historically correct simulation of armour

[Gunrunner]

I was wondering if anyone knew enough about real armour to settle an issue with a buddy of mine. Does anyone know if Hero gives a good approximation of reality here: If a fairly strong man (STR 13 or 14) swung at a fully armoured knight in full plate (rDR 8) with a broadsword (1d+1 KD, min STR 12) and all his strength (two hands, haymaker), what do you think his chances would be of penetrating that armor if he hit it square on?

 

Now keep in mind that I'm not asking what the results would be according to the mechanics of the Hero system. I'm asking from a realistic standpoint - if this really happened would he be more likely or less likely to cut through full plate armor of the 14th century (as compared to what the Hero system says)? Hopefully one of you guys or girls knows enough about real medieval weapons and armour to give me an educated opinion! Thanks in advance for any comments

[paigeoliver]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

Actually, I am fairly sure that you can't cut through plate mail armor with a sword. You instead have to hit unarmored areas, or do stabbing attacks in order to go through gaps in the armor.

[alexraccoon]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

The damage that would incapacitate the man would be the transferred physical energy somewhat akin to a bodyblow. The broadsword wasnt really supposed to cut through the armour. To penetrate armour then you would use a pick, the idea being to put as much force into as small an area as possible. Probably the best way to kill a knight was by using a dagger and stabbing up under his arm in the areas not protected by armour.

[Korvar]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

However, just because Mr. Broadsword can't penetrate Mr. PlateMail's armour doesn't mean he hasn't damaged him. The force of the blow can still be transmitted - spread out by the armour and underlying padding, but it could still hurt.

 

The thing about plate mail that isn't really modelled by Hero is that it was shaped to make most blows glance off, instead of absorbing the impact. That's why you see helmets with pointy beaks - blows are less likely to hit perpendicularly on, and will glance off entirely.

[paigeoliver]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

The metal medieval armors are so incredibly complicated that an accurate simulation of them would slow the game to a standstill. I am fine with D&D armor class, and I am fine with Hero Armor. Only RPG armor I ever saw that I wasn't fine with is Car Wars armor, which basically adds hit points to the item.

 

If you wanted REAL realism, then you would need specific defense values for each location, with specific modifiers for each weapon type against each armor type. Perhaps with special hit charts for each weapon/armor combination to take into account the fact that certain weapons tend to hit certain armors in certain places, especially when the wielder is trying to miss the armor and hit the man.

 

I recall reading something in the chronicles of narnia (no idea if this is accurate) depicting a duel between Peter? and some baddie. Both wore chain mail, both continually swung at the others unarmored legs, often jumping over the blows.

[Fitz]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

Skeletons exhumed in the excavation of the site of the Battle of Visby -- don't recall the date, but I believe it was the late 1300s or early 1400s -- had two main wound sites. They had one or both legs broken below the knees, and/or they had the front of their face sheared off. It was theorized that the standard tactic was a looping cut for the legs to force an evasion, followed by an upwards cut across the face; presumably the leg guys were the ones who failed their initial evasion, while the face guys were the ones who were caught by the secondary attack. Wounds to the arms or torso were comparatively rare.

 

The most common armour type found at the site was chain, often with a coat-of-plates.

[Guest joen00b]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

For the record, the Muslims kicked the hell out of the Christians in a few of the crusades due to the weapons they used. They knew their swords couldn't piece the armor, so they improvised and started using Flails and Maces which WOULD penetrate the Plate Armor.

 

I would like to thank the History Channel for having a demonstration of medeivel weaponry and it's effectiveness against the types of armors of the periods.

[Vondy]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

Broadsword Vs. Plate? Dent them to death.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

It would also matter where on the armor the sword hit and at what angle. Plate wasnt a uniform thickness.

 

But generally, slashing weapons arent great vs solid plate. Piercing weapons punctured better, and smashing weapons delivered more kinetic force over a larger area.

[Fitz]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

Even though plate armour was pretty impermeable to most hand weapons, denting was a real problem, especially once the suits got to the stage of being properly articulated. Lames which were supposed to slide across one another could stick, inhibiting the wearer's freedom of movement, and once that happened the chances of surviving the fight dropped drastically. A dented cuirass can impede the breathing as well as making it difficult to move the upper body, both bad things.

 

Another thing which seems to come up a lot in the conversation of my SCA buddies is vision and breathing problems with helms; they're bad enough when they're pristine, but a bash across the face can shift the helm enough that the wearer is effectively blind. That doesn't seem to be a big problem in SCA combat, because a head blow heavy enough to do that is assumed to be a killing blow, but in real life going blind in a fight with some maniac with a sharpened crowbar has got to be an unnerving experience.

 

Modelling that level of effect in a roleplaying game is probably going to be more trouble than it's worth, but it's there for consideration if you want to start getting really granular in your damage representation.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

That could be handled by assuming that if a particular piece of Armor is damaged significantly that it impairs the body part it is worn on until it is removed.

