[safisher]

Originally Posted by Varyon

As for axes and polearms, those shouldn't really be able to easily cut through armor either.

Easily cut through, and cut through, are not the same. Low-Tech says "Realistically, it’s extremely difficult for a blade edge to cut through any sort of armor." Which is a fabulous assertion without evidence to back it. Cutting edges and armor have existed on the same battlefields for centuries. You'd think we'd know from primary sources that this was a lame type of weapon to use against, you know, an armored foe. But outside of Howard's exaggerated claims, we don't really hear that. Much like his assertions about bronze swords being equal to the best steel (here) and what Alan William's conclude about armor (here), there's much lacking there in interpretation.

Their historical performance against armor typically comes down to either using impaling damage (typically at Chinks/Gaps) or relying on blunt trauma.

I'd actually like to see where you get this, from a historical point of view. What we do know is that pole edged weapons were used in combat against armor. We know in some cases those weapons were effective against armored foes. I'd like to know where we hear that these weapons never, under any circumstances, penetrated armor.

Dan Howard has repeatedly stated he would have preferred to give such weapons more base damage, which would have helped cover the blunt trauma issue.

Dan's understanding of GURPS is pretty limited. He wanted to increase armor DR, and increase weapon damage, too? For what purpose?