Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Richard Bukowski <bukowski@**.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject:	Chain and plate armors
Date:	Sat, 11 Mar 1995 17:32:52 -0800

Message no. 1 > Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 12:20:14 +0100
> From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
> Subject: Re: ranges
>
> >[As a
> >side note, what kind of ratings would you assign chainmail and platemail?]
>
> Absolutely _not_ the ratings they gave chain mail in Harlequin's Back. A
> chain mail of 6/4 armor is totally unrealistic. More like 2/1. Plate mail
> maybe 3/2.
>

Pardon me? What were they smoking when they came up with these
ratings?

Mideval armors were made to stop _impact_ weapons. Why exactly do
they think we stopped using plate/chain and moved to Kevlar? Plate
mail and chain mail are _wonderful_ for deflecting arrows/
swords/polearms/... Note: All of these weapons are impact weapons.
Likewise, these armors are BAD at deflecting bullets. Too much power
in a tiny area; plates of steel are malleable and will cave in when
struck by a bullet. Remember that plate mail is actually relatively
thin steel; otherwise it is too heavy. Likewise, chain mail is only
effective against weapons whose strike area is much larger than their
inter-link spacing. Hence, when guns became widely used,
these armors fell into disuse, because they were far more of
a vulnerability (due to weight and decreased mobility) than
an asset on the modern, gun-dominated battlefield.

I have thought about these armors, and came to the conclusion
that they would have a very small ballistic rating (2-3) and
a rather large impact rating (6-10) for these very reasons.
I'd probably call chain mail 1/5 or 1/6 and plate 2/8 or maybe 3/9.
Furthermore, they would be Heavy with a capital H, and use
something similar to the combat pool reductions for heavy armor,
based on their impact rating rather than ballistic, of course.
This seems to represent the actual nature of the armors quite well.
Swords and arrows are difficult to use against someone in full plate.
A bullet, on the other hand, goes through it quite easily,
so wearing plate mail pretty much makes you a sniper's dream target.
Slow, clunky, and not particularly well defended against tiny,
heavy, super-fast projectiles.

Perhaps the writers of Harlequin's Back (which I haven't read or seen)
were just trying to maintain Game Balance (tm) by maintaining
superior ballistic ratings over impact ratings for all armors. It is,
however, _completely_ bogus from a physical standpoint. Chain and plate are
designed to protect you from totally different weapons than modern
security armor can handle, and the ratings should reflect that.

Richard William Bukowski | Computer Science Department
Bukowski@**.Berkeley.EDU | University of California at Berkeley
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh "BOB" D'lyeh Wgah'nagl Dhobbz f'htagn."
"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is 9.8 m/s^2." - J. Evans

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 13:43:43 +1000

Message no. 2 Richard Bukowski writes:

[Chain mail 1/5 or so, platemail 2/8 or so]

You think that they could be a little high? An average person wielding a
sword will have a damage code of 5M, this way a person with chainmail will
be looking at 2's to resist. They'll be looking at 2's even from a person
with strength 5 (rather above average). Platemail on the other hand, with a
rating like that makes anyone almost invulnerable to melee weapons. In fact,
they'd be needing 2's to resist any melee weapon attack. The attacker had
better be darn good and get gobs of successes if he wants to have a hope of
getting through. Hmm, perhaps that isn't so wrong after all. A question to
you medival freaks out there: just how effective was the period armour
against the period weapons?

BTW, I think you'll find that bows (particularily the later ones) were
rather effective against platemail. But I'l let Rat have his say on that
topic - as he always does :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Chris McKinnon <cmckinno@********.CA>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 02:10:23 -0400

Message no. 3 On Sun, 12 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> getting through. Hmm, perhaps that isn't so wrong after all. A question to
> you medival freaks out there: just how effective was the period armour
> against the period weapons?
>
> BTW, I think you'll find that bows (particularily the later ones) were
> rather effective against platemail. But I'l let Rat have his say on that
> topic - as he always does :-)
>
Yes, longbows and turkish recurves were particularly good at penetrating
plate armour, and would just slice through chain mail like butter.

