PDA

View Full Version : How much does armor affect movement speed IRL?



Talakeal
2015-04-21, 08:51 PM
Many games have armor severally limit a character's speed, other games don't do it at all. Does anyone have any real life data about how much armor should slow a person down in a realistic setting?

Furthermore, does it matter how fast the purpose going? Does armor limit walking speed more than running speed or vice versa?

Karl Aegis
2015-04-21, 09:05 PM
You can run around and jump and stuff perfectly fine in Gothic Plate, but don't expect to be doing any flips. Lower quality armors might slow you down some.

Eisenheim
2015-04-21, 09:07 PM
Mostly you don't loose speed. You loose flexibility, agility, your stamina is depleted faster by the added weight, and you're at serious risk for dehydration and heat stroke because of how much you sweat under the layers of padding worn under the steel.

awa
2015-04-21, 09:17 PM
your pcs back pack will likely affect his speed more then his armor particularly if he has a lot of stuff not tied down tightly or that are just plain awkward (10 foot pole any one)

Keltest
2015-04-21, 09:22 PM
Not much. Your agility and endurance would be affected far more. Running for any distance in full plate is going to wear you out very quickly. Even leather armor would be very hot and uncomfortable, not to mention sweaty and sticky.

holywhippet
2015-04-21, 09:56 PM
It would depend on how large and strong you are for one thing. A chain mail shirt is around 11 kg or 25 pounds. A full chain mail suit is about twice that. If you are a fairly strong and/or heavy person you'll notice the weight but it won't hinder you that much as it is fairly evenly distributed around your body. If you are a lot smaller and weaker you will notice the weight a lot more.

Keep in mind that D&D uses a mish mash of different weapons and armors which didn't really appear together in real life. Different equipment would appear to counter the equipment someone else invented previously IIRC, war hammers came into existence because decent plate armor can't really be stabbed through so they needed something that could still do damage.

On the subject of plate mail, there were two types of it in real life. The lighter version was for actual use in the battlefield. The heavier version was for jousting since you wanted to absorb the shock of the pole hitting you. That stuff was too heavy for use on the battlefield despite the protection it offered. If you fell over you really couldn't easily get up unaided.

BootStrapTommy
2015-04-21, 10:00 PM
Disclaimer! All comments on heat and sweating are largely clime-dependent. Under certain cool weather conditions, armor might be just perfect to keep you warm. Or not.

Broken Twin
2015-04-21, 10:05 PM
Personally, from a mechanical perspective, I think modelling armour would be best served by giving resistance to damage and a slight reduction in the ability to dodge. Give heavier armours a minimum physical score required to avoid suffering from exhaustion after a fight. Add on a penalty to resist heat related environmental hazards, and a penalty to manual dexterity.

Of course, the exact result of this is all heavily dependant on exactly what rule system you're using.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-21, 11:48 PM
Armor is a complex topic. When wearing a suit of full armor each arm and leg is weighed down, it's harder to move, and that makes walking and running more difficult, even as the face mask makes it harder to breathe. Walking with one hundred pounds in a backpack, you'd use 1.7 times as much energy as you would were you not weighed down -- but wearing that weight as armor, you'll use 2.3 times as much.

A typical modern soldier, fireman and police(SWAT) wear much heaver gear, but then they also don't extensively travel by foot.

All armor, just like any heavy clothing really, still significantly reduced the flexibility and mobility of the wearer. The modern myth that medieval armour was hugely heavy come from people looking at tournament armour, which was far heavier. Jousting plate harness could weigh as much as 100 pounds, since it was designed purely for protection in an arena were greater restriction of mobility and agility was not an issue. As modern medieval re-eanctors like to demonstrate to audiences, medieval field plate was not as cumbersome and knights could turn somersaults or do cartwheels in full harness. Though, that is a re-enactor wearing a suit of armor for a couple hours, not even close to a someone wearing a suit for 8-16 hours a day.

Imagine a person weighted down by heavy armor and hampered by that armor so they could not move well. That person would be a 'sitting duck' and quickly killed by a peasant with a spear or even a knife. Who would invest the big bucks the armor cost just to be easily killed?

One of the reasons there is the assumption that armor was clumsy is from movies where (when they made them) they did not realize that the design, construction and fit of the armor were all incredibly important. Poorly designed armor will not have good mobility, poorly constructed armor will not have good mobility and if the armor was not well fitted to the individual, it would not have good mobility. Obviously people acquiring medieval Armor for use in war would quickly become aware of this and require that it be well designed, constructed and fitted.

The best armor was made to fit a person. Armor was not exactly one size fits all(as if anything ever was). If you wore armor of the wrong size or fit, it would effect your speed and movement.

Gopher Wizard
2015-04-21, 11:51 PM
I've worn chainmail and slightly heavier armor in real life. I can say it doesn't so much slow you down, it just limits your endurance so the period with which you can maintain those speeds is reduced, and you have to take a breather. Depending on the armor, it can be a little or a lot.

