Could history have developed where ballistic protection outpaced ballistic penetration? Where guns/shells aren't considered serious in combat.
Could history have developed where ballistic protection outpaced ballistic penetration?
Could history have developed where ballistic protection outpaced ballistic penetration? Where guns/shells aren't considered serious in combat.
No
yes in dune, if that happens super tight pussies from drug witches will be next big weapon
I want a bene gesserit cumslut so bad bros...
>bene gesserit cumslut
mind altering throat goat, they are hot as a concept, an order of esoteric manipulative sluts that do mind magic and can control their pussy completely with their mental strenght
>super tight pussies from drug witches
You have my attention
>Could history have developed where ballistic protection outpaced ballistic penetration
yeah maybe for like 5-10 years before gunmakers made thicker barrels that you poured more powder into. it would have never stayed that way though. physics and the evolution of technology demands that once guns existed nothing would keep them out for a long time.
If silk was super fucking common for some reason ranged combat would turn into a huge pain in the ass. You can absolutely make wearable soft armor capable of stopping any musket ball out of silk.
Are you genuinly retarded?No you can't
i think he's confused and is thinking of those big silky "arrow catcher" balloon things samurai had on their backs while riding.
Why is Super Mario riding a horse?
That's clearly a yoshi
nagger, you absolutely can and people in fact DID. What the fuck do you think early soft armor was made out of? the problem was how expensive it was to create a thick many layered silk garment for something so niche.
I think you're both confused into thinking I meant "one layer", dipshit.
Franz Ferdinand famously owned a silk bulletproof vest that he wore often, EXCEPT for the day he was shot. A reproduction proved to absolutely be bulletproof you fucking retards.
can we see this reproduction?
The history of the ironclad worship in a nutshell.
hehe wortship
>ballistic protection outpaced ballistic penetration
No and yes, the problem is mobility.
Cavalry armor was reduced to a single thick and heavy cuirasse (20 kg). if you can't kill the horseman the horse still is a target that can't be armored.
For infantry, japaneses had "shield walls" to make "mobile fortress", they're literally thick wood planks.
Arquebuses and muskets bullets were quite close a 12GA slug, a hard lead bead moving at 350-450m/s with a mass of 1 oz/30grams lead, that's enough to pen 4-8 mm of mild steel. So a 10-20 kg iron plate or a heavy plank would work but guns aren't limited to that power, they're good enough to kill any threat, if you add more armor then your enemy can improve their weapons that are lighter. Wood is a problem (splinter) and pre blast furnace iron/steel was expensive (scarce due to chronic overconsumption of wood) and unreliable, it's better just use that metal to make more guns.
The meta was dakka.
Sure it could. In a marvel movie.
Actually a good question. I think it has three parts:
1. Is there an area of materials, that materials science could end up discovering and continuing to research to the exclusion of other areas, which are significantly better for armor than for projectiles capable of defeating armor? For example, imagine a place that has an easy to use abundance of hard but extremely brittle ceramics and an extreme scarcity of durable metals - might materials science end up in a local minimum unable to develop projectiles that could be fired with enough energy to defeat cheap, light and simple armor without shattering the projectile and/or firearm?
2. Are there physical laws that strongly favor the efficiency of offensive mechanisms (barrels, breaches, penetrators etc) over defensive mechanisms (plates, scales, rings etc)? For example, is the form of a barrel necessarily easier and more efficient for a given penetration than all armor forms of equivalent thickness for all relevant material and propellant cases?
3. Are the materials science techniques and mechanical manufacturing processes for armor fundamentally linked to chemistry advances in a manner such that potential propellants will always be easier to develop than the armor which can efficiently stop an object they are used to project?
Maybe other anons can try to answer these questions. They're pretty far out of my wheelhouse.
The problem you're facing is that you can pack quite a lot of chemical energy into a pretty small charge of black poweder.
And stopping that requires a lot of metal.
Which did exist. All through the 16th, 17th and 18th century, there were types of armor that could stop bulletrs.
Thanks for pointing out that IRL history happened within IRL constraints with the same sequence and timing of events as IRL. Thanks to your post we are now much closer to understanding what conditions favor armor over arms than we were when we started.
