How resistant was 16th century plate armor to the guns of that time?

>that hole

evidently, not very much

Do you think it can take a direct hit with a sharp spear?

A bullet would be faster.

>>1792130
>Do you think it can take a direct hit with a sharp spear?
yes? there is absolutely no way you could thrust anything through plate armour.

plate armor was quite resistant to bullets of that time, up to a certain range of course. Shot point blank, there is not much that can stop a bullet. It was more resistant than people generally think, its not like the bullets just went clean trough them, but than again people think that English arrow fired from a longbow could go clean trough a plate of armor, so thinking that a bullet would do that is forgivable mistake

It depends on the firearm being used and the time in question. Early firearms were junk and unless there was a direct hit at close range, you were probably pretty safe. Later firearms could cause serious damage.
Keep in mind though that regardless of penetration, any hit by something going that fast is still going to cause some serious (and possibly fatal) percussive injury.

>>1792169
you literally could not thrust a spear trough chain mail, plate is whole other level

File: 07f2595387e6b6946d6d2f9c13b1b7b3.jpg (159KB, 564x1977px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 564x1977px

>>1792169
Hellooooo

>>1792169
A stout enough spike on a heavy pole could do it.

>>1792174
>Keep in mind though that regardless of penetration, any hit by something going that fast is still going to cause some serious (and possibly fatal) percussive injury.
This is pure bullshit. Plate armor was well padded to defend the wearer from blunt trauma. A low mass bullet that would probably be subsonic would not cause any serious injury if it bounced off the armor. Absolute worst case scenario would be a broken rib.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x59iN4KMz4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0yY4DCShog

>>1792061
armor used to come with "proofs", a firearm would be fired into the armor and the mark left by the bullet embellished.

>>1792190
>plate is whole other level
no, plate is exactly the level we're talking about in this thread.
>>1792197
hello to you too.
>>1792199
no it couldn't. awl pike is literally designed to pierce armour as effectively as it is possible for any spear-like object even they were effective only against mail or gaps and holes of plate armour.

>>1792223
Kevlar and modern bulletproof materials are far and away more resistant to firearms than 15th century armor. Your videos prove nothing and your citation of them proves you know nothing.

Thar plate armor looks fake, too thin.

Real plate armor would me made to be thick enough to block a bullet (they were rounded then, yeah? I don't know much about firearms but maybe a modern rifle could pierce but all those 'documentaries' involving testing old armor use costume armor or otherwise inauthentic armor because the real thing would cost too much and breaks the progressive mindset that 'old is bad and primitive')

As guns became more common, plate armor designed to deflect would also become more common. That curve in the chest piece is for that; to prevent getting stabbed in the chest. If getting shot was a concern, they would make that curve more pronounced and thicker to both ensure the bullet won't hit somebody else and to minimize the impact it was on the target.

Even armor piercing weapons couldn't get through the chest piece of good plate armor. A cannon might.
>>1792284
Mate, firearms themselves have changed too. Plate armor was designed to deflect bullets by the time firearms were a threat.

We must remember that it's spherical object which loses it's speed much faster, the longer it flies the less damage it's going to do. So on longer ranges your buff coat would stop the shot and you would get a bruise.

>>1792284
It makes no difference. Armor that doesn't deform and slam into the user's chest is going to do more to prevent blunt trauma than soft kevlar that acts like a catcher's mitt. Metal plating is still used as armor today. AR-500 steel plates are a cheaper alternative to ceramic plating and they see use by police departments in poorer areas.

Firearms are a lot more potent nowadays than they were back in the 1500s too. Up until the late 1800s the vast majority of firearms were firing subsonic projectiles because they were using crude black powder instead of nitrocellulose.

People like to imagine, that guns are absurdly powerful, and i heard a lot of stories like "gun can easily pierce rail profile". ~18mm thick in thinnest part, it's like fucking tank armor, not something a handgun would penetrate.
Basically, would early firearms penetrate good quality plate armor? Nope. Flintlock pistols/arquebuses? Nope. 17th century muskets? Yes.

>>1792190
How did you kill someone in chainmail if a spear and a sword couldn't pierce it ?

