[Puncha]

There's this documentary style programme on Spike TV called the deadliest warrior where they pit two different types of historical fighter against each other in computer simulations. I've just seen the one below where they pit a 1700s pirate vs a 1400s knight.

http://www.spike.com/full-episode/pirate-vs-knight/31860

According to the simulation, the pirate won because plate armor cannot stand up to developed blackpowder weapons.

But seriously, how would full plate armor (plate backed up with chainmaille and padded cloth) stand up to:

1) A 4" barrelled K-frame S&W .38 special revolver firing 158gr LRN impacting at 800ft/s.

2) A 4" barrelled 9mm pistol firing 115gr FMJ impacting at 1000ft/s.

3) A 6" barrelled .357 magnum firing 158gr JSP impacting at 1200ft/s.

Please assume that all the projectiles are aimed at and hit the chest area.

[lechiffre]

my guess would be
1)fail
2)fail
3)fail

[SHusky57]

I'm pretty sure in case 3, it would not be a fail but a success.

Keep in mind it's easy to outrun the guy wearing 50 lbs of plate armor.... and longbows destroyed knights on horseback.

[DeepSouth]

From what I understand the term "Bullet Proof" came from the armor that was made shortly after the invention of the gun. The blacksmith that made armor would shoot the armor in the left Brest plate with a black power pistol, it would leave a dent in high quality metal armor. While it would penetrate some of the lower quality armor. So when the 'gun' started becoming common the soldiers buying armor would only buy the armor with the dent in it showing that it was "Bullet Proof"

As I understand, a certain technological advancement called the "Musket" was invented and it would easily penetrate all available armor, even the "Bullet Proof" armor. Thus the death of plate armor and chainmaille was swift after that.


That said I would imagine nearly all modern calibers would easily penetrate plate armor and chainmaille.




.

[Animal Mother]

The blacksmith that made armor would shoot the armor in the left Brest plate with a black power pistol, it would leave a dent in high quality metal armor. While it would penetrate some of the lower quality armor.

I've heard of this as well and alway thought the blacksmith would probably load the BP pistol with the lightest charge of power he could get away with. Hardly bulletproof in most real world cases.

Now if the blacksmith let the gunsmith test his armor and vice versa, then you've got a fairer test...

[General Geoff]

Depends on the quality of steel in the plate armour.

15th century metallurgy would dictate poor quality steel by modern standards, even if forged by the finest armour smith of the day. If you were to construct a suit of plate armour today, and used only the highest quality of armour-rated steel and other assorted alloys, you could probably make a suit that would withstand most pistol rounds and some rifle rounds, while still being light enough to wear and maneuver in (75lbs or less).

[easyg]

My guess....

The .38 and 9mm would probably not be effective enough to make a kill.


3) A 6" barrelled .357 magnum firing 158gr JSP impacting at 1200ft/s.

Result: one dead knight.

[armoredman]

Now swap it around again, since we're playing what if - make the armor out of titanium. :)

BTW, the guy narrating, isn't that the same guy who narrated "300"?

[SeanSw]

I have to wonder why the fight ended with a bullet through the visor when the same end could have been met with a pointy stick through the visor. It doesn't take a pistol under those circumstances. I understand these shows are a lot of armchair conjecture but it seems to me that a knight, trained from childhood to master the arts of war (martial arts), would be bested by a rogue merchant sailor. There is much more than technology separating their abilities.

[PT1911]

I saw the same show and the 'blunderbus" (shotgun) of the pirate penetrated the armor with one of its pellets... If a black powder shotgun can get through then I am pretty sure any of the above mentioned cartriges would get through without issue.

[numaone]

Now swap it around again, since we're playing what if - make the armor out of titanium.

Titanium, on a specific basis, is weaker in both strengh, and stiffness than steels, alloy steels to be specific.

However, let's talk about some ceramics. Those are good stuff. A little more than 6mm (about a quarter inch) can stop a .308 round, and it's lighter than steel.

[General Geoff]

Yeah, but it'll only stop ONE round, before it's shattered and useless.

