RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Modern Weapons vs Old Armor
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hello.

I know there have been many tests to evaluate the effect of bows, crossbows and even blackpowder firearms against mail and plate armor.

Does anyone know of experiments using modern military firearms/ammunition (e.g. NATO standard 5.56x45 or 7.62x51) against ancient or medieval armor?

Thanks.
Sidney
Modern 7.62x51mm ball would drill through all steel armor like it was tissue paper. 5.56x43 penetrates steel even better. AR500 steel 3/8 in thick is needed to reliably stop 5.56 without cratering or possibility of penetrating, 1/4" it punches through unless on angle. A man-at-arms in full plate might as well be butt naked.

5.56x45...I absolutely hate this new web format. It won't even let me edit.
Not exactly modern, but there is a book "Helmets and Body Armour in Modern Warfare", it pretty goes throuh the armour used in WW1 including a good deal of experimental stuff, effectively though steel armour even made from superior maganese alloys for the weight a man could realistically carry would not stop a Rifle bullet at anything like battle ranges, against pistol, Shrapnel ball, shell fragments, splinters, spent bullets and richochets, it could have some protective effect......

On balance I would agree that such armour would be ineffective today, Ancient armour in some cases might be comparable with WW1 but equally ineffective now, quite apart from the weight.... eg a Lorica segmetata may well protect the body from Shrapnel ball.... but then the power of weapons and the weapons themselves has moved on as has body armour.

This is primarily the reason for the invention of the Tank.
(10-28-2015, 03:08 AM)Bryan Wrote: [ -> ]Modern 7.62x51mm ball would drill through all steel armor like it was tissue paper. 5.56x43 penetrates steel even better. AR500 steel 3/8 in thick is needed to reliably stop 5.56 without cratering or possibility of penetrating, 1/4" it punches through unless on angle. A man-at-arms in full plate might as well be butt naked.

5.56x45...I absolutely hate this new web format. It won't even let me edit.

Thanks, Bryan.

(10-29-2015, 08:24 AM)Crispianus Wrote: [ -> ]Not exactly modern, but there is a book "Helmets and Body Armour in Modern Warfare", it pretty goes throuh the armour used in WW1 including a good deal of experimental stuff, effectively though steel armour even made from superior maganese alloys for the weight a man could realistically carry would not stop a Rifle bullet at anything like battle ranges, against pistol, Shrapnel ball, shell fragments, splinters, spent bullets and richochets, it could have some protective effect......

On balance I would agree that such armour would be ineffective today, Ancient armour in some cases might be comparable with WW1 but equally ineffective now, quite apart from the weight.... eg a Lorica segmetata may well protect the body from Shrapnel ball.... but then the power of weapons and the weapons themselves has moved on as has body armour.

This is primarily the reason for the invention of the Tank.
Ivor, thanks for the tip.
An Austrian test used original firearms from the 16th and early 17th century on
different types of modern steel.
They also used a 9mm pistol, and 7,62 and 5,56mm military assault rifles.
To have something to compare to and test their sensors with. (since the knew what numbers to expect)

I used some of the information in my B.A on early gunpowder weapons....
(unfortunately Iam not at home atm and don't have access to it, so I can't give you a source)

Edit:
some information about it can be found here:
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MC...7669/22312
Something people don't know about projectile weapons is that they can kill even when impacting otherwise harmless areas. A shoulder wound could easily be deadly due to the amount of force imparted to your body, causing a hydraulic break causing arteries, nerves, and tissue to explode in parts of the body that aren't harmed by the projectile.

This is the origin for the term hydrostatic shock.

Quote:Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock is a term which describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact.

Modern rifle ammunition has so much more muzzle energy compared to anything else. Add to that, the 5.56 is quite small and that aids it in it's ability to penetrate. If it were larger, it'd move slower, transferring more energy to the first surface it were to impact. The 5.56 being little more than a .22 with a LOT of gunpowder slings through the air.

Even Russia, principal design and user of the 7.62 AK-47, has retooled almost all of their combat rifles to some variant of the 5.56. Contrary to popular opinion, the 5.56 is very effective at stopping, maiming, and killing humans. It can even spawl through the air, tumbling, like a poorly thrown football, ripping limbs and large amounts of tissue off. It was adopted after officers were reported on the wound channels the ammunition was making on hostile soldiers in Vietnam. This is why, you might be fare much better if you were hit by a .50 bullet were it from a handgun, instead of most rifle rounds.
A good argument has been made that so-called hydrostatic shock doesn't exist. As it stands it is a theory based on anecdotal evidence but it has little scientific testing to back it up.
As far as I know, no educated physician has argued that it doesn't exist. Mostly that it's very hard to recreate in a labatory setting due to it being reliant on VERY many variables (what tissue was hit, where it was hit, how many grains was the bullet, how fast was the bullet traveling, at what range was it fired, and what kind wound cavity was created, and so on). It's effects just aren't very reliable.

