But I do feel we have digressed to the point of really getting off topic.
Yeah.
On the contrary. Depending on the design of sword it can be used to cut, slice, stab or chop either exclusively or as one of its option. You will no more slice with something like a fashion than you will with a rapier.
We were not talking about thrusting swords, were we?
And you do slice with a falchion, just like with any other edged sword. The edge remains in contact after the initial impact, if briefly, and cuts as the blade passes through. Try to chop a water bottle like with an axe and it just goes flying. People did not do that (well, we know little about what they actually did with their falchions, but it's considered unlikely), modern bohurt guys who chop/smash each other with their dull falchion-like implements do.
Sharpness is however as we have already established mostly irrelevant beyond a certain point. Unlike what science fiction would have you believe a you need an edge just sharp enough for the job but critically durable enough in its construction that it wont easily dull or chip. Which is why swords are not built like razor blades.
We have established that sharpness in a weapon made of steel doesn't matter beyond a certain point
vs armour. Sharpness very much matters in slicing (that is, shearing) the meatbag under that armour. And if that sharpness did not come at the cost of being brittle (like when the sword is made of indestructible space magic alloy
), the reduced contact area is still a benefit to armour penetration. Would have to be a kinda thin blade, though.
Firstly not all steel swords are springy. Deferentially hardened blades like the katana... bronze weapons, obsidian blades ...
Obsidian and bronze break and shatter, katanas bend. They are both inferiour solutions that were implemented because their makers lacked either ironworking or quality iron.
Not having to worry about any of that because your sword just takes the abuse and smiles would definitely make it a 'better' sword.
Actually that is not quite true. The laws which govern the behavior of large objects do in fact not apply directly to quantum particles.
That is because they are not
laws but rather
models. Ones that have evolved quite a bit over time. Them not applying is a limitation of the models, not some universal fact that quantum effects happen in some completely separate reality from the macroscopic.
In our case however all the same principals apply. It's just momentum transfer over a period of time between two objects with Newtons laws defining how each will behave.
The period of time is quite different, human-powered weapons also have acceleration on top of KE, and someone pushing a sword or spear tip into you or slicing you up is not momentum transfer. A mace strike would be a mostly pure momentum transfer.
I don't know why you want to oversimplify this while going "Armor is complicated."
What does "moldable" mean in this context?
Does it mean the material(s) can be deformed by directed magnetic fields?
I would imagine this.
Just the thought of having a magnetic semiconductor alone makes me tingle.
Well, since the 'molding' is quite vague, perhaps the alloys need not be (strongly) magnetic themselves. I mean, I'm not a magnet but they can still perform MRI on me.
Not really. If you took a medieval helmet and just replaced it with a strait box made from the same materials you could probably put a rather big dent into it by smashing it with a sword. Not so much with the actual helmet shape. And doubly so if the target is moving in a way that exploits these shapes to ensure deflection.
Not really what? I did say try to smash him, did I not? Even if said smashing was not terribly likely to be effective.
I also thought we were discussing body armour. Helmets can indeed deflect blows since your head is round and you can basically build an extra cone on top of it. Body armour doesn't really have anywhere to deflect
to. The best you get is that the blade turns in your hand. Which is a sort of deflection, I'll agree to that.
And armoured combat is not boxing. You didn't bob and weave, trying to catch a blow on your
Hounskull. Just avoiding getting hit head-on and hitting the other fella was enough to keep you occupied. Armour was insurance in case you failed.
But how does that invalidate the fact that the geometry of the armor plays a part in its defensive properties?
It invalidates the notion of the armour frequently
deflecting said big swords used to smash it in.
For a start protection against what?
Ceramics will for example provide inferior protection against large heavy objects like a mace but massively superior protection against shaped charges.
Lets say against three M855 rounds. That seems like a primary worry for a soldier in body armour. People wearing plate carriers aren't too concerned about being bashed with a mace or being hit with an RPG and surviving.
And I kinda doubt that the guy inside the steel-plated armour instead of ceramics thinks the same about being maced, as opposed to the plate itself.
Also, what are the other parameters? Or rather what is the equalizing factor here?
Same mobility, at least short-term. Say, two hours. Can be worn without it coming apart for one year before the encounter with M855. When I mentioned durability, I was thinking more about how many rounds a plate can take rather than wear and tear.
And equally if price is no issue you can just use battleship grade face hardened plate armor that is going to be just awesome. Or pure titanium. Or pure wolfram or depleted uranium if you don't mind the weight.
That's the point. Weight is the single most important factor in this whole infantry armour thing.
But okay, one of the armours can't cost more than five times the other.
Does it? We do not in fact know the material properties of this alien material(s). It could ... be very plastic and absorb the damage that way.
Then it's not super-Titanium, is it? Let me quote the beginning of this tangent:
I imagine that one of the alloys is uber-Titanium. There might be others with different properties, ones more suited for AP projectiles, body armour...
You were the one promoting uber-Titanium and steel as better than or equivalent to ceramics, or at least making a passable effort to appear to be doing so.
But there is certainly no reason to assume it would fragment or spall to any significant degree or indeed that it will not.
It's the enemy bullets that fragment, not the armour.
You do realize that full body armor was abandoned centuries ago and not last week?
...
What does any of this have to do with my point that it's not the odds of getting hit, it's the weight that drives the decision?
Knights gave up their armour because it was no longer worth it. The
Vieille Garde could have worn full gothic plate if they wanted to, it would just have made a rather small difference. Modern armies could deck their soldiers out in EOD gear if they wanted and it would
work. About as well as plate armour did in its heyday, anyway. They just wouldn't be able to do what infantry needs to do on the modern battlefield, unlike the full harness cuirassiers doing their thing.
Back than anyone who could afford to own and wear it could also afford to have a wagon train to carry his things.
Soldiers ride in vehicles today. It's just that they can't rely on the vehicle being there all the time. Modern battlefield and logistics have changed so much almost none of the logic from 1300 or 1800 applies any more.