PDA

View Full Version : Need Help With Armour



Twixman
2014-02-02, 12:02 AM
Hello all. I just need some help on armour effectiveness in the real world. I have looked all over the web and it contradicts each other at times. If anyone knows any good sites to look at how medieval armour is effective against certain types of damage would be real swell. And if you know just telling me here would be awesome as well.
The three types of damages being slashing, piercing and bludgeoning. The armours I want to know are;

Leather
Studded Leather
Scalemail
Chainmail
Plate and Mail
Full Plate (The fully armoured, gothic knight sorta stuff)
And Lamellor

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks

WhiteLycan
2014-02-02, 12:36 AM
FYI: Chain, mail and Scale are all the same thing. Chain and mail are literally the same, scale is chain with diamond-shaped plates attached in a pattern. They serve no protective purpose and I'm pretty sure never existed in reality.

Chain is weak against bludgeoning, strong against slashing and decent against piercing (as long as it's riveted, not butted, which all actual-use armor was back then)

Plate is strong against slashing, weak against piercing and decent against bludgeoning.

Leather has no real strengths. Better to avoid being bit if you're wearing leather. Studded leather is literally leather with rivets in it, not a whole lot better than regular leather.

Lamellar is just metal plates sewn together so it carries the same protection as plate armor.

warty goblin
2014-02-02, 12:38 AM
Hello all. I just need some help on armour effectiveness in the real world. I have looked all over the web and it contradicts each other at times. If anyone knows any good sites to look at how medieval armour is effective against certain types of damage would be real swell. And if you know just telling me here would be awesome as well.
The three types of damages being slashing, piercing and bludgeoning. The armours I want to know are;

Leather
Studded Leather
Scalemail
Chainmail
Plate and Mail
Full Plate (The fully armoured, gothic knight sorta stuff)
And Lamellor

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks

Howdie.

We have a thread for this already (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327994).

Leather armor, at least of the sort you find in RPGs, isn't something anybody seems to have ever used. Studded leather is certainly not a real thing. Leather is a component of many armors, but on it's own, aside from the hide coats used in the Renascence, I don't know of any exemplars of pure leather armor. Probably because, when pitted against sharpened metal, it takes a lot of leather to be effective, and leather is expensive, heavy, hot, and stiff. If you're looking for a relatively light non-metallic armor, multi-layer textile is almost certainly a better option, and very well confirmed in the historical record.

Scale armor is very old, but generally seems to be less popular, at least in Europe, than mail. I have little real idea as to the reasons, although the need of a backing in many designs, combined with the difficulty in armoring joints may have played a role. Regardless, it should do a good job against cuts, a pretty good job against blunt force so long as decent padding is worn underneath, and as long as the point doesn't find a gap, well against a thrust.

Mail is great stuff. Back (or front) it with good textile padding, and it'll render a person fairly immune to cutting, and pretty well protected from both blunt trauma and thrusting attacks. Plus it requires very little in the way of personal tailoring, and aside from a certain top-heaviness, doesn't compromise flexibility or freedom of movement very much. It's not nearly as loud as people think either; honestly I think my motorcycle jacket makes more noise than my mail shirt. Do note that the weights of many modern replica shirts are too high, since they're made from the much weaker butted mail. Traditional European mail seems to have been almost entirely riveted or a combination of riveted/solid links. Either allows for finer links and lighter shirt.

Combinations of metal plates either attached to, or held together by chainmail (assuming this is what you mean by plate and chain) are mostly an Asian or Eastern European thing. I don't know much about them, but a lot of people used them for a long time, so they must have worked. I'd expect the chain parts to behave like mail, and the plate bits to behave like plate.

Full plate harness is remarkably protective stuff. You're immune to cutting for all practical purposes, and exceedingly hard to penetrate with a sharp point. Getting hit very hard by a weapon designed to concentrate force appears to have still been an issue, since the blunt trauma transmitted through the armor can still ruin your day. Many techniques for dealing with a person in plate harness focus mostly on either things which armor can't prevent (hyper-extending or outright breaking joints) or else striking where the armor isn't (face, armpit, palm of the hands) with a rigid, precise weapon. Daggers for instance.