BootStrapTommy
2015-04-22, 01:09 AM
Add on a penalty to resist heat related environmental hazards, and a penalty to manual dexterity.. "Manual dexterity" refers specifically to hands, meaning it is only affected if the armor possesses gloves.


When wearing a suit of full armor each arm and leg is weighed down, it's harder to move, and that makes walking and running more difficult, even as the face mask makes it harder to breathe. Walking with one hundred pounds in a backpack, you'd use 1.7 times as much energy as you would were you not weighed down -- but wearing that weight as armor, you'll use 2.3 times as much. Are you sure? Got a source on that? Because experience says weight more evenly distributed across the body is much easier to carry than weight solely on your back. 65lbs of full plate is much less strain to lug around than a 65lb backpack.

Yora
2015-04-22, 04:55 AM
I found some articles about this study (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14204717) from the University of Leeds, which they did with people from the Royal Armory, which is probably the best known collection of European medieval weapons and armor everywhere. So the results are probably as good as you can get them. And they got results indicating wearing plate armor double the amount of energy needed when running, with the leg parts being particularly problematic.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-22, 05:39 AM
I found some articles about this study (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14204717) from the University of Leeds, which they did with people from the Royal Armory, which is probably the best known collection of European medieval weapons and armor everywhere. So the results are probably as good as you can get them. And they got results indicating wearing plate armor double the amount of energy needed when running, with the leg parts being particularly problematic.

Thanks for that link - what an interesting study!

Any soldier can tell you that gear slows you down. Even one bad strap can mess up your day if it causes your equipment to slide or chafe.

Kevlar body armor and helmet are annoying as hell..I can't imagine trucking to battle with sheets of molded steel strapped to every limb. The number of fail points with that many straps and buckles, not to mention the rubbing and sweat...ugh!

malkarnivore
2015-04-22, 05:52 AM
Thanks for that link - what an interesting study!

Any soldier can tell you that gear slows you down. Even one bad strap can mess up your day if it causes your equipment to slide or chafe.

Kevlar body armor and helmet are annoying as hell..I can't imagine trucking to battle with sheets of molded steel strapped to every limb. The number of fail points with that many straps and buckles, not to mention the rubbing and sweat...ugh!

by the same token, if you have all that crap strapped on (and fitted) correctly the only real concern is how far you have to run, and for nerds like me (I'm huge) it doesn't slow you down. at all.

And I'm talking about the full-body coverage point-blank armor the marines used about ten years ago. I'm not sure if that crap's still in circulation.

Broken Twin
2015-04-22, 06:12 AM
"Manual dexterity" refers specifically to hands, meaning it is only affected if the armor possesses gloves.

Well, yes. I'm running under the assumption that your heavier armours are going to be a complete suit. If we're getting into piecemeal armour rules, then things obviously get a lot more complicated. I guess I should have specified that.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-22, 07:15 AM
by the same token, if you have all that crap strapped on (and fitted) correctly the only real concern is how far you have to run, and for nerds like me (I'm huge) it doesn't slow you down. at all.

And I'm talking about the full-body coverage point-blank armor the marines used about ten years ago. I'm not sure if that crap's still in circulation.

Having it fitted and doing a couple of stretches and sprints for 15-20 minutes, then throwing it in the back of your SUV and heading to Denny's for some pancakes is one thing. Wearing it in the dust and sun, doing heavy activity and sweating in it every day for two weeks is another.

Knaight
2015-04-22, 07:44 AM
You can run around and jump and stuff perfectly fine in Gothic Plate, but don't expect to be doing any flips. Lower quality armors might slow you down some.

You can do surprisingly well with some acrobatic stuff - hand stands, somersaults, so on and so forth are doable. Meanwhile you will lose a bit of jump height, and there's a noticeable speed difference. Said speed difference isn't hugely important most of the time, but when there's a full sprint it shows up noticeably.

Broken Twin
2015-04-22, 08:32 AM
I don't think the question is really "Is it possible to do while wearing armour?", more so "Is it harder to do while wearing armor?"

If accuracy/realism is a concern in regards to armour rules, I would make a mechanical difference between fitted and non-fitted armour.

Getting worn out faster is hard to represent, given that most systems don't really have active stamina rules.

ddude987
2015-04-22, 08:49 AM
Disclaimer! All comments on heat and sweating are largely clime-dependent. Under certain cool weather conditions, armor might be just perfect to keep you warm. Or not.

not necessarily. For example, if you've ever been skiing or hiking in the cold of winter and have layers on, sweating is actually a serious concern because it dehydrates you and puts you at risk for hypothermia. The same may be possible with these suits of armor, depending on how insulated they were. And if they aren't insulated then you would freeze instead.