[Shear_stress]

Let's put it this way. Plate armor was basically relegated to ceremonial use by about the 17th century.

[kwelz]

Any of those rounds would penetrate with little problem. Now a .45 May or may not. Big and slow is a determent in this case.

[VirgilCaine]

Penetrate, yes, significantly wound the man underneath? Not so much, IMO.

[psyopspec]

If a ball from a blackpowder smooth bore pistol could do it, pretty sure all the rounds in the OP would have no problems.

[DammitBoy]

So, if you were able to go back in time and carry your own armor with you - to the 15th century period - what would you bring?

What would be the lightest and strongest armor capable of dealing with blackpowder and conventional arms of the period?

[PT1911]

dragon skin.. stop any projectile weapons of the time and project against bladed weapons..

[harmon rabb]

Let's put it this way. Plate armor was basically relegated to ceremonial use by about the 17th century.

that's all that needs to be said on this topic, i think :D

[Vern Humphrey]

In England, in the 1600s, the law required breastplates be "proved" with a musket shot. In fact, you can tell a real breastplate of that era from a modern fake by the presense or absense of a dent, where the musket ball hit it.

[Jorg]

If you were to construct a suit of plate armour today, and used only the highest quality of armour-rated steel and other assorted alloys, you could probably make a suit that would withstand most pistol rounds and some rifle rounds, while still being light enough to wear and maneuver in (75lbs or less).
That must be why we see all those soldiers wearing that stuff today.

[General Geoff]

Yeah, because ultra-expensive super alloys are quite pervasive on the battlefield, especially when they'd burn skin from how hot it'd get in a desert environment, not to mention the physical strain of wearing a full suit of metal for hours at a time.

it's the sort of thing that would make no sense for any kind of extended wear/use.

[Vern Humphrey]

Until quite recently, they did wear and use steel armor -- the M1 helmet was steel, and that was worn into the late '80s. The early "chicken plates" worn with soft body armor was steel. Pilots' seats were armored with steel.

We don't use steel nowadays, not because it won't stop bullets, but because kevlar and ceramic plates are lighter and easier to fabricate.

[P.B.Walsh]

isn't that the same guy that narrated "300"

I do belive so, although I haven't looked at the credits, so I can't be 110% correct.

[Dan Crocker]

Okay, first thing that I needed to hear was 'documentary on Spike TV.' I mean for real.
dragon skin.. stop any projectile weapons of the time and project against bladed weapons..
Dragon skin wouldn't work for the same reason that they ditched scale armor. And upward thrust into the little plates can defeat it.

[Dr. Fresh]

Yeah, it's the same guy.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0920992/

David Wenham. He was in Lord of the Rings as well.

[Hungry Seagull]

If you made armor strong enough to stop anything, the wearer becomes a static two legged bunker until collaspe from failure under such a load.

Same applies to tanks. The German MAUS comes to mind. They built it, made it work but if it broke, it's too heavy to lift to fix.

I have seen enough Iraq videos where enemy snipers or gun men hit our infantry square and dropped them but they got back up and dove behind cover....

knock over a worker bee, watch out for the hive's reaction.

[easyg]

I understand these shows are a lot of armchair conjecture but it seems to me that a knight, trained from childhood to master the arts of war (martial arts), would be bested by a rogue merchant sailor. There is much more than technology separating their abilities.
Yeah, a rogue merchant sailor (or a bandit along a forest trail), armed with firearms, would most likely best a knight who was not armed with firearms.

The very reason that knights ceased to rule the battlefield is because of firearms.
Once firearms became somewhat reliable and more easily produced, a king or baron could quickly and cheaply train and arm peasants to fight.

Instead of investing years in a knight, the king could invest mere weeks in a peasant-soldier who, when armed with firearms, was nearly as effective as the knight on the battlefield.

[Vern Humphrey]

Actually, it was pikes and bows that ended the armored knight's domination of the battle field. Along with the growth of towns. Towns formed "Train Bands" -- men who drilled together with pikes. Armored knights couldn't break a solid block of trained pikemen.

