Bullets vs ancient/medieval armor

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

What is the piercing power of the bullets fired by modern-day guns? Could they pierce through metal armor and shields used by ancient and medieval warriors?

[Ghost Rider]

Given your vague questions, what answer shall be.

1. Depends.
2. Yes, maybe, no.

Unless you specify weapon and armor it's too general for an answer of any meaning.

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

All right, I'll ask a more specific question about firearms and armor.

Could the bullets fired by the muskets used during the American Revolution pierce ancient Roman metal armor and shields?

[Mr. Coffee]

I'm going to say maybe, with a strong probably so the closer the range is. Anything closer then 50ft, pretty good chance. The better question would be will the musket ball have enough energy left after penetrating the armor to do much of anything beyond pissing the centurion off, which would probably seriously depend on what the range was when fired. The shields, no idea. What's the composition of the shield's they used? If it's some sort of wood slab, probably not going to penetrate or if it does the best you'll do is give the guy behind the shield some neat splinters.

[Edi]

What is the piercing power of the bullets fired by modern-day guns? Could they pierce through metal armor and shields used by ancient and medieval warriors?

Any modern day rifle that packs 7.62x39 or bigger caliber ammo will go through medieval steel quite handily and kill the wearer dead. If it's something like 7.62x51, it doesn't matter if the armored warrior is wearing full plate armor, he's dead.

Steel-core 7.62x39 bullets will go through half an inch of steel plate, though they may not penetrate much of anything after that.

When the caliber goes down, so does penetration, but in general modern firearms against even heavy full plate is a one sided massacre.

[Beowulf]

I'm going to say maybe, with a strong probably so the closer the range is. Anything closer then 50ft, pretty good chance. The better question would be will the musket ball have enough energy left after penetrating the armor to do much of anything beyond pissing the centurion off, which would probably seriously depend on what the range was when fired. The shields, no idea. What's the composition of the shield's they used? If it's some sort of wood slab, probably not going to penetrate or if it does the best you'll do is give the guy behind the shield some neat splinters.

IIRC, Roman shields were effectively high quality plywood with edging put on to keep it from splintering at the edge. They were maybe 1/4" thick.

[Sky Captain]

I have always thought the advances in firearms made the armored knights obsolete because metal armor capable of reliably stopping the musket ball was too heavy and cumbersome to wear in battle. I have no idea how strong was ancient Roman armor but I doubt it was superior to medieval armor.

[Koolaidkirby]

they had an episode of "the ultimate warrior" where they fired at medieval plate wearers armor with a 1600's ish blunderbuss and found it had a 90% penetration rate from a distance of about 10 yards if I remember right.

[Simon_Jester]

they had an episode of "the ultimate warrior" where they fired at medieval plate wearers armor with a 1600's ish blunderbuss and found it had a 90% penetration rate from a distance of about 10 yards if I remember right.

Though it's worth remembering that penetration at point blank range is way better than it will be at longer ranges...

I have always thought the advances in firearms made the armored knights obsolete because metal armor capable of reliably stopping the musket ball was too heavy and cumbersome to wear in battle. I have no idea how strong was ancient Roman armor but I doubt it was superior to medieval armor.

DANGER: Take With Grain of Salt!
It's more complicated than that. Other factors in play, based on what I know of the era:

1) The reintroduction of the pike phalanx (starting with the Swiss, then spreading out to the rest of Europe) made melee cavalry much less effective. As I understand it, plate armor is a much better idea for cavalry than for infantry, not so much because you can't walk with the weight (you can), as that you don't really want to have to march with the weight.
2) Plate armor capable of stopping arrows from longbows and crossbows (which had penetration power comparable to early handguns, and came out a few hundred years earlier) was very expensive; only a few people could afford it.
3) If even with this extremely expensive armor, you couldn't be sure of being protected on the battlefield (and if nothing else, any armor ever made opened up when a cannon came knocking)... the incentive to wear it and pay for it declines.
4) The feudal noble, who made his living by being a professional fighter with his own little castle, became less prominent as monarchs centralized power and built up arsenals of cannon to knock down the castles. Which meant the end of that class of wealthy, landed, professional warriors who could afford to invest the price of a small peasant village in a single suit of armor, if it meant that they were covered on the battlefield.

So you saw a transition between a "high medieval" force composed of:
-Small number of heavily armored noble cavalry (knights)
-Moderate number of medium-armored professional footmen (crossbows, swords, that kind of thing)
-Variable number of poorly-armored peasant footmen

to:

-Small number of medium-armored noble officers, leading
-Large number of medium-armored cavalry
-Large number of light-to-medium armored pikemen
-Large number of light-armored or unarmored gunmen (arquebus or musket).

