*blocks your attack*

File: heh.jpg (8KB, 249x202px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 249x202px

heh nothing personal kid

>>3347680
is that armor against butterknives or something??

Why do burgers and bongs own these ugly puffer jackets? They're equally worthless in all whether besides painfully bourgeoisie mid-autumn

>>3347703
>forcing a man to stab his own nards
That's the chaddest thing I've ever heard.

>>3347716
>tfw no armor was effective against bullets until modern times

>>3347726
Nigga nah, gambesons were reasonably effective.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMYv5wtNm8

>>3347762
"reasonably effective"

It provides high level protection for a minimal price.

>>3347748
plate was pretty effective against musketballs

>>3349097
But not to the level of mail or plate.

>>3349171
I thought armor was phased out in the 1600s because guns were "unblockable".

File: Cuirassiers.jpg (42KB, 495x330px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 495x330px

>>3350077
It wasn't phased out ; Cuirassiers used breastplate which was tested at the end of the production by shooting it with a pistol.
Complete plate armor was indeed phased out because it was too heavy and ineffective for the new use of the cavalry ; But armor certainly wasn't.

>>3350084

Proving armour by shooting it was a earlier thing than Napoleonic. You'll note that only people expected to get involved in hand to hand fighting were still given armour. Ask yourself why, if it was still capable of stopping bullets?

>>3347748
Cotton Armour was quite common for East Asian Arquebusers because they were very resistant against bullets.

Steel Cuirlasses were THICC'D over time in Both Europe and Japan and could withstand against multiple Arquebus hits.

>>3350077
Yes, but for the price of one mail shirt you get 10 guys with acceptable protection and pointy sticks.

File: hqdefault.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>3347762

I cited this same video (among others) in a discussion on another forum over the effectiveness of bows and crossbows vs armor, where I suggested that armor (of any kind) was far more effective then historians believed and that archers primary purpose was shooting at horses and light/unarmored support troops and not knights, whose armor made then essentially impervious to bows and crossbows (even at close range).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

>>3347703
This is some Wolf Guy-tier bullshit

>>3350115
And the Aztecs (and probably others) had a cotton gambeson-type armor that was quite effective too.

>>3350702
Yeah, armor of all sorts was way more effective than movies/TV portray it. After all, we know for a fact that more men died of disease than combat during ancient/medieval wars.

>>3350753
Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with Wolf Guy, and when I type that into google I just get werewolf stuff.

>>3350943
In the first chapters he basically tricks some sperg into stabbing himself in the neck. It's quite ridiculous.

>>3350702
Yeah some American book on the early history of European gunpowder has a quote on a crusader blocking a Turks three arrow shot with his gambeson he took off the ground, whilst he shot the Turks horse with his crossbow

>>3350077
>I thought armor was phased out in the 1600s because guns were "unblockable".
Not really.

Armor was mostly phased out because of the decline of the martial aristocracy in Europe in favor of large professional armies drawn from the poor and middle classes. Knights bought their own gear, so the cost of armor was not borne by the state. When the military was equipped with standardized gear furnished by the state, armor was no longer viable in terms of expense.

>>3351044
lmao

>>3352638
nice

>>3352938
interdasting, thx

>>3352938
No good armour to block firearms as it had arrows was thick and weighty so slow in combat.
The death kiss of heavy cavalry was the wheelock pistol, which let reiters kill heavy cav and then fly away