[Old Man]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

 

Another thing which seems to come up a lot in the conversation of my SCA buddies is vision and breathing problems with helms; they're bad enough when they're pristine, but a bash across the face can shift the helm enough that the wearer is effectively blind. That doesn't seem to be a big problem in SCA combat, because a head blow heavy enough to do that is assumed to be a killing blow, but in real life going blind in a fight with some maniac with a sharpened crowbar has got to be an unnerving experience.

 

Taking a head shot in Hero is x2 BODY and x5 STUN so in most cases you're hurting and probably stunned.

 

.

[Gunrunner]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

Taking a head shot in Hero is x2 BODY and x5 STUN so in most cases you're hurting and probably stunned.

 

.

 

The x2 Body is calculated only after DR is subtracted, but the last part is correct.

 

Thank you all for your input, it is much appreciated. I wasn't planning on implementing any detailed optional rules to reflect realistic armor. I was only going to make one or two small changes that wouldn't add more detail to combat, but would serve only to reflect a better level of realism. Based on everyone's input however, I don't think I'll be making any changes.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

I have a variant weapons chart on my website that factors in weapon type vs armor type. Might be of some interest to you.

[Markdoc]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

Skeletons exhumed in the excavation of the site of the Battle of Visby -- don't recall the date, but I believe it was the late 1300s or early 1400s -- had two main wound sites. They had one or both legs broken below the knees, and/or they had the front of their face sheared off. It was theorized that the standard tactic was a looping cut for the legs to force an evasion, followed by an upwards cut across the face; presumably the leg guys were the ones who failed their initial evasion, while the face guys were the ones who were caught by the secondary attack. Wounds to the arms or torso were comparatively rare.

 

The most common armour type found at the site was chain, often with a coat-of-plates.

 

Yep - it's worth pointing out that this is true even though many of the swedish soldiers were using what were either short halberds or really big axes (the swedish word for both is "Okse" and they helpfully translate it into English as either "axe" "halberd" or even "hatchet").

 

So even 1 1/2 to 2d6 HKAs were not doing that much BOD damage to the armoured bits.

 

However, what did cause torso wounds were mostly crossbows, maces and a big two handed spiked mace popular with Swedish levy and mercenaries - not swords or spears. This was despite the fact that plenty of skeletons of people were found with the legs cleanly sliced off, apparently by swords.

 

I've been to Visby - definately worth a visit - and the museum has one poor chap's skull preserved which has two crossbow bolts still stuck in it - good shooting eh, what?

 

Anyway there's a whole page of useful videos by the Society for hitting things with sharp metal things, here:

 

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm

 

which shows a range of effects - in a one cases, a sword swung heavily against a helm simply snapped off, while in a second it made a small shallow cut. In neither case would it have inflicted serious BOD on the wearer - although he probably would not have been feeling too happy in either case. Interestingly, a pick swung against a helm in one case simply bent its spike - although the hammer side seemed to work OK.

 

It begins to look like all thouse stories about longbow shafts going through armoured knights and armoured people being sliced from guggle to zatch were a bit of exaggeration by enthusiastic writers.

 

So in short, the effect of armour in FH is probably about right: if anything it might be a point or two too low.

 

cheers, Mark

[Gunrunner]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

Wow, those videos were frikkin' awesome! Thanks Markdoc

[Old Man]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

I'd give rep if I could...that was cool beyond words.

[THartman]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

"dent them to death"

 

That's not too far from the truth. I've personally seen a badly-aimed lance cave in the armor just above the inside of the elbow, cutting off circulation to the point where the knight's arm was getting numb. A good blow to a weaker section of armor with a heavy sword /could/ have much the same effect. A mace would be much more effective at that, however.

 

The real danger to someone in plate is arrows. A good longbowman can put thin-point arrows an inch or maybe two into a knight, causing bloodloss. Another good example of piercing weapons are skulls which have been found which have square holes in them - the same shape as the spiked back of warhammers and some axes.

 

Maille armor is very good at protecting against cuts, but even with padding, it's not very good at protecting against blunt trauma, even that caused by a swung blade. It is little to no protection at all against piercing weapons.

 

As someone said above, it's much better to go for unprotected spots, which there are plenty of on a suit of plate. Under the shoulder, inside of the elbow, backs of the knees, stiletto to the slits in the visor...

 

Another interesting thought, the Scottish "shillely" almost always had a knobby end, not for gripping when using as a cane, but for wedging into helmets so that the 'club' could be yanked hard to the side, breaking the neck of the opponent.

 

There are too many variances in armor and anti-armor technologies to acurately model it in a role playing game. I can't say I've ever seen any games that don't handle it to an acceptable level of reality (acceptable, not accurate).

 

-Todd

[Old Man]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

I assume you mean the Scottish shillelagh? Those Celts, man, they're almost as bad at spelling as the French.

[Gunrunner]

Re: historically correct simulation of armour

 

I have a variant weapons chart on my website that factors in weapon type vs armor type. Might be of some interest to you.

 

Cool, I'll check it out. Sorry I didn't notice your post before KS. Thanks for the info