>>1793554
you generally didn't, it's estimated that only 5% of all battle casualties occurred during the hand to hand combat, all others were during a rout where you were chasing a guy, who maybe fell, or was trying to surrender, so you could stab him wherever you wanted. Battles were apparently quite different as to what people imagine. The hand to hand casualties happened if for example you got a lucky shot and stabbed him in the face, or maybe hit him in the chest and broke his rib, so he fell down, or an arrow hit him in the face, you get the idea. But the most important thing in a battle was morale, if you had a small band of men who would not flee, than you could easily take on much larger force with bad morale.

>>1793627
Yeah ok, but you still need to do those 5% and knights trained from young age in order to be proficient with weapons and martial arts. Also hand to hand was surely very present in some situation like sieges

File: Aanwijzing_14_voor_het_hanteren_van_het_musket_-_V_lont_afneemt_(Jacob_de_Gheyn,_1607)[1].jpg (90KB, 750x1003px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 750x1003px

Just like today, firearms of the 16th century had a large range of power. They went from pistols and harquebuses firing bullets weighing 1/24th of a pound to double-muskets firing bullets weighing as much as 1/8th of a pound. As the 16th century went on, the larger caliber muskets became more common. This was partly in response to improvements in armor, which had been simple coats of plates and Almain rivets in the beginning of the century designed to stop medieval weapons to hardened corslets by the latter half the century which could stop a pistol bullet or even a harquebus. Armor sufficient to stop a full-size musket ball could only do so consistently at long range and was so heavy and expensive that it was only practical for elite cavalry.

>>1793640
Of course, but still, there is no way to stab trough a knight's armor. Your best chance of killing a knight is to hit him with a mace or a hammer, it would not penetrate armor, but it would still cause internal damage, broken bones, head trauma etc. that is why around the time full plated knights came along, maces and hammers found much wider use in battle. Not too much of an fielded army would be heavily armored. In the medieval times certainly more than in the ancient times. Leather armor is also a thing and that you can penetrate with a spear, or a sword, and as far as i know, these lightly armored troops would contribute the most to that 5% count.

>>1792190
Ancient metallurgy meant mail could be slowly hacked apart. Go put a GP steel ring on a log and hit it with an axe.

>>1792436
God, you're stupid.
>real play armor would be made to be thick enough to block a bullet
And too fucking heavy to move in right?
>old is bad and primitive
>progressive mindset
Sorry to inform you we've made technological advancements
>armor piercing weapons couldn't get through the chest piece of good plate armor
Which is why pick hammers became more common because you could fucking dent it in
>Plate armor was designed to deflect bullets by the time firearms were a threat
Which never happened and is why people stopped fucking using it!

>>1794208
key word here would be slowly. In the chaos of battlefield you would not have the time or operunity to slowly whack it apart. And today's mail is not comperable to the ones people wore in battle, getting that tipe of mail is expensive

>>1794235
>Which never happened and is why people stopped fucking using it!
It happened a lot of times, people stopped using it because of fucking money.
Oh wait, they actually didn't stop using them. French still had cuirassiers in 20th century.
>>1794078
> Your best chance of killing a knight is to hit him with a mace or a hammer,
Maces become obsolete with better armor being introduced. Warhammers on the other hand...
>Leather armor is also a thing
Leather armor wasn't a thing.

>>1794235
>Which never happened and is why people stopped fucking using it!
Except it did. This isn't even slightly debatable, given that literally every primary source talks about pistols failing against armor to the point of pistoleers putting the muzzle AGAINST breastplates before shooting, harqbuses failing unless fired at close range, proofing marks onarmor, and even heavy muskets failing past medium range.

Go look up the London lobsters, and then consume whatever is under your sink.

>>1792284
>>1792174
Attention fucktard: Sir Arthur Haselrig was shot three fucking times in one battle, including a close range shot to the head.

He then proceeded to fight multiple opponents with swords, get his horse cut from under him, and fumble with his sword trying (and failing) to surrender while continuously being attacked, until rescued.

He suffered precisely zero major injuries from this.

Zero. None.


You're a faggot who doesn't understand simple physics.

>>1794321
>Leather armor wasn't a thing.
Tell that to the Chinese.

>>1792061
probably resistant since cuirassiers still wore plate armor 300 years later ?

File: teppo2.jpg (306KB, 1800x1196px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1800x1196px

>>1792061
It depended quite a bit on the range. Early firearms had large and relatively low-velocity bullets that were highly affected by air resistance.

