Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX

[Grim Portent]

You could probably use titanium for specific pieces of armour that are more likely to take a glancing hit, or almost never be hit, while using steel for helmets, pauldrons and breastplates and so on. It won't save much weight overall, but even a small reduction in weight can be desirable.

[halfeye]

Well, with modern metallurgy and plastics and non-newtonian fluids, you might get some limited use out of armor. Problem is, that low weight is actually pretty bad for making you not hurt purposes.

While a titanium helmet or cuirass may well stop penetration, the other way of hurting a guy in armor, short of stabbing him where armor is not, is blunt force. Contrary to pupular belief, and according to an often misquoted study (Fragment Hazard Criteria by Feinstein, available online for free), it isn't the kinetic energy that matters when it comes to blunt injuries, but rather momentum. Or, more precisely, a linear relationship between velocity and mass that is slanted in favor of velocity, but not to a point where it is exponential.

Long story short, if you take a projectile and take its p = m*v, then bigger p means more hurt.

However, when that projectile hits armor and does not go through, it will (in ideal circumstances) transfer all of its p to the target. If you are wearing rigid armor, like a helmet, it means it needs to move either the entire plate, or the bit of it which it deforms. Assuming former, your standard great helmet (which is Bolzano helmet replica I own) weights 5 kg (with helmet 3 kg, coif and crevelliere 2kg).

Take your average slinger, with a 100 gram anti-armor rock, slinging it at 50 m/s. This gives it a p=5 kg/m/s, which means that should it impact that helmet, it will move it, conveniently, at 1 m/s, or 3.6 km/h. This is an impact that is comparable to walking into a doorframe with the helmet on, something which, uh, I may have done in the past.

Reduce the helmet weight by half, and you get over 7 km/h speed, which is more like jogging into a doorframe with your forehead, which while not fatal, will almost assuredly knock you on your butt. Take an elite slinger that can sling at close to 100 m/s, or take a much heavier pollaxe (3 kg) moving at ~30 m/s overhand twohanded blow, and you really, really need every bit of that weight not to get a nasty hit.

That said, titanium armor would be great against arrows that have lower weight and primarily rely on penetration to do their damage.

Or you could make it titanium but thicker, but at that point, why bother? Maybe heat resistance for that dragon breath?

I suspect you are oversimplifying the maths here. I am terrible at maths, so I'm not going to try to explain that, but it comes down to you can take an impact as a collision, and collisions are known in physics.

There are two sorts of collisions, elastic and inelastic (not elastic). In an elastic collision, all of the energy that came into the collision as velocity leaves the collision as velocity, but that doesn't mean that it leaves with the object that it came in with, ke is maintained, but so is momentum, there are equations for both, and to solve for what happens you have to find the one solution where both equations work.

What actually works in elastic collisions is that most of the energy leaves with the lighter particle, in some function (which I don't remember) of the ratio of the two masses. This has the effect that almost all of the energy in a cartridge leaves a gun with the bullet, and the bigger the difference in mass between the gun and the bullet, the less kick there is, a lighter gun with the same cartridge will kick more (not allowing for muzzle brakes, suppressors or other complications). So, your case of the weapon bouncing off and lighter armour being worse is probably rightish, but it is not quite that simple, and you do have to know the mass of the projectile, a smaller lighter projectile with the same ke would take more of that ke away again.

Inelastic collisions are much messier, in most aspects of thinking about that.

[Mike_G]

Armor that is lighter reduces fatigue, and if it's good against points and edges, that isn't nothing. It's probably perfect for mail.

[Max_Killjoy]

Armor that is lighter reduces fatigue, and if it's good against points and edges, that isn't nothing. It's probably perfect for mail.

I was also thinking that corrosion resistance counts for something.

[Mike_G]

I was also thinking that corrosion resistance counts for something.

Agreed.

It might be great marine armor.

[Calthropstu]

The bullets not only failed to penetrate, they didn't even scratch or dent. This was from a 45 too. Assuming some serious padding underneath to absorb shock, or other methods for redirecting the force, you could withstand hundreds of bullets. All of this was part of an attempt to turn Iron Man from science fiction to science fact. They apparently succeeded pretty well.

