle round that wouldn't penetrate medieval
armor
maybe 30 carbine would be stopped but not my hot loads
and 50 bmg forget about it even fmj ball would go though probably 10
layers(conservative estimate)
Mr Apol
## 1939? They were massacred by panzers, machine guns, and dive bombers.
#
#They didn't charged the tanks, the horse was nothing more then a mean of
#transportation.
#Well, maybe for the cavalryman it was more then that but they fought on
#foot.
#;)
#
#Q
I never said the charged tanks, just that they failed tactically in the face of
modern firepower. There is a scene in the German propaganda film ("Baptism of
Fire," I think) showing horsemen being strafed by Stuka dive bombers.
PBT
Jim Richardson
Aamund Breivik <aam...@online.no> wrote:
#
# "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
# news:b2vthe$mm9$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
#
# # # British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
# # #
# #
# # "British" 30-06? When did the British military ever issue 30-06
# WWI, IIRC. Not sure if they made .30-06 ammo though, as the rifles in
# question were all US made. Bonus points for those who can name the rifle :-)
#
P-14 Enfield. Easy one, but it was made in .303 British, not 30-06. The
30-06 version was called the P-17 (P standing for pattern, the number,
for the year of the design, 1914, or 1917)
Please send all bonus points and cookies to...
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A bad day, is when aliens attack, the dog bites you, and your boss tells
you that the new client wants to make a few changes before delivery.
Linux, super computers, office computers, or home computers, it works.
-----------------------------------------------------------
WVanhou237
<aam...@online.no> writes:
#
#WWI, IIRC. Not sure if they made .30-06 ammo though, as the rifles in
#question were all US made. Bonus points for those who can name the rifle :-)
#
Enfield M-1917 ?
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Politics is the science of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it,
and
misapplying the wrong remedy.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Chen
hand cannons (not rifles) where available when hand hewn armor plate would have
still been in use. It was common practice in the 1500s to take and armour breast
plate and fire a musket ball at it. If it dented instead of pierced than it
passed a critical test.
Obviously 19th adn 20th century conical bullets would easily penetrate hand hewn
armour.
HTH
Louis Boyd
# This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
# currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# knights on horseback would wear.) Apparently, pikes and not firearms brought
# about the downfall of the knight. This may be so, but if knights somehow
# existed today, how effective would modern rifle rounds be against them?
#
# Someone brought up some ex-Society for Creative Anachronism armor that had
# outlived its usefulness. So it was already beaten up. It was made using
# traditional European metallurgy and smithing techniques by the SCA, using
# material roughly comparable in quality to that which would have been
# available. The pieces in question were probably breastplates.
# They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
#
# Here's what they said:
# British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
#
#
# 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
#
# 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
# 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# due to massive blunt force trauma even if it doesn't penetrate.
# short range against an armored opponent.
#
# So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
# charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
# to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
# with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
# them?
I think you have severely misinterpreted the test results. Just because
a .30-06 will penetrate a suit of armor at 20 feet does not prevent it
from penetrating at several hundred yards. That a .50 BMG will
penetrate at 40-50 feet does not mean it won't penetrate at a mile.
Medieval armor is worthless against high velocity (500m/s+) rifle fire.
The metallurgy just wasn't that good. A high power target rifle like a
7mm STW or 300 ultra can puncture 1/2" of modern armor plate at 50
yards using plain jacketed lead target ammo.
I'd equip your troops with 300 ultramag heavy barrel rifles to be shot
prone from sandbags. At a mile hitting a mounted knight is practical
with proper training, a couple of hundred shots of careful practice, and
if the wind is light. Accuracy is the problem, not range or delivered
energy. A lighter but higher velocity rifle is more desireable than a
.50 BMG. They would also need appropriate laser rangefinders (range
estimation by eye from 1000 yards to a mile is hopelessly inaccurate),
ballistic charts which match the rifle and ammo, match quality ammo
with low drag bullets, and scopes with target knobs with adequate
vertical adjustment (Leupold MK4-16x is appropriate). With practice
they should be able to hit a mounted knight or his horse more shots than
not at a mile. I'd also keep an AR-15 handy in case one of them managed
to sneek within 50 yards.