It's not a European source, but Tokugawa-era training manuals like Zohyo Monogatari recommended that arquebusiers open fire at ranges shorter than 30m to ensure the greatest probability of a penetrating hit - this would be against steel breastplates, although this may have also reflected a concern for accuracy at not wasting ammunition on long range shots which would be difficult to hit with.

>>1795001
The guy could have been fuck lucky. Some people survive seemingly impossible shit but that doesn't mean it's frequent

>>1792228

There's some evidence to suggest they did the same but with arrows too. Henry VI had a number of brigandine so made and had them shot until one of them stopped the arrow, then we're that. One European bishop had his brigandine shot by 13 crossbows before wearing it.

Source: The Importance of being Harnessed - Ralph Moffat

>>1795360
He also spent his wealth raising an entire fucking regiment of curiassiers. Who made it through the same damn battle, meeting an opposing charge at the halt without significant losses.

>>1794321
>Leather armor wasn't a thing
Because peasants drafted into combat sure had enough money to afford themselves proper mail shirts and helmets. In fact, entirety of fielded army would consist of heavily armored knights with no light troops and skirmishers whatsoever.

>>1795577
Cloth armor was a thing, leather armor was not.

>>1795607
yea, my mistake, sorry

>>1795577
>In fact, entirety of fielded army would consist of heavily armored knights
It depends on region. For example, in Poland peasants weren't drafted into combat.

>>1795607
I understand that this is the common view on /his/,
but Im inclined to disagree. I have seen surviving examples of full leather shields in museums, it is not a stretch that leather armor existed as well, and im sure its out there.

>>1794321
So what economic factor suddenly made less people where plate armor that it was now more expensive?
As for cuirassiers still being fielded, you understand that militarys continue to do things out of tradition right? I guess polish cavalry charges in ww2 still meant it was an equally viable tactic.
>>1794980
Modern pistols don't even penetrate steel. There are some major factors here
1) Early firearms had large caliber (meaning diameter of bore) which was perceived to be better than smaller calibers which would have had higher velocity and penetration.
2) Pistols having short barrels means much less muzzle velocity since there is less time for gas to expand behind the projectile.
3) Black powder needs longer barrels than modern smokeless powder to get effective muzzle velocities.
4) Round projectiles have awful sectional density (penetrating ability)
Evidence that pistols were poor versus armor is really a no brainer. A .50 caliber pistol with a barrel around 12" or under would be total shit.

>>1796308
>So what economic factor suddenly made less people where plate armor that it was now more expensive?
I don't know if i get i correctly, but... When armies started to be hundreds thousand people massive, it would be hard to equip every one of them in armor, as most of them were poor as shit.
> I guess polish cavalry charges in ww2 still meant it was an equally viable tactic.
As if only Poles did cavalry charges In 2WW.
Germans did two in september '39, both unsuccessful
Poles did 17, only two were unsuccessful
Italians did them, with the famous one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Savoia_Cavalleria_at_Isbuscenskij
UK did charges
etc

>>1795577

And what makes you think that peasant soldiers would be wearing anything made of leather other than belts and shoes?

>>1796150

And from what time period are those shields from?

>>1796150
Shield is not armor. By the same logic, shields also were wooden, so for sure they used wooden armors?
Leather armor doesn't make sense. It would be expensive, and at the same time it would protect from... nothing. Well, maybe against wind.

>>1795577
they hadn't money to spend on leather neither. it is and it always was expensive.

>>1796308
>As for cuirassiers still being fielded, you understand that militarys continue to do things out of tradition right?
You understand that curiassiers REPEATEDLY abandoned armor entirely only to readopt it in the middle of wars, right?

You understand that in the ECW, the vast majority of cavalry and pikemen wore armor, right? You understand that harqbusiers were more popular than curissaier purely because they were a quarter the price, right?

You understand that you're fucking ignorant, right?
>>1796150
>I find it hard to beleive
That's nice. Meanwhile, there are no serious historians who will agree with you, because the only solid evidence we have of leather armor in medieval europe is in the form of tourney armor for play fighting, and the odd piece to wear over mail. and by "odd piece" I mean "comes up once or twice in the entire medieval period."

Nobody was wearing fucking leather breastplates. It's far more expensive than cloth for no added performance.