Finding the best method for kinetic dispersement is definitely beyond my capabilities, but I see no reason that a full suit of "bullets can't hurt me" can't be made using titanium.

[Brother Oni]

The bullets not only failed to penetrate, they didn't even scratch or dent. This was from a 45 too.

.45 ACP is a pistol round which any Level IIa vest can stop - that's honestly not particularly impressive. If it can stop full rifle rounds, then yeah it starts looking practical.

Assuming some serious padding underneath to absorb shock, or other methods for redirecting the force, you could withstand hundreds of bullets. All of this was part of an attempt to turn Iron Man from science fiction to science fact. They apparently succeeded pretty well.

You mean this link? Being immune to pistol fire is fine for civilian purposes, but kinda insufficient in a military setting, especially since Iron Man flying in would probably trigger CIWS or other AA defences and they all use much bigger munitions than .45 ACP.

[stack]

Good for armor? Try amazing for armor. They created a titanium breastplate. It stopped hollow point bullets at short range. But did redirect the splattered bullet upwards so you needed to protect the neck and head.

Important thing I note in this statement: "hollowpoint".

Hollow points are designed to deform. They are not good for penetrating a hard surface. Stopping a full metal jacket would be more impressive. Besides, pistol rounds are wide and round, relatively speaking. Less powder, shorter barrel. Much easier to stop than a rifle or intermediate cartridge. Lack of deformation on a rigid plate is impressive though.

[Calthropstu]

.45 ACP is a pistol round which any Level IIa vest can stop - that's honestly not particularly impressive. If it can stop full rifle rounds, then yeah it starts looking practical.



You mean this link? Being immune to pistol fire is fine for civilian purposes, but kinda insufficient in a military setting, especially since Iron Man flying in would probably trigger CIWS or other AA defences and they all use much bigger munitions than .45 ACP.

Yes that was the link I saw. I would like to see that thing go up against some military hardware.

And, to be honest, at some point, I see no reason to even put a man in the suit. Remote control should do fine. Maybe even better.

[Pauly]

I was also thinking that corrosion resistance counts for something.

I work daily with carbon steel knives. The amount of effort you need to put in to prevent corrosion is minimal. Just make sure it is clean and dry before you put it away.

It might count where the item is stuffed in the back of a damp closet for months at a time, but for stuff that’s used regularly it’s a minimal advantage.

[Mike_G]

.45 ACP is a pistol round which any Level IIa vest can stop - that's honestly not particularly impressive. If it can stop full rifle rounds, then yeah it starts looking practical.

Yes, plenty of vests can stop pistol rounds, but there was almost no deformation of the armor in the video, so clearly it wasn't tested to the limit. I'd love to see a titanium plate in a modern plate carrier tested against rifle rounds.

[Pauly]

Yes, plenty of vests can stop pistol rounds, but there was almost no deformation of the armor in the video, so clearly it wasn't tested to the limit. I'd love to see a titanium plate in a modern plate carrier tested against rifle rounds.

Lack of visible deformation may not be a good thing. It might be an indicator of brittleness. Which is good if you aren’t getting hit by things liable to cause failure, but a very bad thing if you are getting hit by things that can cause failure.

[Mike_G]

Lack of visible deformation may not be a good thing. It might be an indicator of brittleness. Which is good if you aren’t getting hit by things liable to cause failure, but a very bad thing if you are getting hit by things that can cause failure.

Which is all speculation until we test it to the point where either

A) It fails

or

B) It stops a .50 BMG round

We know it will stop pistol rounds. We don't know it will stop rifle rounds, but that's it. We don't know it won't either.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Pauly]

Which is all speculation until we test it to the point where either

A) It fails

or

B) It stops a .50 BMG round

We know it will stop pistol rounds. We don't know it will stop rifle rounds, but that's it. We don't know it won't either.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The fact they chose to use .45 ACP hollow points (fat subsonic rounds designed to splash) when there are a wealth of better armor penetrators readily available tells you something.