I don't believe 50 knights would stand a chance attacking three men
armed that way in open terrain. They might succeed if the defended
position were in woods and the attack was from all sides. The armor
would make little difference and would probably be a detriment to a
successful attack.
I shoot 1 mile metallic silhouette targets as a hobby. It's not at
knights or horses but at smaller NRA standard steel animals. Copper
solid bullets leave craters in the 1/2" armor plate targets. I would
expect them to easily penetrate medieval armor at that range.
Sounds like you're writing a time travel sci-fi novel....
--
Lou Boyd
LLehman
pistol range. The military cartridges listed will penetrate "armor" used by
knights at hundreds of yards. The .50 caliber BMG, probably thousands of
yards. The shotgun might not penetrate except for close range (if it does), but
if it did not penetrate, I don't think there would be much more than a big
bruise. Adding "armor" to ballistic vests is the idea behind increasing their
bullet resistance. The Armor of old was not much thicker than the steel helmets
used until replaced by the Kevlar helmets and I recall the SS109 .5.56 ammo was
supposed to penetrate a helmet at something like 600 yards.
Brendan Stone wrote:
> ...
John C. Barnes
Actually, it was the 'ever been shot' thread (I posted it).
The salient points were these:
1. riveted link chain mail.
2. .38sp revolver.
3. range ~30 ft
4. a VERY lucky friend of mine.
Had he been wearing a breast plate type armor instead of chain mail,
he'd have been dead. His armor had cost him almost $1500.00 (actually
about 900.00 British pounds) and the repairs cost him almost $300.00.
This occurred in England during september or october of 1989 in the
Oxford area. I remember being surprised that it hadn't been mentioned
in the Oxford paper, but then, robberies seldom made the news.
--
John C. Barnes<NiteH...@Hotmail.com>
Life Member NRA/GOA
--
Political Correctness is a disease. My greatest fear is that, in the
cause of not offending anyone, the human race will legislate itself out
of existence.
Brendan Stone
# Sounds like you're writing a time travel sci-fi novel....
# --
# Lou Boyd
That was an in-depth post, and I appreciate it. I'm not writing a novel;
this thread was spawned by a discussion in another newsgroup. Someone posted
the armour figures, which were highly suspect, so I brought them here to be
evaluated. Though I can appreciate the kind of novel you're thinking of. The
Man who would be King (not exactly time travel but still similar) and so on.
I think that time-travel authors don't always use firearms to their maximum
potential - in other words a rollicking and shameless shoot-em-up against
technologically inferior opponents. Silly movies like "Army of Darkness" do
this to a degree, but one could have as much fun with a more realistic
portrayal of firearms.
Bringing modern firearms into the middle ages or Tolkien's Middle Earth is
very satisfying because it combines the fantasy world with guns, thus
doubling the fun factor.
Bren
Louis Boyd
# #
# # Lou Boyd
#
# That was an in-depth post, and I appreciate it. I'm not writing a novel;
# this thread was spawned by a discussion in another newsgroup. Someone posted
# the armour figures, which were highly suspect, so I brought them here to be
# evaluated. Though I can appreciate the kind of novel you're thinking of. The
# Man who would be King (not exactly time travel but still similar) and so on.
# I think that time-travel authors don't always use firearms to their maximum
# potential - in other words a rollicking and shameless shoot-em-up against
# technologically inferior opponents. Silly movies like "Army of Darkness" do
# this to a degree, but one could have as much fun with a more realistic
# portrayal of firearms.
#
# Bringing modern firearms into the middle ages or Tolkien's Middle Earth is
# very satisfying because it combines the fantasy world with guns, thus
# doubling the fun factor.
The definition of magic is "The use of unknown technology."
In the days of knights and armor you might be successful in conflicts
with the local populace using a modern rifle, but you have to sleep
sometime and a kid with knife can cut your throat. Goliath learned a
lesson about the use of non standard technology in his brief encounter
with David. If you used firearms in tenth century Europe but got
captured you could be assured of being burned at the stake as witch.
--
Lou Boyd
Twangdaddy
Whenever I'm out hunting medieval armor I always like to use 2.75 12 gauge
slugs.
Drops'em with one shot every time!
Of coarse, Rhodesian Jungle Rounds are my second choice!
