RE: (TFT) Guns and Armour Penetration.

[John Hamill <jwdh71@yahoo.com>]

--- Ty Beard <tbeard@tyler.net> wrote:
> > -----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
I'm sorry Mr. Beard, as I have much respect for you
and your writings on TFT, but you are dead wrong on
this one. "Armor of Proof", which consisted of a back
and breast plate, were common for soldiers in the
English Civil War. There were two types, Pistol proof,
and Musket proof, the difference being the weapon it
was tested by. The test consisted of a double-charged
pistol or musket (by double-charge meaning twice the
normal charge of gunpowder, making the bullet fly much
faster than normal), discharged at the armor, at about
10 paces. The armor, to be sold, had to sucessfully
stop the bullet, and it was mandatory that the
proofmark, the dent from the stopped bullet, be
readily apparent. Armor of proof is little different
from medieval plate, and indeed, not as thick as some
of it, so if the metal is of about the same toughness
(something you have to decide in your own campaign), I
see little reason that full plate, especially fine
plate, could not stop a bullet from a pistol or
arquebuss easily.

John Hamill
jwdh71@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"