One thing that people don't often realize is that period armour is worn
in layers. A soldier wearing chain mail would also be wearing a padded
gambeson (long tunic) underneath his mail, in order to help pad any blows
that he takes. Chain is pretty good at withstanding slashing attacks
(such as drawing a sword across the rings), while thrusting attacks
(arrows, spears, etc) would have less trouble affecting the wearer. Blunt
attacks, such as clubs, maces, etc., are the most effective against
chain (which is why the soldier wears padding).

Plate is more resilient against most weapons (arrows excepted), but still
requires padding beneath, to help distribute any impact damage. A full
suit of plate could be virtually impenetrable to most melee weapons. Only
joints and other weak points are particularly vulnerable. Certain weapons
are exempt from this blanket statement.

One also has to realize that full suits of plate were uncommon at best,
and most soldiers had only vital portions of their bodies protected with
plates of steel.

Anyway, versus bullets, most period armour is useless. Some manufacturers
in the seventeenth century did produce breastplates that could withstand
bullets (musket balls), and bore the mark of the ball that had been shot
at it (seal of authenticity). These were extremely heavy, and awkward.
Not something you want to be wearing. Against modern ammunition, just
about all period plate would be ineffective as an armour.

Thus, you can see that period armour ratings would vary, based upon what
type of weapon it is defending against.

=============================================================================
Enigma = "Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun..."
Chris McKinnon = - Ash, Army of Darkness
cmckinno@********.ca =

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 19:37:42 +1000

Message no. 4 Chris McKinnon writes:

> Thus, you can see that period armour ratings would vary, based upon what
> type of weapon it is defending against.

It seems to me that they are very effective vs melee weapons (more or less)
and rather poor against projectile weapons. What type of ratings would you
be thinking of?

BTW, the reason I'm asking is that one of my players, a while back,
"acquired" (from somewhere he shouldn't've) a partial set of plate mail. He
then spent quite a bit of karma (for skills) and nuyen (for equipment), and
totally screwed its historical value by modifying it to a full suit to fit
him. He doesn't wear it often (mainly becasue of the reasons you stated
above, and the fact that I haven't got much of an idea of what rating to
give it, oh, and it looks kinda silly of course :-)), but I would like to
know some appropriate stats for it should he decide to actually use it in a
combat situation (goodness knows why though).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 12:19:46 GMT

Message no. 5 In message <199503120343.NAA11820@******.cc.uow.edu.au>
SHADOWRN@*****.nic.surfnet.nl writes:
> Richard Bukowski writes:
> You think that they could be a little high? An average person wielding a
> sword will have a damage code of 5M, this way a person with chainmail will
> be looking at 2's to resist. They'll be looking at 2's even from a person
> with strength 5 (rather above average). Platemail on the other hand, with a
> rating like that makes anyone almost invulnerable to melee weapons. In fact,
> they'd be needing 2's to resist any melee weapon attack. The attacker had
> better be darn good and get gobs of successes if he wants to have a hope of
> getting through. Hmm, perhaps that isn't so wrong after all. A question to
> you medival freaks out there: just how effective was the period armour
> against the period weapons?

Plate armour made you damn near invulnerable as long as you were upright.
Typically, to kill a knight you knocked him down, sat on him and went
through the gaps in the armour with a poignard. A full-on charge with a
lance, or a crossbow bolt, were able to get through.

Look at a lot of infantry weapons of the time - bill hooks in particular.
Many are intended to unhorse knights.

Remember also most people fought in very little armour - plate was inordinately
expensive. The vast mass of peasants went to war in padded leather jerkins
if anything, armed with converted farm implements, sticks and stones.

> BTW, I think you'll find that bows (particularily the later ones) were
> rather effective against platemail. But I'l let Rat have his say on that
> topic - as he always does :-)

Bows were effective against plate mailed knights because the broadhead arrows
used killed the horses and immobilised the knights. They didn't do well
against the armour itself, but then see above for how you could deal with
them afterwards.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or
for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Sun, 12 Mar 1995 08:41:59 -0500

Message no. 6 >>>>> "Damion" == Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
writes:

Damion> It seems to me that they are very effective vs melee weapons
Damion> (more or less) and rather poor against projectile weapons. What
Damion> type of ratings would you be thinking of?

