Knight armor vs todays handgun.

[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

"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) The modern combat load of a rifleman is 63lbs, average, and an automatic gunner humps 80lbs. That's without either rucksack. (source)

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]

Dates and types

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.