Re: (TFT) Guns and Armour Penetration.

["Dan Tulloh" <dwtulloh@zianet.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ty Beard" <tbeard@tyler.net>
To: <tft@brainiac.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 7:03 AM
Subject: RE: (TFT) Guns and Armour Penetration.


> > -----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?
>

Almost certainly not, at least for bashing weapons.  I imagine quite a few
people have been killed by a good sized dent in the helmet.  This raises a
question for bashing weapons (rocks, slings, hammers and maces) -- a
person can be hurt from being inside dented armor ... but also their move-
ment and flexibility can be seriously affected as well.  I would suggest
that, if a person wearing some sort of hard armor (plate, scale and
perhaps hard leather) takes more damage than the armor stops from a
bashing weapon, that the armor continue to cause damage to the wearer
as a result of being damaged itself.

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