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-04-22, 09:35 AM
It'd be interesting to redo that study with people who've never worn armour in their lives rather than re-enactors, and see if the energy requirements were still doubled, or were even higher. That way we might be able to extrapolate to someone who trains extensively in it.

The other point I'd like to make about that study is that someone in heavy armour is likely from the nobility, and would thus have a much better diet (probably having meat more regularly, certainly having better quality food and larger portions) than the peasantry, and be a lot fitter, especially regarding combat rather than just general fitness gained from working the fields or whatever - the reduced endurance enforced by their armour may still be well in excess of anyone else on the field.


"Manual dexterity" refers specifically to hands, meaning it is only affected if the armor possesses gloves.
Hands yes, but also your arms to a slightly lesser extent - juggling knives with your arms in pouldrons, rerebraces and vambraces isn't going to go well, even if your hands are completely uncovered.


not necessarily. For example, if you've ever been skiing or hiking in the cold of winter and have layers on, sweating is actually a serious concern because it dehydrates you and puts you at risk for hypothermia. The same may be possible with these suits of armor, depending on how insulated they were. And if they aren't insulated then you would freeze instead.
The padding will help insulate you, but you've still got nice big radiators on your chest, back, thighs etc to lose heat, and depending on how cold it got, items like your gauntlets might freeze onto your body.

warty goblin
2015-04-22, 09:54 AM
The padding will help insulate you, but you've still got nice big radiators on your chest, back, thighs etc to lose heat, and depending on how cold it got, items like your gauntlets might freeze onto your body.
I've done short hikes in a hauberk in the winter. The thing makes you lose heat like crazy, but moving through snow in armor is so much work it sort of evens out. I've done the same in the summer, and there the heat is pretty brutal, although it makes moving through dense undergrowth a lot more pleasant. Raspberry cane is no match for steel mesh, although you get the occasional thorn that snaps off between the link and gets worked in.

spineyrequiem
2015-04-22, 10:17 AM
I've got an 8mm ring, flat-riveted chainmail hauberk which weighs around 12kg and have worn it a fair bit in a good few contexts. As soon as you put it on, you can feel your heart rate go up just from wearing it. As people have said, the main thing it hits is your stamina; I jogged about a kilometer in it before I had to slow to a walk, partly from simple tiredness, partly from overheating. You can still run at pretty much the same speed as unencumbered, but you won't be able to keep it up for long (hence why I can't catch archers). It also can make it harder to turn. However, your stamina won't be hit as much as you might think; I've gone clubbing in it at least twice, at heavy rock clubs, and still been able to dance for several hours on the trot. You just need to make sure to keep drinking water. It probably does slow your top speed a bit though, I know I'm not quite as good at sprinting with it on.

goto124
2015-04-22, 10:28 AM
Slightly related joke: I was told that the heavier helmets, when worn, gave -99 to Intelligence.

-puts on helmet- -drools like an orc- Can't... Think....

MonkeySage
2015-04-22, 10:47 AM
I can sort of speak from personal experience, it's really hard to move in stuff...

Boots slow me down considerably, since it's pretty uncomfortable to run in them, and they're sort of clumsy. As a runner, I generally prefer lightweight canvas and rubber(no leather, I'm vegetarian. ^_^)

Gloves have a very definite effect on dexterity, forget fine motor skills... infact, even macromotor skills become more difficult.

Now, actual armor... I can't say i'm a very athletic or strong person, but I can attest that a chainmail shirt is heavy... really heavy.

You could probably also ask a firefighter how fast they can move while wearing full gear.

Joe the Rat
2015-04-22, 11:19 AM
Are you sure? Got a source on that? Because experience says weight more evenly distributed across the body is much easier to carry than weight solely on your back. 65lbs of full plate is much less strain to lug around than a 65lb backpack.If you're talking breastplates, sure. Good armor distributes the weight evenly. A good hiking pack should do the same in terms of distribution, but will still throw your balance back a little.

Where you see the difference between carrying your armor on your back and wearing it is not the 65lb on your body instead of your back, but 45lb evenly on the torso, and 5-ish pounds on each limb. And that's probably a low ballpark, particularly for leg armor.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-22, 11:49 AM
You could probably also ask a firefighter how fast they can move while wearing full gear.

Not very. The boots would probably fall off if you earnestly tried to sprint full speed in them. Or your thighs would reach muscle failure in short order.

I think it's a little different though, as firefighter PPE (personal protective equipment aka "turnout gear") is designed to completely insulate the wearer from the outside environment. You get hot pretty fast, even just standing around. Any firefighter class where you use it requires you to bring something to drink to the classroom because dehydration is a real issue. It does keep you from burning though.



8mm ring, flat-riveted chainmail hauberk...I've gone clubbing in it at least twice, at heavy rock clubs...

I want to party with you, cowboy!

malkarnivore
2015-04-22, 12:29 PM
Having it fitted and doing a couple of stretches and sprints for 15-20 minutes, then throwing it in the back of your SUV and heading to Denny's for some pancakes is one thing. Wearing it in the dust and sun, doing heavy activity and sweating in it every day for two weeks is another.

