Shardplate against bullets?

[Jimmy]

another thing that may help is that you could strap a kevlar armor over shardplate. I mean, shardplate gives you enhanced strenght, and the limitation to how much armor you can wear normally depends on the fact that it is heavy and you are supposed to move around. if you can wear 50 kilos of kevlar over youur shardplate, you really become near impervious.

 

 

Having worn kevlar, lots of it, this wouldn't work. Plate armour allows mobility because the solid plates are sectioned. Kevlar only works because it is a huge thick slab, thereby dividing the impact force over a larger area and increasing the force over distance ratio to stop the projectile. The lightweight kevlar vests you see on tv aren't strong enough to stop anything other than a pistol round. Even then they're pushing it. 

 

You could either try to section the kevlar, which would reduce its effectiveness to almost zero, or pile on standard plates to give total coverage and be unable to move properly. In the first case its a waste of time and in the second you'd lose all benefits to wearing shard plate in the first place.  It doesn't matter if you can easily carry the weight, you still wouldn't be able to move.

 

Kevlar plates are also quite fragile. Dropping one from a standing height is enough to crack it and render the whole plate useless. If you're strong enough it is possible to similarly damage it. Trying to force it to bend at all would break it. They can also only take three or four hits before they give way regardless. 

 

My main argument for shard plate is the mobility it provides. At the range of most modern firefights a shard bearer should be able to close the distance without getting shot at all. In a melee they'd dominate, especially if they had supporting troops. 

[Ardjet]

It should also be considered that by the time Roshar is in a modern era, it's very likely artifabrians would have found a way to create or enhance shardplate. Look at Navani and her half-shards. Shardplate in a modern-era Roshar could be much stronger, adaptable, or more resilient.

[king of nowhere]

Having worn kevlar, lots of it, this wouldn't work. Plate armour allows mobility because the solid plates are sectioned. Kevlar only works because it is a huge thick slab, thereby dividing the impact force over a larger area and increasing the force over distance ratio to stop the projectile. The lightweight kevlar vests you see on tv aren't strong enough to stop anything other than a pistol round. Even then they're pushing it. 

 

I was thinking a thick slab over the chest, which is the bigger target and the most important to cover. it still leaves the arms and legs free to move, so not too bad for mobility, and it probably doubles the amount of punishment you can take on your chest.

 

EDIT: If you say you've worn lot of kevlar, I assume you are in the army and you know better than me, but I am very surprised by the statement that a shardbearer should be able to get close without getting shot. I mean, it makes sense in urban figthing where often the range of engagement is the other side of the street, but in open field? even if marksmanship is not the best under stress and against a moving target, I'd assume a platoon of soldiers equipped with machine guns should be able to score at least a few hits on a man running towards them, if nothing else just for statistics. Unless you are suggesting that the shardbeares closes in under the cover of suppression fire, which still supports my view that shardbearers would work better in conjunction with modern weapons and tactics rather than they would if they tried to fight a modern army the same way they fought on the shattered plains.

Edited March 31, 2016 by king of nowhere

[Pathfinder]

It should also be considered that by the time Roshar is in a modern era, it's very likely artifabrians would have found a way to create or enhance shardplate. Look at Navani and her half-shards. Shardplate in a modern-era Roshar could be much stronger, adaptable, or more resilient.

If you are advancing Roshar to be equal to Scadrial to have a 1 to 1 war, then I agree, but if you are positing that the war happens further down the line, to allow Roshar to become modern during the fight, then that same time advancement would count for Scadrial too and they would be even more technologically advanced in that time which would still tip the balance in their favor. 

[DreamEternal]

If you are advancing Roshar to be equal to Scadrial to have a 1 to 1 war, then I agree, but if you are positing that the war happens further down the line, to allow Roshar to become modern during the fight, then that same time advancement would count for Scadrial too and they would be even more technologically advanced in that time which would still tip the balance in their favor.

If we suppose all shardworlds will advance on the same speed(they wont), then everyone would have to bow before their Selian/Taldainian overlords.

[Ardjet]

If you are advancing Roshar to be equal to Scadrial to have a 1 to 1 war, then I agree, but if you are positing that the war happens further down the line, to allow Roshar to become modern during the fight, then that same time advancement would count for Scadrial too and they would be even more technologically advanced in that time which would still tip the balance in their favor. 

Completely true. But I'm not really considering Scadrial in this, personally. I'm focusing on shardplate against bullets, so mentally I'm just imagining Roshar in an era equivalent to ours.

[natc]

I'm not sure how an artifabrian would help at all in enhancing plate. As evidenced by Kaladin and the helmet piece, as long as it's getting stormlight from somewhere the gems are irrelevant and unnecessary. Even soulcasters need gems, just mot necessarily spren within them. In conclusion, shardplate is not a fabrial in the first place. Half-shards don't even begin to work on the same principles.

