|
Kemper Boyd posted:Slings are even harder to use properly than bows, and slings usually used metal bullets as ammo instead of rocks. They got hella range and serious hitting power. though. I bet the slings were very unprecise though, also why use a Sling instead of a Bow? Which is faster and way more precise in my opinion
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
NyxBiker posted:I bet the slings were very unprecise though, also why use a Sling instead of a Bow? Which is faster and way more precise in my opinion Both slings and their ammunition are very cheap to make and don't require much in the way of know-how to build, and they're also really easy to transport. Any given slinger could easily carry several dozen bullets and several slings on their body, and when running low each of them could probably restock on their own. Making sure your archers all have working bows, enough strings, and sufficient arrows at all times would be a somewhat greater logistical effort. Slim Jim Pickens posted:You're assuming that both projectiles are being launched at the same angle. The slinging website doesn't elaborate on the angle of launch for their tests, but the longbow records are the results of a flight shooting competition where it's normal to fire at 45 degrees. Without having to guess about angles, we can just use muzzle velocities. One additional factor that might make a difference could be the flexibility of the projectile. An arrow, having a fair bit of its mass as relatively flexible and compressible wood, might flex and bend a bit during impact, spreading out the transfer of its energy over a longer period of time. Meanwhile, a lead or stone bullet would be harder and smaller, focusing the transfer of the energy into a smaller period of time, leading to greater peak forces that could dent a piece of armor that an arrow might not. I don't actually know whether this effect is significant enough to make a noticeable difference, but when you look at the way an arrow bends back and forth upon being loosed it doesn't seem impossible. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The stones impact with more energy than an equivalent bow. The arrows from a longbow are even nastier. Even if some velocity is lost to friction, a longbow arrow that bounces off a French knight is hitting at least as hard as a rock slung at a Persian noble. On the other hand, an Greek arrow and a lighter bullet are roughly similar, which is telling of the Greek archer's intended role. I couldn't find any sources on contemporary Persian or Levantine bows, but I suspect they were more advanced. We certainly know about plate armoured guys resisting longbow arrows both to their bodies and helmets with little ill effect, and the heavily padded mail worn in centuries prior might have been even more effective against blunt trauma. I'm just guessing on that, though, as I've never seen a study on that sort of thing. quote:Vegetius identifies out sling wounds as being "mortal without the loss of blood", in direct comparison to arrows. Vegetius' claims on lethality are rather suspect. Take, for example, his notion that a thrust two inches deep is lethal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
NyxBiker posted:I bet the slings were very unprecise though, also why use a Sling instead of a Bow? Which is faster and way more precise in my opinion Have you tried both? I haven't tried shooting with either so I wouldn't know. Is there anyone here who has experience with both weapons?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Since ranged weapons in general take more time to get acquainted with, I'm wondering if it's possible that a military might not have any ranged weapons due to a lack of recruits familiar with bows or whatnot. Does your average peasant own a bow? It kind of happened every now and then. If a state didn't have means to recruit specialist forces like archers or mounted archers, they hired them amongst some other people. But that isn't to say that they didn't have any ranged weapons. Everyone used at least thrown weapons if nothing else, and there were always some people who could use bows, even when there weren't enough archers to form whole units. In 1360 a thatcher earned 3.5p/day and a labourer 1.5p/day. Longbow cost was 1s (ie. 12p), so your average peasant could have owned a bow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
NyxBiker posted:I bet the slings were very unprecise though, also why use a Sling instead of a Bow? Which is faster and way more precise in my opinion You can look up videos of people doing slinging from the Balearic islands today, its still a local sport there. Its plenty accurate for when the goal is "hit that mass of men over there" They also long and short slings that had variable ranges and trajectories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:In 1360 a thatcher earned 3.5p/day and a labourer 1.5p/day. Longbow cost was 1s (ie. 12p), so your average peasant could have owned a bow. I'd argue that the thatcher-labour relations significantly reduced the amount of stuff your average peasant could have owned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:You're assuming that both projectiles are being launched at the same angle. The slinging website doesn't elaborate on the angle of launch for their tests, but the longbow records are the results of a flight shooting competition where it's normal to fire at 45 degrees. Without having to guess about angles, we can just use muzzle velocities. 1. A slower projectile has a less flat trajectory than a faster one (mass plays no role in this formula). See your sling stone. It's slower than the arrow. 45° is already the angle that you will archieve maximum distance for any given projectile. If you go lower or higher, you will shoot less far: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/mr.cfm 2. We've seen above in the range records that the best sling projectiles have about the same weight as longbow arrows, and they go about as far as them. Which you can tell is the optimum weight of projectile in terms of max output, therefore, they will also have to travel at the same angle and the same speed, or they would not reach comparable results. It's still only possible to shoot the max distance with 45°, and since they're *records* you can assume that they're as close to the optimum as it's possible. 