What Hill Will You Die On?

[overgeeked]

I'm arguing that late period plate-over-chain-over-quilt is still viable protection against modern weaponry. It's no longer relevant for logistical and economic factors, but it's still effective. Dump a mag of 7.62 into the Mountain and he might wish he was dead, but he probably won't be.

You'd be wrong and your volunteer target would be dead. Contemporaneous armor lost the arms race against contemporaneous firearms. That's why most armor was phased out. Because firearms eventually made them obsolete due to the increased stopping power, accuracy, etc. To compare modern firearms to 15th through even 19th century armor would be an absolutely fatal disaster for the poor sap in the armor.

Skip ahead to about 16:25.

 

[Maxperson]

Stat rolling. If you want me to point buy or use an array, I'm leaving for a different game. If you want to point buy or use an array in my game, if it's a deal breaker for you to roll, you'll need to go to another game.

 

[Maxperson]

What we do when we gather with friends around a table and play a game together is difficult to characterize as an "inanimate thing" — but it's also beside the point.

The point is: "It's just elfgames, bro" is emphatically not the same thing as "remember the person" or "don't tolerate bad behavior"; a ≠ b ≠ c. You can exhort people to be courteous and compassionate and even to have perspective without belittling them their passions.

I see the "silly elfgames" comment used to dismiss the other person or to essentially call them wrong in their opinions the vast majority of the time. At this point I view it as a pejorative and treat it that way whenever I see it.

 

[RareBreed]

Contemporaneous armor lost the arms race against contemporaneous firearms

Actually, modern body armor can defeat even very high powered rounds. The problem is still the weight. As I mentioned, part of the desire of the US Army to replace the old 5.56mm NATO round was its poor incapacitation record, and problems defeating modern body armor. Even the heavier 7.62mm/.306 Winchester has problems defeating Level III body armor much less Level IV. You need a 30-06 or some of the more modern rounds (like a 338 Lapua) to get through Level IV.

To compare modern firearms to 15th through even 19th century armor would be an absolutely fatal disaster for the poor sap in the armor.

I'm not so sure. The main problem is the thickness of medieval plate armor. From what I've gathered, the thickest breast plates were around about 6mm but typically were around 2-4mm thick. A Level III steel plate (that can defeat multiple 7.62mm rounds) is around 10mm thick. I will grant you that even in the modern case, getting hit will bring a good chance of being hors de combat due to possibly broken ribs or severe bruising (in the worst case, the bullet won't penetrate, but spalling can occur which is basically a fragmentation of the plate itself). The bruising can be very bad due to kinetic energy transfer. This is an extreme example, but there was an account of a sailor during the battle of the Monitor vs the Merrimack in the American Civil War where a sailor was leaning against the side of the hull when a cannonball impacted against the armored hull. Although the cannon did not breach the armored hull, it was said that they "had to remove the sailor in buckets".

Granted, our metallurgy is also far more advanced today and we can tailor the steel for different characteristics. But by late renaissance, Damascus and Toledo steel were quite impressive.

Now, plate armor against a 9mm? I don't know, but I'd much rather have the medieval plate than nothing.