I wasn't talking about things like that. A week in the field for the marines tends to be very different from a week in the field for the other branches when you actually have an infantry MOS.

Jay R
2015-04-22, 12:53 PM
With most of my armor on but not the leg armor, I'm almost as fast as without it - but not for nearly as long.

With just my leg armor on, I'm significantly slower (maybe 2/3 speed, but I've never tested it), since I can't move my legs as fast.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-22, 03:59 PM
I wasn't talking about things like that. A week in the field for the marines tends to be very different from a week in the field for the other branches when you actually have an infantry MOS.

No argument here.

Braininthejar2
2015-04-22, 04:11 PM
I've seen some armour-related heat strokes (the biggest medieval battle in history of my country took place in late July) It wasn't pretty.

Solaris
2015-04-22, 04:45 PM
Armor is a complex topic. When wearing a suit of full armor each arm and leg is weighed down, it's harder to move, and that makes walking and running more difficult, even as the face mask makes it harder to breathe. Walking with one hundred pounds in a backpack, you'd use 1.7 times as much energy as you would were you not weighed down -- but wearing that weight as armor, you'll use 2.3 times as much.

A typical modern soldier, fireman and police(SWAT) wear much heaver gear, but then they also don't extensively travel by foot.

Experiences may vary.
I've walked holes in the bottoms of my boots in Iraq. There are some in the military who still regard the invention of the automobile as a terrible, terrible thing that's led to generations of soft and weak soldiers.

From wearing the varying grades of armor available to the artilleryman (ranging from 'torso armor' to 'torso armor and helmet with shoulder, upper arm, underarm, and groin protection'), and from wearing other sorts of heavyweight gear on my limbs to boot... No, it doesn't materially slow me down just because it's armor. It actually slowed me down less than carrying an equivalent ruck would, on account of being better distributed around my body.

I'd say that armor would slow a character down based on its weight, as all other gear does using the encumbrance rules. That Light-Medium-Heavy system D&D has doesn't really work in my experience, being as strength really did play a role in how well I could handle the armor. Having the armor check penalty apply to Constitution checks pertaining to endurance, such as the check to continue running, would also be a fairly good way to accurately model the armor's particular encumbering effects. I could sprint just as quickly as normal while wearing armor (even checked it on a treadmill; unarmored and wearing ACUs with boots I could do a mile in 5:35, and armor slowed me down to about a 5:40 mile), I just couldn't do it for as far or as long due to hauling around a lot more mass than usual and thus burning through energy faster.

Cealocanth
2015-04-22, 05:04 PM
Data? No. Anecdotal evidence? Sure.

Light armors are made specifically to not hinder movement speed. Putting them on tends to take a while (about 1 minute in a rush), but once they're on and you've been properly conditioned, your armor will feel no heavier than heavy winter clothing. You can and should be able to move relatively easily. Heavy armor, on the other hand, tends to not really limit movement speed as it limits area of view and some extremes of movement. Depending on the armor, a knight may have a harder time taking wider steps, moving his arms full range, and will likely have to turn his head often to see next to and behind him. A trained knight can move just as fast with armor as without, though. It's when you start to add 300 extra pounds of adventuring equipment that you start to slow down.

However, all armor types tend to get pretty hot, and although it may not feel it, you have to work harder to get your armor to move. Wearing armor will drain your endurance. Shields also take much longer to be conditioned to than most armors, and completely inexperienced shieldbearers will often find themselves dropping their shield because their arm hurts (in case you were planning on having any small children or gnomes carry tower shields.)

Armor can interfere with some mundane tasks. For example, with certain kinds of helms you will have difficulty wiping sweat out of your eyes. You will have difficulty writing with full gauntlets. A codpiece, as every self-respecting knight to wear, will interfere with things too.

Source: 2 years or so of SCA heavy fighting.

JustSomeGuy
2015-04-23, 07:20 AM
Maybe boobplate/chainmail bikinis aren't such cliche inventions afterall, eh!

Practical points: trying to do anything requiring much manual dexterity while wearing thick work gloves (metalworking and operating heavy winching equipment etc) is a bit of a hassle, adding metal armour to gloves must surely be even more cumbersome?

Fighting in riot gear (helmet with visor and neck cover, body armour, forearm and shin surrounds, gloves and boots plus shield and stick) isn't massively problematic aside from the heat (and this was january), but it does irritate and any chance to take some pieces off (esp. Helmet) was jumped on by almost everyone.

warty goblin
2015-04-23, 09:34 AM
Maybe boobplate/chainmail bikinis aren't such cliche inventions afterall, eh!