3. The data for the sling bullet cannot be correct. 1/2*0,08*(30²)=36J, not 49. The projectile is already very slow with 30m/s, same as for the heavy stone, and due to the low mass it will lose KE by the root as it loses speed over the distance it travels. Same as the light arrow, which is only effective at close range for the same reason. Since we already mentioned trajectory, you see that at 30m/s, it's not going particularly flat and therefore will be harder to shoot acurately if you reach out. 4. The equivalent of speed and mass is the longbow arrow to the stone, not the other bow? How do you want to compare 16th century cold steel plate that has angled surfaces and padding inside with something that persian nobles wore in the days of Alexander? At best it's some kind of bronze or iron helmet (that doesn't cover the face?), or a lamellar construction that will completely collapse if you shoot both projectiles at it. What Perestroika said actually works in the opposite way, which is mentioned in the paper about the warbow trials. The flexing and oscilation of the arrow increases it's ability to penetrate, the effect is like trying to open a can with a knife. If you drive the knife in straight, it doesn't work so well, but if you slowly work it back and forth while driving it down, it does. The effect was observed when arrows shot from a bow penetrated a test plate, but shot straight from an air cannon with the same force failed to penetrate consistently. These greek bows seem to be some kind of filler. You see that the dudes who make these super shots with the slings need so room to work, as the long sling needs for be moved around in order to work. The archers can be put anywhere. Greek bows are still poo poo tier weapons compared to a bunch of half naked guys that fling stones with a piece of leather. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Have you tried both? I haven't tried shooting with either so I wouldn't know. Is there anyone here who has experience with both weapons? I shot some bows in my youth and I tried messing around with an improvised sling from a neckerchief a few years ago. Overhand throws weren't too inaccurate but I've no clue if that would be common or what.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:Bad idea, since it doesn't really give people a chance to be super technical rather than super defensive. Put the single life into some kind of framework that forces the participants to engage. A time limit to the fight, if no decision is reached by the end (because both were too defensive), both are out of the tournament. If one party keeps running away, either do it like Kaal suggested with a penalty after 30 seconds or so, or let the fight run to the time limit and the fleeing party is out (because obviously he was put to flight). Verisimilidude posted:Also sword hits to the head and body weren't guaranteed kills, unless you're thrusting someone through the face. Also hand, leg, and arm hits are all very valuable in their own right, and many of the texts regarding historical fighting refer specifically to severing hands or piercing feet. I can also see a problem in the whole all or nothing thing - because poo poo does happen and bad luck could kick you out of the tournament really fast. A variation would be some kind of "health bar" - maybe you can take 2 good hits per fight instead of one. The tournament rules put the participants into the wrong state of mind: you win by scoring more hits in a given timeframe than your opponent. If you achieve that, its unimportant how much punishment you take yourself. In the end that is a suicidal mindset (doubly enforced by the fact that we do free fights with steel in armor that will keep us perfectly safe). Turning it around as in "you have x lifepoints, get him down before you fall over yourself" would be much more appropriate to the core of the thing. Tuning the amount of lifepoints to a value that is usable shouldnt be that hard. Maybe stuff like this: Verisimilidude posted:I feel the same about Carlos Negrado. He has a very unusual style of longsword fencing, but bind contact like that is unlikely to happen in free fencing outside of his school. Still, it's great to watch and its focus on short-measure fighting is pretty rad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
On a similar note, dudes complain about :Gokmen posted:Hi all, I am sure you have been flooded with recent fast archery videos as well and participated in one or the other discussion. What I find amazing is this: when me and other friends criticised the common practice in horse archery competitions that most of the people didn’t come to full draw, people didn’t want to hear this, they called it “the flying anchor” and justified a half draw. In fact one of the “successful” German mounted archers recommended to take a “heavier” bow of 45lbs and only draw a bit on the Korean track, it would be enough to get high points. However now, that somebody else is also doing a half draw but is much FASTER, all of a sudden the half draw is a problem. 90% of the mounted archer community, please share your thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Well, how do you think people should fight when their life is on the line? (Unless they are young, high on adrenaline/bloodlust/indoctrination/fear or just have enough courage and skill to go in there and finish it). This is fine for a fun side tournament, but for an actual open longsword or whatever tournament I feel things like "lifepoints" can be a bad idea. It ends up turning into a game, and it becomes less about being a technical fencer and more about playing within the confines of the game. It should be a given that fighters should be able to dispatch their opponent while defending their lives, which is why so many people contend with the concept of afterblows, but even the best fencers in the world get hit from time to time. It's the nature of bladed weapons that you're both going to get cut, and by adequately measuring the difference between the potential wounds (say hitting someone in the head and in return getting stabbed in the thigh) you can get a good idea for who "won" the fight (the person who is alive the longest, perhaps).