[Archie]

A single surface (such as a car door, a wall, modern body armor or plate armor) is best defeated by ANY projectile of sufficient velocity (depending on the material). Penetration in a homologous mass depends more on momentum and sectional density (which may be the same thing in effect.)

Plate armor was used by the Roman and Greek civilizations and were made to deflect primarily sword and spear attack. As the armor covered only the torso and the head, it was vulnerable to arrows. This armor fell out of use with the collapse of the Roman Empire, due to cost and manufacturing problems.

Plate armor made a come back in the 13th Century in Western Europe. This armor was combined with chain mail and under padding. It was largely used as a defense against sword and spear thrusts.

However, a crossbow bolt had sufficient velocity to penetrate standard plate armor by the 15th and 16th Centuries and sectional density to penetrate the body therein enough to cause serious damage. Because this made a (commoner) foot soldier equal to a (noble) mounted knight, various governments lobbied the Pope to outlaw the use of crossbows in combat - except against infidels.

Similarly, an English "Long Bow" would penetrate plate armor; therefore the English crown declared them illegal to own - except for his soldiers and bodyguard.

So, if a crossbow or long bow would penetrate plate armor, I have no doubt any smokeless powder cartridge would penetrate the armor. Anything less than about .380 ACP might not have much left after the penetration, but I'm sure .38 Special and up would penetrate the armor and the wearer enough to cause a wound and blood loss.

Just for the discussion, a wadcutter or semi-wadcutter bullet shape does better at penetration on sheet metal than does a round nose. The round nose seems to bend the metal rather than cut through. A wadcutter or SWC makes less of a dent than a round nose.

And most any rifle from .30 Carbine will penetrate plate armor without much notice.

[LightningJoe]

Pikes are a good, low-budget weapon against very expensive horses and the very expensive knights they carry. And the longbow was used to good effect by the English against armor. But I'm pretty sure it was the gun that put an end to the cataphract.

[Hungry Seagull]

I choose the Crossbolt and English LongBow as the reasons along with the musketery.

The English longbow is something to behold.

I wonder if a trechebet ever knocked down a 10 knight group? STEERRIKE!!!

[TAB]

my understanding is the invention of the firearm is what cuased plate armor to go the way of the dodo.

[kwelz]

We don't use steel nowadays, not because it won't stop bullets, but because kevlar and ceramic plates are lighter and easier to fabricate.

Actually steel helmets would not stop bullets. They were for protection against flying debris caused by artillery, grenades, etc. If one was VERY lucky they would deflect the bullet enough to save the wearer but I have only heard of that being the case once or twice.

[Jim K]

It's been done. The NRA once obtained a 15th century pistol breastplate*, complete with the proof that was mentioned earlier, and fired at it with several handguns. (The .500 S&W, and assorted .45 caliber super cartridges were not yet in existence.)

The results were pretty definitive. Calibers like the 9mm P, .38 Special, and .45 ACP left dents; .22 LR and .32 S&W didn't even do that.

.357 Magnum Metal Penetrating dented and cracked the plate, but did not penetrate. Only the .44 Magnum penetrated, knocking a plug out of the armor.

Their conclusion was that the warrior of those days was quite well served by his armor, and I agree.

*"Pistol" meaning that it was made and proved to withstand pistol bullets. Actually, those plates are quite common and not even very expensive, at least at that time.

Jim

[Dr. Fresh]

The mounted knight was already well on its way out when firearms became widespread. As stated before, the longbow was primarily responsible. Guns helped out, for sure, but the knight hung around way past its expiration date. It was already obsolete as a combat unit.

[Vern Humphrey]

Don't overlook the pike -- it was a much cheaper weapon than the bow and arrow, and required less training to use effectively.

Militia trained bands with pikes were something the armored knight couldn't overcome.

[BCRider]

However, a crossbow bolt had sufficient velocity to penetrate standard plate armor by the 15th and 16th Centuries and sectional density to penetrate the body therein enough to cause serious damage. Because this made a (commoner) foot soldier equal to a (noble) mounted knight, various governments lobbied the Pope to outlaw the use of crossbows in combat - except against infidels.