SBW
Joseph Oberlander
# So is this true? Pretend YOU had to face an army of heavily-armored knights
# charging from a mile or so away. You are training a volunteer army. You want
# to maximize your range advantage but at the same time provide wimpy trainees
# with a weapon they can shoot effectively. What kind of rifle do you give
# them?
Shoot the horses. They have to walk in in order to hit you. After they get
tossed off and crushed a bit. Sorry to say, but there's a reason they got
rid of horses in combat - they made huge inviting targets. ASPCA types may
have a fit at me, but that's how you win a war versus people on horses.
Joseph Oberlander
# Brendan Stone wrote:
#
# # currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
# # knights on horseback would wear.)
#
# <snip>
#
# #
# # They decided to shoot up this armour to see how it fared.
# #
# # Here's what they said:
# #
# # British military 30-06 ammo will penetrate at 20ft.
# #
# # 5.56 NATO will penetrate at 10-15ft.
# #
# # 7.62 NATO will penetrate at 30ft.
# #
# # 50cal will penetrate at 40-50ft.
#
# armor at a range beyond 50 feet, or 500 feet for that matter
#
# #
# # 12ga slug will penetrate at 15ft, but will kill anyone wearing the armour
# #
# # Conclusions - modern firearms are useless against anything but exceptionally
# #
# # So is this true?
#
# I highly doubt it. Most historians I have read consider firearms to have been
# the final nail in kights armor
#
# from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm :
#
# "The new -(SS109 5.56mm NATO cartridge)- projectile can penetrate the standard
# NATO 3.45mm steel plate up to a range of 640 meters (704 yds) and one side of
# the U. S.steel helmet up to a range of 1,300 meters (1430 yds)"
Mideval armor, though, was on the order of 1/4 inch thick in places, plus had
padding underneath. It's a lot thicker than a helmet.
Brendan Stone
# In the days of knights and armor you might be successful in conflicts
# with the local populace using a modern rifle, but you have to sleep
# sometime and a kid with knife can cut your throat. Goliath learned a
# lesson about the use of non standard technology in his brief encounter
# with David. If you used firearms in tenth century Europe but got
# captured you could be assured of being burned at the stake as witch.
This is true, which is why these adventures are better when you come with a
well-equipped, well-trained team.
Bren
Dr JP Hrisoulas
#Mideval armor, though, was on the order of 1/4 inch thick in places, plus had
#padding underneath. It's a lot thicker than a helmet.
Joseph:
Ummm please show me a piece, tell me what collection, museum, armory, anywhere
that has a piece of actual COMBAT armour, not the late jousting
re-enforcements, but actual get into a stand up fight and kill someone combat
armour that is 1/4" thick from the Middle Ages. I would dearly love to see one,
cause ALL of the armours I have examined, (and bvelieve me there are literally
100's and 100's) have all been alot lighter than 1/4" in thickness...
Well made, well fitted armour, contrary to popular belief was not all that
cumbersome..in fact the "big problems" were overheating, visibility and
breathing...
My own armour weighs in at just under 65 lbs and I can do almost anything in it
save swim (to see a pic, look at my webiste).
JPH
Dr JP Hrisoulas
Metallographer, Lecturer
Author: The Complete Bladesmith
The Master Bladesmith
The Pattern Welded Blade
HCI: Dedicated to seeing a woman dead, rather than alive and legally carrying a
handgun.
COL. NVDoM
http://www.Atar.com
Peter McMullen
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
#
#
<snip>
#
# Mideval armor, though, was on the order of 1/4 inch thick in places,
Cite references please...
Even assuming that's correct (.25 inch steel plate weighs
about 20 lbs per sq ft), 5.56 AP penetrates NATO 3.45mm
armor (.138 inches thick) at 640 meters. U.S. XM-995 5.56 AP
is reported to penetrate 12mm 300 HB armor (0.48 inches) at
100 meters.
http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-556faq.html#m995
So its a pretty safe bet 0.25 inch medieval plate armor is
no problem perhaps as far as 350 meters, let alone at the
ranges noted by the original poster.
:o)
Thomas Reuben James
Considering what my good old .303 Enfield will do to 1/2 inch sheet steel
at 100 yards, I tend to agree with you.
