# Combat vs knights in full plate



## Bungus (Nov 30, 2012)

If fighting against a knight in full plate armor, what would be the best weapons?  Can your standard "D&D" broad sword or long sword slice through plate armor?  Or, is it like George Martin and how he describes an experienced swordsman like Bronn going for the joints in the plate, and that's his only chance?

I know a heavy warhammer can bash in plate, while bodkins fired from longbows may be able to penetrate plate as well.  What other weapons are good?

Thanks


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 30, 2012)

Bungus said:


> What other weapons are good?
> 
> Thanks




Pole Arms.  But do not confuse fiction and reality. 

It is not that knights were walking tanks, they were skilled combat elite vs unskilled with sub-standard equipment.  Some of this is because armor has always been designed to protect against the most common weapon of the time and only when a new weapon was introduced did armor get changed.  

Knight vs knight, it happened but most times it was to a yield so the winner could ransom the loser.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 30, 2012)

Knights in full plate were generally mounted. So, first make sure to kill the horse (or find other ways to unhorse the knight). Then finish the downed knight using a dagger or a 'Panzerstecher' (I don't recall the English name, but it's a thin-bladed type of longsword created specifically for the purpose of going for the joints in heavy armor).


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 30, 2012)

Big axes, flanged maces, either big, heavy swords like the Zweihander (though you'd still probably want to stab with it against armor) or big pointy ones like the Estoc

The other interesting thing that you can do with a big sword is whack the guy in plate on the helmet with the hilt

I saw a thing on TV about a book written by a 15th century arms master that was full of illustrations about fighting (a lot is forgotten, we only have books like this to really go on, so take any answers in this thread with a grain of salt, we don't really know). And it has several illustrations of people on foot in full plate fighting unarmored guys who fight with a 2 handed sword reversed. 

You can get a PDF at:

http://www.thearma.org/Fight-Earnestly.htm

Fascinating just looking at the pictures, since it's german, I certainly can't understand any of it.


----------



## Bungus (Nov 30, 2012)

Thank you everybody.  Good replies so far.


----------



## Dioltach (Nov 30, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> And it has several illustrations of people on foot in full plate fighting unarmored guys who fight with a 2 handed sword reversed.




It looks like the chap on the right is running up to surrender his sword to the fellow in armour. Which, to be fair, is what I'd be doing.


----------



## jasper (Nov 30, 2012)

book title dump follows. 
Oakeshott, Ewart books and articles.
 A Knight and his Armour, A Knight in Battle, A Knight and his Castle, A Knight and his Castle, A Knight and his Horse , A Knight and his Weapons, Dark Age Warrior*, The Archaeology of Weapons , The Sword in the Age of Chivalry .  Journal of the Arms and Armour Society of London, A Royal Sword in Westminster Abbey in The Connoisseur Magazine 1951*. The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England *, Fighting Men (with Henry Treece)*, The Blindfold Game*, Sound of Battle (with Leonard Clark)*, European Weapons and Armour, Records of the Medieval Sword*, Sword in Hand*, Sword in the Viking Age* (not yet published). http://www.oakeshott.org/ 

David Edge, John Miles Paddock Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight
Boutell, Charles Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages
David Nicolle
Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350 Western Europe , The Crusades Essential Histories, Medieval Warfare Source Book, History of Medieval Life*, The Hamlyn History of Medieval Life*,

Alfred Hutton Old sword play Techniques of the Great Masters
The Sword and the centuries: Or old sword days and Old swords ways *

ignore the * those for me either buy or convert to kindle.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 30, 2012)

Dagger.  A good way to deal with armor is not to go *through* it but to go around it.  A classic way to deal with someone in that kind of armor is to knock or drag him off his horse, and then put a long dagger into his un-armored armpit, or into the guts under the bottom edge of the breastplate while he's on the ground.


----------



## Grogg of the North (Nov 30, 2012)

Halberd.

Use the hook to pull a knight off his horse and then use the axe head or the spike to deal with them.  It was a peasant with a halberd that ended the Burgundian Wars with a single stroke.

All in all, the halberd is a pretty versatile weapon.