This was also the reason why if a crossbowman was captured they were often shown no quarter by the opposing forces and were often put to death whereas other combatants that were captured were kept alive. A decision that no doubt had much to do with the fact that most knights were of the higher classes and did not like these commoners being able to hurt them.

[Dr. Fresh]

Also, knights were worth more as ransom. The average conscript probably wasn't worth enough to feed.

[tipoc]

I believe Vern's been on the right track. IMHO it wasn't just the type of arms or armor that did in the feudal Knight but more the changes in warfare which were reflective of the broader changes in society.

The old feudal lords pretty much survived by pillaging the peasantry and waging incessant wars on each other. The petty Kings, Dukes, Earls, Viscounts, Bishops, etc. etc. would call on their many retainers, backed by bands of peasants, to battle. This was the hey day of the mounted knight.

The rise of cities and independant towns hastened the demise of feudalism and made necessary the rise of the Absolute Monarchs (One King of England, One King of Spain, etc. as distinct from 20 warring kings). The monarchs usually fought with armies of professional mercenaries at their core backed by their retainers. The first full time professional armies arrived during this period and this, the full time armies, did in the Knights. By this time their armor had become so heavy and cumbersome that they were physically hoisted onto their mounts by cranes.

The armored Knight was pretty good one on one against other Knights and very good against peasants. But against trained and disciplined soldiers they were useless.

tipoc

[CWL]

"Bullet proofing" of armor meant that the front breastplate could take a musket shot at 30 paces and the back of the breastplate could withstand a pistol shot from 30 paces. I seem to recall that the heaviest helmets were also required to absorb a pistol ball at 30 paces. The heaviest full-body armor to be worn by cavalry lasted from the 1650s-1720's, after that most armor was reduced to just front and back breastplates.

Wearing of armor was a sign of nobility and "eliteness", even to this day is still worn by England's Horse Guards. Breastplates were used in quantity up until the Napoleonic Wars from 1797 thru 1815, although breastplates continued to be worn up until WWI by specialized (sapper) and cavalry units.

It was the cost of armored units that made armies stop fielding them.

Military units, even up to Napoleonic times would often be fielded by nobles, but as warfare became more of a national 'pastime' with larger and larger armies, it was no longer feasible to keep and pay for large groups of armored men, their expensive horses and retinue.

I would think that a JSP going at 1200fps would indeed penetrate armor since the muzzle velocity of matchlocks thru flintlocks probably did not exceed 800fps, although the size of the ball was considerably bigger. -Of course I'm talking smoothbores since rifles already existed by the late 1500s.

[SaxonPig]

I was involved for about 25 years with a group that recreates armored combat. I still have plate armor and chainmail around the house. My plate was made by the late Jay Bliss of California, an award winning master armor maker.

He maintained that modern made armor is superior to period stuff due to the quality of steel. He once shot one of his helmets with a 45 Colt revolver (lead bullet) and it left a visible dent. Someone wearing that helm would have easily survived the impact.

Medieval armor would have likely offered decent protection against pistol rounds with lead bullets. Rifles or FMJ ammo? No way.

This is me in 1985 ready to play. We fought with wooden swords but pictured below are some of the real deal. The damage these things can do is frightening to contemplate.


http://www.fototime.com/103A8B2CF505B11/standard.jpg


http://www.fototime.com/DBD316DB74ECACA/standard.jpg

[DeepSouth]

Here is some WW1 body that looks a little heavy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Infantrie-Panzer_1918.jpg

[Justin]

dragon skin.. stop any projectile weapons of the time and project against bladed weapons..

The Dragon Skin brand of body armor failed multiple tests conducted by HP White Laboratories. The rumors that it's better than the issue stuff are untrue, and I'll take the test results from HP White over those of ABC News any day of the week.

[Vern Humphrey]

Dragon Skin is nothing but hype -- issuing this over-weight, over-priced, under-protective crap to our troops in combat would be nothing short of manslaughter.

