Weapon/armour effectivness and categorization

[Ivan Curic]

First of all I would like to say hello to everyone <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Lately, there has been a large interest here in Croatia for medieval combat recreations, but only Amtgard (LARP) is available, which isn't based on realistic combat.

However, me and some of my friends have decided to make a combat system based on realism, not fantasy.
And, since most of us have only been practicing Japanese martial arts, which don't really incorporate armor, there has been a lot of arguing about "weapon vs armor type" problems... I know it cannot be generalized like that, but, in my best efforts, I have come here to ask the experts <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

So, before I start doing the paperwork, I would like you to answer a few of my questions, if possible:

1) If a certain weapon can't pierce/break an armor in one blow, is there a possibility that it would in multiple blows?
2) If armors could be put into "protection power" categories, eg, generalized, how would those groups look like, and which types of armor would each one contain?

As far as I know, the basic elements of an armor can be:
cloth - don't know what it's called... layered cloth sewn together...
leather - boiled leather, studded leather, scaled leather...
rings - chainmail, ringmail...
plates - plate mail, scale mail...

Am I going in the right direction? Hope so <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

As the writing of the rules continues, I will be returning to this thread, asking for your expertise advice.
Thank you in advance!

[Allen Johnson]

i'll make just a few notes and let others chime in:

If a weapon can not go through armour, it will need to go around it. Repeated attempts will probably damage the weapon or just get you killed. Remember that fights move quickly and can be decided in a split second. So rather than keep trying to beat a protected area on the chance that it might give way, you should focus your efforts on attacking unarmoured areas.

Just as a note- with recent research the terms "scale mail" and "plate mail" are decidedly not accurate. The only thing that is "mail" is what is known as "chain mail". Even then you dont really need "chain"- the term "mail" is all that is needed. I'm not sure if there actually is any historical evidence that a "ring mail" ever existed. Most sources that people use as images to support "ring mail" have for the most part, been discarded as just the artists interpretation for normal mail.
Also, many types of armour were combined. Like wearing a gambeson under mail or your plate harness. Some even had mail voiders in the open gaps to help elimiate that problem.

If you are interested in re creating what is real historical combat, then there arent any real rules to be had. You study the techniques taught by the manuals and practice them. The ARMA method is not a game and therefore does not need rules about these types of things.
If you do want to make a game then it ceaces to be historical. It then becomes a sort of "inspired by" thing.

[Ivan Curic]

Thank you for clearing some things up. I was brought to believe that the word xy-mail was proper... Guess I was wrong <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />
I understand that the ARMA method is not a game, and I know there aren't any rules. I am asking about the facts, so I can try to include them in a game, based on the ARMA method.

In fact, I don't think the term "game" describes well what I have in mind. The proper term, I think, would be "medieval combat simulation".
That is, a historically accurate and fact based... game if you wish to call it, because people should join to have fun, but also te get informed about the true facts of medieval warfare, breaking common myths, and try to get the "feel" first hand.

So, I guess the "proper" categorization of armours would be:

light - leather and cloth
medium - scale and maille
heavy - plate

And now about the categorization of weapons...

how would you categorize the weapons?
Based on their "looks", size, or weight?

The point of this is because I am planning to make a table, which would contain the effects of weapon types vs armour types...
The effects would be a hit (FI: unarmored), no hit (FI: dagger vs plate), and something in between... meaning that it's not as effective vs the armor, but can still deliver damage to the one wearing... like a sword chop on a maille... the maille would not break, but still the wearer would get hurt...

[Stacy Clifford]

Short answer, weapons should be categorized along the lines of function and intended use. Blades that are wide near the tip are going to be used for chopping and slicing, while more sharply tapering blades will be used for a greater degree thrusting and half-swording. Combination forms like bastard swords can be pretty nimble for both chopping and thrusting, but not as good at either as the specialists. Rapiers will probably break against armor, but are wickedly nasty against soft targets. A rondel is an armor piercing dagger whose use is very well documented. Don't forget trapping, hooking, tripping, and using the weapon for leverage in wrestling. Polearms are extremely versatile in those regards. Matt and Shane will tell you there are plenty of ways to defeat armor without piercing it. There are plenty of threads in this forum about sword classification, so be sure and do some searching. Read the articles about cutting, thrusting, edge damage, and, well heck, just read as much as possible on here, it will help you answer or at least fine-tune a lot of your questions.

