>>3879
Ты же понимаешь, что это противоречит научным данным или ты с ними просто не знаком?
In one sense, this is a redundant question, since a successful industry would scarcely have flourished for three centuries without some general belief in the efficacy of its products. But to try and decide what the effectiveness of armour was in specific situations, we can only compare the energies needed to defeat armour with the energies available to do this. There are always a great many variables on the battlefield, but at least the probable outcomes can be assessed. It also has to be borne in mind that a bullet which did not quite pierce the armour might still have delivered enough energy to knock the wearer out of the saddle. It should be stressed that these are not intended to be precise estimates, but merely representative examples. At different dates, weapons might offer the following energies to attack armour (see chapte
Ax, sword 60 - 130J
12c longbow arrow 80 J
13c crossbow bolt 100 - 200J
14c handgun (serpentine powder) 250 J 15c Hussite handguns (serpentine powder) 500 - 1000 J
16c arquebus (serpentine powder) 1300 J (corned powder) 1 750 J
1525+ musket (serpentine powder) 2300 J
(corned powder) 3000 J

metal by 0.5 metal by 0.75 metal by 1.1 metal by 1.5 and an increment (150 J) added to allow for padding, and the need to disable an opponent. Let us apply these energies to some hypothetical case studies: 1. A 11th-12th century knight who is clad in mail. An edged weapon would need to deliver at least 200 J to defeat the mail. A very strong man using an axe or sword with both hands might just about be able to do this. An arrowhead, on the other hand, would only need to deliver 120 J to pierce the mail and the padding underneath. An archer would find this difficult, but an exceptional archer, or one armed with a crossbow, could defeat the mail. 2. A knight of the 13th century who wishes to reinforce his mail against the growing threat of crossbows. A cuir-bouilli reinforce might only increase the energy needed by an arrow to about 150 J; which is not enough to stop a crossbow bolt at short range. He might opt to wear a coat of iron plates instead. Such a plate might be 2 mm thick and probably be made of iron ( quality). This would need another 70 J to defeat it, making a total of about 220 J—enough to defy a crossbowman, although making his armour uncomfortably heavy. 3. A knight in Milanese plate armour of the early 15th century, would be wearing less weight, having discarded most of his mail. The plates might be 2 mm thick and rounded in form. It would be made of medium-carbon steel ( or better); it would often be hardened, but for this example an air-cooled steel only will be considered. An arrow would in effect be striking at 30 deg, and would need to deliver 230 J in order to defeat this armour (280 J if padding included), which is unlikely even for a steel crossbow. So the vendor could confidently claim to be offering an armour "proof against the crossbow". A bullet (being much larger than an arrow-point) would have to deliver over 990 J. If the knight was facing a Hussite opponent, however, then the latter's handgun might offer 1000 J. The knight should still be safe, but the margin of safety is very small, and by the end of the 15th century, would have disappeared. A knight in North European armour of () metal, on the other hand, would be threatened by 680 J and so would not be safe from the Hussite handgunner at short ranges. 4. A landsknecht or Swiss pikeman wearing a Niirnberg infantry armour in the mid- 16th century; this might be 2.5 mm thick, keeled in form, and made of a () steel. An arrow striking him at 45 deg would need to deliver 260 J (310 J with padding) in order to defeat this armour. A bullet however would need to deliver 1250 J, but this would be well within the capability of an arquebus at close range. 5. Would Sir Philip Sidney have survived the battle of Zutphen (1584) if he had remembered to put on his cuisses ? We do not know whether he was wearing a Milanese armour, or perhaps a Greenwich armour. A late 16th century armour from Milan might be 3 mm thick, keeled, and made of steel. A bullet striking at 45 deg would need 2500 J to defeat this. Muskets (loaded with corned powder) could offer at least 3000 J at short range. If he had, more patriotically, been wearing a Greenwich armour, then that might have been of similar thickness and shape, but made of steel, and perhaps needed 3000 J to be defeated. At short range then, it may not then have mattered which armour he wore; at long range, however, a Greenwich or Innsbruck armour might have given him a slight margin of safety. 6. Barwick makes four claims (see chapter 7.4). "Arrows cannot kill a man in pistol-proof armour at 120 yards". Assuming that this meant defeating a 3 mm thick keeled breastplate made of steel, then an arrow would have required 470 J, unobtainable from any crossbow. So his claim is correct. A bullet, on the other hand, would require 2500 J, within the capability of a musket (but not a pistol) as discussed above in case 4. So his second claim is correct. "Muskets could kill a man in proof armour at 100 yards, in common armour at 400 yards, and without armour at 600 yards". The third and fourth claims are more difficult to assess. For common armour, we may assume a similar breastplate made of steel, which would require 1150 J to defeat it. But there is little evidence of shooting muskets at such extreme ranges. Charles V seemed to have taken his opponents by surprise at the battle of Miihlberg in 1547 by having his musketeers fire across the River Elbe, 200 yards wide at that point2. Barwick probably did not intend any precise measurement of distance, but if the velocity of the musket ball has fallen by half, then its kinetic energy has fallen by a quarter, to 750 J, which might just be resisted by a "common" breastplate. A man without armour would probably be killed or disabled by 100-200 J. A blow of between 25 and 40 J to the head in a car crash may be fatal3. Giving Barwick the benefit of the doubt over range, his other claims are probably valid. 6. A cuirassier's armour of the 17th century; this might be 4 mm thick, rounded in shape, and made of steel. A bullet would need 2000 J to defeat it, which should be within the capability of a musket, but definitely not that of a pistol. This armour would have offered its wearers extensive protection, but at the cost of considerably reduced mobility. Whether it would be regularly worn would depend upon the soldiers' priorities. It will be seen that the sort of steel armours that Milanese armourers could offer in the late 14th and 15th centuries would offer a good margin of protection against all likely weapons. Their claims about using the crossbow to test armour are amply justified. Munition armour offered the bare minimum of protection at close range. On the other hand, armour of knightly quality could well require more than twice as much energy to defeat it, and so offer at least double the protection—at a price, of course. However, firearms offer a greater order of magnitude of energy, and very soon offer a real possibility of defeating armour. There are two course then open to the armourer: make the armour of better metal, or thicker. The difficulties of heat-treating steel meant that this first solution, although desirable, was expensive. While a few individual centres of metallurgical excellence continued to make princely armour of great elegance as well as metallurgical ingenuity, the great bulk of production had to be made down to a price, and be effective simply through its thickness. The second solution, although crude, was effective. As armies got larger and firepower increased, the demand for armour (even for the infantry) increased; the likelihood of princes paying for large quantities of armour—unless the cheapest solution had been adopted— was very small. Increasing the thickness from 2 to 3.1mm will double the resistance, and have a similar effect to the use of hardened steel, at a fraction of the cost. The problem then was the stamina of the wearers, and indeed as handgunners replaced archers, less skilful troops were needed and wages fell. But if recruits were drawn from the poorer and less well-nourished strata of society4 then they were even less capable of marching and fighting in bulletproof armour. So the situation arose of leaders with wearable protective armour, while their armies of thousands could no longer wear what might protect them, and armour dropped out of use, despite the well thought-out arguments of military commentators like Maurice de Saxe5. The craftsmen turned to other industries like gunmaking or clockmaking, and the centres of armour production became the centres of the Industrial Revolution. Large furnaces had been needed to make the large steel plates needed for armour. When this technology was taken a stage further by the demand for large quantities of cheap armour, large fineries came into use, especially in those areas associated with the arms industry. Western firepower had already done a great deal to conquer the world; its industry would go on to dominate it.

