[safisher]

[QUOTE=Tomsdad;2020775]

Don't get me wrong I don't think the writer is wrong, certainly in regards to the wider point about drilled Swiss halberdiers defeating armoured knights, just overstating the point regarding slashing through armour.

I've given you firm evidence. You've rejected it. Please understand that, on the face of it, that it is a controversial and conjectural statement in Low-Tech that cutting weapons were not capable of penetrating armor. It is overly broad. The topic comes up repeatedly here because it's a poor rule which does not square with GURPS use of DR or historical evidence of use.

You said:
"Such weapons were not well known armour piercing weapons because of their cutting blades."

Evidence clearly suggests otherwise.

You said:
"all the evidence points to the fact"

When actually, _all_ the evidence does not. In fact, I've presented a strong counter-example.

What I think we have is halbards of all slashing weapon are most likely to effect armour (but still not very likely) in GURPS terms a factor of their very high damage bonus (+5), and slashing apart or defeating armour doesn't necessarily mean in GURPS terms penetrating its full DR.

What we have is firm historical evidence of not only slashing weapons used against armor, but an example in a battle of halberds defeating plate armor, and that refutes the highly speculative and overly broad statement that edged weapons simply did not penetrate armor. Understand, it is not my claim alone, it is the claim of other scholars.

No I'd like some actually proof of your assertion that such weapons regularly cut through plate,

I never made that claim. I have simply said that where Low-Tech says "Realistically, it’s extremely difficult for a blade edge to cut through any sort of armor" is an overly broad statement that does not square with historical uses on the battlefield and in medieval manuals.

again that is not the same as saying did halberds or other pole arms that included amongst other things a heavy cutting blade get used against armoured opponents. The latter is not in doubt

You've moved the goalposts. You asked for evidence that Low-Tech was wrong. I provided such. Now you have said that was not the issue at hand. It clearly was.

Remember this thread is not concerned with the rules for targeting chinks, it's not talking about blunt trauma (directly), it's not talking about hooking, nor armed grappling, it's specifically talking about cutting through armour.

And specifically, I've given you that. Even a primary source quote. Even illustrations of men fighting in armor in with pole axes. This is not an empty argument from assertion that cutting edges cannot cut through any armor, as Howard exaggerated (as he did about, wrongly about the quality of iron armor in the middles ages, and as he did about the quality of bronze swords). This is an argument about historical use. You can remain skeptical, if you wish, but denying the text says what is does simply makes you look incapable of objectively assessing the evidence you claim you want.

Now you linked to whole lot of manuals, but can you link to one where it recommends using a blade to cut through anything but the weakest bits of a foe's plate?

Actually, all I have to do is show that armor and cutting weapons trained against each other. If it was so extremely rare for these weapons to be effective, then the why did they do that? Were they foolish? Did they, the practicing martial artists of the day, know what was effective and what wasn't? Were whole units of Swiss halberdiers, successful in combat, simply stupid, as you would have us believe? It boggles the mind.

You must understand how strongly this refutes the "Realistically, it’s extremely difficult for a blade edge to cut through any sort of armor" when this is not just ANY SORT of armor being cut, but knights on the battlefield in plate. And you keep saying plate, when I'm saying ANY SORT of armor. It's a bogus line, like the others I've pointed out.

just a request that you support your specific assertion about blades cutting through plate

It's been given. You keep repeating this. You aren't "simply requesting" you are being presented with incontrovertible evidence of exactly what you requested, and simply rejecting it out of hand. Your argument is with the phd dissertation, and the historical evidence, not me.