>Medieval knights COULD move with all that armour: Scientists find they had full range of motion and load was comparable to that carried by a modern soldier
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3674261/Medieval-knights-armour-Scientists-range-motion-load-comparable-carried-modern-soldier.html
The debate is over. Science has made its pronouncement.
>>48123396
isn't this old knowledge? Like, the scientifically confirmed knowledge being old?
>>48123396
Wow these idiots discoverred something anyone who ever studied history already knew! Amazing!
>>48123396
it was actually usually less than a modern soldier and the dexterity of well fitted plate has been well known for centuries.
youtube.com/watch?v=NjKbi7YUNaI
Here it is clearly demonstrated in 1924. Really the idea that it wasn't was probably a film and television trope by actors in ill fitting shit armour or literally clowning around.
The other thing is stupid museum displays where they put armour on little children and say Isn't that really heavy!! Isn't those sword so big and unwieldy!! Giving audiences misconceptions for life.
>>48123409
DON'T confirm common sense things! I don't WANT scientific confirmation for my knowledge, who ever heard of facts possibly being counter intuitive?
>>48123430
It is imperical knowledgr. All those armor suits in the british national museum have been weighed and measured and they knew exactly what size and weight and what points of articulation they had. There is nothing to prove here other than some scientists are getting paid to state the obvious.
>>48123396
In other news: scientists confirm birds fly and the sun shines.
>>48123396
Wow, I wonder how much grant money they got for that.
>>48124408
Common misconceptions often spawn repeated studies and research. Because to many "average" people a scientist saying this thing you always thought was true isn't needs too be backed up by recent SCIENCE!
>>48123427
>The other thing is stupid museum displays where they put armour on little children and say Isn't that really heavy!! Isn't those sword so big and unwieldy!! Giving audiences misconceptions for life.
Pretty much this. I went somewhere recently and tried on a hounskull and a kabuto. Both weren't any heavier than the WWII helmet I got at a tank festival. I liked the kabuto better because it gave a wider field of vision, but I can see why you'd want the extra protection.
>>48123396
>the Mail
>touting this as news
top kek as usual. Was there ever a worse paper?
What "debate"? Anyone who has worn a set of plate could tell you what it's like.
>>48126572
Greenock Telegraph for one. About three times in the last week someone has sprayed graffiti that mocks the 66 people that died during the 1971 Ibrox game. Each time the Telegraph reported it, spraying tears and snorters everywhere and saying it's "sick", it's "vile", and the "community is outraged".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Ibrox_disaster
Truth is, the coverage in the paper is what they want, and them reporting it just encourages them. Where was this latest "attack"? On the back end of a building up in the arse-end of Port Glasgow that is seen by maybe four people a day. Me included.
>>48126572
The Express
>>48123430
There are museums and armories chock full of old weapons and armor and people have been studying this shit for quite some time.
Just because the daily mail had to fill up their page with something doesn't mean it's some kind of breakthrough in scientific knowledge
>>48126647
>Newspaper reports on graffiti, sells copies
>Graffiti-fag gets fame, and so does it again
what a wonderful cycle of shit
>>48126650
The Star, the Mirror, the Sun. so much fucking shit, oh god why
>>48123396
>>48123427
>we will ask questions about the earliest armor - chain mail and gothic armor
>gothic armor was the earliest armor of plate.
it's funny seeing how outdated the research was in 1924
>Science has made its pronouncement.
What are you suggesting? That decades upon decades of historical re-enacters wearing a tonnage of armour and still being able to fight and move didn't prove a thing?
Where do you think the very pic you used in the OP came from? Re-enactors wearing authentic plate you fucking retard.
>>48123396
....people have known this for over forty years, even in this hobby where learning things about the real world is optional.
You're so slow that three whole generations of people have come to adulthood and maturity before you learned this.
>>48123396
Neat!
So... would there still be any advantage to lighter armor? Besides cost?
>>48133279
Cost, and sometimes ease of travel and general quality of life. Some forms of plate armor suck to sit down in, for instance.
>>48133279
Manufacture and availability. Plate largely has to be custom sized whereas something like chain can be mass made in a large-ish size and stored in munitions dumps (as long as its stored properly, incorrectly stored it'll rust ungodly fast) so that any old scrub can have a set chucked over him with some padding underneath and have some protection. Won't stop as much as plate as a high power longbow, cross bow or heavy blow from a two handed weapon like a pole axe will make pretty light work of the chain, but can stop other light infantries gear.
But largely cost.
>>48123403
Yep. I remember reading about this on /tg/ in 2008.
>>48133279
The advantages of lighter armor are mostly felt outside of battle. Generally they'll be easier to store and maintain. Lighter armor is also easier to travel in; wearing a chain shirt everywhere you go is still going to be a complete bitch, but its preferable to walking around in an iron suit (granted, you wouldn't walk around in armor normally unless you were under serious pressure, but these things did happen now and then).
In battle you wouldn't fatigue as quickly and you'd be slightly more nimble since your limbs aren't weighted down with armor plates, but that won't completely offset the loss in protection.
Any way to craft armor in the form of a knee-length hoodie?
I mean, like, practical and capable of being produced in large quantities.