My impression of lamellar is that it's what people make when they don't have the metallurgy to pull off plate.

Twixman
2014-02-02, 01:01 AM
Thank you both very much! I know that many armours in RPG's may not have existed, but I did want to know for a fantasy game. I was using a little bit of common sense and such, but I just wanted some info from people who are much more educated than me.
Interesting though, I thought boiled leather was commonish. Learn something new everyday I guess.

Gavinfoxx
2014-02-02, 01:24 AM
You need to differentiate between the construction method and the materials used...

And if you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to do armor, buy this:

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/65250/Codex-Martialis-Set-%5BBUNDLE%5D?filters=0_0_10020_0_0

Or at least this:

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=77993&it=1

Twixman
2014-02-02, 01:51 AM
Ooh. I like. And with the construction and materials used, I was after a general thing. Doesnt have to be super accurate, but have a modicum of real life in it. But nice books.

Wamyen
2014-02-02, 02:15 AM
Howdie.

We have a thread for this already (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327994). Mail is great stuff. Back (or front) it with good textile padding, and it'll render a person fairly immune to cutting, and pretty well protected from both blunt trauma and thrusting attacks. Plus it requires very little in the way of personal tailoring, and aside from a certain top-heaviness, doesn't compromise flexibility or freedom of movement very much. It's not nearly as loud as people think either; honestly I think my motorcycle jacket makes more noise than my mail shirt. Do note that the weights of many modern replica shirts are too high, since they're made from the much weaker butted mail. Traditional European mail seems to have been almost entirely riveted or a combination of riveted/solid links. Either allows for finer links and lighter shirt.

Don't forget that most European maille after the 12 century was flattened as well as riveted. The interior diameter of the rings were also generally as small as 6mm.

Another_Poet
2014-02-02, 02:21 AM
FYI: Chain, mail and Scale are all the same thing. Chain and mail are literally the same, scale is chain with diamond-shaped plates attached in a pattern. They serve no protective purpose and I'm pretty sure never existed in reality.

Scale armor could also represent lamellar armor, if the leather is hardened sufficiently or low-grade metal plates are used.


Hello all. I just need some help on armour effectiveness in the real world... The three types of damages being slashing, piercing and bludgeoning.

The main problem is that these three damage types don't exist in the real world. In D&D, a rapier and an arrow are both "piercing" but they do terrifically different damage to a human body and/or suit of armor.

For instance, a rapier may simply bend off metal plates while an arrow can punch right through them. Then the arrow does localized damage while the rapier tip may bend inside the body and damage organs many inches away from the point of entry.

Real world armor does not translate well to simplified game mechanics. I'm sorry, I love realism in my games too; but most systems that try to be highly realistic end up being painfully complicated to run.

Twixman
2014-02-02, 02:26 AM
I get what you mean. Realism isnt for RPG's. I just want a little detail. Its obvious that a rapier would bend when a arrow will punch through, but its hard to keep track of. I just want something along the lines of
Chainmail- Good against slash, alright against piercing, alright against bludgeoning. (May not be correct, ah well)
And thankyou all for contributing :smallsmile:

warty goblin
2014-02-02, 02:41 AM
FYI: Chain, mail and Scale are all the same thing. Chain and mail are literally the same, scale is chain with diamond-shaped plates attached in a pattern. They serve no protective purpose and I'm pretty sure never existed in reality.

They're not at all the same thing. Mail is a mesh of iron or steel rings, broadly speaking it's metal knitting. The traditional European mail was a four-in-one pattern, which means each link had four others passing through it. Other meshes such as -in-1 or 6-in-1 are possible, and often found in Japan and India. Europe also had a form of doubled mail, though I don't know how precisely that was constructed.