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Just have it so you're not "dead" until you've fallen over or yielded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:1. A slower projectile has a less flat trajectory than a faster one (mass plays no role in this formula). See your sling stone. It's slower than the arrow. 45° is already the angle that you will archieve maximum distance for any given projectile. If you go lower or higher, you will shoot less far: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/mr.cfm I'm saying that the slingers are noted shooting overhand for the records, but a 45 degree launch is awkward with that kind of technique. Using that range isn't going to give you the true muzzle velocity because we're not given any information about the angle of launch. I don't know what the true angle is, but it's probably more acute. Since I'm not trying to argue for the sling's range, I gave muzzle velocities a means to find the KE of the projectile. The range records don't need to be consulted, because they aren't equivalent. The human range of motion in an arm doesn't allow for throwing things at 45 degrees upwards. JaucheCharly posted:3. The data for the sling bullet cannot be correct. 1/2*0,08*(30²)=36J, not 49. The projectile is already very slow with 30m/s, same as for the heavy stone, and due to the low mass it will lose KE by the root as it loses speed over the distance it travels. Same as the light arrow, which is only effective at close range for the same reason. Since we already mentioned trajectory, you see that at 30m/s, it's not going particularly flat and therefore will be harder to shoot acurately if you reach out. My bad, I used the wrong source for velocity. The 49J figure is from using the 120 fps figure in the book scan. Also, I'm having trouble understanding what you're objecting to, with your 4th point. quote:How do you want to compare 16th century cold steel plate that has angled surfaces and padding inside with something that persian nobles wore in the days of Alexander? At best it's some kind of bronze or iron helmet (that doesn't cover the face?), or a lamellar construction that will completely collapse if you shoot both projectiles at it. You're mistaking my intentions. The sling fell out of military use because you can't develop better "rope swinging" technology to keep up with advances in armour or archery. But there are lots of ancient sources that say nutty things like slingers outranging archers, Persian and Greek. Even if the explanation for that is lovely archery, I wouldn't discount slings because they don't match up to advanced bows from a millenia away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Also, I'm having trouble understanding what you're objecting to, with your 4th point. Slim Jim Pickens posted:The muzzle velocity of an arrow from a longbow (0.1kg) is 50 m/s. 125J In your calculation, where do the stones impact with more energy than the equivalent bow? 125>90>54>36. If there's one thing closer to being equivalent in terms of speed and projectile weight and therefore KE, it's the longbow to the stone shot. Slim Jim Pickens posted:The human range of motion in an arm doesn't allow for throwing things at 45 degrees upwards. Just try to throw something at a high angle? Does your arm lock or something? Don't you tilt your torso to shoot upwards? How do you think do beginners throw a javelin at a too steep angle?  Why shouldn't range records be relevant? The muzzle velocity that you gave are point blank speeds. If you don't look at how far they go, you're missing out if they're both affected by airdrag the same way, or in other words, if the effect of being hit 100m away is notably different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:We certainly know about plate armoured guys resisting longbow arrows both to their bodies and helmets with little ill effect, and the heavily padded mail worn in centuries prior might have been even more effective against blunt trauma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Simplest answer is it's one of those forgotten technology things
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Which reminds me, I've actually been wondering this ever since I learned about it--why no padding in the 17th century? That stuff goes straight over your jacket. Is it because the clothing itself is really thick, and has been for a hundred years or so? Is it because if your armor won't stop a bullet a gambeson sure as poo poo won't? Something else? A few of the cuirasses that we saw at the museum still had the padding left inside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:A few of the cuirasses that we saw at the museum still had the padding left inside. And 16th century jackets especially are often padded or quilted, that may have something to do with it. These two are basically a couch. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:In your calculation, where do the stones impact with more energy than the equivalent bow? 125>90>54>36. If there's one thing closer to being equivalent in terms of speed and projectile weight and therefore KE, it's the longbow to the stone shot. What does it matter which figure is equivalent to the other? The English longbow doesn't exist in 200 BCE, I calculated its projectile KE because there's more information available for it. If you want me to define an equivalent bow for the sling, then I'd say it's the Greek bow because its contemporary. You can put a 200g stone or a 80g lead bullet in the same sling. And even for an amateur those stones leave at the same velocity. Is the same true for a bow? quote:Just try to throw something at a high angle? Does your arm lock or something? Don't you tilt your torso to shoot upwards? How do you think do beginners throw a javelin at a too steep angle? The motion for slinging is either overhand or underhand, and to get a 45 degree