[SeanSw]

These are pictures from The Armoury of the Dukes of Burgundy in Brussels, Belgium. I don't have the facts but I believe these were early 20th century attempts to recreate armour for the battlefield. Obviously, much had been forgotten in 500 years.

http://img8.uploadhouse.com/fileuploads/4097/4097486e38914eb957afe96ce217025d230ebe6.jpg (http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=4097486&showlnk=0)

http://img1.uploadhouse.com/fileuploads/4097/4097484008bb52419dacea9a4e393401e7198bc.jpg (http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=4097484&showlnk=0)

http://img1.uploadhouse.com/fileuploads/4097/40974803d6c6dc9eee3c3bbd22fd592a0a3582d.jpg (http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=4097480&showlnk=0)

[Jim K]

I think some folks underestimate antique armor plate. It was not made from rolled sheet metal as most repro stuff is today (some movies used sheet aluminum to save weight). It was hammered out carbonized iron (close to steel), strengthened by forging and then case hardened. Tough stuff, although obviously not proof against a modern rifle bullet or a modern super hot pistol bullet.

Jim

[searcher451]

There's a gun thread in here somewhere, right?

[snorky18]

48 posts have gone by and I get to be the first one to say you have to hit them with a .45 for it to do any good :neener:

Seriously though, back to the OP's question:

But seriously, how would full plate armor (plate backed up with chainmaille and padded cloth) stand up to:

1) A 4" barrelled K-frame S&W .38 special revolver firing 158gr LRN impacting at 800ft/s.

2) A 4" barrelled 9mm pistol firing 115gr FMJ impacting at 1000ft/s.

3) A 6" barrelled .357 magnum firing 158gr JSP impacting at 1200ft/s.

Please assume that all the projectiles are aimed at and hit the chest area.

I don't even have enough knowledge about the armor in question to armchair quarterback a guess about this one, except that #3 obviously stands a much greater chance than #1 or #2.

If you wanted the real scientific answer you'd have to manufacture the metal in the same method for your test pieces, which would be extremely labor intensive by today's standards.

Does anyone else wonder about ricochets if you're shooting a projectile at a rounded convex metal surface? Especially at anything other than a perpendicular angle with anything other than really soft tipped ammo.

[Kwanger]

While it might not penetrate, I think good old Mr Knight wouldn't be feeling too hot if you put 30 rounds or so of 9mm into him ;) Poor fella would be bruised black and blue (at the least) while you run rings around him with your MP5, say. Once he's down and suitably badly bruised, a couple of well placed shots through the joints should do the trick.....

[maskedman504]

Do you see anyone still wearing plate armor?

Hint: its not because it only stop pistol rounds. Jacketed bullets and smokeless power in a cased bullet does not really compare to black powder firing lead projectices.

[-v-]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN-42
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Sn-42b.jpg

"It consisted of two pressed steel plates that protected the front torso and groin. The plates were 2 mm (.08") and weighed 3.5 kg (7.7 lbs). This armor was supplied to SHISBr (assault engineers) and Tankodesantniki (infantry that rode on tanks) of some tank brigades.

Real combat experience showed that the MP-40 9 mm bullet failed to penetrate at around 100-125 m (100 yards). It was very useful in dense, intense urban battles (Stalingrad) where the Germans used the MP-40 predominantly, but, because of its weight, was not practical for soldiers charging across an open field."

IIRC, plate armor of knightly time as also about 2-3mm thick. So, it is bullet-proof. From modern pistol rounds. At 125+ meters away...maybe

[JoeSlomo]

So, if you were able to go back in time and carry your own armor with you - to the 15th century period - what would you bring?

I'd bring back kevlar and use it underneath a suit of armor used in the times.

The kevlar would stop the muskets, the metal armor would be resistant to slashing attacks.

Any modern pistol would easily punch right through plate and scale armor, except maybe some of the mouse guns.

The armor back in the day was designed to make the wearer resistant, but not immune, to the weapons of the day. Significant thrusts could penetrate plate and scale from many weapons, and while slashing attacks may not cut skin protected by mail and plate, they still shattered bones.

It is interesting to note that we still face the same challenges today as our ancestors did since, well, forever. Today we have the capability of defeating common projectiles, however, the price we pay is mobility, as it was with our medieaval kin.