To be frank, chaimail bikinis have always struck me as considerably less stupid than some other fantasy armors that show up. You know, the ones with inch thick steel pauldrons the size of manhole covers. Ye Olde Chainmaille Bikini may not offer any notable protection, but at least a person can move in it. Which is why I always find it hilarious when somebody holds up a picture of a dude in hideously overweight armor with terrible mobility and goes 'See, he's dressed sensibly for his job, unlike the woman in the chainmail bikini.' No. Both are dressed like morons, but the lady in the steel lingerie will win 99 fights out of a hundred against Pauldon-Man, because she can raise her arms.

Anonymouswizard
2015-04-23, 09:56 AM
To be frank, chaimail bikinis have always struck me as considerably less stupid than some other fantasy armors that show up. You know, the ones with inch thick steel pauldrons the size of manhole covers. Ye Olde Chainmaille Bikini may not offer any notable protection, but at least a person can move in it. Which is why I always find it hilarious when somebody holds up a picture of a dude in hideously overweight armor with terrible mobility and goes 'See, he's dressed sensibly for his job, unlike the woman in the chainmail bikini.' No. Both are dressed like morons, but the lady in the steel lingerie will win 99 fights out of a hundred against Pauldon-Man, because she can raise her arms.

Finally I know what annoys me about Space Marines. I've always assumed that pictures of padded or mail armour are the most realistic I've seen, due to having less restriction.

warty goblin
2015-04-23, 10:14 AM
Finally I know what annoys me about Space Marines. I've always assumed that pictures of padded or mail armour are the most realistic I've seen, due to having less restriction.

There's nothing necessarily unrealistic about plate shoulder armor, but it needs to be articulated so the person wearing it has reasonable freedom of motion in their arms. If the armor's powered, you can get away with much thicker armor, but at the cost of being totally screwed against an enemy with some shovels and a garden hose. Have fun walking through deep mud with a spare quarter-ton of weight strapped to yourself.

It's also not like most padded or chain mail armors fair that much better in fantasy art, at least in terms of realism. They're generally things a person could move in, but are often very badly designed for keeping the sharp metal things out of one's body. A chain shirt is basically a big sweater knit out of iron rings, and a padded jack is a thick quilted coat, none of which allow for the form-fitting, excessively belted look so popular in fantasy art.

I suppose the logic being that a Real Fantasy Hero won't actually die in combat, since using some twirly moves to kill some idiots who never learned to stab properly is a risk-free activity to demonstrate one's innate coolness, so there's no reason not to dress like a fashion model. This makes about as much sense as needing lots of specialized training to be able to take advantage of somebody who can't see you.

goto124
2015-04-23, 10:46 AM
I've always wondered how an adventurer would balance 'protection' (no, not that kind of protecrion) and 'fashionable everyday comfortable clothes I can actually move in'.

And why do mages wear robes when they can cast Endure Elements and wear nothing? They're not going to wear armor anyway, might as well not get cloth-in-open-wound infections!

warty goblin
2015-04-23, 11:10 AM
I've always wondered how an adventurer would balance 'protection' (no, not that kind of protecrion) and 'fashionable everyday comfortable clothes I can actually move in'.

And why do mages wear robes when they can cast Endure Elements and wear nothing? They're not going to wear armor anyway, might as well not get cloth-in-open-wound infections!

You wear ordinary sorts of clothes until you get to the dungeon, then you spend half an hour or so strapping on your armor. Or you just march/ride there in armor, since it's not like you can't move in the stuff. As a bonus, in martial sorts of society fashionable clothing and fashionable armor are often pretty similar.

And wizards wear clothes because of that peril most neglected in fantasy literature: brambles. Take a walk in the woods on a lovely summer day wearing nothing, and you will be one giant combination of welt, scratch and sore.

malkarnivore
2015-04-23, 11:29 AM
I've always wondered how an adventurer would balance 'protection' (no, not that kind of protecrion) and 'fashionable everyday comfortable clothes I can actually move in'.

And why do mages wear robes when they can cast Endure Elements and wear nothing? They're not going to wear armor anyway, might as well not get cloth-in-open-wound infections!

by purchasing the Deific Obedience of Calistria or Arshea and stacking charisma like a champ.

Keltest
2015-04-23, 11:42 AM
I've always wondered how an adventurer would balance 'protection' (no, not that kind of protecrion) and 'fashionable everyday comfortable clothes I can actually move in'.

And why do mages wear robes when they can cast Endure Elements and wear nothing? They're not going to wear armor anyway, might as well not get cloth-in-open-wound infections!

Robes have lots of pockets for those spell components people always forget about. Also, theyre quite warm in your basement lab when you don't want to blow a spell slot.

JustSomeGuy
2015-04-23, 01:05 PM
Robes have lots of pockets for those spell components people always forget about. Also, theyre quite warm in your basement lab when you don't want to blow a spell slot.

Maybe robes because nobody bothered to put pyjamas in the equipment lists, and once you've mastered reality you tend to take a laissez-faire attitude to dressing properly?

