TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Bullet Shields

Go To

Gault Laugh and grow dank! from beyond the kingdom Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: P.S. I love you
Laugh and grow dank!
#1: Feb 13th 2011 at 12:02:31 AM

My universe is structured such that it has scenarios in which Medieval-esque infantry formations armed with swords and shields come up against rifle platoons. As such I was wondering how effectively medieval shields and armor of various types would protect against bullets.

I that wooden shields would be fairly weak against bullets but that heavy plate armor and large all-metal tower shields and such would be effective at repelling bullets. Is that true?

yey
SandJosieph Since: Dec, 2009
#2: Feb 13th 2011 at 12:07:05 AM

They would probably work well against small caliber fire-arms but anything above, say, a .32 would probably make a nice hole.

MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#3: Feb 13th 2011 at 12:17:27 AM

Against pistols, you could maybe get into stabbing range, but against rifles I wouldn't give you good chances of getting into even bow range (bow range being where you can reliably target a man with an arrow).

edited 13th Feb '11 12:20:11 AM by MattII

Gault Laugh and grow dank! from beyond the kingdom Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: P.S. I love you
Laugh and grow dank!
#4: Feb 13th 2011 at 1:10:25 AM

Would thick metal shields and similar armor protect against something in the size of a .44? We're essentially talking about full, heavy plate armor, with shields that are basically a sheet of smooth, tempered steel. I also imagine the shields to have a slight curve, where a bullet might glance or deflect off. That would be a more important factor I think, rather than the power to outright stop a bullet in it's tracks.

yey
Yej (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
#5: Feb 13th 2011 at 5:34:39 AM

Pure/strong steel is quite hard to make without modern Chemistry knowledge, AFAIK.

EldritchBlueRose The Puzzler from A Really Red Room Since: Apr, 2010
The Puzzler
#6: Feb 13th 2011 at 9:51:46 AM

Do you know the term "bulletproof"? IIRC it was first used in the Late Medieval into the Renaissance by armor-smiths to refer to how well the armor, usually the breastplate, would be able to withstand bullets. If it was bulletproof the armor would be dented by the impact of the bullet, and if it wasn't the bullet would pierce the armor.

If there is a library near where you live, then look around from books about armor because they'd go more in detail than I did. Plus research is good. wink

Has ADD, plays World of Tanks, thinks up crazy ideas like children making spaceships for Hitler. Occasionally writes them down.
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#7: Feb 13th 2011 at 2:06:43 PM

Plate armour is bulletproof, like the above man said. If they're just going against rifles, they can charge into range. So long as the enemy doesn't have armour piercing rounds (and if it is just early period rifles then they won't) then they can survive well into close range. Once a rifle round hits the shield, it's pretty low power thereafter.

That said, remember that plate armour is insanely expensive.

MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#8: Feb 13th 2011 at 4:28:38 PM

Plate armour was proof against early musket-balls, it's going to have squat on anything produced after about 1800, if you even try to make it proof against anything more modern it's going to be so heavy as to be useless.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#9: Feb 13th 2011 at 5:09:34 PM

Cmon matt, I know you dislike ranged weapons but don't make stuff up about them. Plate armour even stops modern SMG rounds. He's not rushing his soldiers against U-238 tipped rounds out of a row of m-16s.

MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#10: Feb 13th 2011 at 5:16:28 PM

No f***ing way is any plate steel going to stop rifle rounds at under 50 yards, not if it's light enough to actually be wearable. Plate armour fell out of use for a reason, so saying it's still in any way effective is like trying to claim that the earth is the centre of the solar system.

HungryJoe Gristknife from Under the Tree Since: Dec, 2009
Gristknife
#11: Feb 13th 2011 at 5:40:38 PM

Plate armor would be hard pressed to stop a single SMG round, and the impact, even if it didn't puncture the blow would be painful and impossible to charge against if the RPM was above say in the double digits.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Sark AI Entity from across 100 000 miles Since: Feb, 2011
AI Entity
#12: Feb 14th 2011 at 5:08:19 AM

Basically, it depends on the gun and the distance. If it's a low powered hand gun you have a chance. it could be defleceted by plate armour and uf you're lucky it could even tumble off a sheild badly.

Anything else and you are in trouble, especially if it's rifles, most forms of modern body armour cannot consistantly deflect rifle shots.

Without good, no evil. Without want, no lack. Without desire, no need.
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#13: Feb 14th 2011 at 7:20:24 AM

Anything above, maybe, low-to-moderate-powered muskets would pierce plate armour.

Of course, it does have other advantages- well-tempered armour can weigh less than modern combat gear (It can weigh as little as 20kg).

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#14: Feb 14th 2011 at 9:45:23 AM

Okay guys, calm down :P

World War 2 - Soviet Troops used plate armour and it was capable of blocking pistol and SMG rounds.

Korean War - American troops used plate armour (I'm not clear on how effective it was)

Vietnam War - American troops used plate armour again.

These days they use kevlar, or composite materials of all sorts, though they do use titanium trauma plates in some ballistic vests.

The number one reason cited for not using that much plate armour was the expense of metal not its ineffectiveness. So if you want plate armour for your troops, you need some reason why they can have so much plate armour to outnumber the rifle-equipped troops. A rifle is really cheap and training to use it is just a few months. Knights take a lifetime to train, so losing one is irreplaceable. So one thing you could do is have the medieval society simply be 100x larger than the higher-tech society.

EDIT: Actually I just realised that you could model the battles like that in Qing dynasty where they had a sort of schizo tech going. They had guns but they also used a large amount of melee weapons due to gun control laws. So I think the Taiping Rebellion would be an excellent example of people using "mirror armour" against guns. Basically, they had bullet proof circular pieces to protect vital areas, while the rest of their armour was much lighter. This allowed them to field a lot more soldiers, yet give them a level of protection from guns.

The rebelling Christian fundamentalists didn't have much in terms of guns and artillery against the Imperial forces but the combat losses on both sides were quite significant. I imagine most of the infrastructure and civilian deaths (twenty million is a good estimate of the number of dead) was because of the nature of the civil war and the "total war" mentality. According to Wikipedia (whose accuracy is dubious) it indicates that the Taiping rebels suffered 75 000 military losses to the Imperial losses of 50 000.

edited 14th Feb '11 11:40:21 AM by breadloaf

EldritchBlueRose The Puzzler from A Really Red Room Since: Apr, 2010
The Puzzler
#15: Feb 14th 2011 at 1:06:08 PM

Remember people having a full suit of plate armor is EXPENSIVE, and because of that only the richest people could afford it.  *

It stopped being produced when muskets and rifles became powerful enough that it became too expensive to continue bulletproofing the armor.

If one were to write about really powerful firearms and have plate armor on their soldiers, then that plate armor must be exceptional. If plate armor is effective enough to be bulletproof to most firearms, then the society must have a STRONG ECONOMY.  *

Has ADD, plays World of Tanks, thinks up crazy ideas like children making spaceships for Hitler. Occasionally writes them down.
Gault Laugh and grow dank! from beyond the kingdom Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: P.S. I love you
Laugh and grow dank!
#16: Feb 14th 2011 at 2:08:50 PM

Yeah, the medieval faction is far more well-established than the faction with guns. The heavy plate-armor foot knights are actually a holdover from when they were far more powerful, and the people wearing the armor I plan to basically be the medieval equivalent of Space Marines. Not sure if I will need to make the armor some sort of special thing to make it reliably bulletproof though. At their technological peak, they are more advanced than most medieval societies.

yey
MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#17: Feb 14th 2011 at 2:10:17 PM

World War 2 - Soviet Troops used plate armour and it was capable of blocking pistol and SMG rounds.
They used breastplates, which were indeed capable of stopping SMG rounds, but only at range (about 100m and out, but not closer than 50m), and they were heavy and bulky, and only used to protect themselves from enemy fire while lining up said enemy in their sights.

Korean War - American troops used plate armour (I'm not clear on how effective it was)

Vietnam War - American troops used plate armour again.

Actually, in both cases they were ballistics-vests, not plate armour. The Korean example were fairly light to wear, but were hard-pressed to stop more than pistol rounds, while the Vietnam ones offered much better protection, but at the cost of being more expensive and bulky, and were offered only to aircraft crews.

So one thing you could do is have the medieval society simply be 100x larger than the higher-tech society.
Can't be done, partly because of the agriculture (horses require food, thus taking that food away from people) and partly because of communication (a horse can make maybe 20 miles in a day and is the fastest form of communication, a vehicle can do that in an hour, and is outstripped a 1000 times by a telephone or radio signal).

edited 14th Feb '11 4:08:02 PM by MattII

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#18: Feb 14th 2011 at 3:30:03 PM

Those last points are bullshit, Matt >=(

Communicatio via horse is not the only way- you can also train messeger biirds, which can cover upwards of ~150-200 miles a day if you pick commo birds, while some birds are capabe of flying ~1000 miles without stopping. Slower than modern tech, yes; but not ridiculously slow like you're painting it to be.

And I'd just like to point out to you that while horses do need food, human production capabilites FAR outstrip the demands of the horses.

I'd appreciate it if, at the very least, you'd look up alternative options before bringing your modern-day gun-tech complex into this.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#19: Feb 14th 2011 at 4:06:58 PM

Communicatio via horse is not the only way- you can also train messeger biirds, which can cover upwards of ~150-200 miles a day if you pick commo birds, while some birds are capabe of flying ~1000 miles without stopping. Slower than modern tech, yes; but not ridiculously slow like you're painting it to be.
You have to train birds for years, horses you just get on and ride (homing pigeons have to be transported by humans the same distance as they actually fly, and I've so far never heard of any other birds being pressed into service), good for important stuff where the few birds you've got doesn't matter, but you couldn't base a postal service on them. Also, even if homing-pigeons were that reliable, your good-tranportation would still be based on horses, and thus still limited to 20 miles a day.

And I'd just like to point out to you that while horses do need food, human production capabilites FAR outstrip the demands of the horses.
Yes, and? Assuming 3 months of winter, every horse you have is going to need between 640 and 1000 kg of food (7-11 kg/day), which means that your land can't support the same population as that using a vehicle for harvesting (partly because you're giving food to the horses during the winter, and partly because you have to keep some fields un-tilled for grazing the rest of the year).

I'd appreciate it if, at the very least, you'd look up alternative options before bringing your modern-day gun-tech complex into this.
I did, you obviously didn't or you wouldn't have raised such stupid issues.

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#20: Feb 14th 2011 at 4:39:02 PM

You have to train birds for years, horses you just get on and ride (homing pigeons have to be transported by humans the same distance as they actually fly, and I've so far never heard of any other birds being pressed into service), good for important stuff where the few birds you've got doesn't matter, but you couldn't base a postal service on them. Also, even if homing-pigeons were that reliable, your good-tranportation would still be based on horses, and thus still limited to 20 miles a day.

Horses you just get on and ride?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man, you're fucking clueless.

Go on, you try and just get on a horse and ride it. It's as challenging as trying to work out how to drive a car without having any driving lessons.

Many birds have been used as homing birds besides just messenger pigeons. Hawks, falcons, nightingales, doves... The list goes on.

And horses can't only cover ~20 miles a day. If a horse exerts itself slightly, it can cover ~30-40 miles a day for about a month without doing too much harm to itself; and if there's a skilled rider, a horse can cover ~100 miles a day, although not indefinitely- it starts to risk harm to itself after a couple of days.

And while yes, messenger birds do need to be with the person first- guess what? Homing birds can roost for extended periods of time at another nest, and then, when they are released, are still able to fly back to their home nest. They can be prepared years in advance. Imagine that.

Yes, and? Assuming 3 months of winter, every horse you have is going to need between 640 and 1000 kg of food (7-11 kg/day), which means that your land can't support the same population as that using a vehicle for harvesting (partly because you're giving food to the horses during the winter, and partly because you have to keep some fields un-tilled for grazing the rest of the year).

Assuming an average farm size of 8 acres, without half the proceeds needing to go to the lord, each and every family could subsist on 6 acres- growing excess food that they could sell, as a matter of fact- each and every farm could raise a single horse, assuming good grass seeding in both sections.

It's really not all that difficult- especially when you consider they won't need every family to raise a horse.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#21: Feb 14th 2011 at 4:54:54 PM

Horses you just get on and ride?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man, you're fucking clueless.

Go on, you try and just get on a horse and ride it. It's as challenging as trying to work out how to drive a car without having any driving lessons.

Many birds have been used as homing birds besides just messenger pigeons. Hawks, falcons, nightingales, doves... The list goes on.

And horses can't only cover ~20 miles a day. If a horse exerts itself slightly, it can cover ~30-40 miles a day for about a month without doing too much harm to itself; and if there's a skilled rider, a horse can cover ~100 miles a day, although not indefinitely- it starts to risk harm to itself after a couple of days.

And while yes, messenger birds do need to be with the person first- guess what? Homing birds can roost for extended periods of time at another nest, and then, when they are released, are still able to fly back to their home nest. They can be prepared years in advance. Imagine that.

Still slower than cars and radio though, so the industrialist win out here.

Assuming an average farm size of 8 acres, without half the proceeds needing to go to the lord, each and every family could subsist on 6 acres- growing excess food that they could sell, as a matter of fact- each and every farm could raise a single horse, assuming good grass seeding in both sections.

It's really not all that difficult- especially when you consider they won't need every family to raise a horse.

They're still inefficient compared to machines.

Face it, you're never going to be able to make a medieval style nation as populace and powerful as an industrial one, and even if you could, you wouldn't be able so supply every soldier with his own suit of (useless compared to the industrialist nations guns) armour.

edited 14th Feb '11 4:59:08 PM by MattII

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#22: Feb 14th 2011 at 5:09:52 PM

Ill give you the inefficiency.

However, you're vastly underestimating the power of sheer numbers ;)

You'd be absolutely gobsmacked to learn that yes indeed, 100,000 medieval knights could indeed take out 1,000 modern soldiers.

Especially when you consider that modern soldiers are ridiculously dependent on ranged weapons.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#23: Feb 14th 2011 at 5:14:41 PM

Uh huh, but 100-1 odds are unlikely I should think, at least, 100-1 that way, given that the number of times in the pre-industrial world in which armies of 100,000 or more have been raised. Besides, if you're relying on numbers when the enemy has a technological advantage then you're going to be taking major casualties no matter 'who wins.

edited 14th Feb '11 5:16:49 PM by MattII

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#24: Feb 14th 2011 at 5:18:48 PM

Yah- In our world.

Not this fantasy world.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#25: Feb 14th 2011 at 5:24:03 PM

Numbers aren't given, so, say 10-1. Of course that would still give a decisive advantage to the guys with the guns.


Total posts: 123
Top