More a matter of impact energy over area of impact. A rapier or
stilletto will pretty much ignore chain entirely (which is why they
stopped wearing it going into the Renaisance), and in the latter case
will break it apart. You might as well treat stilletto-tip arrows as
armor piercing vs. period armor. You should also remember that your
average arrow from a 50 to 75-pound draw bow or crossbow has
SIGNIFICANTLY more energy than anything fired from a modern rifle.

Basically, medieval armor is useless against firearms as a class, at
best maybe 1 or 2 points of ballistic protection for the heaviest armors
with padding underneath. Against impact damage from 2 to 4, 5 for the
heaviest stuff that's nigh-impossible to move in. Stillettos are armor
piercing vs. medieval armor.

The stuff is also awfully hot and heavy, and if you really want that
look you'd be better off getting some modern armor materials fashioned
to look like something several centuries old.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of skin.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:41:13 +1000

Message no. 7 Stainless Steel Rat writes:

[Various bit's & pieces on period armour]

OK, so what we're looking at is around 1/3 - 1/4 for chain, and 2/5 - 2/7 for
platemail (depending on who's opinion one takes on the matter).

Chainmail is really only effective against cutting weapons (unless you layer
it with padding). Piercing and blunt/crushing weapons have little to worry
about when attacking a chainmailed opponent. If pading is used, one gets
better protection against the blunt attacks, but you are still screwed by the
piercing ones. (I'd guess paddin would rate in at 0/1 or 0/2)

Platemail is OK vs cutting and blunt attacks, but fails miserably when
countered with piercing weapons.

And, yes, a PC would be much better off with a "look-alike" set of platemail
constructed from modern materials, rather than the real thing (but I'm not
going to mention this to my player - he might take up on the idea :-)).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 10:36:28 -0500

Message no. 8 >>>>> "Damion" == Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
writes:

Damion> OK, so what we're looking at is around 1/3 - 1/4 for chain, and
Damion> 2/5 - 2/7 for platemail (depending on who's opinion one takes on
Damion> the matter).

Just to be nitpicky, there's no such thing as ``plate mail'' outside of
dee-n-dee misnomenclature. I'd put most mail at between 1/3 and 2/4,
depending on the weave and weight. Plate would be between 2/3 and 3/5,
again depending on the weight. This assumes that the appropriate
undergarments are being worn; drop values by at least 0/1 if no padding
is worn.

Damion> Chainmail is really only effective against cutting weapons
Damion> (unless you layer it with padding).

Layering is standard practice; not layering is damn uncomfortable.

Damion> Piercing and blunt/crushing weapons have little to worry about
Damion> when attacking a chainmailed opponent.

Not entirely true. The energy will be spread out somewhat, depending on
the weave, but yes, mail isn't the best defense against crushing blows.

Damion> If pading is used, one gets better protection against the blunt
Damion> attacks, but you are still screwed by the piercing ones. (I'd
Damion> guess paddin would rate in at 0/1 or 0/2)

Padding is assumed in my values. Not wearing padding underneath is stupid.

Damion> Platemail is OK vs cutting and blunt attacks, but fails
Damion> miserably when countered with piercing weapons.

Generally yes, primarilly the stilletto-tipped arrows of the Brittish
longbowmen.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of skin.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |

From:	LISETTE M THERIOT <psy_lmt@***.LAMAR.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 14:08:12 -0600

Message no. 9 >BTW, I think you'll find that bows (particularily the later ones) were
>rather effective against platemail. But I'l let Rat have his say on that
>topic - as he always does :-)

I read some books by some guy where a person from the 20 century who somehow
astrally projected to another dimion in a dragons body. Anyhow, He had a Welsh
archer freind who got a kings sword by taking down 3 full armed and armored
knights with he's long bow. Later, the faced these ghosts that only got a form
when in armor, unpierced armor. The archer took some out by shooting his arrows
strait through about ten suits of plate mail

NEVER underestimate the power of a long bow!!!

