I know this is an old discussion but the TC seems to have bumped it, so if I may I'll weigh in a tad.
Someone mentioned gunpowder weapons would penetrate steel plate armour - the jury's out on this. We have examples of plate armour that has successfully deflected musket rounds in museums and private collections. It was by no means unheard of - at the Siege of Clonmel, the English parliamentarian infantry, having lost about a thousand men in the space of a few minutes, threatened to mutiny if sent in again to face the determined Irish defence and demanded the cavalry, who wore partial plate, were sent in instead. Cromwell sent them in on foot, but their armour just meant that the Irish musketeers aimed for their legs and groins and they inflicted a similar number of casualties - assisted by two cannons firing chain-shot. This is in the mid-16th century, by which point flintlock technology was beginning to be seen more often.
These musketeers were not shooting their targets from far away - the defenders had built a V-shaped earthwork around the breach blown in the walls by Cromwell's cannons and were standing shoulder-to-shoulder with one-another, and were sometimes no more than several feet from their armoured targets. In the case of the armoured attackers entering the town, the Irish defenders allowed them to enter at first without resistance so as to goad them into coming closer for the musketeers to shoot at. Despite all this the armoured cavalrymen lasted just under an hour under these circumstances.
This isn't to say that gunpowder weapons were ineffective against plate armour, but that their rumoured armour-piercing capabilities were not the reason for their propagation.
One man's trash is another's treasure, and one man's cash buys another's pleasure.
So I'll rob from the cradle, and I'll rob from the grave; it's just human traffic, and I'm just a slave.
09-Nov-2015 18:37:49