Trying to solve the weakness of Low-Tech armor with no modifications on ST damage tab

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Rasna

I suspected that the sample tested by Williams wasn't very strong, and in fact I was unsure if it may figure as GURPS light mail or fine mail. If I'm not wrong, the arrow required 80 J to pierce the light mail and other 20 J to pierce the padding underneath. A longbow arrow, depending its weight and the draw weight, has up to 140-150 Joules of energy at close distance: enough to pierce light mail, gambeson and inflict a serious wound to the wearer. I don't figure exactly how "GURPS-like fine mail" would perform against the same bow/arrow used in the test: superficial penetration and/or some blunt trauma, or no damage at all for both armour and wearer?

These tests are good at telling us how much energy is required to compromise the armour but not so good at telling us how much damage the wearer takes. The main problem is that they are never placed on a target that is as mobile, flexible, and resilient as a human being. We seriously underestimate how much more effective armour is when it is worn by a human.

The point of armour is to get destroyed. Every joule that goes into deforming the armour is a joule that isn't going into the wearer. Anyone who comes out of a battle with their armour undamaged is going to get accused of not pulling their weight, if not of outright cowardice.

The most common threat on any battlefield for the best part of three thousand years was from spears and arrows. All body armour for all of this time was designed to stop these weapons. We know from the primary sources that some types of mail were considered completely arrowproof. What we don't know is which types. It seems reasonable to assume that they were the variants made from a combination of heavy links and denser weaves.

This might help.
http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

There are dozens of different types of mail. Low-Tech took all of these and created three generic categories, but more realistic modelling isn't possible so long as we rely on the current ST-damage table.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The point of armour is to get destroyed. Every joule that goes into deforming the armour is a joule that isn't going into the wearer. Anyone who comes out of a battle with their armour undamaged is going to get accused of not pulling their weight, if not of outright cowardice.

Nothing wrong with your armor only suffering temporary deformation rather than permanent deformation.

Except that making it sturdy enough for that means more material with the attendant drawbacks.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Nothing wrong with your armor only suffering temporary deformation rather than permanent deformation.

Except that making it sturdy enough for that means more material with the attendant drawbacks.

Bah. Temporary deformation is for wimps. A real warrior will get his armour completely destroyed and still continue to fight.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Bah. Temporary deformation is for wimps. A real warrior will get his armour completely destroyed and still continue to fight.

“I don't want a knight in shining armor.
I don't want a knight in scuffed armor.
I want his helmet to have dents. I want my knight to be real, and dark and savage. I want my knight to be a survivor. Someone who's been tested and got through his trails. Not some ***** in gleaming metal.”

Noted medieval historian Belle Aurora ;-)

[Rasna]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

These tests are good at telling us how much energy is required to compromise the armour but not so good at telling us how much damage the wearer takes. The main problem is that they are never placed on a target that is as mobile, flexible, and resilient as a human being. We seriously underestimate how much more effective armour is when it is worn by a human.

[...]

The most common threat on any battlefield for the best part of three thousand years was from spears and arrows. All body armour for all of this time was designed to stop these weapons. We know from the primary sources that some types of mail were considered completely arrowproof. What we don't know is which types. It seems reasonable to assume that they were the variants made from a combination of heavy links and denser weaves.

This might help.
http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

I read your article on MyArmoury some time ago and I noticed that - very rarely - the mail could fail (because poor maintenance or because a strong hit on a weak point, maybe either one or more bent/bad manufactured/rusty rings and rivets). This could be represented in game with a critical hit.

Regarding the results of the test of Williams, 140/150 J (longbow arrow at point-blank) - 100 J (light mail and padding) = 40-50 J from an impaling weapon which press into the flesh, a force comparable to an underarm stab with a knife; it could be either lethal or, more probably, non-lethal, depending where the arrow hits. Heavier mail with padding is likely to reduce the damage to some blunt trauma or it could even be completely proofed.