[ot] What happens when a sword hits chainmail?

[Alcamtar]

It is my understanding that medieval chainmail (not modern) was designed to hang vertically. The rings were designed and arranged so that the effect of gravity would "lock" them together into a semi-rigid plate-like structure. It was nearly impervious to a downward-angled thrust or slash, and highly effective against a horizontal attack. The structure was rigid enough to protect the man inside even from bone breakage, yet just flexible enough that it was not damaged much by the attack.

The most devastating attack against chain was an upward thrust, which countered the effect of gravity and pushed the links upward. This caused them to "unlock" and act like cloth, transmitting far more force. It was also much easier to burst individual rings with an upward thrust or slash.

This property was discovered by examining and testing medieval samples. Many modern "replica" chainmails do not incorporate this property, the knowledge having been lost.

Chainmail was worn hanging from the shoulders. It hung down over the belt, then doubled back up behind and was tucked under the belt, then hung again to the knees. The most important thing when wearing chainmail is that it hangs freely and is not supported in any way -- this is what allows gravity to lock the mesh. The weight was divided between shoulder and waist, but the overhang at the belt was necessary to keep from having a "loose zone" that didn't protect effectively.

Chainmail was very effective against swords and axes. The development of picks, polearms, and longbows/crossbows which could penetrate chain led to the development of plate. Plate was also made possible by better metalworking techniques which enabled the working of large single pieces.

Chainmail was very susceptible to rust, and was cleaned by rolling in a barrel with sand and vinegar.

Now, I am not an expert and did not do the research myself on what I have just written, nor do I have references. This is my understanding from talking to people who *have* done studies in the arms and armor of the middle ages. If anyone on this list knows more about this or can provide references I'd love to hear more about this.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Swords cannot cut through properly-constructed chain mail. That's why people wore chain mail. It's the whole point of armour.

Think about it: people wouldn't wear 100 pound shirts made out of metal unless there was some kind of benefit.

Not to say that chain mail makes someone Superman. As others have noted, the force of a full-strength, straight-on blow will likely shatter whatever bones are underneath the mail*.

If the bone is your head, you're dead.
If the bone is your collar bone, you're incapacitated and soon dead.
If the bone is your rib, your lungs are punctured and you're dead.
If the bone is your weapon arm, you're defensless and soon dead.
If the bone is your leg, you're immobile and soon dead.

That's why plate is better than chain. Less chance (not "no chance") of bone breakage.

-z

* Padding (gambeson or the like, but also including fat and muscle) reduces the chance of breakage.

PS: modern swords can and do cut through fan-made chain mail armour made by modern hobbyists. *Big* difference between chain mail made by a master armoursmith and chain mail made by Bob Gamergut who downloaded some "quick and easy chain mail" instructions from the Internet.

PSS: Remember that in D&D, an attack roll that results in less than the AC of a target does not necessarily mean that the attacker missed the target. It just means that the attack failed; did no hit point damage. Also, an attack roll that results in more than the AC of a target does not necessarily mean that the attack drew blood, or even connected. It just means that the attack succeeded; reduced the target's Hit Points.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

From Poul Anderson's editorial "On Thud and Blunder":
"Not even with a samurai sword do you cut through armor... At the same time, armor does have its vulnerabilities. These are not so much to the thrust of the cleaving blow. I have witnessed experiments in which chain mail made from coat hanger wire, backed by a hay bale, could not be penetrated by sword, ax, or spear. Obviously only repeated impacts on the same spot could fatigue the metal enough to let a weapon through. Plate armor should be still hardier. Bear in mind that, in both cases, padding was worn beneath. Still, if a man was getting hit hour after hour, eventually it might prove too much for his body to endure, if heat prostration didn't get him first."


NO handheld weapon can slash through metal. Period. There IS a chance that some of the rings can bend, of course, and let a blow in. At the same time, longbow arrows (and other piercing weapons, if pointy and quick enough) can pierce even plate armor. Shields are around to block head shots, for bludgeons to the head can kill, even with armor.

Thud and Blunder is my source for most of my knowledge on this subject (armour).

An important point that should be made though is that a rapier is a civilian weapon and as such was not designed to face heavy armours, neither was an epee (acute on the second e). At the time in history when the rapier was the duellist's weapon of choice, soldiers were still using sabres and basket-hilt broadswords. Rapier blades can be bent irreperably just by hitting human bone. I'd hat to put one against chainmail. In fact, I understand that by the time the rapier was a popular weapon chain had already been driven off the battlefield and plate was on the way out as well. This is all European of course; with other cultures YMMV.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Thud and Blunder is my source for most of my knowledge on this subject (armour).

An important point that should be made though is that a rapier is a civilian weapon and as such was not designed to face heavy armours, neither was an epee (acute on the second e). At the time in history when the rapier was the duellist's weapon of choice, soldiers were still using sabres and basket-hilt broadswords. Rapier blades can be bent irreperably just by hitting human bone. I'd hat to put one against chainmail. In fact, I understand that by the time the rapier was a popular weapon chain had already been driven off the battlefield and plate was on the way out as well. This is all European of course; with other cultures YMMV.

