Yeah, it's the same guy.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0920992/
David Wenham. He was in Lord of the Rings as well.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0920992/
David Wenham. He was in Lord of the Rings as well.
Knight armor vs todays handgun.
- Thread starter Puncha
- Start date
- Status
Hungry Seagull
member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
From my vast experience....
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.
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
Member
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
member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
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!!!
The English longbow is something to behold.
I wonder if a trechebet ever knocked down a 10 knight group? STEERRIKE!!!
kwelz
Member
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.
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
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
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
Member
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.
Militia trained bands with pikes were something the armored knight couldn't overcome.
BCRider
Member
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.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
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
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
"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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
Here is some WW1 body that looks a little heavy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Infantrie-Panzer_1918.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Infantrie-Panzer_1918.jpg
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Jim
searcher451
Member
There's a gun thread in here somewhere, right?
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 
Seriously though, back to the OP's question:
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.
Seriously though, back to the OP's question:
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.
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.....
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.....- Status