How much more difficult is it to move and fight while wearing armour?

[Oni_Kadaki]

No, proofmarks were a thing pretty much all along. Because longbows. And crossbows.

I looked into this for some writing I was doing awhile back. While the proofmark meant it could stop a bullet from a relatively rudimentary firearm of the time, I would NOT count on plate to stop a modern 9mm, let alone a rifle round.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I looked into this for some writing I was doing awhile back. While the proofmark meant it could stop a bullet from a relatively rudimentary firearm of the time, I would NOT count on plate to stop a modern 9mm, let alone a rifle round.

Did you actually read what I wrote, where I said essentially the same thing?

I did find this. It's using a car door, and it looks like there's no problem with penetrating a car door using hardball or defensive ammo, even from a subcompact pistol like the Glock 27.
I found another video shooting a helm. It stopped most black powder rounds from handguns, including the .45 Colt. But the test seemed pretty flawed. There's no information about the construction of the helm, and the tester repeatedly shot the same helm.

 

[skribs]

You might be surprised. If you look at surviving examples of armour, you'll find that an awful lot of them have a dent in the same area of the breastplate. It's called a proofmark, and it's where the armorer shot it point blank as proof that it would stop a projectile.
I suspect that rifle rounds, with their heavier bullets and high muzzle velocity, would blow right through a breastplate. I suspect a handgun loaded with hardball might penetrate. I suspect that defensive ammo, which is not designed to penetrate a hard target, would not be very effective at all against a decent period breastplate.

This reminds me of a story I read. Something about someone did some research on fighter planes that had limped back to base riddled with bullets, and was planning to armor up the spots with the most bullet holes. Then someone pointed out "those are the ones that made it back. The places without holes, those are what shot the planes down. You need to armor those."

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Did you actually read what I wrote, where I said essentially the same thing?

I did find this. It's using a car door, and it looks like there's no problem with penetrating a car door using hardball or defensive ammo, even from a subcompact pistol like the Glock 27.
I found another video shooting a helm. It stopped most black powder rounds from handguns, including the .45 Colt. But the test seemed pretty flawed. There's no information about the construction of the helm, and the tester repeatedly shot the same helm.

I think you meant to attach a video here.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Wasnt that early plate made to stop musketballs more of a cavalrymans thing? At least to wear most or all of it, it was quite a bit heavier than the non musketproof versions if i recall correctly. Im more thinking of english civil war(s) in this instance though. (which if i recall correctly, it was uncommon in)

Not counting cost and how it was quite a bit more expensive.



Also, not too sure if its the right car video but it will do:

And this is one of shooting a helmet with firearms:

If either are incorrect they both seem like acceptable substitutes.

 

[Dirty Dog]

This reminds me of a story I read. Something about someone did some research on fighter planes that had limped back to base riddled with bullets, and was planning to armor up the spots with the most bullet holes. Then someone pointed out "those are the ones that made it back. The places without holes, those are what shot the planes down. You need to armor those."

I don't think that's a story (in the sense of fiction). I understand that to be historical fact, dating from WWII. It's called survivorship bias.

 

[skribs]

I don't think that's a story (in the sense of fiction). I understand that to be historical fact, dating from WWII. It's called survivorship bias.

Stories can be fact or fiction.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Stories can be fact or fiction.

Duh. But you were not at all clear in your statement as to whether you took this as Urban Legend, Historical Fact, or Origins Uncertain.

 

[Flying Crane]

I looked into this for some writing I was doing awhile back. While the proofmark meant it could stop a bullet from a relatively rudimentary firearm of the time, I would NOT count on plate to stop a modern 9mm, let alone a rifle round.

My memory on what I read of this, the proofmark was made with a crossbow. This was pre-firearms era. And those late-era heavy military crossbows were very powerful.

I don’t recall reading that the practice continued into the firearms era, as I believe it wasn’t long before firearms developed to a point where they could reliably defeat plate, unless the plate was thick to the point of being unwearable because of the weight and bulk. But perhaps there was a brief transitional period.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I don’t recall reading that the practice continued into the firearms era, as I believe it wasn’t long before firearms developed to a point where they could reliably defeat plate, unless the plate was thick to the point of being unwearable because of the weight and bulk. But perhaps there was a brief transitional period.

Poofing continued for the musket rated plates. But plates went out around 1600's pending country though. I dont belive the plates worn by Cuirassiers you see later on were rated to stop muskets though.

I also need to look into if the breast plates usually worn by pikemen in the english civil war were rated to stop muskets or not. (not all of them wore one if i recall correctly though)

You are pretty accurate in describing pike and shot as a transitional peroid though, because it pretty much is/was one.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Middle Ages hand-to-hand combat between two full-plate armored knights (without weapons) would have been very entertaining to watch.

Napoleon's 1800 heavy cavalry (Cuirassiers) were among the last to wear metal breastplates. While against musket fire and rudimentary (British) rifle fire, were not able to stop a direct hit at effective range, they were likely to help against an angled or long distant shot, as well as against sabers. With the advent of improved firearms, even this went by the wayside.

Concerning the Samurai (pre-1600) wearing lacquered armor while engaging in hand-to-hand combat, the style of fighting reflected the challenges of fighting against an opponent in even this lighter type of armor. Striking against this would be mostly ineffective (not to mention painful), so throwing and joint locking styles were the way to go - think Jiu-Jutsu and Aikido type skills.

By the late 1600's, Japan and Okinawa were pretty unified and large standing armies were no longer needed, as was the armor, generally speaking. The use of firearms there also helped render armor more or less obsolete. Now that hand-to-hand combat was no longer against armored opponents, striking became a viable option and the early forms of what became karate were encouraged.