Armor

[RMS]

Isn't it pretty much universally accepted that it was the advent of firearms, albeit primitive, that rendered armor obsolete?

Another common myth. If you look back, armor was around well past the introduction of firearms. It was used into the 17th century. It just got to be less and less armor, until it completely went away. Also to be fair, this is a "yes and no" type of answer. What really pushed armor out was the move to large professional armies and away from landed knights doing the battle. This is more of a socio-policital change than a technological change. The "yes" part is that large armies of common professionals could not be equipped with armor heavy enough to be effective against the weapons of the day, including the gun but not limited to it. Also, the cost of armor exceded the cost of simply hiring another man. It's really economics that drove armor off the field, not technology. (A historic parallel here is the Roman army that went from very good armor to virtually no armor over a few centuries due to economics.) Of course, it's technology that drove much of the changes in society and economics. It's a vicious circle isn't it!

 

[RMS]

The problem isn't so much a lack of strength, but a lack on practice. Longbowmen used to have to practice by law for 20 hours a week because of the time it took to be skiled enough to be useful in battle. Younger men were started off with older bows, requiring less draw.

I understand what you're saying. I suppose it just goes to show that people that fire modern bows aren't our best athletic sorts! Seriously, are compound bows only 30 lbs draw weight? I've never shot one, but that's very little. I remember starting with the bow when I was 13 or 14 at a camp. Most guys were using 30 lb straight bows there. I was able to draw a 55 lb bow and had a huge advantage at the longer distance targets. (We're still talking 10's of yards here. It was Jr. High after all!) I would think as an adult I could easily draw double, or more, of that without working too long at it. I couldn't do it all day and might have a sore back the next day, but could surely do it enough to fire some arrows. Maybe not...it's been a lot of years.

The same problem exists with memory. Back in the days when people were illiterate, a shopkeper kept track on his inventory in his head, along with what is cost him, what he would charge for average custoomers, what he would charge to his firends, and what he would charge to the nobles. Once the average person learned how to write stuff down, the need to be able to remember things declined.

A good point.

 

[atgxtg]

Here's a game anyone can try. Take a piece of steel (granted it'll be modern, but we're ballparking here ) the thickness of a breat plate, take a medium powered rifle like a 30-30 and take shots at it. You might be suprised at how little damage the breast plate takes with a standard lead bullet, and that has several times the penetrating power of any arrow. (If you could get ahold of AP bullets, you'd punch right through it of course.) If you do punch through the steel, move back a bit and try again, and then try with the slightest angles and see what happens.

Isn't it pretty much universally accepted that it was the advent of firearms, albeit primitive, that rendered armor obsolete?

It was universally accepted. Not so much anymore. Reasons why:

1) The penetrating power of early firearms was no where need as good as modern weapons that is why breast plates and such contined on well into the 17th century. Some armors could even be "proved" against firearms. Hence the term "bullet-proof".

2) The rate of fire for firearms was so low that battles typically wound up being melle affairs. Hence the reason why Musketters were often better swordsmen than marksmen.

3) Advances with weapons, inclduing the deveoplment of dueling weapons like the rapier made armor less effective. Itis a lot easier to hitt precise locations and bypass armor with a light thrusting blade that with a heavier weapon.

4) The replacement with fedual levlies with professional standing armies meant that profesionla soldier requires weapons and armor. The cost of armor was always high, and with the decline of the feudal system and the rise of the merchant classes, armor was becoming prohibitively expensive . While it was one thing for a nioble to comission a full siut of gothic plate to protect himself on the battlefield (think of the cost of a new luxury sedan), it was something else to have gothic plate made up for his army. So you wound up with a compromise.

5) Firearms in the form of Cannon probably had more impact ( ) than old matchlocks. Were at one time armor could protect someone from ranged attacks, no one could wear enough armor to potect himself from a 6 pound ball of lead flying through the air at 1200 feet per second.


And there are other reasons too. But, once firearms developed, they became the reason why armor didn't come back until recently.

 

[RMS]

Hey, I actually got one of these done before you, for once!

2) The rate of fire for firearms was so low that battles typically wound up being melle affairs. Hence the reason why Musketters were often better swordsmen than marksmen.

Also, why there is at least one pikeman for every man with a gun.

3) Advances with weapons, inclduing the deveoplment of dueling weapons like the rapier made armor less effective. Itis a lot easier to hitt precise locations and bypass armor with a light thrusting blade that with a heavier weapon.

I've always wondered how affective this really is in a large battle. I understand how it'd work great in a one-on-one fight, but it seems like that kind of precision would be much harder in a large battle. It should be noted that the advancement of polearms is pretty big here too. If you keep the heavy armored guys at bay long enough, someone's going to get a good enough shot to do some damage, or if you pull them off a horse and get someone on them with a good dagger before they can get up!

5) Firearms in the form of Cannon probably had more impact ( ) than old matchlocks. Were at one time armor could protect someone from ranged attacks, no one could wear enough armor to potect himself from a 6 pound ball of lead flying through the air at 1200 feet per second.

Yes. Even in modern (20th Century) warfare, the vast majority (80%+ I believe) of casulties are due to artillery and not small arms fire.

 

[atgxtg]

I understand what you're saying. I suppose it just goes to show that people that fire modern bows aren't our best athletic sorts! Seriously, are compound bows only 30 lbs draw weight? I've never shot one, but that's very little. I remember starting with the bow when I was 13 or 14 at a camp. Most guys were using 30 lb straight bows there. I was able to draw a 55 lb bow and had a huge advantage at the longer distance targets. (We're still talking 10's of yards here. It was Jr. High after all!) I would think as an adult I could easily draw double, or more, of that without working too long at it. I couldn't do it all day and might have a sore back the next day, but could surely do it enough to fire some arrows. Maybe not...it's been a lot of years.

We have modern compund bows with a draw weight up to around a 100 pounds. But, the ting is once you pull them half way the pulleys kick in and you only have to hold about 50 pounds of weight.

The thing with a warbow archer was that he was expected to be able to draw back to his ear and fire arrows at targets over 100 yards away, about 30 to 50 times in the course of a few minutes in volley fire. That includes holding back the 100 pound bow long wenough to aim at a target.

And they do have some preseved bow staves that would be over 120 pounds of draw weight.

The reason why firearms replaced bows wasn't that fireaems were more lethal or faster. Just that they were easier to use, and a lot less tiring. You could train people to use a musket in a matter of months. To train an archer the adage was to start with his grandfather.

There was a reason why the yeomanry were required by law to spend 20 hours a week pracxtricng archery.

They even outlawed golf because if was interfering with archery practice!

 

[RMS]

The thing with a warbow archer was that he was expected to be able to draw back to his ear and fire arrows at targets over 100 yards away, about 30 to 50 times in the course of a few minutes in volley fire. That includes holding back the 100 pound bow long wenough to aim at a target.

I understand that part. I was just puzzled that someone modern can't do it the handful of times necessary to test it. I don't expect him to do it as effeciently as someone who's trained their whole lives!

The reason why firearms replaced bows wasn't that fireaems were more lethal or faster. Just that they were easier to use, and a lot less tiring. You could train people to use a musket in a matter of months. To train an archer the adage was to start with his grandfather.

Sure. That doesn't explain why guns replaced crossbows though, which had all of those same advantages over bows: much faster to train with, more deadly than early guns (and conversely less deadly to the person actually using it!), less tiring with geared pulleys, etc.

 

[atgxtg]

The thing with a warbow archer was that he was expected to be able to draw back to his ear and fire arrows at targets over 100 yards away, about 30 to 50 times in the course of a few minutes in volley fire. That includes holding back the 100 pound bow long wenough to aim at a target.

I understand that part. I was just puzzled that someone modern can't do it the handful of times necessary to test it. I don't expect him to do it as effeciently as someone who's trained their whole lives!

THere have been some attempts but it is sort of hard to replicate they way they shot, since modern archers tend to shoot at closer tagets and aim to him. Warbow archers shot at distance (theye was a minimum range for practice by law). The idea wasn't so much to put an arrow though the eyeslit or hit the vitals as today, but to rain down enough shafts into a mass of the enemy that casualties were inevitable. Most skilled archers today will tell you that past around 80 yards of so you can't place a shot accruately.

The big gripes with most tests are that either the archer isn't pulling back hard enough to get a good shot, or that he is shooting at a target that is too close, and getting too powerful a shot.

I think the big problem is really money. Itisn't like a ballistics lab is going to spend thousands of doolar to get some authiec weapons and armor and spent the time and effort it takes to get some appropriately skilled people (most "tests" to date usually involved the test or his "buddy" taking the shots, and usually they are not marsksmen).

IMO with the way that armor and arrow head qaulity various so much, I suspect that both the (it punches right through) and the (it shatters on impact) crowds are both partially correct.

The reason why firearms replaced bows wasn't that fireaems were more lethal or faster. Just that they were easier to use, and a lot less tiring. You could train people to use a musket in a matter of months. To train an archer the adage was to start with his grandfather.

Sure. That doesn't explain why guns replaced crossbows though, which had all of those same advantages over bows: much faster to train with, more deadly than early guns (and conversely less deadly to the person actually using it!), less tiring with geared pulleys, etc.

THe fact that the crossbow was outlawed by the Pope might have hadsomething to do with it. Muskets also had "shock" value. That is they made a big flash and boom that scared the hell out of horses, and most men at the time. This was probably the musket's biggest advatage as a weapon. As far as injury potential went, it was as likey to kill the guy shooting it as the guy he aimed at.

 

[RMS]

I think the big problem is really money.

Isn't it always!

Sure. That doesn't explain why guns replaced crossbows though, which had all of those same advantages over bows: much faster to train with, more deadly than early guns (and conversely less deadly to the person actually using it!), less tiring with geared pulleys, etc.

THe fact that the crossbow was outlawed by the Pope might have hadsomething to do with it. Muskets also had "shock" value. That is they made a big flash and boom that scared the hell out of horses, and most men at the time. This was probably the musket's biggest advatage as a weapon. As far as injury potential went, it was as likey to kill the guy shooting it as the guy he aimed at.

The shock value was important, especially early on. (This also does add some value of a gun .vs a knight, rather than other weapons.) I also suspect that even an early gun has a faster rate of fire than a comparable crossbow. However, my vote goes for cost of production. A gun is really a very simple tool, while a crossbow is not so simple and would surely require a lot more time to construct which far smaller tolerances.

 

[atgxtg]

The shock value was important, especially early on. (This also does add some value of a gun .vs a knight, rather than other weapons.) I also suspect that even an early gun has a faster rate of fire than a comparable crossbow. However, my vote goes for cost of production. A gun is really a very simple tool, while a crossbow is not so simple and would surely require a lot more time to construct which far smaller tolerances.

I doubt it, at least not a good gun. If the quality isn't there a gun turns into a grenade eventually. Exactly when is a surpise. Then again, exploding guns was rather common in the early days. Especially if someone was rusehd and overcharged the weapon.

I agree though that a musket was probably a bit faster than the heavier cranequin crossbows. Especially after a few shots when the crowbowmans' arms started to ache. Plus a musket is a better melee weapon than a crossbow. It can block better, work like a club or iron stick, and you can shove a baynet down the muzzel and have a decent spear.

And the enemy can't scavenge you ammunition and shoot it back at you.

 

[Rurik]

Well, a lot has passed while I was sleeping but here is my understanding of the firearms vs. armor bit.

It is a gross simplification to say guns made armor obsolete. It is not like one day the gun was introduced and armor was obsolete.

From what I recall having read around the 15th and 16th century they started changing the armor to resist shot. 15th century firearms were able to penetrate earlier plate, so they started making plate thicker, or out of better steel, etc. This increased the cost of the armor. A kind of arms race evolved, as guns penetration increased the armors ability to withstand shot had to increase. This increased the cost and/or bulk of the armor, making it both less practical and less available. As time progressed, guns became cheaper, more reliable, easer to use, and gained greater penetration capabilities. Armor had to become more expensive and heavier, to the point of being unpractical. It was much cheaper to give equip someone with a gun than armor that could stop a gun. So guns had a large part to do with armor being obsolete, and much of the reason was economic, but guns drove those economics in no small part.

Armor was still used into the 19th century regularly by cavalry, but then the primary weapon of the cavalry was sabre and lance until then as well.

Guns also had a large part to do withthe move to large professional armies. The fact that a lot less training and skill are required, and the cheaper cost of equiping the individual soldier, is what the made shift possible. Machiavelli was actually a big proponent of a civilian regular army, and even commanded one in the defense of Florence once. They were creamed by the superior training and equipment of the professional mercenary force they opposed. A century or so later and all that had changed. A bunch of regular joes with guns were more than a match for professionaly trained and equiped infantry without guns.