[Mike_G]

The fact they chose to use .45 ACP hollow points (fat subsonic rounds designed to splash) when there are a wealth of better armor penetrators readily available tells you something.

No, it doesn't

And the .45 was ball ammo. The 9 mm was one hollow point and one ball.

All this test tells us is that it will stop a .45.

This isn't the DOD evaluating a proposed item. This is the guy from Mythbusters making television.

[GeoffWatson]

Peasant Levies? Real or not?

We've often seen stories where soldiers would round up a group of farmers, and force them to fight with just their farm tools or basic spears.

But I've heard that this didn't really happen, and was just propaganda to convince early musket armies accept being conscripted and forced to fight with hardly any training.
Basically the peasants were far too weak, untrained, and cowardly to stand up against trained and equipped soldiers, except maybe in defence of their homes.

[Grim Portent]

To my understanding most medieval armies were made of paid volunteer soldiers, with varying degrees of professionalism. Levies were a thing, but generally meant the local lord was obliged to call up the locals who had the skills and equipment to be soldiers already rather than drafting every single male that could hold a pointy stick. Armies are expensive to feed and transport, so it's generally always been better to bring five guys with gear and basic skills than to bring twenty five with no gear and no skills.

Some countries did have a practice of encouraging the common folk to learn military skills, such as having mandatory archery practice.

[Calthropstu]

Peasant Levies? Real or not?

We've often seen stories where soldiers would round up a group of farmers, and force them to fight with just their farm tools or basic spears.

But I've heard that this didn't really happen, and was just propaganda to convince early musket armies accept being conscripted and forced to fight with hardly any training.
Basically the peasants were far too weak, untrained, and cowardly to stand up against trained and equipped soldiers, except maybe in defence of their homes.

This happened. Mainly Poland, Japan and China that I know of. I think other Eastern european nations as well. They did this to look far more threatening than they actually were.

[halfeye]

Peasant Levies? Real or not?

We've often seen stories where soldiers would round up a group of farmers, and force them to fight with just their farm tools or basic spears.

But I've heard that this didn't really happen, and was just propaganda to convince early musket armies accept being conscripted and forced to fight with hardly any training.
Basically the peasants were far too weak, untrained, and cowardly to stand up against trained and equipped soldiers, except maybe in defence of their homes.

The Monmouth Rebellion was allegedly mainly farmhands, but I think they were supposed to be volunteers.

[Tobtor]

Peasant levies WERE a thing. Especially in the early medieval period. Both in the Carolinian period, in Anglo-Saxon England, in Scandininavian late VIking age and Early medieval period.

After around 1200 it became less so. In theory the system still applied and peasant where supposed to turn up for war (with gear dependent on how much land they owned) or send someone else in their stead (son, brother, farmhand etc.).

But as armies became more professional and knights on horses dominated, the Kings etc. typically wanted better more professional soldiers to deal with the knights. So gradually the "punishment for not showing up for military duty was a small fine, that gradually turned into a tax. The fine/tax was low enough that that the pesant just paid it, and thus giving the king or noble more money to equip knight or hire mercenaries.

The timing of this development differed from areas, and in some areas it never really disappeared completely, but by 1400 it seem to be rare (from what we can gather, it is hard to know for certain).

[Max_Killjoy]

Digging for more sources, but, the idea that peasant levies were that big of a big deal in "medieval" European warfare has been, more recently, heavily challenged by those studying the matter.

We can start here with a deep dive into the armies of the period.

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...ulk_of_armies/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...rmies/cz82lh4/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...nized/cu269h2/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...feudal_lord_i/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...t_working_the/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...nized/cu269h2/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._and_soldiery/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...01450/cffbn8h/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...y_standing_in/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...s_in_medieval/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._handy_with_a/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...ising_an_army/

[fusilier]

Keep in mind that peasants usually had other work to do, which could not be abandoned for too long (although in certain seasons they might have more time). I suspect most peasant levies of a large size were for local defense. I seem to recall reading that when peasants were levied for more distant conflicts, they were usually in smaller numbers, and used in a logistical role: helping to manage the supply trains, perhaps digging field fortifications, etc. -- but I can't find my source on that, so I may be mistaken.

