Science Breakthrough: Plate Armor is Heavy
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Trees are made of wood??!1Double A said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05av9iJvgiQ&feature=related
This just in: musical instruments have the potential to play musical notes. With further testing we wish to test the theory that a succession of notes can become a melody.
Breaking news:
Water is wet!
Fire is hot!
ice is cold!
Trees are made of wood!
Metal & steel are Heavy!
These british sceintists are idiots!
People BREATH!
more at 10!
Water is wet!
Fire is hot!
ice is cold!
Trees are made of wood!
Metal & steel are Heavy!
These british sceintists are idiots!
People BREATH!
more at 10!
While the chainmail is good for turning away edged weapons and the hardened leather for absorbing the impact, it still falls reasonably short when defending against piercing weapons. The odd lance or polearm wouldn't have much trouble penetrating that combination of armor (even a shortsword used right might feasibly be able to do it). That's where the hard, rounded surface that plate armor provides truly shines.Negatempest said:
Can't say for certain, but I would also think that a good old fashioned english longbow or a crossbow bolt wouldn't have too much difficulty penetrating leather either.
...Are you fucking kidding me? They wasted money to do research into figuring out that wearing big heavy armor plating would cause the wearer to exert more energy and get tired faster? I could have told them this for free!
I mean really. All the problems in the world and they're wasting money on this ridiculous "research".
I mean really. All the problems in the world and they're wasting money on this ridiculous "research".
And that is why they call it "Heavy Armour".
All the interesting science has already been done or is too hard?
Try something to which the answer is obvious. Like proving that heavy armour is heavy.
Congratulations, you are now a scientist!
All the interesting science has already been done or is too hard?
Try something to which the answer is obvious. Like proving that heavy armour is heavy.
Congratulations, you are now a scientist!
... Just how much did this research cost in resources? I sincerely hope it didn't reach a million budget, if that's any near possible.
Also, tell THAT to my Oblivion Knight who can jump up 5 meters into the air with a full suit of armor, and still have the breath to mock the enemy, yet takes nearly regular damage as if he was unarmored.
So he's basically light as a feather, but weak as an oyster.
Also, tell THAT to my Oblivion Knight who can jump up 5 meters into the air with a full suit of armor, and still have the breath to mock the enemy, yet takes nearly regular damage as if he was unarmored.
So he's basically light as a feather, but weak as an oyster.
Armor grew increasingly heavy as offensive technologies grew more advanced. In most cases in history, offensive technology outpaces defensive ones and such was the case eventually with plate armor. The advent of armor piercing arrows and bolts could be countered through better tactics and somewhat heavier armor but the introduction and rapid evolution of firearms is what proved to be armor's undoing. In order to wear enough armor to protect an entire Knight made combat all but impossible.Crystalgate said:
This same trend holds true today. A modern Main Battle Tank (Like the M1 Abrams), from the right angle, has several feet of advanced composite armor protecting it from enemy fire. In spite of this, a single anti-tank projectile, fired by a small team of infantry, are more than capable of destroying the tank and killing its crew. Thus why you see tanks in modern warfare most commonly used in pitched battle in open terrain: because their defensive edge means little in the face of well designed weaponry.
Did anyone read the actual paper? It wasn't just 'armour is heavy'. They tested to see why it's relatively heavier than the equivalent weight on the back, they tested the effects of carrying it and so on.
It's just the media trying to get a headline about things, the actual study was much more comprehensive than just "wear this. Is it heavy?"
It's just the media trying to get a headline about things, the actual study was much more comprehensive than just "wear this. Is it heavy?"
You've obviously never seen what the Abrams can absorb damage wise, even before the models as old as the A1 (mostly known for replacing the 105mm with the 120mm). Getting a mobility kill on an Abrams turns it into a very angry pillbox with 360 arc coverage.Eclectic Dreck said:
To put it simply, the Abrams is able to resist almost anything in even our arsenal short of a GBU-28 through the top armour and keep the entire crew alive.
That...that seems like a giant waste of time. What exactly did this teach us that we didn't already know?
