Margin of success and damage

[Ingenious]

Salamander, I argued the point of quality of the suit and how it is heat treated etc, and I got responded to by many many different people saying that 'thickness matters'. And now you bring up the point about quality. And as to who the suit was made for. King Henry the 8th was a lard-ass. He was huuuuuuuuuuuuuge. I'd like to have seen him do cartwheels period, without wearing the armor. (see the 'differing types of plate armor' post by Crusader)

-Ingenious
Jake has his harem, Brian has his army of eunichs, and all I get is a free goat? --character from Ixliaph

[sidhe vicious]

Henry the 8th was considered a huge and impressively athletic person. He only got fat later in life.

[Jake Norwood]

The famous Henry VIII suit of armor frequently found on pewter miniatures and statuets is a wonderful piece. When in the Tower of London in '96 I got to see it, and I'm positive that it would have fit me quite well. I'm 6'2" and 200lbs. That's a pretty good build for a man of the time, and not the goutish figure made famous later.

Jake

[Salamander]

Salamander, I argued the point of quality of the suit and how it is heat treated etc, and I got responded to by many many different people saying that 'thickness matters'. And now you bring up the point about quality. And as to who the suit was made for. King Henry the 8th was a lard-ass. He was huuuuuuuuuuuuuge. I'd like to have seen him do cartwheels period, without wearing the armor. (see the 'differing types of plate armor' post by Crusader)

-Ingenious
Jake has his harem, Brian has his army of eunichs, and all I get is a free goat? --character from Ixliaph

The thickness does not play as much a factor. I have stated this before and provided a link to an essay written by a skilled and knowledgable fellow heavily involved in today's reproduction weapon industry. He makes swords and armor for a living.
Here's the link. http://www.oakeshott.org/. Unfortunately I cannot link specifically to the piece, but it is under Research Articles and is titled "Some Aspects of the Metallurgy and Production of European Armor" written by Craig Johnson of Arms & Armor http://www.Armor.com. I will always try to provide sources for my info Ingenious, I won't let you down. :) Remember, if they say something that don't jibe with you, ask for sources. They can't fault you for that.

As for Henry VIII, he was one of the Renaissance world's premier jousters and was known far and wide as a formidable opponent in duel, joust and battle. It was later in life, around the 1540 area or so he was felled and his mount landed on him, injuring him so severely as to proscribe his maintaining his active lifestyle. Sadly this did little to curb the appetites he had whilst still at the top of his form...

[Poleaxe]

Without trying to beat this thing to death...

I haven't followed Salamander's links just yet, but I'm assuming these articles refer to how in the later stages of plate, armorers found out the same thing that we know and use today...

The corrugation process (and another process I believe involving acid) to make thinner, but stronger metal.  We use it today in canned foods and steel pipes.  Turns out late medieval/early renaissance armorers found out the same thing and were able to make thinner, stronger plate.

[Salamander]

Without trying to beat this thing to death...

I haven't followed Salamander's links just yet...

I would recommend it. It is hardly a big read, but was so chock full of info I nearly decided to take notes! Not to mention the A&A website has so many goodies on it...

[Mike Holmes]

I think it's a tad off topic, but I want to chime in on this whole thickness issue. Thickness definitely makes for better armor. I mean, just because you can do corrugation, etc, to thinner armor doesn't mean that you can't do it to thicker armor as well. The two aren't mutually esclusive. When doing penetration tests for things you always rate how much of X material the thing can penetrate. Some wargames use the CM or Inches of armor for ratings on tanks. Basically, simply thickness matters quite a bit.

That's not to say that I think people would make thicker armor, however. Armor was at the thickness that it was, IMHO, becuase that's what people could bear reasonably. Make it substantially thicker, and it gets hard to move. As people always correctly point out here armor was made to move in, as the only thing more lethal on a battlefield than being unarmored was being unable to move well.

So, people would have worn thicker armor if they could have. Instead, given that armor was already getting quite heavy and fatiguing, they came up with other ways to improve on it.

So, yes, thickness matters, hence why plate armor isn't any thinner than it is. But as a matter of practicality you can only add so much thickness before the protection offered makes burdens the wearer beyond it's effectiveness. I mean, you could put a person in a 4 inch thick cast iron can with breathing holes if you wanted to and he'd be impervious to all but meteor impacts in a medieval world. He'd also need a sturdy wagon to get around. Armor is practical first, protective second.

All of which is to say that you guys have been talking past each other a lot.


To get back on topic, and this came up just a while ago, remember that the descriptions that the tables produce aren't that important. It's the mechanical effects that are. So if the result seems to allow something that's impossible (fists crushing armored skulls), then narrate some other description that has the same effect. Um, "A well placed blow to the opponent's unarmored nose sends cartilage up into his cranimum killing him instantly."

See, no prob.

Mike