----------



## Bungus (Nov 30, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Dagger.  A good way to deal with armor is not to go *through* it but to go around it.  A classic way to deal with someone in that kind of armor is to knock or drag him off his horse, and then put a long dagger into his un-armored armpit, or into the guts under the bottom edge of the breastplate while he's on the ground.




True - I think the dagger (or Oberyn Martell's spear tip) going through the armpit or behind the knee is what I meant.  However, if it were sword vs sword, does either sword have a chance to slice through the plate itself, or does each combatant have to try to poke the other guy in the weak spots in the plate?


----------



## Grogg of the North (Nov 30, 2012)

As plate armor became more effective, the longsword's design was altered to be more used for thrusting though it still retained its cutting edge. (Har har!)


----------



## Derren (Nov 30, 2012)

Against knight you needed weapons which were designed to pierce armor (note, that does not include two handed swords or axes, no matter how big).

Polearms were quite good if you had the space. Pikes and Halbeards (and variants) posed a serious threat to knights.
For more closed distances weapons with small spikes were preferred as they were more likely to pierce through the armor. Hammers and the Polaxe which was quite a favorite of knights which fought against other knights.

Lastly there were what I would call "last ditch weapons" which includes normal weapons which the armor had trouble defending against like the dagger or sword which could be slipped between the armor plates. But it required quite some skill and it was generally preferred to have weapons designed to fight against armor.

Some nice videos:

Here a rather long one mostly about armor, but there is also some fighting techniques at the end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4

And here some sparring matches using materials from actual medieval fencing guides (for dueling, not for the battlefield). Its a 6 part series. I onloy link the 1st one but also watch the rest if you are interested in some sword techniques.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg


----------



## ppaladin123 (Dec 1, 2012)

Yeah if you weren't stabbing at armor seams or armor gaps after knocking him down, you basically had to concuss the person inside the full plate to death with heavy blows from bludgeoning weapons or the hilt of a greatsword. A slash from a sword held one-handed wouldn't do much of anything.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 1, 2012)

Bungus said:


> True - I think the dagger (or Oberyn Martell's spear tip) going through the armpit or behind the knee is what I meant. However, if it were sword vs sword, does either sword have a chance to slice through the plate itself, or does each combatant have to try to poke the other guy in the weak spots in the plate?




A sword is likely not going to penetrate good quality plate, no matter how big the guy wielding it is.  With a sword, you'd have to go for the weak points.

This is one reason why the sword is actually not the #1 battlefield weapon.  Knights wore them as a symbol of status and as a good all-purpose weapon, and were more for use as defense against unarmored or lightly armored foes (or against mail, before plate became supreme).

On a battlefield against an opponent wearing plate, you would most definitely want one of the weapons that others have talked about above: a pike, heavy mace, axe, halberd, or a lance while mounted, etc., etc. etc.

Now that doesn't mean a sword is completely useless on the battlefield during the age of plate, it just wouldn't be the primary weapon against a plate armored foe.  And it's a reason why swords got progressively larger during the age of plate (leverage against plate armored foes, as well as defense in an age of less shield use).  You can also still wear an opponent down even striking at the plate protected areas with a sword (though you're running the risk of ruining the sword also). Most of the impact would be absorbed by the plate and padding behind it, but some would likely still be transmitted through...not enough to hurt, but maybe enough to tire them out over the long run (though you're likely tiring yourself out also). Also, grappling would be used even between two foes wearing plate. Trips, throws, etc. will also tire out an opponent and can even injure joints.


Remember, you don't necessarily need to deliver a killing blow to an acctively resisting opponent to win. If they can't stand, can't breathe, or can't see, then they can't fight and you've won. You can now enforce your will on them in any manner you desire, whatever your objective.


----------



## Derren (Dec 1, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> This is one reason why the sword is actually not the #1 battlefield weapon.




This is something which is mostly overlooked in the media. Swords were, at least in the late medieval time period, sidearms or fall back weapons when you couldn't use your primary weapon (or packed the wrong one).


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2012)

Bungus said:


> However, if it were sword vs sword, does either sword have a chance to slice through the plate itself, or does each combatant have to try to poke the other guy in the weak spots in the plate?