>>48133410
>Won't stop as much as plate as a high power longbow, cross bow or heavy blow from a two handed weapon like a pole axe will make pretty light work of the chain
But will probably stop there and not penetrate the padding inside.
>In battle you wouldn't fatigue as quickly and you'd be slightly more nimble since your limbs aren't weighted down with armor plates, but that won't completely offset the loss in protection.
Eeeeeh, no. Or at least not necessarily. I've worn plate and chain through re-enactment, and properly made chain is often heavier or the same weight as properly made plate. Either way, your arms are going to end up fucking knackered after a days fighting.
the only way to lighten it to a significant degree would be using leather, which to get the thickness of leather required to actually be combat ready costs a tonne (as leather was highly desirable in the middle ages) at which point you might as well just buy an arm harness or chainmail or just use good old jack chains.
>http://www.woodsarmoury.com/images/armour/harness-jack-chains02.jpg
Jack chains are supremely legit pieces of armour, paired with something like a plackart, gorget and some greaves you can get suprisingly good armour coverage while being surprisingly light.
>>48123396
Eh, everyone and their grandma already knows how good plate is, to the point that platefags are actually becoming rather annoying.
If anything, these scientists should be proving how underrated mail armor is.
>>48133727
It's not just about weight. Even well fit plate tends to be more rigid than mail, which can get more uncomfortable for extended wear. That isn't even going into the ventilation issue.
>>48133480
>Hauberk
>>48133720
Probably, really depends on the poundage of the bow, a beefy crossbow or longbow could likely fuck up chain and padding, but there's a lot of variables even past that, like whether the bolt/arrow got good purchase or partially glanced the body before getting caught in a ring, what range would also be a factor as at point blank i reckon even top quality chain with padding would completely fail as a proper high medieval longbow used by a properly trained archer was a terrifyingly strong weapon at close ranges, plus the mail itself is one hell of a variable, metal craft back then wasn't a cut and dry thing, so the strength of the mails individual links would vary, plus how they were constructed would be a factor, as historical survivals and finds suggest that every armourer did different link internal diameters and diameters of the rings themselves depending on what manufacture techniques were available to them.
>>48133790
I dunno man, my buddy wears a lot of plate, and i wear chain mail, always seems we both end up with aches and bruises after a show from the armour just in different places. Chain tends to put a lot more strain on lower legs and shoulders, whereas plate seems to affect joints and moving sections worse, like pretty nasty bruising on the back of knees where leg plating's risen during fighting.
And on ventilation, both totally suck i wouldn't really say one was worse than the other either way you'll need to take on tonnes of water if your wearing it for any amount of time, once the gambesons/arming jacks on then all hope of proper ventilation is fucked.
I mean this is all from personal experience between me and my mates expereince re-enacting, so pretty much every suit of armour has its own strengths and weaknesses, might just be our own sets end up quite similar in that regard despite how visually different they are.
>>48123396
>Scientists find
Are modern scientists functionally autistic or something?
>>48123782
Actually, birds don't really "fly" in the sense that people think of. They glide, and can't even lift their own body mass without gaining additional lift from other sources.
>>48134160
>implying birds can fly
Its just falling with style
>>48126572
The Guardian
After watching this video, I've gotten some ideas for a homebrew that I'm working on:
https://youtu.be/COAIQPsgZWY
1a) I'm abandoning the light/medium/heavy trifecta of D&D in favor of two armor categories: infantry, and cavalry. Armor can be optimized for either fighting on foot or fighting on horseback.
1b) Given that my homebrew is a fantasy setting, I may also include a third much lighter category of armors optimized for aerial combat (I.E. dragon-riders, mages, etc.)
1c) My homebrew does include firearms in the setting, so I might include an option for bullet-proof armor at the cost of increased weight.
2) Optional lance-rest pauldrons grant a bonus to charge attacks when using a lance.
3) Armor may be fluted to reduce weight, but this costs extra.
4) A bees wax option in the helmet grants a bonus against daze attacks.
5) This is a fantasy setting, so of course things like heat tinting, fire gilding, acid etching, and polishing add enchantments.
>>48123441
but people were smaller back then.
QED
>>48126572
Just about all British newspapers are dogshit-tier.
>>48141723
Although that being said, local newspapers can be brilliant.
Katanas could cut a full plated faggot in half
>>48123427
this video is amazing.
>>48141719
>just get a smaller dude to wear the armour then
Also remember that the people who could afford full plate where also the people who could afford to eat the best and by far the most, so they weren't that small by todays standards.
I was at Leeds armoury this year and looking at the suits i wasn't looking at them thinking the whole time that they were designed for manlets, most of them looked pretty tall.
>>48134137
Yes. Also stupid, statistically illiterate (hurr durr it a p oh oh five), and besotted with a nasty tendency to confuse "peer review" with "truth". Much like the tree of liberty, the tree of truth must be watered with the blood of pseudointellectuals from time to time.
>>48123427
>less than a modern soldier
Not only less weight, but far better distribution. I got pretty lucky, but all my mates have chronic back/knee pain and we've all had fucked shoulders from carrying 60kg worth of gear. Exoskeletons when?
>>48142320
Christfag detected!