>>1795607
>>1796615
wew lad

http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2014/11/leather-armour-of-ming-dynasty.html

>thread clearly about European armour
>hurrr but on the opposite side of the globe!!!!!!

>>1797052
Againe, did not the Duke of Bedford arme the most parte of his Souldiours with tanned leather for the cheefe partes of their bodies, at such time as he was commaunded by that prudent Prince Henry the 7. the 2. yeere of his raigne, to encounter with that Rebell the L. Louell: whereas now by reason of the force of weapons, neither horse nor man is able to beare ar∣mours sufficient to defend their bodies from death, wheras in the former times afore mentioned, woundes was the worst to haue been doubted, touching the force of all their Archers, as by that manner of arming it seemeth most certaine.

>>1797052
Our armour differeth not from that of other nations, and therefore consisteth of corslets, almaine riuets, shirts of maile, iackes quilted and couered ouer with leather, fustian, or canuas, ouer thicke plates of iron that are sowed in the same, & of which there is no towne or village that hath not hir conuenient furniture.

>>1799435
>iackes quilted and couered ouer with leather
Post an actual source so I can explain why this doesn't support your argument.

>>1799458
>Prince Henry the 7
But to start:
>renaissance king
>medieval europe
Pick one, and only one.

>>1799468
Once you start start insisting that "renaissance" sources don't apply to the "middle ages" you've essentially admitted that you've lost the argument, bud.

>>1799481
>IF IT HAPPENED IN THIS ERA IT HAPPENED IN THAT ONE
No.

On top of that
> corslets, almaine riuets, shirts of maile, iackes quilted and couered ouer with leather, fustian, or canuas

>quilted and couered ouer with leather, fustian, or canuas
>leather, fustian, or canuas
He's referring to fucking gambesons. Leather is a facing material, and is interchangeable with various fabrics. It's not there for any added protective ability. The quilted textile is the armor, hence the explicit mention of quilting.

That's "leather armor" in the same way a brigandine-which also commonly called jacks-It isn't. The leather is used if convenient. It isn't an essential or important component.

On top of that, the author is talking about something he wasn't there to witness, given that there's a century between his writings and the year he's referring to.

Speech attributed to Edward II before the battle of Bannockburn

If I did not behold the open victorie, I would this day (most valiant men) make an other beginning of speech vnto you. We are in preparation & number of souldiors farre beyond these miserable Scots. Besides which, we haue abundance of brasse péeces, catapultes, bowes, and other such engins of warre, which on the * contrarie part the Scots doo want. They are onelie couered with leather pilches made of bucks skins, and with clokes like vnto the wild mounteine people, for which cause our archers, before the strength of the maine battell shall ioine, will soone subdue them.

69. i. Computation [by Sir H. Cock] that formerly the cost of
furnishing a caliver, &c. was 27s. ; 20s. 6d. for a bow ;
total, 47s. 6d.; 36s. for a corslet, &c, and 34s. for
a musket, all of which have since risen in price ; thus
furnishing a corslet can be done for lis. Qd. less than a
caliver cmd long bow, and a musket for 13s. 6d. less,
besides jerkins for the bowmen. With note that in the
first band sent out of that shire to the Low Countries,
ten years ago, under conduct of Capt. Walton, we sent
several archers, whom we provided with buff jerkins at
22s. 6d. apiece ; that the present high price of armour
is very burdensome to the country people; and if, by
your means, some good order could be taken therein, the
country would be grateful.

>>1792190
Life is not a video game, Plate isnt just am "Upgrade" to Chainmail. Theyre meant for defense against different kinds of weapons. Get out

>>1799591
1595 isn't part of the medieval era. Nor is a jerkin armor. It, much like the jupon, is a coat. It's no more armor than puffed hose is. Try again.

>>1799555
This is literally propaganda. He's lying to make his opponents seem easier to beat. H's also flat out wrong-We know beyond any doubt that some scots did, in fact, have modern armor by this period, though many did not.

On top of that, a "pilch" isn't any form of armor, it's a fucking gown.

You're just googling "leather" "armour" and "battle" and posting whatever you find without looking into it, aren't you?

>>1799646
>1595 isn't part of the medieval era.
This thread is about 16th century armor, dingus.

>>1799676
>>1799676
And the argument about leather armor is in response to comments about knights and drafted peasants, complete with talk about leather shields.