angle you need to sling underhand. The overhand motion is similar to that of a baseball pitcher  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc_rAly4oLY&t=63s You can't assume that both techniques are going to produce the same velocity. Hell, underhand softball pitches are faster than overhand baseball pitches, but I feel that it's too far a leap of faith to extrapolate that to slinging. Instead, and correct me if I'm wrong, let me point out the fundamental difference in energy transfer in between archers and slinger. An archer uses their motion to draw and build tension in a bowstring, but once they've completed their motion, they can aim their bow without losing much of that energy. For a slinger or a pitcher, the entire act of motion, rotating their arm and torso, is what gives their projectile its energy. If you limit it, by telling the thrower to release it overhead to get a 45 degree angle of launch, it'd be the same as telling an archer to release at half-draw. This wouldn't give you a realistic idea of the projectile velocity, especially because you'd expect both archers and slingers on a battlefield to be trying to maximise their projectile energy. I would have to accept the velocities based on range if there weren't easy ways to measure it, but there are. The guy in the video I posted has a camera that tells him he's shooting at 39m/s, which I didn't use, because the figure of 30 m/s from the Vickers Defense Systems ballistics facility. quote:Why shouldn't range records be relevant? The muzzle velocity that you gave are point blank speeds. If you don't look at how far they go, you're missing out if they're both affected by airdrag the same way, or in other words, if the effect of being hit 100m away is notably different. http://slinging.org/index.php?page=sling-ranges If I use these ranges, at 45 degrees even the shortest world record shot had an initial velocity of 45m/s.With its projectile mass of .285kg, that gives an unbelievable KE of 288J, which is essentially a modern pistol. So I don't quite believe it. The range will only tell you what airdrag acts on the projectile if you are expecting it be launched at 45 degrees at the largest possible velocity. We don't know that it is. I also don't see why an arrow would necessarily experience less drag than a oval shaped stone that's 8 times heavier. tl;dr Because I am arguing about god damned slingers. Everything seems spotty, so I've low-balled all my figures for the sake of avoiding sensationalism. If you don't object to the final kinetic energy values themselves, I don't see any reason to take issue with me using muzzle velocity to achieve that. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Off the top of my head there was an engagement in Spain where English longbowmen faced some Spanish slingers, I think there was more of them but the longbowmen came off the better anyway. That was the reason for this discussion and I think we're brutally wasting our time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Which reminds me, I've actually been wondering this ever since I learned about it--why no padding in the 17th century? That stuff goes straight over your jacket. Is it because the clothing itself is really thick, and has been for a hundred years or so? Is it because if your armor won't stop a bullet a gambeson sure as poo poo won't? Something else? As far as I know, the gambeson began to shrink and lose popularity as the efficacy of armor increased. By the 16th century, knights relied entirely on their advanced and highly articulated plate armors, and anyone who wore a gambeson would have been considered uncouth and lower class. With the advent of gunpowder this began to change. As armor lost its efficacy, knights became more inclined to take off their armor (for reasons of speed, comfort, recognizability, style, etc.) and that led to a resurgence in the popularity of gambesons and similar wear. My guess is that you're looking at a transitional period. That said, it's also important to recognize that the gameson had changed over the centuries. By the 17th century, you're typically looking at something like a buff coat, which used thick leather rather than quilted cloth padding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buff_coat Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Hell, underhand softball pitches are faster than overhand baseball pitches, but I feel that it's too far a leap of faith to extrapolate that to slinging. Uhhhh no they aren't, not by a good 20 MPH. edit: HEY GAL posted:Which reminds me, I've actually been wondering this ever since I learned about it--why no padding in the 17th century? That stuff goes straight over your jacket. Is it because the clothing itself is really thick, and has been for a hundred years or so? Is it because if your armor won't stop a bullet a gambeson sure as poo poo won't? Something else? As you've frequently pointed out, cloth is expensive, so 25 layers of cloth is probably not something everyone can get, so that is one possible reason. That said, you definitely see separate padded armour worn under plate in the 16th and 17th centuries. For example: http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/71390.html?mulR=372892830|4 and http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/15.113.1-5,29.158.885 Maybe the layering of clothes does help for infantry, but to be honest I'm not totally sure what the deal is. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Uhhhh no they aren't, not by a good 20 MPH. I don't know what I read last night that convinced me of that but I was very tired. The same night, I watched a guy in plate armour run at a dead sprint in this video, and I've never felt more disconcerted. Is that kind of pace sustainable? Even if the armour doesn't make you off-balance, it's still a good amount of weight for you to move around. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xh5lw2_ngc-medieval-fight-book-part-3-3_shortfilms
