# Industrial revolution steel vs renaissance musket



## Peregrine (Nov 27, 2017)

In my medieval-themed *non-Earth* setting *some* civilizations have a *more advanced* metallurgy than medieval Europe, the metallurgy of these civilizations is advanced as metallurgy in 18th/19th century western Europe.

This idea was inspired by two things:
1. *Damascus steel* - Valyrian steel in real life.
2. *Medieval China* - The metallurgy of medieval China was more advanced than medieval Europe, for example they were the first to invent cast iron and this invention allowed them to make cannons.

*NOTE:* Renaissance muskets had bullets made of alloyed *lead* and they were *round*.

If hypothetically someone made a *full plate armor* with the techniques and quality of
*19th century* steel and used the *breastplate* of such *plate armor* to be put to the test.

If that person shoots such *breastplate* with a *renaissance era* (15th/16th century) musket what would the results be?

*a)* The bullet would penetrate the breastplate instantly on first shot.
*b)* The armor would deform (dent or chink) after *around* 1 or 2 shots, but *around* 3, 4 or more shots it would be penetrated.
*c) *The armor is not too easily penetrated, it will dent after each shot, but after several shots it will eventually be penetrated.
*d) *Renaissance muskets are too weak compared to modern guns and to penetrate 18th/19th century steel it will take many, many bullets.
*e) *Renaissance muskets are useless against 18th/19th century steel.

Please explain why do you think its* a)*, *b)*, *c)*, *d) *or* e).*


----------



## Devor (Nov 27, 2017)

The breastplate would dent to absorb the first couple of shots, and then become useless.

The key question isn't the metallurgy but the design of the breastplate. If the plates are too small or independent they wouldn't absorb enough of the impact.  Plate armor on the arms or legs, which have too many joints, wouldn't be able to distribute the impact. A breastplate, however, can spread the shock across your shoulders and back.  Sometimes they even had pockets of air for the dent to bend into, which also reduced the impact.

But if you really wanted to design armor that could resist a bullet, you'd look at modern day armors, some of which use a super-tough modern day ceramic on the inside. When it takes a shot, the ceramic around the impact area shatters, and every piece that breaks absorbs some of the impact, resisting the bullet. Or for tanks, reactive armor involves firing off a second explosion that pushes back against the impact.

Weapon physics are all about distributing the force of the impact. Bullets have a lot of impact in one spot, and all of that energy needs to go somewhere. It can't just go into the armor - the armor has to do something with it.


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 27, 2017)

Devor said:


> The breastplate would dent to absorb the first couple of shots, and then become useless.
> 
> The key question isn't the metallurgy but the design of the breastplate. If the plates are too small or independent they wouldn't absorb enough of the impact.  Plate armor on the arms or legs, which have too many joints, wouldn't be able to distribute the impact. A breastplate, however, can spread the shock across your shoulders and back.  Sometimes they even had pockets of air for the dent to bend into, which also reduced the impact.
> 
> ...



Does that mean b) or c)? Please state which letter it is.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Nov 27, 2017)

It depends on the breastplate, gun, angle and other factors. There were 15th and 16th century breastplates that used sloping sides and composite armor (many thin layers of steel) that could protect their bearers from contemporary guns, many modern guns as well. Properly angled armor never has to stop the full force of a shot. Furthermore, several layers of silk or cotton will stop most handguns. Modern steel would mostly make such armor cheaper, not better.
Bulletproof vest - Wikipedia
However, a man may die in from a gunshot even if it doesn't pierce his armor, slings have been used quite effectively against armored troops because if they are not properly padded and dampened, and sometimes even then, the plates will carry a shock wave that can kill their wearer. Also, many very portable Renaissance guns, such as mortars, light cannon and blunderbusses could kill someone wearing modern combat armor, no matter how good it is.


----------



## Peregrine (Nov 27, 2017)

Dark Squiggle said:


> It depends on the breastplate, gun, angle and other factors. There were 15th and 16th century breastplates that used sloping sides and composite armor (many thin layers of steel) that could protect their bearers from contemporary guns, many modern guns as well. Properly angled armor never has to stop the full force of a shot. Furthermore, several layers of silk or cotton will stop most handguns. Modern steel would mostly make such armor cheaper, not better.
> Bulletproof vest - Wikipedia
> However, a man may die in from a gunshot even if it doesn't pierce his armor, slings have been used quite effectively against armored troops because if they are not properly padded and dampened, and sometimes even then, the plates will carry a shock wave that can kill their wearer. Also, many very portable Renaissance guns, such as mortars, light cannon and blunderbusses could kill someone wearing modern combat armor, no matter how good it is.



Please state your opinion, a), b), c), d) or e)?


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Nov 27, 2017)

Peregrine said:


> Please state your opinion, a), b), c), d) or e)?


None. I can't see any wearable armor surviving constant battering, but I see the armor offering some protection.
It's kind of like airbags and crumple zones. Your car should be able to protect you from a 100mph+ crash, but will it? You probably don't want to find out. The same goes here.


----------

