Re: (TFT) Guns and Armour Penetration.

["Charles Gadda" <cgadda@earthlink.net>]

Some armor should protect against guns; really only plate, primarily.

1. That you have been unable to find evidence for penetrative ability is
more from a lack of looking, I'm afraid. There is documentation of armour
being proofed against firearms as late as 1734! I would suggest tabling this
part of the discussion until you have taken the time to read in detail a
copy of "Helmets and Body Armour in Modern Warfare" by Bashford Dean to give
you a basic grounding in the subject.

2. "...at least with projectiles of similar technology." My point exactly. A
soft lead ball is going to be very inferior to a well constructed bodkin
point, even with higher K.E. behind the lead ball. In the equations
governing penetration (see "Longbow - A Social and Military History" by
Robert Hardy) cross section area plays a significant role. Also, the example
of modern AT rounds is not apt to my point - all penetrators are at least
made of steel, and generally tungsten or even depleted uranium - dense, hard
stuff. Unlike lead, which is dense very very very soft stuff. I guarentee
you that if you used a "lead" round out of a tank barrel, you will get close
to zippo for penetration. Now, an *iron* ball out of a musket would be a
very different story, but lead? You've gotta be kidding. And I've seen
plenty of documentation showing how lead balls might not penetrate (really
depended on the charge - but even if you penetrate you're still using up a
lot of energy, thus protecting the person inside) not to mention the
documentation of my own two eyes! Granted, the experiment was limited, using
a (relatively) weak crossbow and only a pistol, not a musket. But, since it
was against a cut rate breastplate, I think the comparison is still apt.

3. I think GURPS may not be so bad - at least, if you consult the "High
Tech" supplement. They do try to take all of that into account, if clumsily.

4. I somewhat disagree here, but mostly because of the time scales in TFT
and mostly with really modern (say, late 19th century and on) firearms.
Otherwise, your rules are pretty d*&^ good, if I may say. I just disagree
with penetration. Also, I really think that any sort of breechloader is
going to make a hash out of most games, unless you're trying for a sort of
"Shadowrun" type of campaign. Even if plate offers some protection, a couple
of volleys will still ruin your day pretty fast...

5. Disagree here, but with caveats. I think Mail and lessor armours may be
safely ignored; indeed, mail adds insult to injury with broken links being
driven into the bullet wound! But any kind of plate armour will protect to a
significant degree, particularly fine plate. This based on my research and I
think pretty well informed opinion. I concede I am not an expert, but I do
have access to a lot of detailed data that, plainly, you haven't even heard
of, much less seen. You might want to do a little more digging and actually
plug a few penetration formulas before dismissing armour.


----- Original Message -----
From: Ty Beard <tbeard@tyler.net>
To: <tft@brainiac.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 6:19 PM
Subject: RE: (TFT) Guns and Armour Penetration.