Slice straight through the plate?  No, not at all reliably.  You don't have enough mechanical advantage.  With a heavy-headed mace or axe, you can stave in the armor to crush ribs or wound soft tissue beneath, or break a limb beneath the armor.  But with a sword you're pretty more looking for gaps.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 1, 2012)

One of the less obvious advantages of the larger swords in the age of plate was the sheer mass behind the wedge of its blade: even though that mass was not concentrated at the end of the weapon's length like an axe, it still concentrated a lot of force into a small area, which actually let them do damage via hydrostatic shock even without penetrating the armor.

That alone could cause a limb to go limp, temporarily disrupt the ability to breathe or even stun an opponent much like a blow to the head.

Yes, blunt weapons did that better, but again, the key to the sword is situational flexibility and speed, and the heavier swords of the age of plate needed that extra mass do deliver such blows.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> which actually let them do damage via hydrostatic shock even without penetrating the armor.




Oh, they have mass, and they do damage, but "hydrostatic shock"?  I don't think so.  That's a matter of inducing a shock wave into the body, which is accomplished not so much by the magnitude, as the momentum change - a sharp, extremely fast strike may create hydrostatic shock.  Greatswords are moving pretty slow, compared to she speed of waves in meat. I'm not sure that their damage comes from shock waves in the target.

Instead, consider this - you are in a close-fitted suit of metal.  And, all of a sudden, a section of it moves several inches inwards.  Where, pray tell, does your body go?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 1, 2012)

> Oh, they have mass, and they do damage, but "hydrostatic shock"? I don't think so.




In this assertion, I am but aping the words of those who know much more than I.  It's not that the blow delivered be permanently debilitating, just disruptive enough to set up the followup blow.  Not being able to control your shield arm or properly grip your weapon for just a second could be fatal...



> Instead, consider this - you are in a close-fitted suit of metal. And, all of a sudden, a section of it moves several inches inwards. Where, pray tell, does your body go?




Certainly, maces, hammers, flails, picks and axes are better weapons against heavy armor.  However, the reason blades of this era grew so massive was to close the gap between those weapons and the preferred weapon (and symbol) of nobility.  The increased mass also allowed such blades to more effectively deliver the mortschlag when reversed in the grip, using the crossguard like a pick.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 1, 2012)

Firearms, since they effectively ended the age of plate.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 1, 2012)

Heavy mace gets my vote - your best chance of injuring someone in plate armour quickly. A dagger between the joints sounds all fine and dandy, but unless you are assassinating someone in their sleep, good luck getting into position!

Arguably, maces were undervalued in the very beginnings of D&D and ever since people discussing ancient weapons have looked down on them, considering them to be capable of less damage and disregarding their true fearsomeness. Especially against armour.

Cheers


----------



## NewJeffCT (Dec 2, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Heavy mace gets my vote - your best chance of injuring someone in plate armour quickly. A dagger between the joints sounds all fine and dandy, but unless you are assassinating someone in their sleep, good luck getting into position!
> 
> Arguably, maces were undervalued in the very beginnings of D&D and ever since people discussing ancient weapons have looked down on them, considering them to be capable of less damage and disregarding their true fearsomeness. Especially against armour.
> 
> Cheers




good point, but D&D has never really valued the different types of armor, other than saying plate provides +2 or +3 AC better than chainmail, which is +2 better than studded leather and +3 better than regular leather.  (maybe 1E did with weapon vs AC charts, since armor was more static in 1E, but I never really used it.)

Plate armor might be easier to hit, but harder to damage - if two identical combatants faced off against each other, and one was in leather and the other in plate, the guy in leather should be able to move more quickly and be harder to hit, but easier to damage once hit.  And, the guy in plate would be the opposite.  Moves slower, easier to hit, but harder to damage.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 2, 2012)

NewJeffCT said:


> good point, but D&D has never really valued the different types of armor, other than saying plate provides +2 or +3 AC better than chainmail, which is +2 better than studded leather and +3 better than regular leather. (maybe 1E did with weapon vs AC charts, since armor was more static in 1E, but I never really used it.)
> 
> Plate armor might be easier to hit, but harder to damage - if two identical combatants faced off against each other, and one was in leather and the other in plate, the guy in leather should be able to move more quickly and be harder to hit, but easier to damage once hit. And, the guy in plate would be the opposite. Moves slower, easier to hit, but harder to damage.