I'll take this opperunity to plug the movie Kagemusha, which culminates at the battle of Nagashino, where musketry triumphs over the traditional Samurai ways. That movie and Ran have some best battle scenes ever filmed.

 

[Arkat]

Much like the battles in Last Samurai where ultimately even good tactics didn't sway the battle vs muskets.

 

[Rurik]

Much like the battles in Last Samurai where ultimately even good tactics didn't sway the battle vs muskets.

Very True. Nagashino was in 1575 though, about three hundred years earlier. Have you seen either Kagemusha or Ran? Fantastic battle scenes. They are both in Japanese however.

 

[atgxtg]

I love Kurosawa filsm. THe big thing about Kagemush is that Takada Shingin got "sniped". He was a very clever stategist, and things for the Takeda Clan probably would have goone differently had he lived and/or his son followed his plans for the full three years.

When Tokugawa, conquered the Takeda clan, he pretty much adopted all of Shingen administative principles-as Shingens metholods were more efficient.


Anyway, back to the topic:

I got Rurik's two cents for the Mark III armor chart, what about everyone else?

 

[Rurik]

I got Rurik's two cents for the Mark III armor chart, what about everyone else?

You may wanna repost your question again in this forum. I think it got buried under a couple of pages of debate.

 

[atgxtg]

Good idea, *bump*

Okay, since everyone likes the armor table I feel obligated to muck with it. :wink:

Basically, I'm going to revise update the armor table, add in a few more pieces and organize it by location protected. THat way you can choose a what to waer of your head without having to hunt through the whole table.

I have some questions I'd like to get a consesus on (oh boy :shock to see what poeople want.

1) Do you want all the differernt types AP ranges for every location? For instance, as the chart stands you can't get a plate skirt, or scale leggins/greaves. I can just do a full range of up to 6 point armor for every location, or just the ones that are normally used.

2) I was thinking of putting back the ability of wearith cloth/leather underneath other armor as per RQ2. So someone in a mail shirt can (and should) have cloth underneath.

3) Ring, Cuirboilli, & Scale. Bascially, the MRQ armor vales for ring and scale use them to fill in the gaps between leather and mail. Throwing Curiboilli back intot he game messes up ring, as Curiboilli provides the same protection but is lighter and cheaper.

I was thinking of restoring RQ2 values for ring (4) and scale (5). This will fix the Cuirboilli vs. Ring problem. TO resolve the newly created Scale vs. Mail problem, I'll stick with the RQ2 solution and have scale be cheaper but a little heavier, more encumbering.

So I can either resote RQ2 vales, or just leave the curiboilli/ring conflict.


Once I can see what you folks want, I'll finish up the chart.

 

[simonh]

1) Do you want all the differernt types AP ranges for every location? For instance, as the chart stands you can't get a plate skirt, or scale leggins/greaves. I can just do a full range of up to 6 point armor for every location, or just the ones that are normally used.

I don't see how a plate skirt or scale greaves could even be manufactured. And if they could, how would you walk in them?

2) I was thinking of putting back the ability of wearith cloth/leather underneath other armor as per RQ2. So someone in a mail shirt can (and should) have cloth underneath.

That probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the chart. It's more an optional variant rule.

3) Ring, Cuirboilli, & Scale. Bascially, the MRQ armor vales for ring and scale use them to fill in the gaps between leather and mail. Throwing Curiboilli back intot he game messes up ring, as Curiboilli provides the same protection but is lighter and cheaper.

Perhaps that's sensible, as it's a matter of technology. If you have the technology to make Cuirboilli, why make ring? If your culture can only make ring, you just don't have the choice.

I can see a situation where Ralian Orlanthi come to Safelstran towns to buy their superior Cuirboilli, which can't be made back home. The price charts probably only apply to places where the material is manufactured. Further away you'd have to factor in transport costs and middle men.


Simon Hibbs

 

[atgxtg]

1) Do you want all the differernt types AP ranges for every location? For instance, as the chart stands you can't get a plate skirt, or scale leggins/greaves. I can just do a full range of up to 6 point armor for every location, or just the ones that are normally used.

I don't see how a plate skirt or scale greaves could even be manufactured. And if they could, how would you walk in them?

