You know what I was going to do my usual point by point reply, but actually I'm just repeating myself so why bother. Besides everything can be summed up in one point as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher
...
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? ...
|
No, that is not correct because for the umpteenth time there were many other ways to defeat a man in armour with such a weapons that do not rely on chopping through it. Those manuals you refer to demonstrate them, they are in fact famous for doing so!
But it seems that you cannot or will not make that distinction (and your posts have consistently failed to, or ignored it) instead relying in the rather dodgy logical construction that because armoured men fought (and trained to fight) against each other with halberds
therefore halberds regularly cut though plate.
It is rather indicative of your argument, and there is no point in continuing this conversation.
But no comment on the halberd vs. the car bonnet?
EDIT OK for self control issue reasons :-) I will answer one more point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher
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.
.
|
Actually no it's not that controversial a statement (certainly isn't made so by anything posted here) moreover pretty much all the actual serious experimentation backs it up.
In fact a lot of the non-serious experimentation back it up as well!
Which is why your man with his halberd going at full tilt struggled to cut through a car bonnet!