Yeah, that's where damage reduction comes in.  However for many, DR adds an unacceptable increase in complexity.

It just goes to show how perfectly simple and perfectly realistic at the same time are impossible.  So you end up deciding from modular options what level of complexity you want vs. what level of simplicity you want...balancing the two according to each DM's/Gamer's preference.  That's definitely one area where 5E could be very successful...if they make the modularity easy to deal with.


----------



## Janx (Dec 7, 2012)

other variables to the sword vs. armor debate

most sword fights aren't prolonged bouts of clanging swords together.  That would ding and gouge the blade edges pretty quick. It's more like there's a short exchange of blows, a close, then a thrust into a weak spot.

a guy with a claymore (two handed sword), isn't just making big swings with it.  He can put a hand past the hilt and hold it like a spear, to guide it into a weak spot and ram the point home into his target's visor, armpit, or other weak spot.


----------



## Derren (Dec 15, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Firearms, since they effectively ended the age of plate.




That is a common misconception.
Advanced firearms sealed the deal, but the age of plate was ended by pikes, not firearms.
Plate armor and firearms coexisted for a long time. But when knights in plate armor vanished they were not replaced by line infantry but by pike formation (Landsknechte, Swiss mercenaries) which slowly evolved into line infantry by incorporating more and more guns into their formation.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 16, 2012)

NewJeffCT said:


> if two identical combatants faced off against each other, and one was in leather and the other in plate, the guy in leather should be able to move more quickly and be harder to hit, but easier to damage once hit.  And, the guy in plate would be the opposite.  Moves slower, easier to hit, but harder to damage.




I'm not sure - I've seen people at the royal armouries fighting in plate and I have to say they seemed to be able to move pretty much as quickly as a person could. In hollywoodland the person in leather might be doing acrobatic tumbling that the plate armoured guy couldn't, but in terms of actual melee neither would be functionally more manoeuvrable than the other.

Ground speed with endurance is the only real area of advantage that I can see.

Cheers


----------



## Derren (Dec 16, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm not sure - I've seen people at the royal armouries fighting in plate and I have to say they seemed to be able to move pretty much as quickly as a person could. In hollywoodland the person in leather might be doing acrobatic tumbling that the plate armoured guy couldn't, but in terms of actual melee neither would be functionally more manoeuvrable than the other.
> 
> Ground speed with endurance is the only real area of advantage that I can see.
> 
> Cheers




See the first video I linked on page 2 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...n-full-plate&p=6057404&viewfull=1#post6057404) at the end (around 36 minutes in) for an example how agile plate fighters are in combat.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Heavy mace gets my vote - your best chance of injuring someone in plate armour quickly. A dagger between the joints sounds all fine and dandy, but unless you are assassinating someone in their sleep, good luck getting into position!




Remember, the guy you're trying to get to is not Inigo Montoya or something once he's off his horse.  He's not super-agile, he's a guy in plate armor.  On a battlefield, with lots of fighting going on, he cannot just stand there pointing his sword at you to keep you at bay.  He doesn't have forever.  He doesn't see or hear very well in that helmet, so without the extra mobility of the horse, he has some distinct disadvantages.  He's going to take a swing eventually, and that's apt to be your moment.

Are you assured a kill?  No.  But coming into grappling distance on a man in armor with a sword is not all that hard, either.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 16, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Remember, the guy you're trying to get to is not Inigo Montoya or something once he's off his horse.  He's not super-agile, he's a guy in plate armor.  On a battlefield, with lots of fighting going on, he cannot just stand there pointing his sword at you to keep you at bay.  He doesn't have forever.  He doesn't see or hear very well in that helmet, so without the extra mobility of the horse, he has some distinct disadvantages.  He's going to take a swing eventually, and that's apt to be your moment.
> 
> Are you assured a kill?  No.  But coming into grappling distance on a man in armor with a sword is not all that hard, either.