With plate they had a "skirt of tassets" that attached to the cuirass and hung down. It was articulated to allow movement but split into two sections. THis usally left the groin somewhat exposed and so mail and or/leather were worn with it to provide addtional protection (generally most suits of plate armor had mail to cover the areas that couldn't be fully enclosed.


As for the scale greaves, it is a question of terminology rather than the ability to make the piece. Rather than greaves, you have leggins, a wrap of flexible matieral (in this case leather with scales) that you tie around the legs. THe same was done for mail, althout the mail ones might have "feet" like "Doctor Denton's" pygamas.

2) I was thinking of putting back the ability of wearith cloth/leather underneath other armor as per RQ2. So someone in a mail shirt can (and should) have cloth underneath.

That probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the chart. It's more an optional variant rule.

I think I'll just note it as an optinal rule then. Prior to MRQ it was pretty much a standard idea. Curiboilli with 2 point leather is as good as mail in RQ2/MRQ and a lot cheaper.

3) Ring, Cuirboilli, & Scale. Bascially, the MRQ armor vales for ring and scale use them to fill in the gaps between leather and mail. Throwing Curiboilli back intot he game messes up ring, as Curiboilli provides the same protection but is lighter and cheaper.

Perhaps that's sensible, as it's a matter of technology. If you have the technology to make Cuirboilli, why make ring? If your culture can only make ring, you just don't have the choice.

No, ring is better. The big change was that when they did up MRQ they didn't add cuirboilli, and dropped the values for ring and scale to get a 1-6 point range. In RQ2/Magic world,e tc, Ring used to be 4 points and scale was 5 (basically scale and mail prove about equvialent protection).

Basically if you can make ring armorl, you can make curiboilli. Curboilli is nothing more than leather armor that is given a bath in boiling oil. Basically the "deep frying" process hardends the leather making it verty stiff, like plate (but not as tough).

Ring was made by sweing rings onto a leather backing. Similar armors (equivalent for game purposes) would be bezainted, pouirpoint, or studdend, where they stick small pieces of metal into the armor. But to make any of them you sort of need to know how to work leather.

I can see a situation where Ralian Orlanthi come to Safelstran towns to buy their superior Cuirboilli, which can't be made back home. The price charts probably only apply to places where the material is manufactured. Further away you'd have to factor in transport costs and middle men.

Nice theroy, but since Cuirboilli is a leather armor it wouldn't hold true. Now if we were talking mail or plate you'd be dead on the money, and that is where the old price multipliers used to kick in.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Is there any evidence that ringmail armour has ever really existed?
Are there any examples in museums etc.?
Or is ringmail the result of misinterpretation of images of chainmail?

 

[atgxtg]

Is there any evidence that ringmail armour has ever really existed?
Are there any examples in museums etc.?
Or is ringmail the result of misinterpretation of images of chainmail?

I believe there is some indication of ring armor (mail is a type of armor that is often referred to as chainmail) having existed.Bezainted armor, that is leather with bits of metal certainly exisited and would be farily equivalent.


We could used bezainted/studded as the 3-4 point armor, And scale as 4-5 point armor

 

[Arkat]

1) Do you want all the differernt types AP ranges for every location? For instance, as the chart stands you can't get a plate skirt, or scale leggins/greaves. I can just do a full range of up to 6 point armor for every location, or just the ones that are normally used.

Sure maybe throw in some of the RQ 3 armor types like Lamellar but keep it all within the 6pt armor range per MRQ. Scale limbs.. if it was actually made at some point sure.

2) I was thinking of putting back the ability of wearith cloth/leather underneath other armor as per RQ2. So someone in a mail shirt can (and should) have cloth underneath.

Nah with weapon damage being reduced and the extra penalties that woudl be added I'd just leave it out.

3) Ring, Cuirboilli, & Scale. Bascially, the MRQ armor vales for ring and scale use them to fill in the gaps between leather and mail. Throwing Curiboilli back intot he game messes up ring, as Curiboilli provides the same protection but is lighter and cheaper.

Don't forget Linen, Bezanted and Lamellar.

I was thinking of restoring RQ2 values for ring (4) and scale (5). This will fix the Cuirboilli vs. Ring problem. TO resolve the newly created Scale vs. Mail problem, I'll stick with the RQ2 solution and have scale be cheaper but a little heavier, more encumbering.

I like cheaper and heavier options. If the pc's have more money they can upgrade to the good stuff.