RE: (TFT) Guns and Armour Penetration.

["Ty Beard" <tbeard@tyler.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tft-owner@brainiac.com [mailto:tft-owner@brainiac.com]On Behalf Of
> Charles Gadda

> Actually, the copy I have is a 1977 limited edition reprint (with
> some added
> material over the 1919 release) that I got on eBay, mostly by accident. I
> had thought it something else, was inititially disappointed when
> I realise I
> had won (the book was not cheap, $75, I think) but was plesantly surprised
> when I received it, since it discussed in detail a number of topics on
> ballistic considerations that I was, at the time, looking for.
> The book was
> published right after WWI and was a detailed technical treatise on armour
> used in WWI (with an introduction to early armour) and was really an
> investigation into improving body armour and helmets for modern warfare.
> Which makes it a great work since it talks about all sorts of real,
> controlled tests of guns vs. various armours, along with armour thickness
> and metallurgical analysis. As for my contention, this admittedly
> late date
> comes from a footnote in the text of Dean's work, pg 44:-

> "As late as 1734 the bullet test was still in use for proving
> both back and
> front plates, as shown in the inventory of the Armory of the Chateau de la
> Rocca: breastplates bear the marks shown in testing bullets, in the second
> half of the eighteenth century, as in the armour museum in Turin,
> of Charles
> Emmanuel III (d. 1773) and Victor Amadeus IV (d. 1796)"

What "bullet test" is being referenced here and at what range? I have no
doubt that *some* bullets at certain ranges can be stopped with medieval
plate armor. But TFT fights occur at very short range, so battlefield
testing (if it is to support your contention) should be done with bullets
similar to what we are discussing and at very close ranges.

> Further, pages 51-63 are particularly illuminating, essentially
> stating that
> armour was discarded mostly owing to changes in military tactics, which
> neccesitated manuever over long distances. Indeed the author
> cites evidence
> for armor even during the American Revolution and Civil War!

Until I see the pages (and their attendant cites) I will remain unconvinced.
The issue is not -- nor has it ever been -- whether modern armor can stop
bullets. The issue is whether medieval plate armor was sufficiently
effective versus
bullets to provide a significantly greater chance of surviving a bullet hit.

> Finally, the
> chapter closes out with a mention of the Australian bandit Ned Kelly, who
> had improvised a crude bullet proof armor for shooting it out
> with the law.
> In the end, his suit was never penetrated, but his unarmoured
> legs were shot
> out from underneath him.

<sigh>

Again -- type of bullets, thickness of armor, range, etc., must be specified
to properly evaluate this claim.

> As for availability, I must say, and I apologise in advance, but
> you do not
> look very hard, I am afraid.

Your premature "apology" is rather curious. Why not simply avoid the
obnoxious (and rather pitiful) insults and simply give the information where
the book may be found? Or simply have the courage to make the obnoxious
statement and take the consequences.

In any case, I suggest that you cease these absurd little speculations and
confine yourself to the issues at hand. Otherwise little will come of this
other than a flamewar -- and I have no desire to educate an obvious amateur
on such things.

--Ty
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"