...More or less. There was a lot of variation, of course; it was not uncommon for the pikemen to have breastplates and helmets, since they were going to be in hand to hand; likewise for the cavalry. But full armor that covered the entire body went out of steel, because the extra weight didn't give enough of an advantage to make it worthwhile. And because the new "pike and shot" infantry tactics demanded the use of armies larger than anyone could afford to equip with such heavy armor.

So the armor designs converged on less protection for MUCH less cost: a breastplate's Honda to a full suit of plate's Mercedes.

Then the bayonet was invented and the pikemen became obsolete; cavalry armor stuck around for somewhat longer and died out in the 18th and 19th centuries.

[Napoleon the Clown]

The ability to penetrate is largely dependent on the era of firearm and the type of firearm. The term "bullet-proof" actually comes from early firearms not being able to penetrate a good suit of full-plate. The armor smith would take a pistol and shoot the armor with it. The dent left behind was proof of the armor's resistance to firearms. Hence the term "bullet-proof".

A musket, on the other hand, has a large enough slug with a high enough muzzle velocity that it would probably more than penetrate the armor on a consistent basis.

As to a shield, it depends on the material and thickness of the shield. A modern armor piercing round wouldn't even notice a shield. A musket ball would probably penetrate most shields, though if it still had sufficient moment left to do much of anything is questionable.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

All right, I'll ask a more specific question about firearms and armor.

Could the bullets fired by the muskets used during the American Revolution pierce ancient Roman metal armor and shields?

Readily. As has been mentioned, full-plate was proofed with a pistol shot. A flintlock .50 caliber pistol features (goes to check my black powder loading manual . . . ) a 177 grain ball at 776 ft/sec for 237 ft/lbs of KE. This puts it squarely in .38 Special territory in terms of energy. Not quite so much in terms of penetration, as the .38 Special load puts all that energy into a much smaller footprint.

The typical 'Brown Bess' smoothbore musket featured a .69 caliber 494 grain ball at 809 ft/sec for 718 ft/lbs of KE. As far as energy goes, it's about the equivalent of the .41 Magnum pistol cartridge.

Either one of these won't notice a wood shield. At fifty yards, the musket ball only loses 25 ft/sec of velocity. Against full medieval plate, penetration is questionable . . . though the receiver of the shot would know he'd been touched. I suspect it would penetrate Roman plate, and would be unimpressed by the mail armor Romans wore for much of their history.

The musket achieved the stated velocity with an 80 grain charge of black powder. That same charge in .50 caliber Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle would drive a 177 grain ball at 1721 ft/sec for 1164 ft/lbs of KE. At fifty yards, it loses over 300 ft/sec of velocity, but retains 780 ft/lbs of energy. Mail or plate armor would be readily defeated.

Artillery crews could, of course, mow down any number of metal-armored forces.

[Iosef Cross]

I have always thought the advances in firearms made the armored knights obsolete because metal armor capable of reliably stopping the musket ball was too heavy and cumbersome to wear in battle. I have no idea how strong was ancient Roman armor but I doubt it was superior to medieval armor.

DANGER: Take With Grain of Salt!
It's more complicated than that. Other factors in play, based on what I know of the era:

1) The reintroduction of the pike phalanx (starting with the Swiss, then spreading out to the rest of Europe) made melee cavalry much less effective. As I understand it, plate armor is a much better idea for cavalry than for infantry, not so much because you can't walk with the weight (you can), as that you don't really want to have to march with the weight.
2) Plate armor capable of stopping arrows from longbows and crossbows (which had penetration power comparable to early handguns, and came out a few hundred years earlier) was very expensive; only a few people could afford it.
3) If even with this extremely expensive armor, you couldn't be sure of being protected on the battlefield (and if nothing else, any armor ever made opened up when a cannon came knocking)... the incentive to wear it and pay for it declines.
4) The feudal noble, who made his living by being a professional fighter with his own little castle, became less prominent as monarchs centralized power and built up arsenals of cannon to knock down the castles. Which meant the end of that class of wealthy, landed, professional warriors who could afford to invest the price of a small peasant village in a single suit of armor, if it meant that they were covered on the battlefield.

So you saw a transition between a "high medieval" force composed of:
-Small number of heavily armored noble cavalry (knights)
-Moderate number of medium-armored professional footmen (crossbows, swords, that kind of thing)
-Variable number of poorly-armored peasant footmen

to:

-Small number of medium-armored noble officers, leading
-Large number of medium-armored cavalry
-Large number of light-to-medium armored pikemen
-Large number of light-armored or unarmored gunmen (arquebus or musket).

...More or less. There was a lot of variation, of course; it was not uncommon for the pikemen to have breastplates and helmets, since they were going to be in hand to hand; likewise for the cavalry. But full armor that covered the entire body went out of steel, because the extra weight didn't give enough of an advantage to make it worthwhile. And because the new "pike and shot" infantry tactics demanded the use of armies larger than anyone could afford to equip with such heavy armor.