Talakeal
2015-04-23, 01:37 PM
You wear ordinary sorts of clothes until you get to the dungeon, then you spend half an hour or so strapping on your armor. Or you just march/ride there in armor, since it's not like you can't move in the stuff. As a bonus, in martial sorts of society fashionable clothing and fashionable armor are often pretty similar.

And wizards wear clothes because of that peril most neglected in fantasy literature: brambles. Take a walk in the woods on a lovely summer day wearing nothing, and you will be one giant combination of welt, scratch and sore.

Yeah, totally. It was the thought of foliage rather than enemy blades that finally made me get my character out of the old chainmail bikini.

Roetroc
2015-04-25, 08:22 PM
Armour whether a nice 8kg mail shirt or 25kg plate armour will affect your speed. Mostly during acceleration (speeding up/changing direction).

Well fitting plate will still slow you as you have to slightly alter your gait to accommodate the physical increase in size of your leg armour. The more you wear it the better able you are to develop strategies for dealing with the change in movement and you build up strength to compensate for the increased mass on your limbs etc.

You can still move at a fair clip once up to speed, but changing direction can be challenging expecially if you consider the effect of wearing historically accurate shoes rather than trainers/boots etc.

If you have seen full clankies try to run, then cannot compete with those in padded jacks or just mail shirts in a straight line, and they certainly are going to be a major disadvantage when they have to run obstacles or make many changes of direction.

Perhaps you could factor that into movement penalties. 30ft no armour, 25ft armour in straight line, 20ft in armour if making any change in direction.

Grod_The_Giant
2015-04-28, 09:53 AM
It's also not like most padded or chain mail armors fair that much better in fantasy art, at least in terms of realism. They're generally things a person could move in, but are often very badly designed for keeping the sharp metal things out of one's body. A chain shirt is basically a big sweater knit out of iron rings, and a padded jack is a thick quilted coat, none of which allow for the form-fitting, excessively belted look so popular in fantasy art.
A mail shirt might not have been skin-tight, but you'd certainly want it either made to size or secured with belts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MWP_Pancerni_2_polowa_17_wieku.jpg), otherwise it's going to hamper you enough that you'll get stabbed in the face. It would have to be the face, though, because good riveted mail was almost impossible to penetrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_%28armour%29#Effectiveness).

Talakeal
2015-04-28, 01:12 PM
A mail shirt might not have been skin-tight, but you'd certainly want it either made to size or secured with belts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MWP_Pancerni_2_polowa_17_wieku.jpg), otherwise it's going to hamper you enough that you'll get stabbed in the face. It would have to be the face, though, because good riveted mail was almost impossible to penetrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_%28armour%29#Effectiveness).

I have heard that in a lot of places. Heck, my current DM laughs at me for using a sword because they are "worthless" as mail is invulnerable to them.

On the other hand, I see videos on youtube of people punching a sword blade through car doors and other sturdy metal objects. Is it something special about the construction of the mail that makes it so good or what?

Keltest
2015-04-28, 01:21 PM
I have heard that in a lot of places. Heck, my current DM laughs at me for using a sword because they are "worthless" as mail is invulnerable to them.

On the other hand, I see videos on youtube of people punching a sword blade through car doors and other sturdy metal objects. Is it something special about the construction of the mail that makes it so good or what?
Well, part of it is that youre just flat out better at taking a hit than a car door. The car door cant do anything but take the full brunt of the attack as damage. It cant even get pushed backwards by it all that much except in the area where the actual physical contact is (hence the cut).

Yes, if youre doing nothing but slicing the sword edge along the mail, it isn't going to do much, however if you swing a sword at someone and it hits their mail coat, its still going to hurt like heck, because they just got hit with a freaking metal object being swung with a lot of force. If your DM isn't letting swords do damage against mail, he is significantly less familiar with the physics of the weapons as he thinks he is.

Knaight
2015-04-28, 03:00 PM
Well, part of it is that youre just flat out better at taking a hit than a car door. The car door cant do anything but take the full brunt of the attack as damage. It cant even get pushed backwards by it all that much except in the area where the actual physical contact is (hence the cut).

It's also quite possibly aluminum, or a steel alloy designed for a very different purpose. That mail on a person has give, and is likely to deflect rather than absorb a lot of the time (e.g. with arrows that aren't dead center and straight on) matters, but if you set up a car door so that it could do something other than take the full brunt it's still going to end up pretty damaged.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-28, 03:58 PM
Depending on how the mail is made, it's entirely possible the links are thicker than the plating on a car door.

VoxRationis
2015-04-28, 05:11 PM
Yeah, cars are not good examples of durable metal objects. In most cases, they are designed to deform and crumple rather than resist damage. This is supposedly for safety, but I suspect it might well be to sell more cars.