[Allen Johnson]

No problem- most of us were taught or heard the xy + mail thing so we have all been there.
Here is an old thread on Sword Forum in which others express what I was trying to convey as well:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=26446&amp;highlight=ringmail
and here:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=23212&amp;highlight=ringmail

The problem with categorizing armour into light, medium and heavy is that they all have things they do well in and things they dont do as well in. It's not like in a video game where you level up and suddenly become less vulnerable.
The evolution of weapons and armor are all done to counter one onother. Armour was made to protect from a certain type of weapon from doing what it does best. It's effective and people adapt it. Then people alter weapons in order to beat that armour (sometimes it means through it and sometimes it means going around it). So then the armour has to develop in order to deal with that problem. And so on up to our modern day. The other problem is that not all of those categories existed or were used at any one time. For instance; if you are a Viking, your primary armor is mail. Plate didnt exist yet. You can't have a 16th century greatsword fighting a Knight Templar using sword and shield. By the time we are getting to the 1700's people are ditching armor all together in favor of broadswords, muskets and bayonets. And even then, that depends on where the action is taking place.
So if you goals is to reflect reality you cant have a wide spread generic medieval thing where the light, medium and heavy would apply.

Does any of this make sense?

Now we can train with mismatched weapons from various eras and cultures because it just comes down to weapon knowledge and physical application. There is no, 'my ARMA t-shirt grants me a +1 defence aginst your rapier'.

So yeah you can categorize things but you must aviod the notion of good, better, best. There is no best sword (read this: http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm ) and there is no best armor.

I hope this helps some.

[Ivan Curic]

Heh, I never meant there to be a "best" armor or weapon.
Every type is good for something. Nor there to be "points" of any sort.

I read a whole bunch of articles here and was particulary impressed about the weight of the greatswords and effectiveness of rapiers... time to break some rumors

On to some questions:

1) Is mail easier to cut, or pierce?
2) In order to cut through armor, is the weapons weight important?
3) I think I read in an article that piercing weapons were used against plates... however, an arrow can hardly penetrate through plate, how is that?
4) Is it true, that the more the point of balance is closer to the tip of the weapon, the more effective it is in terms of raw damage?
5) If so, would the correct "damage" ratio be polearm>axe>sword when used to simply chop?
6) What are the differences between maces, flails and warhammers in terms of effectivness?
7) Is it true that the maille (let's assume 4 in 1, most common gauge) is easier to destroy than plate? The advantages of it being flexible, and easier to make?
However the plate's advantages being not flexible, thus spreading the impact evenly along the body surface...

I know each armour / weapon has it's uses, but now, i have to get the weapon vs armor table finished... no weapon / armor is better/ worse... they all have it's uses...

EDIT:

found some answers here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm

My conclusion is that leather, mail, and plate were the 3 "common" types of armor, and the heavier and longer the sword is, the easier it will cut through armor, but versus plate, axes, maces and war hammers were much more efficient.

What about polearms and spears vs plate?

[Allen Johnson]

there will be exceptions and variables to every one but here are some general answers

1) Depends completley on what weapons in being used. Mail was mostly made to defeat a cut. Swords with a sharp tapered tip were the answer to beating mail. (As well as going for openings). Axes, spears, Pole arms and certain types of arrows were able to go through mail with varying levels of sucsess.
2) Depends on the type of armor. With mail, the secret is more in the geometry of the object thrusting through it as well as the force behind it. Also remember that not all armor was the same thickness. They did not have sheets of 16 gauge steel like we do. As they pounded it out there might be portions that are more thin than others. Perhaps enough to allow a blow through.
3) Remember that when people say that certain types of weapons were used against plate it does not mean that it always goes through plate. Hence the heavy use of half-swording that we see in harness fighting. They arent putting the swords through the armor. They are winding to thrust into unprotected portions. An arrow can not do this. That and there is much more force behind a man doing a half sword thrust than an arrow after a 100 yard flight. We also could have a whole discussion about testing an arrows penetrating ability. Most tests are done in favorable conditions with a breastplate hanging on a stand at 100 feet. Not on a nasty battlefield with a guy and thousands of his friends charging at you. You are going to get much better penetrating results from a stationary object at close range than a moving one with additional padding underneath.
4)Again, it depends on what you are trying to do. A rapier can do a helluva lot of damage and has very little weight at the tip. So can a falchion which has much more weight at the tip. I guess I really don't know what you are meaning by "raw damage". The weapons are effective- otherwise they wouldnt have lasted. With most weapons in reality you dont get a "damage" level. For the most part, you were either injured but were able to continue relativley unimpeeded (sp?) or you were done- flat out. (check out this article on leg wounds as an example: http://www.thearma.org/essays/LegWounds.htm )
5) no ratio is really needed- a decent blow with real intent from any one of those weapons would pretty much end your day- (assuming you dont have any armor which if you do the ratio wouldnt matter anyway).
6)Maces and hammers were a few of the weapons that could go through plate- However they lack any other use than a purcussive blow. We have very little info in any manuals about them and their use. They can render mail useless as the mail does little to absorb the blow- the gambeson does more of that.
7) Depends on what is being used. That and armor is rarely "destroyed". Again, the opponent is defeated by someone getting around it. If they were able to get through it, that one blow or thrust is usually all thats needed. Does that mean the armor got "destroyed"? We've seen half sword thrusts that bust a ring or two of mail and penetrate enough to cause serious injury (even if it wasnt a killing thrust- the opponent probably would have been able to resist further attack). But I'd hesitate to say the armor was destroyed.