Yes, the reality was that knights with heavy plate armour didn't make military sense, they were the product of unique historical circumstances with generated a social order were they could emerge, they didn't emerge because they were a product of military need due to new technology.

[Thanas]

IIRC, Roman shields were effectively high quality plywood with edging put on to keep it from splintering at the edge. They were maybe 1/4" thick.

True, though of course this depends as always on the time period and the troops involved. Obviously a legion specialized in close combat fighting would have different shields than an auxillary cohort specialized in long-distance fighting. Wood also differed somewhat, according to the wood sources and the region (or at least before they standardized it in the 3rd/4th century).

[loomer]

As memory serves, wasn't the point of a lot of those thin-wood shields largely just to stop an arrow or javelin from penetrating properly? Because the problem with a bullet is generally that it has a far higher velocity and a far lower surface area. It won't punch through and then stop, it'll zip clean through and into you with those shields.

Did the Romans ever utilize solid metal shields or is that just some bullshit I read somewhere?

[The Spartan]

Did the Romans ever utilize solid metal shields or is that just some bullshit I read somewhere?

In combat, I would doubt it without an example. They may have had wooden shields that had a metal sheet covering the face though, similar in idea to what Greek Hoplites carried during their heyday.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As memory serves, wasn't the point of a lot of those thin-wood shields largely just to stop an arrow or javelin from penetrating properly? Because the problem with a bullet is generally that it has a far higher velocity and a far lower surface area. It won't punch through and then stop, it'll zip clean through and into you with those shields.

Did the Romans ever utilize solid metal shields or is that just some bullshit I read somewhere?

The shields were also used in melee combat. Infantry would use them to shield them from enemy melee weapons, and then would stab with their Gladius around the shield, or would move it aside to stab their opponents in the gut. This is of course after locking their shields together in the mother of all shield walls.

[The Spartan]

According to Mike Loades they also used the shield itself as a weapon. Both to augment the use of the gladius and as a stand alone weapon on the off chance that they lost their sword.

[PeZook]

Yes, the reality was that knights with heavy plate armour didn't make military sense, they were the product of unique historical circumstances with generated a social order were they could emerge, they didn't emerge because they were a product of military need due to new technology.

I guess that's why heavy cavalry was present on the European battlefield for more than thousand years (including the gunpowder age)? Because they didn't make military sense?

[Simon_Jester]

I guess that's why heavy cavalry was present on the European battlefield for more than thousand years (including the gunpowder age)? Because they didn't make military sense?

Trust the Polish guy to point this out.
(runs and hides from angry squadron of approaching lancers)

Seriously, though. I think this depends on how Iosef meant "didn't make military sense."

Heavy cavalry wearing full armor, in the sense of stuff like Maximilian plate, did start to make less sense as the gunpowder era went on. So they started sacrificing weight of armor protection for the sake of cost and mobility again, even in the heavy cavalry.

Look at Polish hussar armor; as far as I know none of it matches the weight of stuff from the High Middle Ages, for exactly that reason. It's not that the armored heavy cavalry disappeared; it's that they traded Mercedes protection in for Honda protection, which was good enough to be useful in close quarters without being ridiculously expensive.

Or am I missing something here?
_________

On the other hand, if Iosef meant that heavily armored knights didn't make military sense at the time they emerged, then he's being foolish, because he's ignoring an evolutionary line that starts with the Parthian and Gothic heavy cavalry and proceeds direct up to and through, yes, the Polish hussars and other European nations' cuirassiers

[Marcus Aurelius]

Heavy cavalry wearing full armor, in the sense of stuff like Maximilian plate, did start to make less sense as the gunpowder era went on. So they started sacrificing weight of armor protection for the sake of cost and mobility again, even in the heavy cavalry.

Look at Polish hussar armor; as far as I know none of it matches the weight of stuff from the High Middle Ages, for exactly that reason. It's not that the armored heavy cavalry disappeared; it's that they traded Mercedes protection in for Honda protection, which was good enough to be useful in close quarters without being ridiculously expensive.

I see nothing wrong with your logic or facts. I would add though that as has been already noted but other words, sociological factors also had their inlfuence on the disappearance of the knightly heavy cavalry. Later heavy cavalry troopers, while still elite, were usually not quite as rich as the high and late medieval knights and they were also somewhat more numerous. They were also more like modern professional soldiers whereas the knights fought as much for personal glory and gain as king and country, if not more so. Of course there were no hard limits in the transition and military service continued to be a source of personal fame among the nobility all the way up to WW1 in some European countries.