We don't exactly have humans lining up to volunteer to be tested on, do we? During wartime, it's something many surgeons and nurses saw. It didn't happen with every wound but it was happening. The most common gunshot injury now are handgun related which have a fraction the muzzle energy of rifles.
Bullets tumbling are normal for all spitzer type bullets. They can do one of three things, ice pick through on its normal axis, tumble, or fragment. Most of the wounds you are describing occur when the bullets fragment inside the body, due to yaw pressure put the copper jacket while tumbling at high velocity, especially if it hits a hard object while tumbling (like bone). Most modern ballistics experts have discounted the existence of hydrostatic shock.

Your history the issuing of 5.56mm cartridge is not correct. It was much more complicated than a few anedotal reports of wounds done by AR15s being responsible for the changeover from the M14. I recommend you read Misfire: The Story of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military, which covers the bureaucratic mess that led to the selection of the M16 by the Army and Marine Corps.
Quick, you better inform the FBI, because they certainly believe it exists. In fact, they go so far as to recommend firearm loads to maximize its effect.

So does this research:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf

I'd love to see any real studies that back up your assertion that it's a myth, and not just hearsay.

I live in the Deep South, have a concealed carry license, and used to own around ten firearms. I also used to frequently hunt, but have lost interest and sold most of the guns I have. Before, when I was really caught up in the gun culture I sunk over $9 grand into a direct impingement AR. I just have one hunting rifle and one highly customized Glock now because I think the rest are just retarded for any civilian to own. In fact, I don't even trust the vast majority of law enforcement officers with the things... Americans are just way too caught up in Hollywood and some have a warped vision of reality which leads to all these bullshit shootings when a taser, de-escalation, or just straight up leaving the guy alone are all much better alternatives.

Quote:Remote Cerebral Effects of Ballistic
Pressure Waves
A Swedish research group (Goransson et al.) were the first contemporary researchers to present compelling evidence for remote cerebral effects from bullet impact to an extremity.[27]
They observed significantly reduced electrical activity in the brain via EEG readings from pigs shot in the thigh. Investigating further, another research group (Suneson et al.) implanted highspeed pressure transducers into the brain of pigs and demonstrated that a significant pressure wave reaches the brain of pigs shot in the thigh. These scientists observed breathing disruption, depressed EEG readings, and neural damage in the brain caused by the distant effects of the ballistic pressure wave originating in the thigh.

Here is some anecdotal evidence just for fun...
Quote:My wife worked on quite a few gunshot wounds in medical school, and she states with no equivocation that there was usually damage beyond the tissue that was in the path of the bullet. You know, "from shockwaves."

It's not even worth arguing over... you guys win.
CNV2855 please respond to the PM you were sent.
[moderator mode]
(11-29-2015, 10:48 PM)CNV2855 Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I know, no educated physician has argued that it doesn't exist.  Mostly that it's very hard to recreate in a labatory setting due to it being reliant on VERY many variables (what tissue was hit, where it was hit, how many grains was the bullet, how fast was the bullet traveling, at what range was it fired, and what kind wound cavity was created, and so on).  It's effects just aren't very reliable.

We don't exactly have humans lining up to volunteer to be tested on, do we?  During wartime, it's something many surgeons and nurses saw.  It didn't happen with every wound but it was happening.  The most common gunshot injury now are handgun related which have a fraction the muzzle energy of rifles.

(11-30-2015, 11:29 PM)CNV2855 Wrote: [ -> ]Quick, you better inform the FBI, because they certainly believe it exists.  In fact, they go so far as to recommend firearm loads to maximize its effect.

So does this research:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf

I'd love to see any real studies that back up your assertion that it's a myth, and not just hearsay.

 I live in the Deep South, have a concealed carry license, and used to own around ten firearms.   I also used to frequently hunt, but have lost interest and sold most of the guns I have.   Before, when I was really caught up in the gun culture I sunk over $9 grand into a direct impingement AR. I just have one hunting rifle and one highly customized Glock now because I think the rest are just retarded for any civilian to own.  In fact, I don't even trust the vast majority of law enforcement officers with the things... Americans are just way too caught up in Hollywood and some have a warped vision of reality which leads to all these bullshit shootings when a taser, de-escalation, or just straight up leaving the guy alone are all much better alternatives.

Quote:Remote Cerebral Effects of Ballistic
Pressure Waves
A Swedish research group (Goransson et al.) were the first contemporary researchers to present compelling evidence for remote cerebral effects from bullet impact to an extremity.[27]
They observed significantly reduced electrical activity in the brain via EEG readings from pigs shot in the thigh. Investigating further, another research group (Suneson et al.) implanted highspeed pressure transducers into the brain of pigs and demonstrated that a significant pressure wave reaches the brain of pigs shot in the thigh. These scientists observed breathing disruption, depressed EEG readings, and neural damage in the brain caused by the distant effects of the ballistic pressure wave originating in the thigh.

Here is some anecdotal evidence just for fun...
Quote:My wife worked on quite a few gunshot wounds in medical school, and she states with no equivocation that there was usually damage beyond the tissue that was in the path of the bullet. You know, "from shockwaves."

It's not even worth arguing over... you guys win.

Please stop bringing politics about gun control into a Roman Army forum.