That's why, with a rapier, you target the armoured person's face, throat, hands, wrists, knees, inside of the thigh--the unarmoured bits. You certainly wouldn't just thrust it against metal.

If facing a plate-armoured foe, you thrust at the eyes if you can, otherwise just try to parry and out-manouver until the other guy falls down from exhaustion. Again, since in D&D HPs are abstract, this is all simplified into the rapier fighter rolling an attack roll and dealing damage--even though, in "reality", the rapier wielder is not often actually puncturing his opponent with his rapier.

-z

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

As a veteran of many SCA and live steel bouts I have worn just about every type of armor and been hacked at by all sorts of weapons. Good chain will stop a slash or a thrust from a longsword and I have even found that my opponents blade will sometimes get tangled in the lnks of my hauberk and allow me just enough time to whack him. Chain does little to stop blunt trauma as I painfully learned when weraing my chainmail in the SCA (where every weapon is essentially a blunt weapon).

When wearing a full suit of plate mail for live steel bouts I find that the blunted steel swords we use do little against that heavy of an armor unless a solid blow is struck to the head or an unsrmored spot. Even sharpened I doubt that a longsword would be of little use against a fully armored knight, hence the development of weapons like polearms and larger swords deisgned to pierce heavy armor. I personally think the best weapon against platemail are hammers, picks and flanged maces that focus a lot of power on a reletively small striking surface.

Of course this is only what I have observed in my own bouts. your milage my vary.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Mail was always worn over substantial padding. Even an effectively thwarteded glancing blow would be incredibly painful otherwise.

It was also common practice for someone in mail to wear supplementary pieces of armor.

In particular, a vest of metal plates, perhaps sewn between layers of leather, protected the front and back of the torso. This would give good protection against blunt or piercing attacks connecting solidly on the chest or back.

It was very desirable to protect the joints (elbows, shoulders, and collar bone, knees if fightng from horseback) with fitted pieces made from either metal or hardened leather. These wouldn't necessarily stop a very solid blow, but they could prevent a broken bones from a glancing one.

One can see how this could slowly evolve into "plate mail" as you keep adding pieces.

 

[Zaruthustran]

It was also common practice for someone in mail to wear supplementary pieces of armor.

In particular, a vest of metal plates, perhaps sewn between layers of leather, protected the front and back of the torso. This would give good protection against blunt or piercing attacks connecting solidly on the chest or back.

It was very desirable to protect the joints (elbows, shoulders, and collar bone, knees if fightng from horseback) with fitted pieces made from either metal or hardened leather. These wouldn't necessarily stop a very solid blow, but they could prevent a broken bones from a glancing one.

One can see how this could slowly evolve into "plate mail" as you keep adding pieces.

The coat of plates over chainmail is my favorite armour. It's strong, relatively light weight and inexpensive, modular (in a hurry? Hot? Ditch the coat.), easy to maintain, and looks cool. What more could an adventurer want?

It's really sad that Scale Mail (fantasy armour) is in the PHB, but coat of plates and/or brigandine is not.

-z

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

That's why, with a rapier, you target the armoured person's face, throat, hands, wrists, knees, inside of the thigh--the unarmoured bits. You certainly wouldn't just thrust it against metal.

If facing a plate-armoured foe, you thrust at the eyes if you can, otherwise just try to parry and out-manouver until the other guy falls down from exhaustion. Again, since in D&D HPs are abstract, this is all simplified into the rapier fighter rolling an attack roll and dealing damage--even though, in "reality", the rapier wielder is not often actually puncturing his opponent with his rapier.

-z

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't use a rapier against a heavily armoured opponent, just that it was far from ideal. Let's face it, any weapon is better than none unless you're expert in unarmed combat. That being said, I'd still rather the slower and heavier broadsword than the faster and lighter rapier if facing a heavily armoured opponent.

 

[Kilmore]

Another thing to consider is the average strength and skill of the modern recreationist vs. the strength and skill of the average medieval veteran soldier. I'm not dissing the SCA... I've seen some pretty rugged boys (and girls) in that bunch. But I would imagine that an actual medieval soldier would be better at putting his pointy metal stick through his metal plated opponent.

Taking that a step further, you get fantasy PC's, who have strength, feats, abilities and skills to turn metal armor into steel confetti. I would think that at level 7 or so, you go completely beyond the realms of reality.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't use a rapier against a heavily armoured opponent, just that it was far from ideal. Let's face it, any weapon is better than none unless you're expert in unarmed combat. That being said, I'd still rather the slower and heavier broadsword than the faster and lighter rapier if facing a heavily armoured opponent.

Right on. I didn't mean to imply that that's what you suggested. I was trying to say (to others reading this thread) "Yep, NOC is right--so here's what the rapier fighter could do when confronted with armour."

-z