There are several ways to fashion scale. Each scale can be riveted to its neighbors directly, when done this way a backing isn't necessary. Alternatively the scales can be riveted or stitched to a backing of cloth or possibly leather, with each scale covering the fasteners of the scales directly below it. Neither of these is at all similar to mail armor. Scale armor is some of the oldest metallic armor in the world, pieces of bronze armors have been found that date back to at least 1300 BC. I believe there's evidence of helmets made out of overlapped copper discs going back even further.


Leather has no real strengths. Better to avoid being bit if you're wearing leather. Studded leather is literally leather with rivets in it, not a whole lot better than regular leather.
I believe period accounts suggested that hide coats could turn a cut quite effectively.


Lamellar is just metal plates sewn together so it carries the same protection as plate armor.
Lamellar armor is made up of bands ('lames') of armor that wrap around the body. They can be tied together, or else sewn to a backing. This is another quite ancient form of armor, the bronze Dendra panalopy is possibly as old as 1400 BC. Interestingly enough, bronze lamellar armor seems to give way to two-piece cuirasses in relatively short order.

TheThan
2014-02-02, 01:39 PM
The main problem is that these three damage types don't exist in the real world. In D&D, a rapier and an arrow are both "piercing" but they do terrifically different damage to a human body and/or suit of armor.

For instance, a rapier may simply bend off metal plates while an arrow can punch right through them. Then the arrow does localized damage while the rapier tip may bend inside the body and damage organs many inches away from the point of entry.

Real world armor does not translate well to simplified game mechanics. I'm sorry, I love realism in my games too; but most systems that try to be highly realistic end up being painfully complicated to run.

Too true. a rapier is not likely to punch through a suit of plate armor, but the business end of a heavy pick or a crow's beak most likely will.

Alejandro
2014-02-02, 02:06 PM
And as an extra, you often see weapons and armors on the same battlefield in D&D, that you won't see in the real world. Rapiers, for example, appeared in strength after gunpowder weapons had made most heavy armor pointless.

magwaaf
2014-02-02, 02:54 PM
FYI: Chain, mail and Scale are all the same thing. Chain and mail are literally the same, scale is chain with diamond-shaped plates attached in a pattern. They serve no protective purpose and I'm pretty sure never existed in reality.

Chain is weak against bludgeoning, strong against slashing and decent against piercing (as long as it's riveted, not butted, which all actual-use armor was back then)

Plate is strong against slashing, weak against piercing and decent against bludgeoning.

Leather has no real strengths. Better to avoid being bit if you're wearing leather. Studded leather is literally leather with rivets in it, not a whole lot better than regular leather.

Lamellar is just metal plates sewn together so it carries the same protection as plate armor.

just about every heavy armor wears chain under it and a gambeson under that. chain is added protection hat also makes the heavier armor more comfortable and gambeson even more so

leather isn't great. it will stop light glancing blows.

scale existed. it was a cheaper version of plate. it offered great flexibility wit less strength.

magwaaf
2014-02-02, 02:55 PM
Too true. a rapier is not likely to punch through a suit of plate armor, but the business end of a heavy pick or a crow's beak most likely will.

also a rapier didn't really exist and wasn't used in times where plate was being worn. early firearms were used at the same time as rapiers so plate wasnt worn

warty goblin
2014-02-02, 03:02 PM
And as an extra, you often see weapons and armors on the same battlefield in D&D, that you won't see in the real world. Rapiers, for example, appeared in strength after gunpowder weapons had made most heavy armor pointless.

In general you are right on the money; D&D lumps together stuff that weren't likely to ever have coexisted (or frequently never really existed at all). Rapiers however were very much used contemporaneously with heavy armor. You wouldn't be likely to see the two together on the battlefield because a rapier is a predominantly civilian weapon used for personal defense or duels.