Sorry OP but your question is just kinda dumb. Unless there is some undiscovered bulletproof miracle material that could be produced with like 12th century technology on a massive scale that was also lightweight enough to totally cover a person's body without being ruinously expensive, then the answer is just no.
Modern body armor is largely only capable of saving your life thanks to the fact that we have modern medicine to deal with wounds that aren't immediately fatal. Back in the day, if you got an arrow in the shoulder you had very good odds of being killed by blood loss, infection, or just being crippled for life if it fucked up something important in there and you survived. Nowadays a guy taking a bullet to the shoulder has a very high chance of survival due to advances in modern medicine, and even if the joint itself is fucked up it could be repaired surgically and much of its functionality could be restored when it would've been totally fucked in previous eras.
Guns got big because they allowed armies to have a bunch of guys with very little training firing highly lethal projectiles over a pretty long distance with great effect. There is no way to change that in a medieval context unless your troops are covered head to toe in protective gear, and even if they are, then you're better cover the horses up too while you're at it. Oh, and just like arrows, bullets have a nasty habit of finding gaps in said armor.
>. Is there an area of materials, that materials science could end up discovering and continuing to research to the exclusion of other areas, which are significantly better for armor than for projectiles capable of defeating armor?
High entropy alloys could potentially offer sci-fi wondermaterial tier toughness, better than even graphene for not that much more weight. With advances in battery power we could possibly end up with full body power armor capable of stopping rifle rounds.
>Are there physical laws that strongly favor the efficiency of offensive mechanisms?
Correct, the weapon is always allowed more volume to dissipate power than the armor. Compare the total area of a 16" barrel the bullet acts on compared to quarter of a square inch of body armor area.
>Are the materials science techniques and mechanical manufacturing processes for armor fundamentally linked to chemistry advances?
Guns are more limited by the maximum chamber pressure than by propellant energy density. As such advances in material science will benefit guns and armor equally, unless guns switch to electromagnetic propulsion. Eventually unmanageable recoil will become the biggest issue.
In conclusion: we're heading for a future of heavily armored infantry blasting holes in each other with bolt action .50 BMGs, with casualties from artillery going down by 90% due to sealed powerarmor mitigating overpressure and fragmentation damage by an order of magnitude
It would be funny if you shit on a power armored assault by using FPV drones with 40mm HEDP
Think more an endless swarm of RPG warheads with little wings flying directly up your asshole
There's a fun little article about strong nuclear force-welded materials, i.e exotic matter made up of protons stuck together in a chain rather than distributed as independent atoms, and the calculations (based on the strong nuclear force) predicts a strength 100 million times stronger than steel, as well as extremely high thermal resistance and insulation:
https://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0928v1.pdf
now, I'm pretty sure the material doesn't actually work even if you had the means to weld subatomic particles together, but it's fun to think about.
Armro could stand up ti musket fire well into the napoleonic wars.
The problem was that this type of armor was expensive.
The French (and Austrians, and others) used Cuirassiers with brastplates that offered some protection from musket fire and actually pretty solid protection against pistol fire.
But it was prety expensive.
So, simply handing everyone a rifle and telling them to be brave iin battle was cheaper, especially when most casualties were not from bullets but from disease.
No. Just add more boom was the general solution
This plate was shot by a 9mm
*cannonball
Damn, seems Joe Biden wasn't fucking around when he said what he said about 9mm.
Nah my dude that was 10mm Auto.
.22 LR
.45 ACP naggers btfo
>Could
a lot of things could have happened
if you want to make shit bait threads to trick yourself into thinking you have anon friend who want to reply and talk to you, go to /soc/
No. Attack always outpaces defense. Defensive measures delay attacks, they don’t stop them
No. If titanium was somehow discovered and able to be produced in quantities in par with steel before the arquebus was invented then personal firearms would've likely gone extinct, as it'd be fucking easy to get harnesses thick enough to defeat early gonnes and make them seem like a worthless dead end, but that was literally the only way, and it's obviously impossible.