Damage and wounding readjustment

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Mythbusters used a paper made from reconstituted tree bark..

You have a source for that?

Your contention that "real" mulberry bark would have been even tougher seems improbable given the resistance to penetration actually shown.

[DanHoward]

I don't have a source. I know the the budget that they have for a typical show and the amount of cloth that they would have needed to make armour. I also know what real barkcloth looks like and that's not what they filmed. I therefore conclude that they didn't use real barkcloth but a cheaper substitute. The fact that they never once mentioned the word "barkcloth" is a giveaway. They thought that historical armour was actually made from paper, so that's what they went looking for.

Your contention that "real" mulberry bark would have been even tougher seems improbable given the resistance to penetration actually shown.

I said nothing of the sort. It is irrelevant whether their paper performed better or worse than barkcloth. They didn't test anything that resembles historical armour and so their results are meaningless. We still have no idea how well barkcloth armour resists weapons.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So were heavy plate-armoured combatants outright invulnerable in combat time?

Huh? No, you fought to put weapons through a gap, wrestled to immobilize, or drove them down with blunt trauma from hammers and polearms.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by sjard

Realistically, actual evidence suggests that cleaving through armor is almost entirely the realm of fiction. It isn't something that happened to any meaningful extent.

Even a layer or two of cloth* is very hard for a flat strike of a sharp blade to penetrate. A slicing strike is a different issue, but those aren't common with a sword.

*Not even particularly heavy cloth. Sure, some damage will happen underneath, but the cloth itself won't be cut.

Yes, I'm aware that it's very difficult.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

... I'm going to try putting it this way: It might be that a sharp axe is better at cutting through armor than a mace, but both are so awful at doing so that that isn't a significant consideration. But the axe's striking surface is designed to cut into that soft flesh that it's not actually going to touch, while the mace's striking surface is designed to hurt somebody without actually reaching their skin. So the mace is actually more effective.

I don't believe the physics works that way. With objects of equivalent weight, an sharper striking surface will do more damage/deformation than a blunt to the armor whether they penetrate or not.

Even if neither penetrate, a three foot pick with a 3 pound head will make a bigger goose-egg in armor than a three foot sledge hammer with a 3 pound head, and a three foot adze with a three pound head will be somewhere in between.

[Balor Patch]

To agree with Figleaf23's point, in what way is the mace's striking surface designed to hurt somebody without actually reaching their skin that doesn't equally apply to a striking surface designed to cut? It's likely, as Anthony pointed out, to be easier to make good contact with a blunt weapon but specifically how would a straight hit be more damaging? I don't think it would.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

To agree with Figleaf23's point, in what way is the mace's striking surface designed to hurt somebody without actually reaching their skin that doesn't equally apply to a striking surface designed to cut? It's likely, as Anthony pointed out, to be easier to make good contact with a blunt weapon but specifically how would a straight hit be more damaging? I don't think it would.

Well, in the case of a sword or other large cutting area blade, you have to spread the impact force along the entire length of the blade. That will reduce the penetrating force considerably. So a sword that impacts along a six inch length (ignoring mass issues) will have about 1/12th* the penetrating power as a flanged mace that concentrates that impact into a half inch flange.

*common sense number that is actually going to be wrong on the low end if you can do the math, which I can't right now. Off the top of my head, I recall something about it being closer to 3-5 times the energy absorbing ability increase with each doubling of impact length for an edged weapon.

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I don't believe the physics works that way. With objects of equivalent weight, an sharper striking surface will do more damage/deformation than a blunt to the armor whether they penetrate or not.

Even if neither penetrate, a three foot pick with a 3 pound head will make a bigger goose-egg in armor than a three foot sledge hammer with a 3 pound head, and a three foot adze with a three pound head will be somewhere in between.

2 objects with equivalent weight AT THE SAME SPEED, the sharper object will deformate THE SAME AS a blunt object, however, the sharp object will deformate through a narrow area, where as the blunt object will deformate through a circular area that's larger, so, it won't penetrate as much. So, if all you want is penetration, yes, cutting is better. HOWEVER, penetration is almost impossible with a muscle powered object against armor, so, it's not through penetration that you kill the guy inside armor.
The good news is that there are other ways to kill apart from penetration, a good one is through brute force, if your attack has enough energy, doesn't matter the type, this energy will pass through the armor, and hit him, creating internal damage. So, an axe or mace will do the same damage, as for swords, they'll do less damage, since they have less energy to begin with.
Said that, the mace has an advantage over the axe, it always hit the right way, an axe at an angle will slide through the armor, a mace at an angle will hit you as hard as always.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

2 objects with equivalent weight AT THE SAME SPEED, the sharper object will deformate THE SAME AS a blunt object, however, the sharp object will deformate through a narrow area, where as the blunt object will deformate through a circular area that's larger, so, it won't penetrate as much. So, if all you want is penetration, yes, cutting is better.

In fact, that is all I was talking about -- assigning armor divisors, in this case to cutting vs crushing damage.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

In fact, that is all I was talking about -- assigning armor divisors, in this case to cutting vs crushing damage.

I think the point that they're making is that if you're assigning armor divisors to damage types, both cutting and crushing should have armor multipliers. Cutting might have a marginally better multiplier (like x3 instead of x4) but neither are expected to penetrate battlefield armor (unless you raise ST to super-human levels). Crushing does most of its damage via blunt trauma, cutting does most of its damage on unarmored locations.