>сука даже турнирные небоевые доспехи которые в 10 раз защищенней бывало обычным мулежом копья пробивался.

Цитату из исторических документов о подобных ситуациях. Правда, средневековые оруженийники ничего подобного не писали и по современным экспериментам вероятность подобного крайне мала.

Скорее всего, ты не знаешь английский и не сможешь ознакомиться даже с академическим материалом, поэтому для такого отбраса, как ты, есть пережёванный текст на русском.
С помощью расчетов, приведенных в работе А.Вильямсом в работе «The knight and the blast furnace: …», для поражения нагрудника из низкоуглеродистой стали (основная масса латных доспехов 15-17 вв.) толщиной 1.9 мм (имитация нагрудника дешевого пехотного доспеха 16 в.), c учетом поправки на округлую форму (аналог удара в плоскую пластину под углом 30 градусов), требуется энергия укола копьем, превышающая 120 Дж. Соответственно, даже низкокачественный дешевый и максимально доступный для любого пехотинца доспех вряд ли мог быть пробит ударом рогатины, острием алебарды или пикой его пешего коллеги. Берем показатель 200-250 Дж для таранного удара копьем – и последствия укола в подобный нагрудник конным оппонентом уже не выглядят столь оптимистично для его владельца (см. иллюстрацию из Stadtchronik Frankenberg (1480 – 1486 гг.), пехотинец пробит копьем, так сказать, навылет, сквозь нагрудник).
Что касается уязвимости полевого рыцарского доспеха для таранного удара, условно возьмем итальянский (миланский) нагрудник начала XV в. из качественной среднеуглеродистой стали с максимальной толщиной около 3 мм. С поправками на бо’льшую толщину и лучшее качество такого доспеха (в сравнении с предыдущим пехотным), значение энергии, которая потребуется для пробития подобной кирасы копьем, должно превышать величину 500 Дж, а для чуть более тонкой кирасы в 2.5 мм, выкованной также из качественной среднеуглеродистой стали и дополнительно подвергнутой полной закалке и отпуску (южногерманский доспех первой конца XV - половины XVI вв.) этот порог поднимается выше 450 Дж – энергия за пределами потенциала техники таранного удара копьем; тем не менее, при этом необходимо принять во внимание, как замечают авторы эксперимента, следующее обстоятельство: если два рыцаря сшиблись на копьях и развили одинаковую силу удара, попав друг в друга (допустим, по 300 Дж каждый), то энергия, передаваемая на доспех каждого из них, составит 300 Дж. В случае промаха одного из участников сшибки, его кинетическая энергия прибавляется к энергии удара его оппонента и вполне может составить уже 600 Дж – величина, критически опасная даже для доспеха отличного качества.