Similarly, cities often had a militia that was usually called out to man the city walls when needed, but was rarely used in an offensive capability. That changed over time, but still the size of the militia that could be used to defend the city would usually be significantly larger than that which could be sent on offensive operations.

I'm also sure all this varied by time and place. I think in some places there were prohibitions against arming serfs, and a peasant levy would only be of the free and wealthier peasants (those who could afford some weaponry and maybe had a little training).

[fusilier]

Digging for more sources, but, the idea that peasant levies were that big of a big deal in "medieval" European warfare has been, more recently, heavily challenged by those studying the matter.

We can start here with a deep dive into the armies of the period.

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...ulk_of_armies/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...rmies/cz82lh4/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...nized/cu269h2/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...feudal_lord_i/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...t_working_the/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...nized/cu269h2/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._and_soldiery/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...01450/cffbn8h/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...y_standing_in/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...s_in_medieval/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._handy_with_a/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...ising_an_army/

I found the response here to be particularly interesting:
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...t_working_the/

Thanks for sharing those links.

[Calthropstu]

Digging for more sources, but, the idea that peasant levies were that big of a big deal in "medieval" European warfare has been, more recently, heavily challenged by those studying the matter.

We can start here with a deep dive into the armies of the period.

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...ulk_of_armies/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...rmies/cz82lh4/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...nized/cu269h2/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...feudal_lord_i/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...t_working_the/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...nized/cu269h2/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._and_soldiery/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...01450/cffbn8h/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...y_standing_in/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...s_in_medieval/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._handy_with_a/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...ising_an_army/

Not even going to bother with these links. Reddit is the very definition of "non credible source." If you can point me to some ACTUAL journals on the subject, cool. But reddit links are useless as credible sources.

[Tobtor]

Not even going to bother with these links. Reddit is the very definition of "non credible source." If you can point me to some ACTUAL journals on the subject, cool. But reddit links are useless as credible sources.

While some reddit things ARE poor, several of the links are from people with some knowledge. So dismissing it outright is silly. People spendt time to give an approximating answer.

I would like to second fusilier's recommendation the the link about England in the 12th century witch ends in a bibliography for more scholarly nature.

So Calthropstu, I think your answer is somewhat arrogant.

A note on peasants etc: Danish laws from around 12-13th century mention specifically that you can send another member of your household (but not slaves, and if you do so anyway the slaves can be freed by the king). So while fusiliers "Keep in mind that peasants usually had other work to do, which could not be abandoned for too long (although in certain seasons they might have more time)." is important, it is also important to note that any household might encompass several adult males, and also among peasants there er expandable younger sons or farmhands from poor families.

Also note that the "military" service was mostly meant for landholding peasants, a way to get out it was sell you land to knights/nobles and then rent the land. At least in Scandinavia this was part of reducing the number of "free peasant" and turning them into "serfs" during the 13th century.

Also some peasants might be free but not have enough land to do military service, these where lumped together in clusters and then only one of them need to go (either by volunteering a male person of their household, drawing lots, taking turns etc.).

Alas a lot of the answers you get is from the late medieval period, and thus from a period when it was outfaced.

[Max_Killjoy]

AskHistorians is not a generic subreddit.

It has high standards for both the questions and the answers it allows, and is moderated by actual historians, etc.

[Calthropstu]

AskHistorians is not a generic subreddit.

It has high standards for both the questions and the answers it allows, and is moderated by actual historians, etc.

If I went to quote it on a research paper, would it be admissable? I have a very high standard for what I believe to be credible facts when it comes to history, especially since I AM LITERALLY WATCHING CAMPAIGNS TRYING TO REWRITE FACTS I MYSELF LIVED THROUGH.

So with ancient historians who literally can no longer defend themselves, I will have to go with established fact rather than some subreddit. Seeing as how I know 100% that peasant levies were in fact a thing, the fact that subreddit is claiming otherwise tells me exactly how 'credible' it isn't.

