Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Angcuru" data-source="post: 1405123" data-attributes="member: 10948">Quite the contrary, I am very well versed in history.Actually, JD, a musketball can indeed punch through plate mail.  Although in retrospect it would have been more historically accurate to say matchlock.  And also, arrows and bolts were capable of piercing plate armor for a time, until improvements were made to steel that allowed the armor to better resist arrow and bolt fire.  As such, the cheap-to-mass-produce armor-piercing iron bodkin-tipped arrow fired from a longbow became unable to pierce the improved armor. Plate armor is simple capable of deflecting the shot if it hits at certain angles.  A full-on hit, however, can easily punch through the armor, which is why men with early firearms were deployed in groups, and fired in aimed volleys at their well-armored foes.  Lead musketballs, while softer than iron, were more dense than the steel, and carried much greater force/power than the iron bodkin, and were fully capably of piercing even the best steel armor.As the technology improved, allowing for greater power, accuracy, and rate of fire, armor became less and less effective, and eventually phased out until bullet-resistant materials came into being(kevlar, cetain ceramics, etc).Your arguments about katanas, the Poles, and conquistadors each have significant flaws.  Conquistadors wielding firearms were fighting low-tech civilizations which had lightly armored(if at all) warriors weilding swords, spears, and the ever-popular bow and arrow. Weaponry consisted primarily of stone or weaker metals.  Thus, as they were facing non-firearm bearing foes, armor once again became feasible.  The Polish Cavalry charge on the German Panzer Division was a futile attack, a massacre, through and through.  It was more of a symbolic resistance against an overwhelming enemy than a planned attack expected to be effective.  I should know, because I have family who died in that very attack.  Very distant family, but family nonetheless.    You prove(to an extent) my point with your comment about Japanese officers in WW2.  The katana was a mark of honor and station, not an effective weapon of the time and combative situation.Before you accuse someone of having a poor understanding of a topic, you should check to see if you have an understanding of it.  And as this is a thread about cross-genre clashes, this little debate should take place in a different thread, if at all.</blockquote>

Verification