Joseph Oberlander
# #
# #Mideval armor, though, was on the order of 1/4 inch thick in places, plus had
#
# Joseph:
#
# Ummm please show me a piece, tell me what collection, museum, armory, anywhere
# that has a piece of actual COMBAT armour, not the late jousting
# re-enforcements, but actual get into a stand up fight and kill someone combat
# armour that is 1/4" thick from the Middle Ages. I would dearly love to see one,
# cause ALL of the armours I have examined, (and bvelieve me there are literally
# 100's and 100's) have all been alot lighter than 1/4" in thickness...
I was thinking of the reinforced jousting types, actually. Versus bullets,
anything less would be suicide. Okay - this would still get you dead fast.
Big, alsow, armored target. Who cares if the bullets don't penetrate? Each
one hits like a full-power mace blow. 4-5 shots and they are out of
commission and then some. Actually, one hit would likely make them drop to
their knees in pain.
Jim Richardson
Joseph Oberlander <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
# Dr JP Hrisoulas wrote:
# # #
# # #Mideval armor, though, was on the order of 1/4 inch thick in places, plus had
# #
# # Joseph:
# #
# # Ummm please show me a piece, tell me what collection, museum, armory, anywhere
# # re-enforcements, but actual get into a stand up fight and kill someone combat
# # armour that is 1/4" thick from the Middle Ages. I would dearly love to see one,
# # cause ALL of the armours I have examined, (and bvelieve me there are literally
# # 100's and 100's) have all been alot lighter than 1/4" in thickness...
#
# I was thinking of the reinforced jousting types, actually. Versus bullets,
# anything less would be suicide. Okay - this would still get you dead fast.
# Big, alsow, armored target. Who cares if the bullets don't penetrate? Each
# one hits like a full-power mace blow. 4-5 shots and they are out of
# commission and then some. Actually, one hit would likely make them drop to
# their knees in pain.
#
I think you still over estimate how good the armour would be at
defeating modern rifles. Not a chance. I shoot through 1/4" plate all
the time with .308 FAL. That's std ball ammo. Forget AP, it'd go through
both breast and back, and kill the guy behind him. There's a reason
armour isn't used anymore. It doesn't work.
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A bad day, is when aliens attack, the dog bites you, and your boss tells
you that the new client wants to make a few changes before delivery.
Linux, super computers, office computers, or home computers, it works.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learn about the HERB WOODEND MACHINE GUN RAFFLE at
http://www.direct-action.org/herb.html
Joseph Oberlander
# On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 13:36:06 +0000 (UTC),
# Joseph Oberlander <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
# # Dr JP Hrisoulas wrote:
# # # #
# # # #padding underneath. It's a lot thicker than a helmet.
# # #
# # # Joseph:
# # #
# # # Ummm please show me a piece, tell me what collection, museum, armory, anywhere
# # # re-enforcements, but actual get into a stand up fight and kill someone combat
# # # armour that is 1/4" thick from the Middle Ages. I would dearly love to see one,
# # # cause ALL of the armours I have examined, (and bvelieve me there are literally
# # # 100's and 100's) have all been alot lighter than 1/4" in thickness...
# #
# # I was thinking of the reinforced jousting types, actually. Versus bullets,
# # Big, alsow, armored target. Who cares if the bullets don't penetrate? Each
# # one hits like a full-power mace blow. 4-5 shots and they are out of
# # commission and then some. Actually, one hit would likely make them drop to
# # their knees in pain.
# #
#
#
# the time with .308 FAL. That's std ball ammo. Forget AP, it'd go through
# both breast and back, and kill the guy behind him. There's a reason
# armour isn't used anymore. It doesn't work.
My point is that even if the magazine goofballs were right and it didn't
penetrate, even with the heavy padding/armor/etc on, they would be
hit so hard from a few shots that they might as well have taken a mace to the
helmet.
Of course, I believe that they would all end up looking like tin cans. :)
Now, Oriental armor - that was different. Light and quite effective.
The real trick, though, was the heavy silk padding they had underneath -
it acted a little like Kevlar and would stop lower-velocity arrows from
penetrating. Of course, guns also ended its use pretty quickly as well.
Arrows would usually punch through western armor as we learned when
Europe nearly got wiped out by the Mongols(IIRC, their leader died, and
they stopped expanding). Their 100lb+ bows ate through plate armor like
it wasn't there.
Eugene A. Pallat
# Mideval armor, though, was on the order of 1/4 inch thick in places, plus had
# padding underneath. It's a lot thicker than a helmet.
Where did you get that information? All of the armor I've ever seen is
>>much<< thinner. After all, steel tipped arrows shot by men with long
bows would never have penetrated 1/4 inch armor!
Gene Pallat
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learn about the HERB WOODEND MACHINE GUN RAFFLE at
http://www.direct-action.org/herb.html
Robert S. Fourney
Brendan Stone <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
#This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
#currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
#knights on horseback would wear.)
Not irrelevant at all. I look forward to following this thread, mainly
due to the fact that my 4 year old son has informed me that he wants to be
a "knight in shining armor" when he grows up. We talked about the
employment prospects, the current dearth of both dragons and princesses, and
discussed whether he would go with the traditional (sword, lance, etc) or use
modern weapons. He is strictly a traditionalist (which any disciple of J.M.
Browning has got to admire), but, being his dad and all, I was worried about
his life expectancy against less sporting opponents who might play by less
traditional rules. Let the debate begin.
Bob
SpiceScoot
medieval armor like poop through a goose. I don't know how the strength and
thickness of the armor would compare to a standard redtop steel fence post for
example but 150 grain .30/06 GI ball ammo will shoot them nearly in two.
.222/223 class ctgs. with soft points will go through them as well. Any steel
core or AP round would do even better (worse) An old style steel GI helmet can
be penetrated further away than it can be reliably hit by most military ammo,
AP or not. If you have a sample of steel that you consider the equivalent of
some Medieval armor I am sure that dozens if not hundreds of readers of this
group would be glad to try to shoot it full of holes at various ranges with
various bullets out of various guns. I could whack it with:
.45 ACP GI ball
.30 Carbine GI Ball
.30/06 GI ball and AP
.303 Brit GI ball
6.5 x55 Swede GI ball
8mm Mauser GI Ball
.222/.223/7mm08 Soft pt. loads.
All is not lost however,
If your son was willing to wear a vest underneath his armour there may still be
hope. Also, I was a high school guidance counselor for 24 years and I had a
senior student who wanted to be a U-boat commander so your son has plenty of
time to change his career path. (;-) .
I am posting on my daughters account, if you want to argue with me directly
send mail to lka...@paplv.esu3.org
Mark Gibson
#In article <b2rfhn$rrp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>,
#Brendan Stone <brenda...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
##This is may sound irrelevant, and believe me, it is. However, there is
##currently a discussion on firearms versus thick medieval armor (the kind
##knights on horseback would wear.)
# Not irrelevant at all. I look forward to following this thread, mainly
#due to the fact that my 4 year old son has informed me that he wants to be
#a "knight in shining armor" when he grows up. We talked about the
#employment prospects, the current dearth of both dragons and princesses, and
#discussed whether he would go with the traditional (sword, lance, etc) or use
#modern weapons. He is strictly a traditionalist (which any disciple of J.M.
#Browning has got to admire), but, being his dad and all, I was worried about
#his life expectancy against less sporting opponents who might play by less
#traditional rules. Let the debate begin.
The friend who taught me how to shoot a rifle made it very clear that a
.223Rem ball round will penetrate a telephone pole without slowing down
much. After having destroyed his berm with that and other ammo, I know
not to underestimate the damage a rifle round can do.
It was a combination of crossbows and long bows that made medieval armor
more or less obsolete. As someone who used to wear fairly light canvas
protective clothing as a fencing instructor, I can not understand how
anyone could be a knight in shining armor for more than a few minutes.
OTOH, the films "First Knight" and "A Knight's Tale" are well worth
watching. The first has some nice depictions of medieval warfare.
The other has some very entertaining comedic jousting scenes.
But since this is rec.guns, I'll mention that you can take an AR-15
or HK-91 and hit things hard 1/2 mile away. Difficult to do with a bow...
Regards,
Mark
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to
anger. -- J.R.R Tolkein
You have this inversion where the limitations on advances will not be
the speed of the Internet but rather the speed of your computer.
-- Harvey Newman, California Institute of Technology