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
> John Hamill
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 2:52 AM
> To: tft@brainiac.com
> Subject: RE: (TFT) Guns and Armour Penetration.

> > 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.

> > 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.

> 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.

Well, it woudn't be the first time!

Can you point me to some sources where I may verify this? If you are correct
that typical plate armor was proof against double charged muskets and
pistols at point blank range, then obviously my concern about armor
protection is misplaced. At least for firearms through about 1700.

Of course, this might raise an issue that historical accounts might be able
to resolve -- is penetration of the armor necessary to kill the target?

--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"