Good luck with your table-

[Benjamin Abbott]

5) no ratio is really needed- a decent blow with real intent from any one of those weapons would pretty much end your day

That depends on a number of factors. I've read many examples of men walking away from sword and even polearm blows to the head. A full blow to the head from a one-handed sword is most commonly death, but a full blow from two-handed sword or polearm is bound to be worse.

What about polearms and spears vs plate?

Again it depends. Piercing quality plate with a spear thrust probably require a great deal of strength, skill and luck. However, it's clear that a heavy blow to the head could knock out or kill, even through a quality helmet.

[Derek Gulas]

"That depends on a number of factors. I've read many examples of men walking away from sword and even polearm blows to the head. A full blow to the head from a one-handed sword is most commonly death, but a full blow from two-handed sword or polearm is bound to be worse. "

So, I guess that means that the motor control part of their brains weren't damaged. Were they wearing a helmet? Glancing blow, etc?

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hi,

First, I write from hungary, so hello!

I believe there is absolutelly nothing wrong in creating a game. Even, if it is history/RPG/Fantasy/EMA based. The only thing you have to decide, if you go with those RPG-rules and misconceptions or of you really, really, really want to simulate historical battles.
Lets see those two points.
RPGs VS Reality:
- In those games (AD&amp;D and the like) You have 'piercing value' yet, historically seen, there is no such thing. Armour does not "swallow" some of the damage to the body, it either protects or not. WHAT should count is, if the enemy knows anything about the weak points on armour or not. If not, there is not much chance for him to win. If yes, even then it's hell of a ride to get out alive from an armoured fighting.
- In those games, like somebody said before me, all weapons and armour are mixed up to a single bowl of armoury. Historically seen, you HAVE to decide on a specific timeframe you want to play in. It's absolute nonsense to walk around with weapons designed for piercing maile from the viking area if your enemies wear a 16th century maximilian harnesses and are prepared to use them correctly. It simply does not work like that. No matter what those fantasy books tell you.

1) Is mail easier to cut, or pierce?

Pierce. Not much chance to cut through it, still a big blow can break a bone underneath.

2) In order to cut through armor, is the weapons weight important?

You do NOT cut through armour. How could you? With a steel object, hitting an other steel object and hoping for it to go through is like cutting wood with wood.

3) I think I read in an article that piercing weapons were used against plates... however, an arrow can hardly penetrate through plate, how is that?

In certain circumstances, some arrows can damage plate. It is not the standard, however.

4) Is it true, that the more the point of balance is closer to the tip of the weapon, the more effective it is in terms of raw damage?

No. A Rapier, for example has almost no weight and can still kill a full-grown man within a split second <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
IF we are talking about cutting power, even then it is not true. In the formula about hitting power the weight is only X1, and speed with X2. At some point a very heavy weapon does not cut at all very well, but kills with the seer mass. And that's not so much good.

5) If so, would the correct "damage" ratio be polearm>axe>sword when used to simply chop?

IF the target is not moving and laid on a hard surface, then yes. Yet, try to hack a softer, moving target (like a small part of a tree moved by the wind) with an axe and with a sword, you will see the axe is inferior to the sword.

6) What are the differences between maces, flails and warhammers in terms of effectivness?

Those weapons were not so common RPG players tend to believe. The simple reason is, if for example I had to choose a weapon for war or a duell, there are weapons much better for both than any warhammer or mace. It's simply a modern fantasy, nothing more. I would only pick a mace or something like that if I KNOW there are only armoured enemies, on foot, who have no longer weapons (only short swords, for example).
I duels, warhammers sometimes took part, for yes, they are a good way to kill somebody in armour. Still there are better ways. There is, for example as far as I know no codex or fechtbuch or manual about using such.

7) Is it true that the maille (let's assume 4 in 1, most common gauge) is easier to destroy than plate? The advantages of it being flexible, and easier to make?
However the plate's advantages being not flexible, thus spreading the impact evenly along the body surface...

