Print

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

[Naryar]

I have found that metal shields, and a high Shield User/Dodger skill are the best defense against bolts.

[krenshala]

I have found that metal shields, and a high Shield User/Dodger skill are the best defense against bolts.

I concur.

[Misterstone]

I found that adamantine mail was not effective against highly skilled marksmen with iron crossbow bolts.  A bolt would strike them, not pierce through the armor, but still break bones and so on.  A couple of shots to the body would break a rib and send it through the lungs, etc.  This was with very skilled marksmen in the arena.  IIRC breastplates did just fine.

So I think maybe adamantine mail is good in melee, not so good against archers.

[Nihilist]

Cloaks, they protect everything. Though they do take 3 pieces of same quality ady cloth, so they are a bit expensive... and they eventually fall apart but until dwarf do they rock.

[breadbocks]

I have found that metal shields, and a high Shield User/Dodger skill are the best defense against bolts.

Wood shields are better. Use the metal for a new line of *steel bolts*

[Dwarfoloid]

Greaves/leggings and breastplates are redundant pieces of armour if worn with mail shirt and high boots, so if you want to just bolster steel with adamantine those are the best picks.

[Flare]

Alright sure - the cuirass can be useful against broadheads but I think for bolts silk would be the material of choice.

Not entirely, a bolt operates much differently than a bullet. For starters, in regards to your comparison between silk and kevlar, it's somewhat true. But Kevlar is mostly shit against any blade, or at least there are far better materials out there that are proof against shearing weaponry. Kevlar dissipates energy, but sucks at resisting a pair of scissors. Against a bolt, the sharp, non-deforming head would likely pierce the silk/kevlar vest. The shear weight of the bolt ought to also make penetration that much more a possibility.

[Dwarfoloid]

Not entirely, a bolt operates much differently than a bullet. For starters, in regards to your comparison between silk and kevlar, it's somewhat true. But Kevlar is mostly shit against any blade, or at least there are far better materials out there that are proof against shearing weaponry. Kevlar dissipates energy, but sucks at resisting a pair of scissors. Against a bolt, the sharp, non-deforming head would likely pierce the silk/kevlar vest. The shear weight of the bolt ought to also make penetration that much more a possibility.

Cloth and hide armour manufactured on layered absorbing principle is probably the most widespread style of pre-modern armour though. I do know that kevlar isn't satisfactory against blades, but it certainly seems that armours of different materials did work when using roughly same principle of manufacture. That being said, I have never seen explict historical refrence to silken armour (other than as decoration or such), at least I don't remember any off the top of my head, though there are some anecdotal stories about Mongols relating to that.

Plant fiber, hide and even paper are all well attested though.

Excuses for OT.

[Flare]

Cloth and hide armour manufactured on layered absorbing principle is probably the most widespread style of pre-modern armour though. I do know that kevlar isn't satisfactory against blades, but it certainly seems that armours of different materials did work when using roughly same principle of manufacture. That being said, I have never seen explict historical refrence to silken armour (other than as decoration or such), at least I don't remember any off the top of my head, though there are some anecdotal stories about Mongols relating to that.

Plant fiber, hide and even paper are all well attested though.

Yes, those were incredibly proliferate. Quilted cloth, gambeson, and in most cases where even metal armor is available, just layers of cloth would be used underneath it was commonly used whenever people could get their hands on it. But while it can offer resistance to a person with a pointy stick, sword, or axe, it is highly unlikely that it would offer very much protection against pointed projectiles without any other sort of stiff protection. A person would have to wear a lot of it for it to offer the protection a piece of treated plate the medievals used, to the point where it inhibits the person's movements.
Silk can be quite strong, but when you layer it to that amount, the material you're using isn't going to be all that significant.

The strength of kevlar and silk isn't in its ability to resist shears, it's from the force needed to snap it when you try to pull a strand of it apart. It's tensile strength is incredibly high like spider silk for example. While this is very good for absorbing blunt kinetic energy like deforming bullets, it isn't very good when you take a blade to it and apply shearing force. Against something with a pointed tip, the bolt is going to punch a hole through it forcing the fibres apart as it goes further and further. Against a hunting broad head, it's not going to do very much good unless you have an unwieldy amount a lot of it.

Going off topic, even if silk was abundant, I don't think it would be used as much as plant fibre or mammalian fibre cloth simply because it's not meant for any heavy duty sort of work, or at least when not chemically treated. Silk has a tendency to lose a significant amount of strength when wet for instance, when the person is sweating and doing vigorous exercise it's likely the silk isn't going to hold up, likewise, in the rain or in a moist environment, silk likely wouldn't hold up very well rough treatment in general.

[dirty foot]

Not entirely, a bolt operates much differently than a bullet. For starters, in regards to your comparison between silk and kevlar, it's somewhat true. But Kevlar is mostly shit against any blade, or at least there are far better materials out there that are proof against shearing weaponry. Kevlar dissipates energy, but sucks at resisting a pair of scissors. Against a bolt, the sharp, non-deforming head would likely pierce the silk/kevlar vest. The shear weight of the bolt ought to also make penetration that much more a possibility.

Cloth and hide armour manufactured on layered absorbing principle is probably the most widespread style of pre-modern armour though. I do know that kevlar isn't satisfactory against blades, but it certainly seems that armours of different materials did work when using roughly same principle of manufacture. That being said, I have never seen explict historical refrence to silken armour (other than as decoration or such), at least I don't remember any off the top of my head, though there are some anecdotal stories about Mongols relating to that.

Plant fiber, hide and even paper are all well attested though.

Excuses for OT.

History channel did a piece on the Mongols (I think, or the Turks) and how they wore silk for it's decorative aspects, and it's lighter-than-cotton qualities. According to the history channel, they probably had no clue the silk was the reason enemies thought they were impervious to arrows.

[Flare]

I don't think I'm the only one here that thinks the history channel is pretty poor in terms of its historical accuracy. Some people I know who specialize in certain historical areas tend to call bullshit on them more often than not.

So far as my own experience goes, silk doesn't offer enough resistance to anything fired from a war bow. They probably though they were impervious to arrows from the fact that shooting an erratically moving target a few dozen metres is a very hard thing to do.

Edit: Ha, found it:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Sarda]

The benefit of silk lies more in the fact that the threads unravel and wind around barbed/hooked arrowheads and make them easier to pull out than actual protection. Pulling out arrows/bullets tended to cause MORE injury than the actual entry, iirc.

[Flare]

The benefit of silk lies more in the fact that the threads unravel and wind around barbed/hooked arrowheads and make them easier to pull out than actual protection. Pulling out arrows/bullets tended to cause MORE injury than the actual entry, iirc.

Barbed arrow heads don't exactly have the perfect profile for punching through thick layers of cloth. Or at least if fired over a distance, it isn't all that likely to go that deep once it penetrates the quilted cloth. Barbed and hook arrow heads are more often used for hunting than at people who expect to be shot at and dress accordingly.

For most cases, the silk threads aren't likely to provide any more help in removal of the barbed arrow head if it gets in deep. Human flesh generally tends to close up when around the wound. The silk isn't going to blunt the edge on the barbs or hooks in such a way the prevents it from cutting up the flesh when you attempt to pull it out. For most cases, if the person is unlucky to have such a projectile deep within them, one option would be to push it through the other side if there aren't any vital organs in the way. In any case, being struck so deeply, your average pre-modern person isn't likely to live for very long afterward due to infection without a doctor around.

For bullets, it depends on what you're been hit with. Assuming a qualified doctor is around and adequate medical facilities, a full metal jacket or a bullet that didn't fragment when entering the body it can be removed quite easily. Small arms generally don't penetrate things like military grade vests, anything bigger than that and they tend to pass through the body. Other than fragmenting bullets I don't quite understand where you're coming from. Fragmented bullets do require more work to pull out, but given someone who either has professional training or experience pulling out these fragments, it's unlikely the pieces would cause additional damage to the person, or at least any more life threatening injuries. I recognize, there are cases where bullets are left in the body due to the inaccessibility of the region, but in most circumstances, these bullets are inert. They are not designed to cause damage when they've lost momentum as a barbed or hooked arrow is.

[TheyTarget]

A helmet. Always a helmet. If your have no body armor your dwarf will get injuries and pass out. Once a dwarf is knocked unconscious enemies always  swing for the "best shot" endlessly bashing the armored head to no effect giving your dwarves enough time to rest and recover then return to battle. Or thats how it always works with me.

[psychologicalshock]

Alright sure - the cuirass can be useful against broadheads but I think for bolts silk would be the material of choice.

Not entirely, a bolt operates much differently than a bullet. For starters, in regards to your comparison between silk and kevlar, it's somewhat true. But Kevlar is mostly shit against any blade, or at least there are far better materials out there that are proof against shearing weaponry. Kevlar dissipates energy, but sucks at resisting a pair of scissors. Against a bolt, the sharp, non-deforming head would likely pierce the silk/kevlar vest. The shear weight of the bolt ought to also make penetration that much more a possibility.

Silk armor probably didn't exist but I think in this case game balance is more relevant - sure long range  weapons won in the long run but that's no fun.