Also, the obsolescence of heavy armor due to improvements in gun technology took a very long time. Gothic style plate harness didn't appear until the late fifteenth century, about a century after gunpowder weapons first appeared in Europe.

endoperez
2014-02-02, 03:06 PM
I had never realized plate armor and early gunpowder weapons co-existed before one of the threads in this forum! That's still a big eye-opener for me, years later. :D

Armor became heavier to counteract the advancing gun technology. Since bullets could penetrate most (all? all reasonable?) limb protection, people only tended to wear the heavy breastplates (and helmets) in the times of the rapier.

Here's some images representing 30 Years' War (1618 - 1648), from a thread (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?211038-30YW-The-Thirty-Years-War/page3) on the Mount & Blade forums. Notice how the images show rapiers long and thin swords that would be called rapiers in D&D, together with breastplates and guns!


http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h292/Monkwarrior/M2TW/infanteria_francesa.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h292/Monkwarrior/M2TW/caballeria_imperial.jpg

I don't know how accurate those illustrations are.

TheThan
2014-02-02, 03:41 PM
I thought when effective guns started to appear, armor began to phase out. I was always under the impression that breastplates were still being worn by military up through the Spanish conquest of the new world (least the southern bits of it) that was 1500s-1600s. which is why by the french and Indian war, you don't see armor wearing soldiers, that was what 1750s?

Granted all those paintings of conquistadors in armor could have just been for show. I think a lot of these guys were prima donnas as well; nothing but the finest.

But yeah, the rapier is a civilian weapon, used by an unarmored man against another unarmored man. They are excellent in that environment but not so good against a guy that's armored.

veti
2014-02-02, 04:14 PM
I thought when effective guns started to appear, armor began to phase out.

That's true only for very broad and vague definitions of "effective" and "began". Guns were certainly the biggest single factor in making armour obsolete, but the growth of importance of guns, and the fading out of armour, were both very slow processes that took several centuries.


I was always under the impression that breastplates were still being worn by military up through the Spanish conquest of the new world (least the southern bits of it) that was 1500s-1600s. which is why by the french and Indian war, you don't see armor wearing soldiers, that was what 1750s?

Although guns were commonplace on the battlefield by the 1500s, they were slow and short range, which meant that a lot of fighting still took place hand-to-hand. (Pikes were a big thing at least as late as the 1650s, and continued in use for a long time after.) Cavalry used sabres right up until the end of the 19th century, and some of them wore breastplates on the field in Napoleon's day.

The Conquistadors were fighting, often hand-to-hand, against natives armed with, basically, stone-age weaponry. Their breastplates were very effective against that level of technology. By the 1750s, the picture had changed - North American Indians knew about guns, and they used the terrain to great effect, which probably tipped the balance into making armour a liability.

TheThan
2014-02-02, 04:43 PM
Yeah by effective I mean you stand a good chance of hitting your mark, and took under a minute to reload ( by the 1750s a good soldier could get off 3 shots in a minute). Good point about the Aztec weapons.

Knaight
2014-02-02, 05:12 PM
Here's some images representing 30 Years' War (1618 - 1648), from a thread (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?211038-30YW-The-Thirty-Years-War/page3) on the Mount & Blade forums. Notice how the images show rapiers long and thin swords that would be called rapiers in D&D, together with breastplates and guns!


http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h292/Monkwarrior/M2TW/infanteria_francesa.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h292/Monkwarrior/M2TW/caballeria_imperial.jpg

Those look more like side swords and sabers than rapiers. Both of which are cut and thrust swords that tend to be comparable in weight and mass distribution to many earlier medieval swords, with side swords characterized through a lowered width as measured from edge to edge and a higher width as measured from flat to flat. Rapiers are an entirely different case, though also fairly heavy and not the whippy things that they are routinely portrayed as.