From:	Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 1995 14:00:12 +0930

Message no. 10 LISETTE M THERIOT wrote:
> NEVER underestimate the power of a long bow!!!

Back when the first long bows started becoming popular in Wales, the
English lords were at war with the Welsh.

Anyway, after one battle (a Welsh raid on a English cot), there was an
arrow stuck through an _inch_ thick oak door... It had penetrated, come out
the other side, and got stopped in the middle.

That's power... Heck, nail guns have trouble getting through inch thick
solid oak (bad idea to do, anyway... it splits the wood. Use screws)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code

From:	P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 1995 10:23:35 GMT

Message no. 11 ----- Begin Included Message -----

Anyway, after one battle (a Welsh raid on a English cot), there was an
arrow stuck through an _inch_ thick oak door... It had penetrated, come out
the other side, and got stopped in the middle.

----- End Included Message -----

Hey, if we're talking about that arrow that went through the oak door,
probably a story every welsh kid whose done any history has heard, then
there's also the story about the one that went the side of a plate
armoured leg (is the armour weaker there?), through his leg, out the
far side of the plate, through the horse he was riding on, and then out
of his other leg.

Now admittedly, that has to be a pretty _long_ shaft to stick through all
three items, but I can believe the power of the bow.

Waht a way to go, nailed to your horse....
Phil (Runs-With-The-Pack)

From:	Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 1995 05:23:52 -0800

Message no. 12 Yeah, hey! And did you guys hear the one about the boy and girl who are out
late at night in their car, and hear about this murderer who's loose who
has just a hook for a hand, so the guy drives off real fast, and runs over
Reggie Jackson, who was walking his Doberman because it was choking on
an alligator from the New York City sewer system, because it thought the
gator was a special cookie from Neiman-Marcus?

Not to cast any disparaging remarks toward old Welsh legends, but I think
I'd rather go to modern scientific studies for my ballistics info. I'm
sure longbows are just as bitchin' as everyone says, but quoting ancient
stories is not the way to prove it.

-E

From:	Martin Steffens <BDI05626@***.RHIJ.NL>
Subject:	Re: Chain and plate armors
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 1995 19:46:58 +0100

Message no. 13 > Datum verzending: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 10:23:35 GMT
> Stuur antw. aan: Discussion of the Fantasy game ShadowRun
<SHADOWRN@***.SURFnet.nl>
> Van: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
> Onderwerp: Re: Chain and plate armors
> Aan: Multiple recipients of list SHADOWRN
<SHADOWRN@***.SURFnet.nl>

On Tue, 14 Mar, P Ward wrote:

> Hey, if we're talking about that arrow that went through the oak door,
> probably a story every welsh kid whose done any history has heard, then
> there's also the story about the one that went the side of a plate
> armoured leg (is the armour weaker there?), through his leg, out the
> far side of the plate, through the horse he was riding on, and then out
> of his other leg.

I do know a lot of these type of stories, but hard evidence is what
we want: Battle-fiend research and ballistic tests show that high
powered bows like the long bow frequently puctured plate armour.
Also The Parthians used a short curved bow in plus minus 200 BC to
nail Roman arms to their shields (even when they use overlapping
shield techniques). Crossbows were even worse (or better depending on
which side of the bolt your on :)

> Waht a way to go, nailed to your horse....

Not so uncommon a death for a knight as you think :)

Martin
*********************************************************************
Martin Steffens |"Don't touch me, or I'll wound your inner child
bdi05626@***.rhij.nl | ... and then I'll kick your ass" Beavis
GeekCode v2.1
GO/SS d--(++) H- s+:+ !g p? !au a?(26) w+ v++(?) C+(++) P? E? !N>+
K- W+ M- !V -po+ Y+ t+@ !5>++ jx R++>+++ G''' tv+ b+++$ (sort
of) D++ B? e+$ (hah) u-(++) h f+ r n--- y+
*********************************************************************

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer