5 ms·

I think the most important insight about medieval warfare is that it too was a constant arms-race, it was not some sort of static period with knights and swords

I think the most important insight about medieval warfare is that it too was a constant arms-race, it was not some sort of static period with knights and swords that magically disappeared one day to be replaced with musketeers and riflemen. There are so many weird myths and ideas, and it's always nice to see people who know what they're talking about. :)

kbenson 12y ago
I've read a few accounts and seen a few programs about how the word bulletproof came about, which also illustrates this period of change. It was a title given to (plate?) armor to protect the wearers against bullets (I'm not sure to what effect). For that even to be a thing means that suits of armor and guns were on the same battlefield.
- mcguire 12y ago
  > I'm not sure to what effect Early blackpowder was of poor quality, as were the handgonnes, and round balls are ballistically inefficient (and the actual projectiles were usually worse). So, probably pretty well, until you got too close. P.S. The primary effect that I keep seeing mentioned is that they make a really loud noise and scare the crap out of everyone. P.P.S As far as I can tell, the use of armor declines as the momentum of the projectiles (and number of firearms) goes up. Accuracy was the last attribute that was important on the battlefield. (Except for individual rate of fire.)
  - pluma 12y ago
    I'd imagine that facing a row of soldiers aiming things that go "boom" at you must have been an extremely effective way to break morale no matter how inaccurate the projectiles are. Besides, all that hot lead had to go somewhere. Maybe you wouldn't be hit by the guy in front of you, but you'd still risk getting hit by the one behind him or the ones next to him. Arrows may have been more precise, but at least you could see where they were going.
- craigching 12y ago
  Not that I question your knowledge about bullets and armor, but weren't the things they shot out of slings also called bullets?
  - kbenson 12y ago
    I have no idea whether the term used at the time for sling ammunition was bullet, but even so, I can't imagine that being a selling point given the penetration power of human powered sling projectiles would have with regard to plate armor. Also, the sources I've seen were very clear to link it to the rise of guns on the battlefield.
    - kragen 12y ago
      Much to my surprise, you are right — sling bullets probably could not penetrate armor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASling_%28weapon%29#Armour_penetration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASling_%28weapon%29#Armo...
      - kbenson 12y ago
        Interesting. I didn't know there was that much controversy (albeit for earlier armor technology). I was assuming, so I guess I was luckily right through ignorance. ;)

kbenson 12y ago

I've read a few accounts and seen a few programs about how the word bulletproof came about, which also illustrates this period of change. It was a title given to (plate?) armor to protect the wearers against bullets (I'm not sure to what effect). For that even to be a thing means that suits of armor and guns were on the same battlefield.

mcguire 12y ago
> I'm not sure to what effect Early blackpowder was of poor quality, as were the handgonnes, and round balls are ballistically inefficient (and the actual projectiles were usually worse). So, probably pretty well, until you got too close. P.S. The primary effect that I keep seeing mentioned is that they make a really loud noise and scare the crap out of everyone. P.P.S As far as I can tell, the use of armor declines as the momentum of the projectiles (and number of firearms) goes up. Accuracy was the last attribute that was important on the battlefield. (Except for individual rate of fire.)
- pluma 12y ago
  I'd imagine that facing a row of soldiers aiming things that go "boom" at you must have been an extremely effective way to break morale no matter how inaccurate the projectiles are. Besides, all that hot lead had to go somewhere. Maybe you wouldn't be hit by the guy in front of you, but you'd still risk getting hit by the one behind him or the ones next to him. Arrows may have been more precise, but at least you could see where they were going.
craigching 12y ago
Not that I question your knowledge about bullets and armor, but weren't the things they shot out of slings also called bullets?
- kbenson 12y ago
  I have no idea whether the term used at the time for sling ammunition was bullet, but even so, I can't imagine that being a selling point given the penetration power of human powered sling projectiles would have with regard to plate armor. Also, the sources I've seen were very clear to link it to the rise of guns on the battlefield.
  - kragen 12y ago
    Much to my surprise, you are right — sling bullets probably could not penetrate armor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASling_%28weapon%29#Armour_penetration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASling_%28weapon%29#Armo...
    - kbenson 12y ago
      Interesting. I didn't know there was that much controversy (albeit for earlier armor technology). I was assuming, so I guess I was luckily right through ignorance. ;)