Question about plate armor, for AAR

[cheesesalsa]

Not sure if this is the right section (or even the right forum) to be asking but seems like a good place to start. I've been thinking of writing an AAR recently and had a question about knights in full plate armor. Most of the (admittedly brief) research I've done shows that plate is impenetrable by a sword which I expected. But after demonstrating this every video or article says if using a sword against plate you'd aim for the gaps in the armor (armpit is a common example they use). This makes sense for some areas like the neck. But kinghts would wear mail and leather under their plate, from what I've seen that is also almost impossible to stab through with a sword. If you aim for the armpit I imagine you'd not be able to penetrate the mail under the plate. Is there something I'm not accounting for or misunderstanding? Where would these "weak spots" be? Thanks!

Edit: follow up, I've also seen that axes couldn't really penetrate most helmets, rather the Blount trauma would inflict damage. However there is the famous story of Robert the Bruce and Henry de Bohun. Most of the tests and things I see only deal with dismounted combat but Do you believe an axe would be able to generate enough force to penetrate a helm while charging on a horse?

 

[Rags17]

This is axe vs leather but I think it answers your question - an axe probably wouldn't penetrate steel unless it hit a weak point or joint and even then it would be minimal. Still, even a small penetration plus the blunt force trauma of a solid axe or sword could be enough to take a target down ina single strike.

 

[Arsonik]

This is axe vs leather but I think it answers your question - an axe probably wouldn't penetrate steel unless it hit a weak point or joint and even then it would be minimal. Still, even a small penetration plus the blunt force trauma of a solid axe or sword could be enough to take a target down ina single strike.

Good point. If you can incapacitate your opponent even briefly with blunt force trauma then it is as easy as cutting his neck or something.

 

[DPS]

Keep in mind with a lot of medieval metal armor, you're not dealing with high-quality modern steel. A lot of it was probably thin pieces of low-quality iron that might well have provided less actual protection than leather armor.

 

[ahyangyi]

Keep in mind with a lot of medieval metal armor, you're not dealing with high-quality modern steel. A lot of it was probably thin pieces of low-quality iron that might well have provided less actual protection than leather armor.

Not completely agreeing with you, but this reminds me of the in-game Muslims and most of the Hordes wearing helmets that seems to be made of bronze while Europeans generally wear something that looks like iron. I feel this is too cultural. Cultures are about weird hats, and to a lesser extent, weird shapes of helmets. But insisting to use certain metal to make your helmets even if you have the best technology in the world sounds incredibly silly to me.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

I was under the impression that well directed sword thrusts would slice through chain armour.

 

[smellymummy]

charging horse axe swing is going to split into most helmets for sure

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

Keep in mind with a lot of medieval metal armor, you're not dealing with high-quality modern steel. A lot of it was probably thin pieces of low-quality iron that might well have provided less actual protection than leather armor.

This. I have seen several analysis of medieval plate armours, and they generally are not hardened steel, or if they are they have a lot of slag inclusions. Also not every part of the armour is equally thick. Especially in the 14th century most are basically iron. By the mid 15th century especially German manufacturers made decent armours, but still the thckness and hardness varied greatly, and slag inclusion could create weakened parts.

Here is a Talhofer (fencing master) picture, and it shows blood on both sides (poleaxes, yes, but still):

The guy to the left might be hit in the armpit, or the side of the plate, were it would typically be only half of the thickness usually tested in youtube videos. The guy to right is hit in she shoulder. Again it could be argued it is in a gap, but it could also be a thinner or badly made part of the plate.

By the 14th century we see swords with a more square tip, possibly to penetrate at least mail, but also Viking swords can pierce mail (especially as mail often is also iron or poor quality steel).

So: top grade plate is impenetrable from swords and most other weapons, poor quality armour might not be. It might still prevent the swords from being deadly though.

Note also that a series of weapons are developed which specifically have armour piercing qualities, I doubt this would happen if they were still useless. However, people also choose to wear heavy armour, and they wouldn't if it wasn't very useful.

Helmets from horse back: I have seen too few studies to really tell, but there should be an increased power and thus improved penetration.

A good source is "Knight and the Blast Furnace" by Alan Williams. He has tables and serious scientific test on penetration of various grades of iron and steel.

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

For an online source read: http://www.oakeshott.org/metal.html
http://www.oakeshott.org/metal.html
Though it is not as thourough as Williams' book.

 

[Pringles VII]

Chain mail was effective because it was impenetrable to slashes (for the most part) and since it was flexible, the blunt force trauma of a slash, or a blow from a club, would be spread out more evenly over it. Its weakness was that thrusts, if they were powerful enough, especially lance blows from horseback and arrows and crossbow bolts, could break individual links and shatter that section of the armor while still having enough force to pierce the body.

At the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, Henry V's longbowmen barraged dismounted French knights in plate armor as they trudged through a swamp. Historically, their armor deflected some arrows and bolts, but couldn't stop them all, which indicates that the plates were, as has been previously mentioned, made of low-quality iron. Jousting accidents were also frequent when a knight would have his armor accidentally pierced by a lance, so lances with wings on the tip and suits of armor with much thicker plate at the right breast were developed. Lances and crossbow bolts, therefore, were effective.

With a sword or axe, your best bet would probably be blunt force trauma to the head and chest. It can start nasty internal bleeding, and according to some accounts, a helmet could be so damaged by such blows that it would become impossible to remove the helmet without the assistance of a blacksmith.

 

[Dragatus]

Not sure if this is the right section (or even the right forum) to be asking but seems like a good place to start. I've been thinking of writing an AAR recently and had a question about knights in full plate armor. Most of the (admittedly brief) research I've done shows that plate is impenetrable by a sword which I expected. But after demonstrating this every video or article says if using a sword against plate you'd aim for the gaps in the armor (armpit is a common example they use). This makes sense for some areas like the neck. But kinghts would wear mail and leather under their plate, from what I've seen that is also almost impossible to stab through with a sword. If you aim for the armpit I imagine you'd not be able to penetrate the mail under the plate. Is there something I'm not accounting for or misunderstanding? Where would these "weak spots" be? Thanks!

It's not that the mail in the armpits and other gaps was easy to penetrate. The point is that it was comparatively easier than trying to penetrate the actual plate armor. Chances are also that if you were trying to penetrate the gaps in your opponent's armor you'd use half-swording techniques and would be able to apply the force of both arms and that can pierce mail.

Note also that plate armor only makes an appearance in the late middle ages. IIRC it developed in the 14th century and fully matured only in the 15th century. For a majority of the game's timespan knights would be wearing mail.

 

[TMSaxon]

It's not that the mail in the armpits and other gaps was easy to penetrate. The point is that it was comparatively easier than trying to penetrate the actual plate armor. Chances are also that if you were trying to penetrate the gaps in your opponent's armor you'd use half-swording techniques and would be able to apply the force of both arms and that can pierce mail.

Note also that plate armor only makes an appearance in the late middle ages. IIRC it developed in the 14th century and fully matured only in the 15th century. For a majority of the game's timespan knights would be wearing mail.

I wondered how long until the HEMA god would appear on this thread.

To the OP. As everyone else has already covered, it does depend on the quality of the armour, although generally speaking, most training was more in incapacitating than outright killing, especially towards the High/Late Middle Ages. A good source for reading from the period actually are the various fencing instructors, such as Fiore de Liberi, who has an entire section devoted to ways to fight people in armour.
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de'i_Liberi

 

[Arsonik]

a helmet could be so damaged by such blows that it would become impossible to remove the helmet without the assistance of a blacksmith.

Maybe I'll just keep the helmet, LOL