AKA, not the 16th century.

Nor does it matter. The sources posted are referring to standard textiles or flat out civilian clothing.

the only "leather armor" Europeans used past the classical era was the buff coat.

>>1799708
>And the argument about leather armor is in response to comments about knights and drafted peasants, complete with talk about leather shields.
Knights, drafted peasants and leather shields all existed in the 16th century. You're clinging to this "medieval" thing because you desperately need to limit the range of allowed sources in your desperate attempt to prove that leather armor didn't exist.

>the only "leather armor" Europeans used past the classical era was the buff coat.
What, leather coats? But cloth coats are so much cheaper and more efficient that nobody would bother with leather :^)

Your argument has gone from
>leather armor didn't exist
>I mean leather armor didn't exist in europe
>I mean leather armor didn't exist at all in the middle ages even though it definitely did immediately before and after and leather was definitely used as a facing material for coats of plates in the middle ages

kys my man.

>>1799750
A lovely strawman.


>leather armor didn't exist
In a thread distinctly about europe
>I mean leather armor didn't exist in europe
See above

>I mean leather armor didn't exist at all in the middle ages even though it definitely did immediately before and after and leather was definitely used as a facing material for coats of plates in the middle ages
Facing materials aren't armor. You can use literally any fabric as a facing material in place of leather.


>What, leather coats? But cloth coats are so much cheaper and more efficient that nobody would bother with leather :^)
Coats aren't armor. It's far easier to waterproof leather than most textiles. It's also rather resistant to daily wear and tear, and isn't anywhere near the lice magnet. On top of that, cattle, despite what you're doubtless assuming, have been bred for thicker hides, which is FUCKING IMPORTANT for production of large amounts of leather. Leather garments become cheaper as time passes.

>even though it definitely did immediately before
Where and when, retard?
Because the only particularly likely time and place in europe is pre-roman greece.
>and after
the buff coat appears more than a century after The medieval period ends, and exists for fashion and comfort purposes as much as it does as protective gear.

>>1799789
What are you doing

this may be relevant to this thread's interests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxFY917UH8

pretty cool channel if you're interested in early firearms btw

>>1799831
Interesting stuff. The fact that modern steel is used in construction means it's hard to extrapolate from these results to actual armour, but it provides at least some idea on the relative power of various early firearms compared to each other. It's a pity these aren't tested at further range - adding several dozen meters might have affected the terminal velocity a great deal.

>>1799599
>Life is not a video game
And you take thing EXACTLY from the game
>Theyre meant for defense against different kinds of weapons
Because we all know, blunt weapons have bonus dmg against plate armor, spears have against horses and arrows against maille, yup, that's how it works in real life, it's better to be naked and be hit by hammer, that to be in plate armor and be hit by hammer.

They can stop musket shots at a range, but thats not good enough to justify their cost

>>1799402

Source?

>>1799546

A brigandine isn't a jack. A jack is litterally just the English term for a gambeson.

>>1792171
>English arrow fired from a longbow could go clean trough a plate of armoR
it could though

>>1799750

>he doesn't know that buff coats were expensive pieces of officers and cavalry kit, explicitly as a show of status

>leather was used as a facing material for coats of plates

<citation needed>

File: schloss-tratzberg-tirol-268~_v-img__16__9__xl_-d31c35f8186ebeb80b0cd843a7c267a0e0c81647.jpg (147KB, 994x558px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 994x558px

>>1792061
15th/16th century plate armours were partially only branded after they withstood both a crossbow bolt and a handgun bullet. They mostly did not provide much protection against musket bullets though.

>>1800282

<citation needed>

>>1799831
>butted mail, shows how much they know their shit (or not?)
>testing guns against lamellar armor, if only existed better armor, actually used in that times, it would so nice. Like, I don't know, plate armor?

What were the most widespread fireweapons in the late XV, early XVI century ? Did wheel lock and all already existed ?

>>1800300
I agree, but even as a lamellar armor, it still hold up against some of the firearms so it's still interesting

>>1800312
They were mostly matlock firearms. The wheellock was around during the 16th century, but they weren't common.

>>1800348
Do we have specific data about their power ? Performances ?

>>1800312
Propably arquebuses. Muskets weren't widely used till ~ beginning of 17th century