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
What's worn around the throat with suits like these? http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/15.113.1-5,29.158.885
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:What's worn around the throat with suits like these? http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/15.113.1-5,29.158.885 if this image is to be believed, those dumb neckerchiefs that the late 17th c loved so fuckin much  Here's the page for the armour from the Royal Armouries website: http://www.royalarmouries.org/line-of-kings/line-of-kings-people/single-object/358 NOTE: The age of that image alone (19th century) gives me reason to suspect that it is bullshit, but I don't know 17th century enough to tell you for sure. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I don't know what I read last night that convinced me of that but I was very tired. I've heard the same thing and odds are it's just one of those factoids that gets passed around as a truth because it's just so counter-intuitive that it it has to be true. Slim Jim Pickens posted:I don't know what I read last night that convinced me of that but I was very tired. It's still a considerably lighter load than what combat infantry lug around on the norm and you'd be surprised at how quick they can book it. It's all about conditioning I'd imagine. Frostwerks fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:if this image is to be believed, those dumb neckerchiefs that the late 17th c loved so fuckin much Rodrigo Diaz posted:As you've frequently pointed out, cloth is expensive, so 25 layers of cloth is probably not something everyone can get, so that is one possible reason. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:The function of the buff coat is to be bulletproof, not cushion your armor. The second link is really interesting, and I've never seen anything like it. I wonder whom it belonged to, this is really cool. Really? I can't imagine that any buff coat would be bulletproof. Resistant to slashing swords, perhaps, but I'd think an arrow would have no problems penetrating it, much less a bullet. The link text says that the arquebus armor belonged to Pedro II, King of Portugal, ca. 1683.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Really? I can't imagine that any buff coat would be bulletproof. Resistant to slashing swords, perhaps, but I'd think an arrow would have no problems penetrating it, much less a bullet. The link text says that the arquebus armor belonged to Pedro II, King of Portugal, ca. 1683. Edit: First link, sorry. The jacket with mail on it. There's a billion buff coats in the world. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Well, something can be projectile resistant without being blade resistant. See: Kevlar. Whether or not buff coats would have this effect is unclear to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Well, something can be projectile resistant without being blade resistant. See: Kevlar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Buff coats are surprisingly thick too
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
They'll keep out rain too, for the first few days, but Wallhausen says if it rains for several days straight you'll never get them dry again. And since they're often finished with cod oil, imagine what that must be like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:They'll keep out rain too, for the first few days, but Wallhausen says if it rains for several days straight you'll never get them dry again. And since they're often finished with cod oil, imagine what that must be like. Every now and again I come across something that reminds me I'd probably really hate it if I was somehow thrust back in time. Well, that surgical manual didn't help either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Wanna make a buff coat
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Wanna make a buff coat (Note the detail of the butt stitching in the first link; if you had gotten shot in the guts and Pare was fixing you up, his stitches would look like that.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
I lost the overview where I posted the stuff about the arrow wounds, but the numbers show that unless your're hit in the head, throat or torso, the chances are good that you'll make it. Not saying that you keep your limbs, but you'll live. Upper torso wasn't so bad either, unless you're shot in the lung or heart. The sample of this report are small, so expect spread. Bullets on the other hand are nasty. They tear lots of the material that you're wearing into the wound, resulting in a good chance that you'll have gas gangrene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:. They must have had some kind of cushioning effect for armour when being flexible and bulletproof would require gradual deceleration of a very fast moving object in the first place. Even at 100m, the bullet fired by the matchlock at the Graz tests packed over 600 joules of energy, which is more than the muzzle velocity of most loads of .45 acp. If buff coats were meant to be resistant to firearms generally, it must have been at extended range. At close range the energy (in the thousands of joules) would simply be too great. We know, for example, that by the late 16th c rodellas could be proofed against arquebus but muskets were simply too powerful. As an aside, there is at least one buff coat in the Kelvingrove with a bullet mark, so I do not doubt they protected against some shots, but I think wallhausen might be overstating their capabilities. Here's the tests I'm referring to: http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
I've only heard of buff coats being considered bulletproof against pistol shots
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:32
|
|