As for breastplates and guns, breastplates re-surged in a very big way precisely because of firearms and the logistical changes that accompanied them in the early modern period. Larger armies led to cheaper equipment, which included using cheaper metallurgy for armor in many cases. This armor thus needed to be thicker to do anything against bullets, and infantry tend not to take well to heavier leg armor to begin with, so a panoply restricted to protecting vital organs saw more use - in short a breastplate and helmet.

Brother Oni
2014-02-03, 03:12 AM
Granted all those paintings of conquistadors in armor could have just been for show. I think a lot of these guys were prima donnas as well; nothing but the finest.

You're right that armour in the latter period was mostly for show and a symbol of rank, Greenwich armour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_armour) being the last examples of full plate harness in English warfare.
By the English Civil War (mid 17th Century) only cuirass and helmets were typically worn.



Cavalry used sabres right up until the end of the 19th century, and some of them wore breastplates on the field in Napoleon's day.

The Germans experimented with plate armour right up until WW1:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/b/bb/Metro-german_armour.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/German_helmet_and_frontal_armoured_plate_for_trenc h_warfare_1916.jpg

The British Army experimented with various melee weapons for trench combat, such as a short sword not unlike a gladius. These were rapidly discarded as they were too cumbersome and smaller weapons became more popular, such as punch daggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_dagger), sharpened entrenching tools or makeshift spiked maces.

I'd be surprised if the Germans didn't do the same.

Sidmen
2014-02-03, 03:33 AM
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks

Ok, so you want a gamist perspective with a little reality for spicing, right?

Leather - Junk, make it bad against every type of damage. It can be easily cut, pierced, and doesn't reduce the kinetic impact of bludgeoning blows.

Studded Leather - Get rid of this, it's just leather. No such thing ever existed.

Scale Armor - Scale is good against both Slashing and Bludgeoning, but only mediocre against piercing. It existed side-by-side with chain for a LONG time. Its trade off is that it should be less flexible than chain somehow (if you have some kind of Dex penalty for armor, it should be higher than chain).

Chain Armor - Chain is good against slashing but only mediocre against piercing and bludgeoning. It was used for the better part of two millennia, by both the poor and rich.

Plate Armor - The term Plate Mail never when the armor was used, and the distinction is pithy. Older and cheaper armors used chain to cover the joints in the armor that needed to collapse; late-period and expensive-as-hell armor used tiny jointed plates instead. It should be good against all three types of damage - piercing and slashing blows glanced off it, and it helped to diffuse the kinetic impact of bludgeoning bashes.


Plated Mail was a type of armor used in the east (pretty much everywhere east of Italy/Germany as far as I can tell. It is basically just an upgraded type of Chain armor that augmented itself with plates. Its often called banded mail in RPG circles (and elsewhere).

Lamellar armor is a budget type of Plate armor, used before smiths were able to make full-scale plate armor effectively, or when you can't afford the stuff. It is composed of strips of metal plates laced into horizontal rows.

Brigandine is, again, a budget form of Plate armor (effectively), but was rather popular in medieval Europe. It was where the mistaken "studded leather" came from - since it takes the form of oblong steel plates riveted inside a cloth or leather garment.

Ring armor is a type of budget chain, usually worn by those that couldn't afford mail, but who didn't want to be stuck with the junk that is leather. It consists of metal discs or rings sewn onto a backing of leather or layered cloth.

Cloth armor was pretty popular in the ancient period. It was easy to come by and if layered thickly enough could stop or slow arrows and spears (moderate piercing), and could offer some protection from slashing or bludgeoning weapons - but it wasn't very good overall, kinda like leather.

Twixman
2014-02-03, 05:29 AM
Thankyou very much Sidmen! Muchly appreciated
So with the Brigindine, make it moderately effective against all three types of damage? And I thought boiled leather would protect wellish against bludgeons.

Brother Oni
2014-02-03, 07:29 AM
And I thought boiled leather would protect wellish against bludgeons.

Boiled leather is comparatively incompressible, so it doesn't soak much of the kinetic energy from the impact and just transmits it into the wearer.