You are making the classic mistake of mixing up jousting plate armour with actual plate armour used in battle (plate mail). It just doesn't look anything like the way you describe that battlefield. 

I don't know if you are speaking from the experience of having tried the real thing on, but I've seen people moving and fighting in the authentic article and believe me - they had no noticeable hindrance to their speed and mobility. As I said, at the royal armouries museum. The real thing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 16, 2012)

I've seen the same kind of demoes- there is a bit of a slowdown, but for someone trained and conditioned to wear the armor, its not going to be that noticeable.  The real issue with such armor is going to be endurance.

If you look at history, the average soldier has been loaded down with 60-80lbs of gear.  They're trained to carry it.  Its mass is efficiently distributed.  But the guys in plate, unlike some warriors of other eras, could not drop significant portions of their gear to fight in.  Additionally, that armor is not as good at allowing heat to escape as the fighting gear of other areas and areas, which also saps endurance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 16, 2012)

I've seen the same kind of demoes- there is a bit of a slowdown, but for someone trained and conditioned to wear the armor, its not going to be that noticeable.  The real issue with such armor is going to be endurance.

If you look at history, the average soldier has been loaded down with 60-80lbs of gear.  They're trained to carry it.  Its mass is efficiently distributed.  But the guys in plate, unlike some warriors of other cultures, could not drop significant portions of their gear to fight in.  Additionally, that armor is not as good at allowing heat to escape as the fighting gear of other areas and eras, which also saps endurance.


----------



## Derren (Dec 16, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've seen the same kind of demoes- there is a bit of a slowdown, but for someone trained and conditioned to wear the armor, its not going to be that noticeable.  The real issue with such armor is going to be endurance.
> 
> If you look at history, the average soldier has been loaded down with 60-80lbs of gear.  They're trained to carry it.  Its mass is efficiently distributed.  But the guys in plate, unlike some warriors of other cultures, could not drop significant portions of their gear to fight in.  Additionally, that armor is not as good at allowing heat to escape as the fighting gear of other areas and eras, which also saps endurance.




A knight carried less weight into battle than a soldier today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc5O6Y-Yeyw

90 pounds or more vs the 50 pounds armor and sword in the video from the museum (minute 35+)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2012)

Right, but a modern warrior can drop a lot of that weight in a few seconds.  Not an option for the plate armored knight.

In addition, a lot of what the modern warrior carries into battle gets expended and cast off as the battle progresses.  His load decreases in mass as he uses his weaponry.


----------



## Derren (Dec 17, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Right, but a modern warrior can drop a lot of that weight in a few seconds.  Not an option for the plate armored knight.
> 
> In addition, a lot of what the modern warrior carries into battle gets expended and cast off as the battle progresses.  His load decreases in mass as he uses his weaponry.




What exactly should the soldier drop (watch the video)?
His weapon, his ammunition or parts of his armor? And the only thing which he uses up is his ammunition which still won't drop his carrying load below that of a knight. His vest alone weights as much as plate armor and his weapon is equal (M16) or more (SAW) heavy than a sword/poleaxe.

Soldiers do actually carry even more stuff and here you are right, they can drop that one. Won't make their loads lighter than the equipment of a knight, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w846UcmIo5o


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2012)

> His vest alone weights as much as plate armor




That's simply incorrect.

According to researchers at Leeds, Milan, & Aukland, plate, on average, was between 30-50kg.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14203621

In contrast, the Interceptor body armor, E-SAPI plates (10.9 pounds), ESBIs (7.75 pounds), DAPS (5.03 pounds) and with the neck, throat and groin protectors installed the armor weighs in at 33.1 pounds (15 kg).

Add to that, a good portion of a modern soldier's carried mass is in a quickly removable pack.  Yes, it contains things like spare clips, etc., but if mobility is needed, those can be abandoned.


----------



## Derren (Dec 17, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's simply incorrect.
> 
> According to researchers at Leeds, Milan, & Aukland, plate, on average, was between 30-50kg.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14203621
> ...