In any case, I think it telling that swords continued use as common weapons well through the era in which mail was the primary armor of choice, and it's mostly as plate proliferates that we see picks and hammers and other armor-piercing weapons start to be important. Or so I recall. Mail helps against swords, but it's clearly not invulnerable to them.

Brother Oni
2015-04-28, 05:58 PM
Mail helps against swords, but it's clearly not invulnerable to them.

Hit mail hard enough and you're likely to damage or break a couple of links. Do that enough and you have a mail shirt with (bigger) holes in it and it's not looking as invulnerable as before.

Mail also isn't as great at stopping thrusts and other stabbing attacks, plus it's heavily reliant on the padding underneath to stop the force of the blow transmitting through to the wearer. Sure an aventail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aventail) will stop a sword slicing your neck; still won't stop the blow from breaking it though.

With regard to general agility in armour, I find this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCvOC2VwDc) quite useful in demonstrating how well fitted armour has little to no effect. Mail is even more agile than this as it has even more points of articulation.
The one thing I found that affected manoeuvrability in armour more than anything else, was footwear. Norman times footwear was often had just leather soles, which makes stopping on grass quickly a hard task at the best of times, and is only exacerbated if the grass was wet and you had an extra 10 kilos of metal strapped to you.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-28, 06:17 PM
The video also demonstrates why armor aught to give a penalty to Moving Silently, because oh my god the noise. :smalltongue:

Roetroc
2015-04-28, 07:21 PM
Having fired arrows at a car door (a wreck) the skin of the door was easily penetrated by a field point fired from a 30lb bow (and was stopped by the window glass).

Padded armour (12 layers of linen) is quite effective (even against 60lb bows) but cutting type heads will penetrate very readily especially at points where the padded is sewn together.

Mail rings will deform which absorbs energy from a sword strike (in the same way a cinder block on someones stomach absorbs energy as it breaks from a sledgehammer blow). Coupled with padding and you have an effective defence (effective not invulnerable).

Piercing strikes are more problematic and it is possible to end applying the force on a single ring making it quite possible to break one open. Viking mail was made from rings that were, on average 1.5mm thick (Gjermundbu shirt).

Armour must affect your movement but just not as much as is often quoted.

Frozen: In the UK 15th century reenactors in harness are often referred to as 'clankies'.

Cazero
2015-04-29, 01:59 AM
Yeah, cars are not good examples of durable metal objects. In most cases, they are designed to deform and crumple rather than resist damage. This is supposedly for safety, but I suspect it might well be to sell more cars.

It is definitely for safety. You want your car to deform on impact, otherwise the passengers take the full strength of it.
A car is not an armour. It is supposed to be good at stopping exactly one hit. Reusability is too difficult to achieve here.

Brother Oni
2015-04-29, 02:06 AM
The video also demonstrates why armor aught to give a penalty to Moving Silently, because oh my god the noise. :smalltongue:

I never claimed otherwise. :smallbiggrin:

As Roetroc said, over here they're known as clankies and if you think a pair of them are noisy, just wait until you get a whole bunch of them together.

Edit: I think in the BECMI version of D&D, plate armour had penalties including automatic failure of any stealth action, plus all non-deaf beings within 100' are aware of your presence.

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-04-29, 06:59 AM
It is definitely for safety. You want your car to deform on impact, otherwise the passengers take the full strength of it.
A car is not an armour. It is supposed to be good at stopping exactly one hit. Reusability is too difficult to achieve here.
Indeed, a lot of the "structure" of a car is designed to deform in a collision, absorbing the forces and protecting the driver and passengers. As for the body, it's main job is to give the car an aerodynamic shape to increase fuel efficiency, and help keep the wind and rain off, so it's as thin as the manufacturer can get away with - on your average family car, it's little more than cut and pressed rolled metal sheet with no additional work to give it extra strength - all the crystals in the structure would be orientated in the direction the sheet was rolled.

Which makes stabbing a sword through a car door not that impressive. :smallwink:

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, mail and padding can flex under impact more easily than plate can, slowing down the impacting object before it starts to apply anything like it's full force. You can also work the metal that makes chainmail links/scale mail scales, or overlay the layers of padding by the direction of the weave, giving them extra strength.

Knaight
2015-04-29, 10:25 AM
It is definitely for safety. You want your car to deform on impact, otherwise the passengers take the full strength of it.
A car is not an armour. It is supposed to be good at stopping exactly one hit. Reusability is too difficult to achieve here.

It's a lot like a bike helmet. You can hack into them just fine, but they'll take the brunt of exactly one collision fairly well. Then you get a new one.

Spiryt
2015-04-29, 11:54 AM
Yeah, cars are not good examples of durable metal objects. In most cases, they are designed to deform and crumple rather than resist damage. This is supposedly for safety, but I suspect it might well be to sell more cars.

In any case, I think it telling that swords continued use as common weapons well through the era in which mail was the primary armor of choice, and it's mostly as plate proliferates that we see picks and hammers and other armor-piercing weapons start to be important. Or so I recall. Mail helps against swords, but it's clearly not invulnerable to them.