Given that's how bludgeoning weapons deal their damage primarily, you can see why it's not very effective. It's why armour types was usually worn with some sort of padding, such as a gambeson (quilted jacket), to soak up the kinetic energy while the metal component stopped penetration.

Knaight
2014-02-03, 03:52 PM
Boiled leather is comparatively incompressible, so it doesn't soak much of the kinetic energy from the impact and just transmits it into the wearer.

That said, it's worth noting that pressure matters. This is particularly true for metal plates - sure, the kinetic energy largely goes into the wearer, and padding under it is absolutely essential, but even without it the force is spread over a larger area and the pressure is drastically reduced. This is particularly the case with later impact weapons - flanges on maces had a tendency to be really small, which is a problem for those on the receiving end.

Sidmen
2014-02-04, 12:46 AM
Thankyou very much Sidmen! Muchly appreciated
So with the Brigindine, make it moderately effective against all three types of damage? And I thought boiled leather would protect wellish against bludgeons.

The others have covered leather, it really wasn't all that effective. All it really did was slow an inbound thrust or arrow so that they didn't penetrate as far.

Brigandine should be somewhere above chain but below plate in all three categories. Here is an image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Brigandine,_Italian,_c1470,_Royal_Armoury,_Leeds_( internal_view).JPG) of the inside of a suit of Brigandine. It's basically a suit of plate armor that could be made by someone less skilled than the armorers that were needed for actual plate. Heck, a country smith could probably make Brigandine.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-04, 01:11 AM
You could make some fine leather armours. Asia used tons of leather for its armour.

Sidmen
2014-02-04, 01:41 AM
You could make some fine leather armours. Asia used tons of leather for its armour.

If by "fine" you mean: immediately replaced when better techniques were encountered, then yeah.

Perhaps I'm being a little unfair here, but there are very good reasons that asia isn't really well known for its armor. Heck, samurai armor was pretty close to poorly designed Brigandine (leather with plates and scales sewn into it) for much of Japanese history. India made lots of use of chain and plated mail, and china seems to have adopted some sort of ring armor (metal plates sewn over leather).

It just doesn't appear that anyone ever thought leather was sufficient to protect their lives.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-04, 01:56 AM
"It just doesn't appear that anyone ever thought leather was sufficient to protect their lives."

Japan and China were using its leather armours long into periods where mail was in use in Europe as their primary armour. The breast plate wasn't brought into Japan till late in the history of the samurai (even the best breastplates were having trouble with guns of the time).

To put leather armour down as useless is overly simplistic, stemming from the fact that Europe didn't take up that particular economic-war model.

I recommend looking at tests of Japanese and Chinese leather armours, or even the less known Egyptian leather armours. It doesn't make you into a human tank, but it is fine protection.


This is coming from me, whose very favourite armour is full plate harness.


I need to be fair. You're correct that some of the European armours were more protective than those in Asia, nobles and high ranking persons had more plate and metal in their armour for this reason. Just, this difference gets exaggerated. Leather armours aren't lousy, they are effective and saw a lot of use. Not being the best doesn't change that.

Sidmen
2014-02-04, 04:04 AM
To put leather armour down as useless is overly simplistic, stemming from the fact that Europe didn't take up that particular economic-war model.
The fellow wanted simplistic. When you take a well-made suit of chain and put it up against a well-made suit of leather (regardless of which culture made it), you're going to find that the leather is clearly inferior. That's why chain replaced leather armors in Europe, the middle east, and India as early as it did.

Even in China, (and I did a bit of research before responding here), those that could afford it adopted metal armors (usually lamellar in the early periods) if any actual fighting was to take place.

Leather isn't worthless - I've seen hardened leather take sword strikes without failing - but it is the least effective option.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-04, 04:14 AM
I agree with that estimate. In Europe, metal armours were also more economical than leather ones, so there was basically no reason to invest in them (they still did a bit, with several armours combining leather and mail/plates/etc.).