[CthulhuSpren]

What would happen with an Aluminium bullet? - like the ones used in the Wax and Wayne era

 

Would it penetrate easier due to it able to affect the stormlight powering the Plate, or would it just crumple to the hardness of the Plate?

[Argel]

I think it's sheer conjecture at this point, since we have a WoB that aluminum can affect the different magic systems in strange ways.

 

Based on Scadrial's aluminum, I would say it has to disrupt the stormlight powering the shardplate, so just hitting the plate would not be good enough. But for all we know, on Roshar it could have an area effect (or do something different).

 

Opposite (of sorts) question -- could aluminum be better at preventing stormlight from leaking out (assuming stormlight refuses to interact with it)?

 

EDIT:

 

What do we know about metals on Roshar? No "copper" in WoR, but bronze and silver are mentioned. And for aluminum we have:

“The necklace?” Shallan asked.
“Simple, but of aluminum, which can only be made by Soulcasting,” the man said to his boss. “Ten emerald.”

Edited April 1, 2016 by Argel

[Pathfinder]

I keep forgetting if it has been confirmed or not whether the sheath shardblades are put in for practice are aluminum or not. Because if they are aluminum then I think that answers the question of what would happen when a shardplate is struck by aluminum. 

[king of nowhere]

I keep forgetting if it has been confirmed or not whether the sheath shardblades are put in for practice are aluminum or not. Because if they are aluminum then I think that answers the question of what would happen when a shardplate is struck by aluminum. 

Those sheats did mold to fit with different blades, so they cannot be aluminium. I wouldn't be surprised if they contained aluminium, though.

As for pure aluminium, it's not so difficult to get it because it can be soulcast. I'd think likely someone would have noticed if aluminium jewelry stopped shardblades or something that obvious. more subtle effects, of course, cannot be ruled out.

[Argel]

I think I read a WoB stating the covers for the practice ones were not aluminum.

[Jimmy]

I was thinking a thick slab over the chest, which is the bigger target and the most important to cover. it still leaves the arms and legs free to move, so not too bad for mobility, and it probably doubles the amount of punishment you can take on your chest.

 

EDIT: If you say you've worn lot of kevlar, I assume you are in the army and you know better than me, but I am very surprised by the statement that a shardbearer should be able to get close without getting shot. I mean, it makes sense in urban figthing where often the range of engagement is the other side of the street, but in open field? even if marksmanship is not the best under stress and against a moving target, I'd assume a platoon of soldiers equipped with machine guns should be able to score at least a few hits on a man running towards them, if nothing else just for statistics. Unless you are suggesting that the shardbeares closes in under the cover of suppression fire, which still supports my view that shardbearers would work better in conjunction with modern weapons and tactics rather than they would if they tried to fight a modern army the same way they fought on the shattered plains.

 

We did it fairly often, both going into the fight and away from it. Getting to within grenade range, while not easy, happened a few times.

 

I don't know how to hyperlink thinks but look up the Charge of the Light Horse in Beersheba. The short version is on www.badassoftheweek.com/lighthorse.html The main reason this worked was through shock, speed and massive brutality. All things that a shard bearer has in spades. Also the fact that most of the Turks fired wildly over the heads of the charging cavalry due to their rapidly closing range. 

 

Without getting too technical, bullets travel in an arc and not a straight line. Hitting a target at four hundred metres involves aiming above the target itself. If its moving at even a jogging speed most trained soldiers will miss. If its sprinting faster than a horse and moving erratically, dodging, taking cover, diving to the ground... Then you have to compensate for the wind, both at the barrel and at the target. At anything further than one hundred metres this will make you miss if you don't adjust for it. 

 

The machine gun was designed to compensate for this by putting out a huge amount of firepower. But not every soldier carries a machine gun. You'd find maybe 6-8 in a platoon. Those barrels should be changed every 200 rounds or they will overheat and have a good chance of ruining your day. From memory thats about four seconds of trigger pulling. A machine gun cannot just blindly fill the air with bullets forever and nobody can even carry enough ammunition to even try. All the same things as above still have to be taken into account as well. 

 

Add to that is that studies show that most modern firefights happen at 100 metres or less. Probably because a lot of people can't reliably hit moving targets at range. That's why snipers are so feared/hated. 

 

If we're going with "real life" situations then I don't think its fair to have both teams on an open field mindlessly charging at each other. No soldier in his right or wrong mind is going to set up on a place that looks like a football field. If the shard bearer also lacks complete stupidity then I don't see them doing the same.

 

I don't disagree with you though. In theory it should be laughably easy. If we're talking about hardened soldiers who know what they're doing then it might be different. But most people don't want to kill people and they hesitate or flinch when it matters. It takes either a lot of training or serious personality issues to want to go out and murder folks without hesitation. At that close range, with the speed of a shard bearer and the shock and awe factor I think a shard bearer should be able to manage. Especially if there is more than one of them or they have their own supporting soldiers. 

 

Completely agree on the second point. Shard bearers supported by modern infantry would be unbeatable by anything short of nuclear warfare.

[Voidus]

We did it fairly often, both going into the fight and away from it. Getting to within grenade range, while not easy, happened a few times.

 

I don't know how to hyperlink thinks but look up the Charge of the Light Horse in Beersheba. The short version is on www.badassoftheweek.com/lighthorse.html The main reason this worked was through shock, speed and massive brutality. All things that a shard bearer has in spades. Also the fact that most of the Turks fired wildly over the heads of the charging cavalry due to their rapidly closing range. 

 

Without getting too technical, bullets travel in an arc and not a straight line. Hitting a target at four hundred metres involves aiming above the target itself. If its moving at even a jogging speed most trained soldiers will miss. If its sprinting faster than a horse and moving erratically, dodging, taking cover, diving to the ground... Then you have to compensate for the wind, both at the barrel and at the target. At anything further than one hundred metres this will make you miss if you don't adjust for it. 

 

The machine gun was designed to compensate for this by putting out a huge amount of firepower. But not every soldier carries a machine gun. You'd find maybe 6-8 in a platoon. Those barrels should be changed every 200 rounds or they will overheat and have a good chance of ruining your day. From memory thats about four seconds of trigger pulling. A machine gun cannot just blindly fill the air with bullets forever and nobody can even carry enough ammunition to even try. All the same things as above still have to be taken into account as well. 

 

Add to that is that studies show that most modern firefights happen at 100 metres or less. Probably because a lot of people can't reliably hit moving targets at range. That's why snipers are so feared/hated. 

 

If we're going with "real life" situations then I don't think its fair to have both teams on an open field mindlessly charging at each other. No soldier in his right or wrong mind is going to set up on a place that looks like a football field. If the shard bearer also lacks complete stupidity then I don't see them doing the same.

 

I don't disagree with you though. In theory it should be laughably easy. If we're talking about hardened soldiers who know what they're doing then it might be different. But most people don't want to kill people and they hesitate or flinch when it matters. It takes either a lot of training or serious personality issues to want to go out and murder folks without hesitation. At that close range, with the speed of a shard bearer and the shock and awe factor I think a shard bearer should be able to manage. Especially if there is more than one of them or they have their own supporting soldiers. 

 

Completely agree on the second point. Shard bearers supported by modern infantry would be unbeatable by anything short of nuclear warfare.

Well Rosharan soldiers aren't exactly experienced in modern military tactics, and given their fondness for cavalry I'm going to guess that something like a football field is exactly the kind of area they'd want.

[Argel]

Not to mention that there are plenty of examples in history of soldiers lining up in a field, including the American Civil War (likely due to inaccuracies of guns at the time).

[Voidus]

And technically the great wars, I mean they dug out some trenches first but it's basically the same principle.

(He said, knowing relatively little military history and hoping he's right )

[IndigoAjah]

And technically the great wars, I mean they dug out some trenches first but it's basically the same principle.

(He said, knowing relatively little military history and hoping he's right )

Trenches in the first one. Second one, the Germans changed the rules, and there was fairly little open warfare, as I recall, depending on to which front we are referring (jungle warfare in the East, quite a bit of urban stuff in the west)

Also, logically, the average psychology towards killing people has logically changed a lot now from when ethics were entirely different and war was a constant reality at even a local level: we have more regard for human life now that at any point in history, I think.

This probably actually favours the Alethi Shardbearers though as whoever is shooting at them would seem to be more bothered about killing than their militaristic society constantly at war (albeit clumsily) and driven by the Thrill

Edited April 2, 2016 by IndigoAjah

[Pathfinder]

Couldn't pewterarms carry heavy machine guns with loads of ammo pretty easily? 

[Jimmy]

Couldn't pewterarms carry heavy machine guns with loads of ammo pretty easily? 

 

The problem isn't so much strength as it is how to carry it. Ammunition for guns needs to be linked together and these links are actually quite fragile. If they come loose then the gunner needs to stop firing to reconnect them all and make sure that all the rounds are lined up properly or the gun will jam. Sometimes it's not so bad and you can get by with cocking it a few times. Other times you can't pull the cocking handle back and you need to bash it against something. Sometimes the round gets stuck in the barrel and you can't get it out without the entire thing blowing up in your face. Had it happen. It sucks. Guns are far from perfect weapons. They're just better than any alternative so far. 

You can't keep it all those bullets in a backpack because how are you going to get at it when you need it? Where are you going to carry your water and food if you do that? You might be able to fit four pouches on your chest and six more around your waist but that leaves you with around 1000 -1500 rounds. Or about 3 minutes of continuous fire. 