Swords were actually far more common in 'age of plate' if anything.

If only because they were relatively much, much cheaper but still.

Hooking for such simple correlations cannot really tell us anything.

It's hard to tell how 'important' picks and hammers really were, too.

TeChameleon
2015-05-04, 06:17 PM
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but figured I'd throw this in- I've watched one of the fitter armoured participants at a Renfaire sort of deal (who I discovered, to my considerable surprise, was 54 at the time O.o) leap clean over the heads of the (seated) front row of spectators, landing in a tuck and roll, and popping back to his feet quite casually. Pretty sure it was plate he was wearing, although it was a couple of years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy.

And my question about ye olde chainmail bikini has always been less about the level of protection it affords (marginally more than a regular bikini..?), even if unpleasant undergrowth isn't a worry, and more about... well, chafing. Since the art usually doesn't portray a lot in the way of undergarments... maybe that's why female barbarians are so irritable <.<

goto124
2015-05-05, 02:23 AM
What, their chainmail bikini doesn't even has an underlayer of cloth? My lady barbarian is stupid and even she has the sense to line her bikini with soft red velvet. Essentially wearing a regular bikini underneath the chainmail one.

She's also not so easily irritable.

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-05-05, 03:27 AM
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but figured I'd throw this in- I've watched one of the fitter armoured participants at a Renfaire sort of deal (who I discovered, to my considerable surprise, was 54 at the time O.o) leap clean over the heads of the (seated) front row of spectators, landing in a tuck and roll, and popping back to his feet quite casually. Pretty sure it was plate he was wearing, although it was a couple of years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy.

Given the nature of file sharing sites, there should be footage somewhere of Mike Loades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Loades riding in on a horse in full plate, throwing himself off it, rolling up and doing star jumps to prove how flexible it is.



And my question about ye olde chainmail bikini has always been less about the level of protection it affords (marginally more than a regular bikini..?), even if unpleasant undergrowth isn't a worry, and more about... well, chafing. Since the art usually doesn't portray a lot in the way of undergarments... maybe that's why female barbarians are so irritable <.<
I think it's more about the rest of their skin than the protected bits, which would be at best irritating, and potentially open them up to infections - even if you've got a good constitution, sooner or later, you'll get worn down.

erikun
2015-05-05, 05:04 AM
Swords were actually far more common in 'age of plate' if anything.

If only because they were relatively much, much cheaper but still.

Hooking for such simple correlations cannot really tell us anything.

It's hard to tell how 'important' picks and hammers really were, too.
Swords were used because they were versatile. Most attacks with swords weren't designed to punch straight through plate; they were used to thrust between armor and into vulnerable places on the opponent. Half-swording was so effective because it was easier to maneuver the sword into a good position, and then push in with some body weight into a vulnerable spot. 200+ pounds of human and armor suddenly leaning on a sword point up against a neck or knee is going to cause some damage, and probably will break through some mail protection.

Here's a video of an armored sword fighting technique. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg) You could probably imagine how bad it would be if that was a sharp sword point into the back of a knee joint, rather than a padded sword point just hooking the leg.

TeChameleon
2015-05-06, 04:35 PM
Given the nature of file sharing sites, there should be footage somewhere of Mike Loades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Loades riding in on a horse in full plate, throwing himself off it, rolling up and doing star jumps to prove how flexible it is.


I think it's more about the rest of their skin than the protected bits, which would be at best irritating, and potentially open them up to infections - even if you've got a good constitution, sooner or later, you'll get worn down.

It wasn't just the flexibility I was commenting on- it was the fact that he was able to clear a four foot or thereabouts jump (with a little bit of a run up), with somewhat more than that in length, while armoured.

And no, I meant chafing from the chainmail bikini, not the unprotected bits :smalltongue: Especially since, as I said, the way it's portrayed in the artwork simply doesn't allow for undergarments. And the art that shows what's basically a chainmail thong just makes me laugh.

Brother Oni
2015-05-08, 01:53 AM
And no, I meant chafing from the chainmail bikini, not the unprotected bits :smalltongue: Especially since, as I said, the way it's portrayed in the artwork simply doesn't allow for undergarments. And the art that shows what's basically a chainmail thong just makes me laugh.

Depending on link size and weight, how well they're closed (no burrs, etc) and prevalance of body hair, mail directly against the skin may not be an issue in terms of comfort.

Board rules prohibit me from linking examples, but I've seen pictures of a young lass who says her mail bikini is very comfortable and has wandered around conventions wearing nothing but it and a smile.

Of course the actual mail she was wearing wasn't of a gauge or durability suitable for combat, but that's a level of detail beyond most game systems. :smalltongue:

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-05-08, 03:23 AM
And I guess there's always whatever the genre-specific equivalent of sticky tape or band-aids are, if necessary. :smallamused: