Plate armor thicknesses

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Oh, certainly. I included mild steel stats in case some of the reproduction armor OP was referencing were made of the stuff. I know you're not a huge fan of the Pyramid design articles, but do you think it would be alright to build duplex plate as essentially a plate of Hard Steel on top of one of Good Steel? Were the two plates that were combined typically of equal thickness, or did one tend to be thicker than the other?

This armour was constructed in every way you can imagine. Some even had the hardened steel underneath the soft steel. Some were a triplex construction. Some were made with both layers of the same soft material (which I think was intended to defraud the buyer).

[DanHoward]

Note that the thickness of infantry armour seems to top out at around 4mm. Anything thicker than that was intended to be worn by cavalry. So weight was definitely an issue with these thicker cuirasses.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Note that the thickness of infantry armour seems to top out at around 4mm. Anything thicker than that was intended to be worn by cavalry. So weight was definitely an issue with these thicker cuirasses.

I have read, while googling on armour, that some 17th-century breastplates could be about as heavy as an entire suit of full plate.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

I have read, while googling on armour, that some 17th-century breastplates could be about as heavy as an entire suit of full plate.

Gonna depend entirely on coverage and how much thickness varies. 1mm of steel over the entire front of the chest is about 4lb (so 30+ lb for 8mm full coverage), but real armor is likely to either only cover a fraction of that area (e.g. about 1/3 as much for real-world bulletproof inserts) or have a lot of variation in thickness.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Gonna depend entirely on coverage and how much thickness varies. 1mm of steel over the entire front of the chest is about 4lb (so 30+ lb for 8mm full coverage), but real armor is likely to either only cover a fraction of that area (e.g. about 1/3 as much for real-world bulletproof inserts) or have a lot of variation in thickness.

...That's nice, but not actually related to the 7-9mm breastplates that were the topic of discussion.

And also we're way off the topic of full plate armour that was the original topic, and I'm sorry for my part in hijacking the thread.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

...That's nice, but not actually related to the 7-9mm breastplates that were the topic of discussion.

4 lb/mm * 7-9mm...

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Anthony

4 lb/mm * 7-9mm...

My apologies.

4lbs * 9 is 36 lbs, which does fit with the weight of light full plate armour.

[Keampe]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Why would anyone make armour this thick otherwise?

The reason I was leaving them off was due to the original post. The question asked was about - correct me if I'm wrong - the plate armour in Low tech, specifically pg 111. They top out at a DR of 9, which is, well, not enough for a musket.

- Shane

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Keampe

The reason I was leaving them off was due to the original post. The question asked was about - correct me if I'm wrong - the plate armour in Low tech, specifically pg 111. They top out at a DR of 9, which is, well, not enough for a musket.

- Shane

The Heavy Plate rule (LT109) caps at DR 14; DR 6 and 9 plate are just applying the heavy plate rule to DR 3 plate.

[DanHoward]

The mention of DR14 armour in Low-Tech (p.109) was specifically included to reflect these 8-9mm cuirasses. I think realistically they would provide a lot more than DR14.