[PeZook]

Trust the Polish guy to point this out.
(runs and hides from angry squadron of approaching lancers)

Yeah, you better hide

Seriously, though. I think this depends on how Iosef meant "didn't make military sense."

Heavy cavalry wearing full armor, in the sense of stuff like Maximilian plate, did start to make less sense as the gunpowder era went on. So they started sacrificing weight of armor protection for the sake of cost and mobility again, even in the heavy cavalry.

Of course, I'm far from denying the heavy knightly cavalry eventually became obsolete. At the time where they emerged, though, they made perfect military sense. They didn't always serve a pivotal, crucial force in every battle, obviously, but this doesn't mean heavy cavalry was useless and a dumbass idea. If it was so, it would've disappeared after a century or so, what with being so ridiculously expensive...

As for his comment that "[they were] a product of unique historical circumstances with generated a social order were they could emerge", that's because with primitive logistics the feudal model is in fact a very efficient way to maintain a ready pool of heavily equipped cavalry: the knights feed and maintain themselves until needed, assume many expenses for equipment and food for themselves, and are willing to accept pay in the form of spoils of war. As a bonus, they serve as local managers for their king.

So saying knights didn't make military sense is kinda like saying the modern professional soldier doesn't make any military sense either, since he's just a product of our unique socioeconomic circumstances which allow us to raise and maintain large standing armies

Look at Polish hussar armor; as far as I know none of it matches the weight of stuff from the High Middle Ages, for exactly that reason. It's not that the armored heavy cavalry disappeared; it's that they traded Mercedes protection in for Honda protection, which was good enough to be useful in close quarters without being ridiculously expensive.

Or am I missing something here?

No, that's pretty much right. Armor was gradually reduced until it covered only the vital areas, since making decently articulated protection for the limbs that could stop bullets was simply impossible (and still is today, check out modern body armor - it's not that different from a reneissance era cuirass in principle).

[Thanas]

As memory serves, wasn't the point of a lot of those thin-wood shields largely just to stop an arrow or javelin from penetrating properly? Because the problem with a bullet is generally that it has a far higher velocity and a far lower surface area. It won't punch through and then stop, it'll zip clean through and into you with those shields.

You need a pretty thick shield to stop a javelin, actually. The roman shields aren't that thin and had a lot of supporting elements, like a huge shield boss and metal rims.

Did the Romans ever utilize solid metal shields or is that just some bullshit I read somewhere?

They did not, at least not to my knowledge.

The shields were also used in melee combat. Infantry would use them to shield them from enemy melee weapons, and then would stab with their Gladius around the shield, or would move it aside to stab their opponents in the gut. This is of course after locking their shields together in the mother of all shield walls.

The Imperial Roman Army did not really use shield walls, at least not until the third and fourth century. For most of the part before, they used a looser formation that allowed them more flexibility and to exchange tired soldiers.

According to Mike Loades they also used the shield itself as a weapon. Both to augment the use of the gladius and as a stand alone weapon on the off chance that they lost their sword.

They rammed the metal protruding boss into the gut of the enemy. Or simply used it to push over a weaker opposing line, which would then get trampled by their iron boots or quickly stabbed when they had fallen.

[Duckie]

Did the Romans ever utilize solid metal shields or is that just some bullshit I read somewhere?

They did not, at least not to my knowledge.

Honestly, are fully metal shields common anywhere in any era outside of fantasy RPGs and parade armour? I'm not a huge historical nerd but I'm pretty sure I've never seen an ancient shield made entirely out of metal (rather than say, wood reinforced by metal or the like) save really fancy ones in museums that clearly aren't meant for war.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No. Wood is much lighter and actually has better defensive characteristics when being held by a person over metal, because the low impact velocity of melee weapons is better handled by a flexible material and will impose less shock damage on the user. The main thing is to wrap the shield in metal so that wood splinters don't go flying everywhere when it's damaged and to help preserve strength. But a thin layer of copper over a light, flexible wood is thus about the best kind of shield you can have.

[The Spartan]

According to Mike Loades they also used the shield itself as a weapon. Both to augment the use of the gladius and as a stand alone weapon on the off chance that they lost their sword.

They rammed the metal protruding boss into the gut of the enemy. Or simply used it to push over a weaker opposing line, which would then get trampled by their iron boots or quickly stabbed when they had fallen.

Yeah, that was the augment part I was thinking of. What I was thinking of when I said stand alone weapon was actually from the show Weapons Masters, as I recall, when his counterpart on the series was to build a weapon based upon the Roman Scorpion. Mike Loades, towards the beginning of the program, gave a brief demonstration on how Roman soldiers fought, throwing the pilum, fighting with gladius and shield and then tossing the gladius away (to simulate losing it) he started using the shield in a way that would have had the edge slamming into opponents. I think he also mentioned that they trained to fight without any weapons, too.