> I'm unable to divine from your post whether you feel armor should protect
vs
> guns, so I'll respond to the 3 salient points that you appear to have
made.
>
> 1. Given the role of heavy cavalry on the battlefield, it should not
> surprise anyone that they would still wear armor well after the point at
> which firearms could easily penetrate that armor. Shock cavalry -- even
into
> the Napoleonic age -- was a melee arm and would wear armor to protect
> themselves against melee weapons (bayonets and swords), not firearms.
Ditto
> for the infantry -- notice that they lost their armor at about the same
time
> that pikes vanished from the battlefield. I therefore draw a completely
> different conclusion than you on this point. And I have been unable to
find
> historical evidence that guns after (say) 1570 were unable to penetrate
> armor.
>
> 2. Regarding KE -- while KE is not the only thing that matters, it is by
far
> the most important measure of a gun's ability to injure an opponent and to
> penetrate armor. This is true, by the way, even now -- muzzle energy (KE
> possessed by a round as it leaves the muzzle) is by far the most useful
> predictor of the penetration of the modern APFSDS round (Armor Piercing
Fin
> Stabilized Discarding Sabot) used in main battle tanks. Among rounds of
> similar muzzle energy, design qualities can improve performance. But more
KE
> almost always means more penetration, at least with projectiles of similar
> technology. I see no reason that the same would not apply to guns and
> crossbows. Nor have I been able to find historical evidence that crossbows
> had superior penetration to early firearms.
>
> 3. Whether to include gunpowder in a fantasy campaign is a subjective
matter
> and opinions will vary wildly. I blow hot and cold myself. But *if* you
want
> guns in your campaigns, I think you are poorly served by the existing TFT
> rules. In addition, I think that simply cribbing guns from GURPS is a Bad
> Idea, since GURPS has a fatal systemic flaw -- it equates KE with
> penetration (which is fine IMHO) and penetration with damage (which is not
> fine IMHO). The result is that modern GURPS guns do way too much damage
(an
> average man has no chance of surviving such a hit).
>
> 4. I do not think that guns overly stress the TFT combat system. I think
> that new rules are appropriate, but I think the system can handle it. An
> idea that has some merit IMHO is to assign a penetration factor for modern
> guns. This will define how much *modern* armor the bullet will ignore.
> Modern armor would also be doubled against shotguns firing shot. I would
> allow all guns to ignore primitive physical armor.
>
> 5. I have never said that armor has *no* effect on a bullet. I have said
> that the armor does not materially increase one's chance of survival when
> shot by even late medieval firearms.
>
> --Ty
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tft-owner@brainiac.com [mailto:tft-owner@brainiac.com]On Behalf Of
> Charles Gadda
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 7:41 PM
> To: tft@brainiac.com
> Subject: (TFT) Guns and Armour Penetration.
>
>
> Kinetic Energy is not everything - the key that is missing is the
> composition
> and design of the *projectile*
>
> There is a vast difference between a 3/4" diameter soft lead ball and a
> sharp,
> narrow, hardened steel bodkin point... trust me, the latter has a
> significant
> advantage in penetrating. Penetration is dependent on a number of factors,
> primarily the K. E. of the projectile, the hardness of the projectile, the
> cross section area of the projectile, the angle of attack, and the
hardness
> and thickness of the target. Note that in the aforementioned example, the
> ball
> will have an even larger effective cross section owing to the fact that it
> will "splatter" and spread out upon hitting the much harder breastplate,
> making penetration that much more difficult.
>
> BTW the same principle applies to modern ammo - a hollow point has poor
> penetration compared to a full metal jacket, which in turn is inferior to
a
> dedicated armour piercing round with a steel or tungsten core.
>
> Also, I have witnessed personally the results of a contest of sorts
between
> a
> 300 lb. crossbow and a .44 cap and ball revolver. While the former was
able
> to
> penetrate a 16 ga. breastplate, the latter could only dent it. Given that
> period breastplates were of higher carbon steel and probably even better
> shaped, I think the penetrative powers of many of these weapons are being
> grossly overstated. They were powerful, yes - very powerful. But they did
> not
> simply "ignore" armour...
>
> In any case, were armour as useless as proclaimed here, then it certainly
> would not have persisted in use with infantry into the 17th century and
> cavalry into the 18th. Heck, I think French Cavalry was wearing
breastplates
> at Waterloo! Since no (sane) soldier totes something into battle that is
of
> no
> use, one may reasonably conclude that some protection was expected from
> these
> metal clam shells...
>
> All that said, I would not permit guns in any TFT campaign I ran, save as
> unique "artefacts" or if the purpose of the campaign was to mix technology
> and
> sorcery. Problem is that once the principles are learnt, it does not take
> long
> before some genius invents a fixed cartridge of some sort, permitting very
> fast reloading. At that point, with something like a Martini Henry, we're
> blasting out at least one 4 dice damage shot per round. And let's not get
> started on lever or bolt actions... Granted that powder unreliability
might
> prevent machine guns from being deployed, but even this problem may be
> overcome (picture a renegade wizard using Cleansing spells to ensure no
> "sulphur metabolising micro-organisms" are present and an enterprising
> chemist
> loading and sealing the rounds with a special compound to keep the
> aforementioned organisms out...) At that point, kiss your campaign and
game
> world good bye... at least in its present form. If one wants it to evolve
in
> this direction, than fine, but if not, I wouldn't go there.
>
> After all, a file of riflemen or a single gatling gun would obliterate a
14
> hex dragon without working up a sweat... kind of takes the challenge out
of
> the game... unless a prootwaddle blows the head off your 48 attribute
point
> character with an only slightly lucky shot, which really isn't all that
much
> fun, either.
>
> Of course, if the dragon has a Reverse Missiles spell up, things will turn
> out
> rather differently...
>
> Guns push the limits of TFT rules, which were really only intended for
> Mediaeval combat. It would take a radical rules redesign to incorporate
> firearms properly (and even then, they will unbalance things, just as they
> did
> in real history)
>
> About me: I used to post here, until I got into a spat with Michael
Taylor.
> Since that time till now I've only periodically ghosted the List. But I
> noticed recently that he stopped posting (ironically in the wake of a spat
> wherein he came out on the losing end) so I decided it was finally safe to
> resurface. That and I have a little more time these days. Mind you I have
> long
> ago gotten over the spat I had with Michael (though I am still a bit
miffed)
> and I think he had a lot of great (and even brilliant) ideas - it was the
> way
> he expressed them that caused a lot of gnashing of teeth and so forth. I
> suspect, though, that he comes across better in person; at least that's
what
> John Paul Bakshorian (?sp? - the guy who has the Mnoren Librarium) told me
> in
> an e-mail after meeting him at a Convention out here in LA. Unfortunate,
in
> a
> lot of ways. I sympathise, since I know how easy it is to get carried away
> using e-mail style communications (the spat I had with him involved
> unpleasentness in both directions; I suspect its still here in the
archives
> somewhere) but Michael seemed to be a little worse about it then others
I've
> seen, even including myself. That's really too bad, but not much to be
done
> for it, I suppose.
>
> Well, there is my 2 solidi of input on early firearms. Bon Appetit!
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"