The answer is, when plate came, maile went out of fashion. Plate was not invented by fantasy but by need of protection.
Maile does not protect as well as plate does in any ways.

There is one more thing: if you want ot do it HISTORICALLY accurate, then you have to do it, of course, in a historical way. Hence, wou have to learn how to fight properly. You cannot invent a fighting technique. Our ancestors had 1000 years for it, so nobody could truly believe than he/she can make up how to fight? That would be, as if I would jump around and tell the folks, it's a historical Saltarello or a Galliarde or whatever, which would be of course only bullwaste, for I cannot dance at all. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

on our page, wich is http://www.sword.sg18.net/hu/hu_index.htm, under 'Kincstár' (treasury) there are a lot of Videos about swordfights and the like, and even a short sparring battle. (the videos with free fights are called "Video/Szabadharcok").
For that and all sparring matches we use a simply system of points. We agree how much points one has (mostly 4) and go for it. For even with an injury, your enemy will do lots of nasty things to you. Since we are not 'playing' but try to learn, we do not use any other rules like kneeing down or not using a hand when it's hit, or imagining we have different kind os armour with different values and the like. Who cares? The things you can learn, in a martial art sense, for sparring an battley are much more important than winning or playing around.

The idea for a asparring battle with padded weapons is not bad at all, if you use it as a martial arts training. There is not much written material around for battles, we use Machiavelli and Sun Tzu and Kossuth; still it works very well. please check out the videos.

((((I even uploaded the video from the ARMA-Order of the Sword workshop <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ))))

greets,

Szabolcs

[Ivan Curic]

I have the first version of the table complete, it's at the end of the post. There are probably some spelling/categorization issues, but that can be fixed.
The game has no combat rules, except the armor/weapon/bodypart effect... no classes or skills, that's up to you.

The general idea is that the body is divided into 3 groups:
head, torso, and limbs.

The "K" and "W" mean "kill" and "wound" on each segment of the body, "W" for instance meaning a flesh wound, or impact wound on the arm, and "K" the arm being cut off, or otherwise rendered completely useless.
The same applies for any other body part, other than the head, which is considered that there are no wounds if you get hit with a sword in the head, be you wearing a steel helmet or not, i think you're done for it...

The general effects, for now are:

a wounded arm - you cannot use larger weapons in that hand
a wounded leg - you cannot run
wounded torso - i have no idea :-/
"killed" limb - you cannot use it, and will die afterwards, if you are not "healed" (heck, it will have to have SOME fantasy elements to it, because it would be boring otherwise)
two killed limbs = death
torso kill = death

About the shields... where there is a "W" that means that the wound is applied to the arm where the shield is attached...
Also, how likely is it to happen that the shield is going to break, or the pole of a weapon? Because i read that greatswords were used to break pole weapons... how come that pole weapons couldn't break other pole weapons, then?



Note: this is just a general effect table, meaning that if someone wields a halberd, a chop would have the effect of the "pole arm" section, and a thrust with the pike on top, the effect of a pike.
And the armors are
light: leather and cloth
medium : mail
heavy : plate

[Matthew_Anderson]

OK, I'm probably going to regret getting into this thread as I'm not a "gamer", but I have to ask, why is there nothing in the "Heavy Armor" column for dagger? There were probably more knights in full plate armour killed by daggers than any other weapon IMO.

And what's "fencing" supposed to mean. Really, all fighting with weapons is fencing.

And what on earth is "subdual"?

See...I regret it already.

[Allen Johnson]

just a few more notes- there isnt a sword type called "flamberge". It's just a type of blade thats made in the wavy pattern and provides no additional benefit- just harder to make and repair. There are two handed flamberge blades as well as rapier flamberge blades.
The only weapon that can really be historically called a "broadsword" is the Scottish baskethilt. The generic broadsword term for pretty much any medieval cutting sword is a modern invention. I dont think I've ever seen historic reference to a great axw or great hammer either. Im not trying to be picky but if you want to be historical then there are moer things to be adressed.
Again- remember that a decent blow anywhere on the unprotected body is basically a kill. Ask anyone who has recieved a sharp blow to a pinky with even just a wooden waster. For the most part they instantly drop the sword and recoil.

[Mason Pluzak]

Subdual is a form of damage in D&amp;D. It's basically special HP that determines consciousness. If subdual damage becomes greater than current HP, the character becomes unconsciouss. (Subdual adds up, HP goes down)

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Well, if you end up with a warhammer in your forehead, unconcious you will be, that's for sure. Or dead <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Szab