[fusilier]

If I went to quote it on a research paper, would it be admissable? I have a very high standard for what I believe to be credible facts when it comes to history, especially since I AM LITERALLY WATCHING CAMPAIGNS TRYING TO REWRITE FACTS I MYSELF LIVED THROUGH.

So with ancient historians who literally can no longer defend themselves, I will have to go with established fact rather than some subreddit. Seeing as how I know 100% that peasant levies were in fact a thing, the fact that subreddit is claiming otherwise tells me exactly how 'credible' it isn't.

Well, I wouldn't quote anybody here in a research paper either . . . in general, I was always reluctant to use an internet source, but they could be useful in finding relevant works (in a library or maybe an online journal like jstor).

But, some of those linked, did provide their sources, so you could look them up, and get the information directly.

----------
Since you asked for more "grounded" information, this is one of the references I have to hand, but it's a little more narrow in scope:

Mercenaries and their Masters, by Michael Mallett, is considered to be the major "point of departure" for study into Italian Warfare and mercenaries from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.* The focus is on the developments of the 15th century, so the earlier large communal levies aren't covered in depth. But this is what he has to say on militia levies in that period:

. . . a significant proportion of the infantry in any Italian army were local men, and this proportion of course increased enormously when one looks beyond the professional infantry to the militia. Militia levies were used by all the Italian states of the fifteenth century, if only as pioneers. In Venice and Milan by the 1470's they were being put on a semi-permanent, trained basis . . . All the Romagna condottiere princes used militia levies, and papal cities were occasionally called upon to produce them for local service. Not even in Florence did the rural militia organisation disappear completely as the humanists thought, although the levies were usually largely used for pioneer duties.

However, even given this degree of local participation in the army, one is not implying something approaching a national army nor suggesting that many men were fighting for home and country. The militia were conscripts and usually unwilling ones; the desertion rate was high and they could not be relied upon to move far from their homes.

pg. 226.

Referencing a thirteenth century battle, he gives this breakdown:

The Florentine army which was defeated by the Sienese at Montaperti in 1260 contained about 1,400 communal cavalry and about 6,000 communal infantry supported by some 8,000 infantry levies from the rural areas of the Florentine state.

pg. 12.

Furthermore, the use of militia levies survived longer into the fourteenth century than has sometimes been thought. . . . In May 1302, when the Florentine army took the field to besiege Pistoia, it was made up of 1,000 cavalry, and 6,000 infantry. The paymaster's accounts, which have survived, show that about half the cavalry were Florentines, and of the infantry only 1,000 were foreign mercenaries while the rest were made up of crossbowmen and shield-bearers from the city militia, and contingents of militia infantry and pioneers from the countryside.

pp. 43-44.

These quotes reflect a shift in the system in Italy, although levies continued to be used throughout the period, they made up a smaller proportion of the armies than before and in some periods may have been omitted completely. Italy was fairly dense in population, and politically fragmented, so while some lessons could be applied to a broader scope, details would likely vary across Europe.

------
*So of course most popular representations ignore it, and regurgitate outdated, debunked, 19th century writings of Sir Charles Oman.

[fusilier]

A note on peasants etc: Danish laws from around 12-13th century mention specifically that you can send another member of your household (but not slaves, and if you do so anyway the slaves can be freed by the king). So while fusiliers "Keep in mind that peasants usually had other work to do, which could not be abandoned for too long (although in certain seasons they might have more time)." is important, it is also important to note that any household might encompass several adult males, and also among peasants there er expandable younger sons or farmhands from poor families.

That's a good point! There would be some number of "excess" peasants that could be employed in a military campaign for a longer period (if not, possibly, looking to a "career change"). So while you couldn't expect to levy all able-bodied peasants (except perhaps, for a very short period of time), a smaller proportion could be levied for longer term service. Which would seem to fit well with some of the accounts I've read.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, I wouldn't quote anybody here in a research paper either . . . in general, I was always reluctant to use an internet source, but they could be useful in finding relevant works (in a library or maybe an online journal like jstor).

But, some of those linked, did provide their sources, so you could look them up, and get the information directly.

I was going to say, some of those posts have what amounts to a bibliography.