It's a vicious circle.

[Grey Morel]

Plate armor and bucklers are made from a single plate, usualy only 16 guage... thats about .06" thick.
My guess is that the only bullets that will be stopped by that are sub-sonic .22LR, 25 acp, and 32S&W. A hyper velocity .22LR or a .32 acp would probably penetrate.

SN-42 is made of two seperate plates whioch are laminated togeter. The steel its made of is not only stronger (better metalurgy) but also thicker, and the vest itself uses supperior construction methods. Even this vest is only rated to stop a 9mm at 100+ meters.

[Feanaro]

By this time their armor had become so heavy and cumbersome that they were physically hoisted onto their mounts by cranes.

If you take a survey of armor from the late 15th century, the weight ranges from 45 to 70lbs on average. As "pistol proof" breastplates came into use, the armor of the 16th century began to hit the 90lb range. (examples (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8023)) The modern combat load of a rifleman is 63lbs, average, and an automatic gunner humps 80lbs. That's without either rucksack. (source (http://www.me.berkeley.edu/ME239/resources/papers/2003%20-%20U.S.%20Soldier%20Combat%20Load%20Report.pdf))

US soldiers don't need to be hoisted into jeeps anymore than knights had to be hoisted onto their horses. Armor built specifically for jousting is another story. Mobility not being a huge issue, tilting armor could be overbuilt to the point of being ridiculous.

[Vern Humphrey]

Plate armor and bucklers are made from a single plate, usualy only 16 guage... thats about .06" thick.
My guess is that the only bullets that will be stopped by that are sub-sonic .22LR, 25 acp, and 32S&W. A hyper velocity .22LR or a .32 acp would probably penetrate.
As I pointed out earlier, when firearms came into more common use, English law required breastplates to be "proved" with a musket shot. All genuine breastplates of that era show the dent clearly -- there are a couple of good examples in the gatehouse at Canterbury.

[tipoc]

If you take a survey of armor from the late 15th century

This was past the era of "Knights in Armour" and into the era of the Conquistadores, absolute monarchs, and the decline of armored knights proper and the beginning of the end of feudalism.

In 1492 Granada fell to a Spanish army no more heavily armored than their Moorish foes.

So when thinking of "knights in armor" it may be helpful to recall what period we are speaking of. By the late 15th century the Spanish conquistadore was the archetype rather than the Teutonic army of Lords clanking into battle on armored steeds.

tipoc

[Vern Humphrey]

In 1410, the Teutonic Knights were defeated at Tannenberg by Poles and Lithunians. King Henry VII of England (1491-1547) gave special incentives for German armor makers to emmigrate to England. At the Battle of Nasby in 1645, Cromwell's Iron Sides charged wearing armor that (but for cosmetic changes in style) was remarkably similar to armor worn two centuries before.

[unspellable]

It should be noted that battle armor fell out of popularity before the gun was in widespread use

Around the end of the 15th and into the 16th century the plate armor industry enjoyed a revival due to jousting becoming a popular contact sport. As jousting armor developed into sporting equipment, it diverged considerably from battle armor in design and tended to be much more highly decorative.

Most of the armor you see in museums today is jousting armor. It tended to be well cared for and didn't suffer the fortunes of war as battle armor did.

[tipoc]

A description of the armor of Cromwell's Ironsides, as well as a pic of the same, is available here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironside_(cavalry)

Although the phrase "Ironside" suggests heavily armoured men, Cromwell's troops were equipped in the common style of the day, with armour limited to back- and breastplate and "pot" helmet. It does seem that they presented a uniform appearance which contrasted with that of the Cavalier horse, which became increasingly individual during the war through shortage of equipment or personal choice.

tipoc

[LightningJoe]

Some have asserted that the longbow played a significant role in the decline of the armored knight. I don't think this can be true. The English copied the longbow from the Welsh, but nobody ever copied it from the English, so unless you were fighting the English, you didn't have to worry about them.


Crossbows would be a different story. I suspect the reason nobody copied the longbow off the English was that they required too much training. Not so the crossbow.