 

The traditional solution is to have a crew to operate the gun. One to carry and fire it, another to carry extra ammunition, reload and check the link as it goes in. Preferably a third for when one of those two gets killed and to spot for fire support. Every other soldier also carries as much spare ammunition as they can for their gunners, maybe 400 rounds each if you're lucky. 

 

Also relevant is that modern infantry carry about 40-60 kilograms of equipment as it is, depending on the mission type. Strength alone won't cut it, you need serious endurance. An 8 kilometre fast march, 2 day fight then 8 k's back was a regular occurrence. That might involve a lot of pewter. 

[IndigoAjah]

Pewter is cheap as though

[Pathfinder]

The problem isn't so much strength as it is how to carry it. Ammunition for guns needs to be linked together and these links are actually quite fragile. If they come loose then the gunner needs to stop firing to reconnect them all and make sure that all the rounds are lined up properly or the gun will jam. Sometimes it's not so bad and you can get by with cocking it a few times. Other times you can't pull the cocking handle back and you need to bash it against something. Sometimes the round gets stuck in the barrel and you can't get it out without the entire thing blowing up in your face. Had it happen. It sucks. Guns are far from perfect weapons. They're just better than any alternative so far. 

You can't keep it all those bullets in a backpack because how are you going to get at it when you need it? Where are you going to carry your water and food if you do that? You might be able to fit four pouches on your chest and six more around your waist but that leaves you with around 1000 -1500 rounds. Or about 3 minutes of continuous fire. 

 

The traditional solution is to have a crew to operate the gun. One to carry and fire it, another to carry extra ammunition, reload and check the link as it goes in. Preferably a third for when one of those two gets killed and to spot for fire support. Every other soldier also carries as much spare ammunition as they can for their gunners, maybe 400 rounds each if you're lucky. 

 

Also relevant is that modern infantry carry about 40-60 kilograms of equipment as it is, depending on the mission type. Strength alone won't cut it, you need serious endurance. An 8 kilometre fast march, 2 day fight then 8 k's back was a regular occurrence. That might involve a lot of pewter. 

But pewter does handle a lot of those issues. It doesn't only bestow strength. It gives dexterity and speed to help your feeding issue while shooting. Won't need to bash against anything because you would be strong enough to do so yourself. If the thing blows in your face, you could shrug off the damage, and use it to club anyone that gets into range. Pewter burners can go longer without food and drink. Now if you have your whole platoon running non stop at a horse's gallop, then water is going to be an issue, but this is purely in the effort to field more weaponry. Also you are switching back and forth between urban war fare and full scale battle field. What is the scenario we are working with? Because the solution regarding water and food would change between one or the other. Same thing with how the pewter burner would carry his gear. So are we talking urban on Scadrial, or wide open plains like Roshar?

[Haelbarde]

How would bullets do against Shardblades?

[Jimmy]

But pewter does handle a lot of those issues. It doesn't only bestow strength. It gives dexterity and speed to help your feeding issue while shooting. Won't need to bash against anything because you would be strong enough to do so yourself. If the thing blows in your face, you could shrug off the damage, and use it to club anyone that gets into range. Pewter burners can go longer without food and drink. Now if you have your whole platoon running non stop at a horse's gallop, then water is going to be an issue, but this is purely in the effort to field more weaponry. Also you are switching back and forth between urban war fare and full scale battle field. What is the scenario we are working with? Because the solution regarding water and food would change between one or the other. Same thing with how the pewter burner would carry his gear. So are we talking urban on Scadrial, or wide open plains like Roshar?

I stand corrected, thought pewter only gave strength. 

 

For modern weapons I assumed a modern battlefield, which includes any terrain you can think of and urban. At the same time. It isn't unheard of for the fight to start well outside a town and then move into one as you push forward then go back to open fields and forest after that when you've gone through the place. Soldiers carry their own food and water regardless of any other supply plan you have in progress. Couple of reasons; the grunts don't trust officers, officers don't trust grunts, supply clerks think their job is not to issue supplies and all the good stuff usually stays with the bloke driving the truck anyway. The issue with water is not that you aren't strong enough to carry it, but that there isn't any room to. To use a gun properly you almost have to be lying down so you can't put too much on your chest. 

 

You don't need pewter to shrug off the damage, just a bad attitude is sometimes enough, but the gun is stuffed after that. I'd hate to be the bloke taking a club to a shard bearer... 

[Jimmy]

How would bullets do against Shardblades?

Shard blades cut through anything non organic. They'd do very well against bullets. Not sure how they'd go about actually hitting one though. 

[Haelbarde]

Shard blades cut through anything non organic. They'd do very well against bullets. Not sure how they'd go about actually hitting one though.

We don't know about the origins of shardplate, but with shardblades, you could turn the blade into a sprenshield.