Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

I wonder how combat chain plate would stack up to modern combat armor.

(Ok, another message in quick succession.  Maybe I should have gathered these semi-necros together for a big reply, sans  those topics already covered, right at the end.)

Not quite the same, but chainmail has been used as part of a form of anti-shrapnel protection in (at least) WW1.  (As well as used extensively in shark-diving outfits, and in form of just gloves/gauntlets for modern-day butchers who are at risk from a knife slipping.)

The big problem is that a bullet impacting chain might be impeded, but with a whole lot of energy going in the 'chain' links themselves could fragment and cause similar injuries (but be possibly less extractable by surgery).  With pros and cons, it's not really survived into modern warfare, in that same form.

"Chain plate", depending on which exact form you're talking about, is something I've seen described as being used in a more flexible kevlar/ceramic plate-based vest/suit/whatever.

[Starver]

A "proper" knight would be a devastating force somewhat like a tank rolling through an infantry squad.

(Sorry, another individual comment.)

...There were reasons why "mother" and "father" tanks were grouped together in WW1[1].  And why tanks without specific anti-personnel armoury or defensive features should never be sent into the midst of enemy infantry.  Even if they couldn't get through the tank, easily, it was standard practice at one time to have some tanks there whose purpose was purely to hose down their bretheren with 'friendly' machine-gun fire in order to disperse the enemy foot-troops crawling over them, and trying to post grenades into them, etc.

However, a knight was generally Ok until swamped (literally by the ground he was on, or figuratively by his opponents).  Swinging a big sword around can probably count as anti-personnel.


[1] Coincidentally, with reference to the prior I wrote, one of the aforementioned use of chainmail was in crew 'bullet-splash' protection in the British Mk I tanks...

[Putnam]

There's an edit button right next to the quote button, you know >_>

[Starver]

To get to that, I'd have had to read to the end.  Something which[1] I hadn't done yet.  (i.e. "See post, start reply, preview reply a couple of times if it gets complicated in editing, post and get "latest on this forum" list" in response, then use the history feature of the browser to go back at least two pages to continue where I'd left off...)

On occasion I might Ctrl-Click the reply, to get a new tab for the reply, hold that in leiu while reading, but I've already got 20 tabs open in this browser (for mostly non-DFForum pages), and so I didn't really consider that as an option on this occasion.

But that's a lot of meta-information that's not even a proper derail.  Ignore me.  I'll just try to be less annoying in the future, if that's what you were hinting at.


[1] On this occasion, contrary to my usually intended method of reading to the end before I go back and try to hunt for the post(s) that I still wish to reply to, several more pages prior to the current thread-head.



(Using "Modify" to point out that I also covered the subsequent point by Putnam.  'Course, he won't see this edit, except in hindsight.)

[Putnam]

...There's an "insert quote" button while editing, you know <_<

[Kamin]

I learn so much from this thread.

[kaenneth]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46

[lordcooper]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46

That sucks, but has only a tangential link to this thread.

[scriver]

Unless what's he's actually is saying is "look! Attacks still happen without guns, so delegalising guns wouldn't matter" in response to the gun control tangent, in which case my response is simply that we should count ourselves lucky he didn't have a gun, and think of the additional damage he would have caused if he did.

[Kamin]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46

This happens everyday here. Only the big attacks make the news. Not really that strange.

[DrPoo]

Easy access to firearms is a wonderful thing.

Even if guns were illegal(wich would be shit too, given a honest person would not be able to get a gun to defend against the dishonest), people would still be easily able to get guns.
As easily as with all the drugs and stolen goods. Rules never solve a shit.

[Leafsnail]

Anyone else notice how many pro-gun arguments seem to be bizarrely fatalistic?

If we ban guns bad people will still magically obtain them.
Even if they don't they will still perform the exact same actions and harm the exact same number of people.
People are killed accidentally or in crimes of passion by guns but with the guns removed those accidents or crimes will still mysteriously occur via a different method.

[lordcooper]

Easy access to firearms is a wonderful thing.

Even if guns were illegal(wich would be shit too, given a honest person would not be able to get a gun to defend against the dishonest), people would still be easily able to get guns.
As easily as with all the drugs and stolen goods. Rules never solve a shit.

I used to sell pot for a living and occasionally partake of a wide range of illegal substances.  I could get my hands on pretty much any drug within 12 hours.  I've never seen a gun that wasn't being held by a cop and wouldn't even know how start trying to get hold of one.

If guns were legal in this country I'd probably be dead right now, which would be a pretty bad thing from my PoV.

[MonkeyHead]

Easy access to firearms is a wonderful thing.

Even if guns were illegal(wich would be shit too, given a honest person would not be able to get a gun to defend against the dishonest), people would still be easily able to get guns.
As easily as with all the drugs and stolen goods. Rules never solve a shit.

There were over 300,000 gun deaths in the US last year, most involving private people. In the UK, there were around 20, most involving the Police. Adjusting for population, the UK is still far lower. The UK has the best/most effective gun control laws on the planet and they work - they reduce gun killing, and nobody (ok, 95% of people) here ever sees a gun unless its in the hands of a solider or policeman. This you can not argue against.

[Loud Whispers]

There were over 300,000 gun deaths in the US last year, most involving private people. In the UK, there were around 20, most involving the Police. Adjusting for population, the UK is still far lower. The UK has the best/most effective gun control laws on the planet and they work - they reduce gun killing, and nobody (ok, 95% of people) here ever sees a gun unless its in the hands of a solider or policeman. This you can not argue against.

You could argue however that it's much easier to regulate in the UK, considering how the USA happens to be a great deal bigger and not an island. That's why I'd say banning guns in America would require a vastly increased police force.

Now what happens when you vastly increase a police force in a country turning into a police state... Ugh.