Ok, you are right. The vest alone doesn't weight as much. But add in the helmet (5-10 pounds), boots and all the other stuff which is covered by plate armor but counted separately on the soldier and you have equal weight. A soldiers weapon usually weights equally as medieval ones or more for the heavy weapons and that is not counting the ammunition. So even when a soldier abandons everything except his armor and weapon he carries an equal load to a knight, not less. And also consider that the weight of modern armor is much less distributed among the body than plate armor.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2012)

Not quite- the helmet weighs 3.36lbs, the boots another 2.5 (I have some), and the restaurant clothing, belts, etc. adds another 5-10lbs.  That's still 15lbs short of his knightly counterpart.

The knight's weapons add another 5-15 lbs, depending upon what, exactly, he kitted himself out with.  A knight going 2hand sword with backup dagger is traveling light.  One armed with a sword, mace, dagger and shield is about middle of that range.  Only a few would carry more.

In comparison, the M4 carbine weighs just under 7lbs with a full clip; each full clip weighs about .5lbs.  Lets call the knight's and the soldier's daggers a wash.  Hand grenades weigh 6.5oz each.  A loaded handgun and some extra clips adds another 5lbs.

Communications & optics add another 5lbs or so.

Most of the rest of that 90lbs of weight is stuff that can be dropped for later retrieval.  Part of this mass is because the modern soldier is expected to operate much further from his primary mode of transport than is the knight (APC vs horse), and for longer periods of time.

So yes, he does carry more mass into battle, but a goodly portion of it is not carried _during_ the battle.


----------



## Derren (Dec 17, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not quite- the helmet weighs 3.36lbs, the boots another 2.5 (I have some), and the restaurant clothing, belts, etc. adds another 5-10lbs.  That's still 15lbs short of his knightly counterpart.
> 
> The knight's weapons add another 5-15 lbs, depending upon what, exactly, he kitted himself out with.  A knight going 2hand sword with backup dagger is traveling light.  One armed with a sword, mace, dagger and shield is about middle of that range.  Only a few would carry more.
> 
> ...




The weight of the helmet comes from here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKH_M2nPBKE

All clips I found say 90 pound for essentials (armor, weapon, ammo) and usually 130 pound in total when including dropable supply.


----------



## Janx (Dec 17, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> You are making the classic mistake of mixing up jousting plate armour with actual plate armour used in battle (plate mail). It just doesn't look anything like the way you describe that battlefield.
> 
> I don't know if you are speaking from the experience of having tried the real thing on, but I've seen people moving and fighting in the authentic article and believe me - they had no noticeable hindrance to their speed and mobility. As I said, at the royal armouries museum. The real thing.




Along that line, consider the man inside the armor.

As I've been hearing of the jousting league the History channel and such has been airing, there's a new trend to put ex-football players in armor on a horse.  People thought they would be too heavy, and too slow.

apparently they were wrong, and football player sized guys are dominating the sport.

Same thing goes for armor back then.  You're not going to put a 100 pound weakling in the suit, but a well muscled man who's been training for it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2012)

> All clips I found say 90 pound for essentials (armor, weapon, ammo) and usually 130 pound in total when including dropable supply.




I'm getting my info partially from active duty personnel (family on deployment).  But I'm also looking up the official weights listed for some of this gear- its easily found if you look by name.  (And like I said, some of this stuff I actually own.)

The discrepancy may be due to 2 factors: imprecise weight estimates (in the vids and/or from my family) and that the sources you cite may be out of date and simple differences in the gear we're discussing.  Some of the gear, like the helmet, was replaced by lighter stuff.  The helmet, for instance, has been replaced- the MICH (a Kevlar helmet currently used by our troops) is only 3.36 pounds for an XL size.  But the MICH is not yet universally used.

Ditto the M4 carbine- again, its a relatively recent replacement for M16A2 that was about 1.5lbs heavier.  And again, its not universally distributed.  And it never will be, since certain branches and subdivision of the military use heavier and lighter weapons than it...sometimes, depending on mission.


----------



## Janx (Dec 17, 2012)

in doing the armored knight vs. modern soldier, it might also be important to consider the kind of movements they are making.

the kind of movement a knight is making in a sword fight is akin to fighting in a boxing or karate match.  A lot of moving around, swinging a weapon and blocking.  Very aerobic and tiring.  I assume if these guys spent all day doing it, they were in better shape than I was when i trained in martial arts.*
*consider that part of my black belt test included sparring everybody in my school in rotation, non-stop for about an hour.

Whereas, the soldier has some body armor, a gun, a belt full of ammo and a heavy backpack.  He's probably walking/marching, crouching, laying down and getting up.  The act of actual fighting means pulling a trigger, not swinging a 3 pound sword repeatedly at his enemy.  He may actually be exerting LESS energy in a firefight than a swordsman.

Additionally, where folks assume wearing armor is such a drag, the weight is spread out and held close to the body.  It would feel like a lighter burden, than carrying that weight in a backpack or as furniture to be moved.

there's also the psychological contribution.  A guy in armor is going to feel strong and invincible.  he is going to move and act as such.  this is why football players hit harder today, than in the past.  Better protective gear makes them act more aggressively.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 17, 2012)

deleted


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2012)

It also depends upon the soldier, to a lesser extent.  One of my buddies in Ranger training was 5'6", maybe 160lbs.  No way anyone would load him down with 130lbs as a standard load.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 17, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It also depends upon the soldier, to a lesser extent.  One of my buddies in Ranger training was 5'6", maybe 160lbs.  No way anyone would load him down with 130lbs as a standard load.




Clearly your platoon has less of a sense of humor than mine, which tended to give the heaviest stuff to the smallest guy (and newbies tend to get the SAW to "break them in").  I did several missions carrying both an M60 and the platoon radio. 

For a matter of perspective, here was my combat load for short advisory missions in Afghanistan, where my role was only as a staff guy armed for self defense (not door-kicking or actively seeking out contact).

List:
[sblock]Carried: 
M4 Carbine with 30 rounds 5.56mm ball, 4x sight, aiming laser

Worn: 
Advanced Combat Helmet, Ballistic glasses
Air Crewmen Uniform (nomex, more durable than the regular Army Combat Uniform) with:
- reflective belt (ankle pocket)
- notebook & patrol cap (thigh pocket)
- knife (trouser pocket)
- earplugs (shoulder pocket)
- Ipod (shoulder pocket)
- ID card & wallet (chest pocket)
- Security badge (chest pocket)
- Pens (wrist pocket)
- T-shirt/underwear, socks
- Hot Weather Combat Boots
Thigh holster with M9 9mm pistol and 15 rounds 9mm ball
Improved Outer Tactical Vest (body armor) with:
- Front and rear SAPI plates
- Camelback and 2L water
- Canteen pouch containing gloves, 12x20 binoculars, flashlight, IR strobe
- Improved First Aid Kit
- 3 magazines 5.56mm ball & tracer (90 rounds)
- 2 magazines 9mm ball (30 rounds)
- Grenade pouch with digital camera
- Strap cutter
- Multitool

Assault ruck with:
- Iridium satphone & Battery charger
- Weapon cleaning kit
- Eye drops
- Hand sanitizer
- Shaving kit
- Waterproof bag
- Poncho liner
- Towel
- Combat shirt
- 2x t-shirt, underwear, socks
[/sblock]

That was 60 lbs of gear as measured by the airfield scale, split roughly 45lbs in worn load (worn equipment plus body armor plus weapon) and 15 lbs in the assault ruck.  Note that with that load I had no side SAPI, no frags or smokes, no specialty weapons (e.g. M203/M320 and 40mm grenades) and less than a basic load of 5.56mm.  This was also a summer load for high altitude, and I shivered at night under my poncho liner.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 18, 2012)

> Clearly your platoon has less of a sense of humor than mine...



Whoa, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoaaaahhh!

I _must_ clarify, since I used imprecise language: "My buddy *who was in* Ranger training..." is what I should have said!  I am not a member of the armed forces.  I was just an Army brat, and a lot of my friends & family served or are serving now, so I grew up and lived alongside all this stuff.

(BTW, thank you for your service.)


----------

