Jump to content

Shardplate against bullets?


EmeraldPaladin

Recommended Posts

Apologies for the long wait, haven't checked this thread for a while

Can you provide the WoB that you referenced that I bolded? Not saying you are wrong or right, but I have not heard of that WoB and am curious.

Shardblades are lighter than one would expect of a blade comparable to their size, but are still heavy.

I can't find the exact quote but it was from the Philidelphia signing, something like burning pewter doubled your normal strength, flaring was more like tripled, I extrapolated from that that plate gives a much larger benefit, there is a scene in WoK where dalinars hammer is described, two men, who are labourers so used to carrying weight, struggle to move it, in plate dalinar easily picks it up one handed, that's at lead quadruple probably a lot more.

Even people without plate can use a shardblade one handed, for a 6-8 foot long blade that is light, I couldn't use a wooden sword that size one handed more than flail it around a bit, I assume you are saying its heavy from when Moash first lifts one, he describes it as heavy as he was expecting it to be weightless, I would guess that they weigh similar to a medieval hand and a half sword, around 1.5-2kg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for the long wait, haven't checked this thread for a while

I can't find the exact quote but it was from the Philidelphia signing, something like burning pewter doubled your normal strength, flaring was more like tripled, I extrapolated from that that plate gives a much larger benefit, there is a scene in WoK where dalinars hammer is described, two men, who are labourers so used to carrying weight, struggle to move it, in plate dalinar easily picks it up one handed, that's at lead quadruple probably a lot more.

Even people without plate can use a shardblade one handed, for a 6-8 foot long blade that is light, I couldn't use a wooden sword that size one handed more than flail it around a bit, I assume you are saying its heavy from when Moash first lifts one, he describes it as heavy as he was expecting it to be weightless, I would guess that they weigh similar to a medieval hand and a half sword, around 1.5-2kg.

It's been brought up before but carrying something with one hand is not twice as difficult as carrying it with two, you use more than just your arm muscles to carry things, you use your whole body. And the two labourers were also two separate people so they wouldn't have been optimizing how they carry and distribute weight properly compared to someone who did it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been brought up before but carrying something with one hand is not twice as difficult as carrying it with two, you use more than just your arm muscles to carry things, you use your whole body. And the two labourers were also two separate people so they wouldn't have been optimizing how they carry and distribute weight properly compared to someone who did it alone.

And it's been brought before that wielding something is not the same as carrying it. Swords, which are pretty well balanced get hard after a while, even if they seem light at first, not to mention warhammers which are definitely not balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's been brought before that wielding something is not the same as carrying it. Swords, which are pretty well balanced get hard after a while, even if they seem light at first, not to mention warhammers which are definitely not balanced.

Well that's more to do with endurance than strength, but yes it is generally harder to wield something than carry it. I'd put it at around 4-5x the strength of an average Rosharan minimum, which would be roughly comparable with what you get from flaring pewter if you take gravity into account. So I'd say its probably stronger than pewter but not by much.

 

You mentioned the balance too which is actually something else I would bring up, carrying something unbalanced like that means weight is unevenly distributed, which means one of the workers was likely doing more than the other was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another, somewhat related question: Which is more effective, Shardplate, or the monks enchantments in Elantris? Shardplate can be cracked and broken with enough strikes from a hammer, axe, or sword, though it does stop shardblades. Swords in Elantris only scratch the monks' skin. Or, is this a case of A) people in Elantris aren't as used to war and physical brutality as those in Stormlight Archive, and B)(this should be a "B" with a ")" after it) Different tools for different jobs... unless the monk's enchantments could stop a shardblade?

 

Thoughts?

Edited by Random Observations R Me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't implying or suggesting that a Mistborn could flip a tank, they could destroy one pretty easily though, they're a small extremely mobile target experienced in espionage. Duralumin push yourself onto the tank, land with some pewter, plant explosives, jump away again before they know what's happened, blow up tank.

 

Depends on who's using it but generally not, no.

 

Speed, flying and magic all do matter and can work, case in point: they do on a pretty regular basis.

 

Magic wont? Well that depends on the magic. Balefire would, AonDor would, Soulcasting would, a Shard would, powerful enough Allomancy would. Foresight combined with speed can beat pretty much anything, Mistborn have both and mobility in spades.

 

I was talking about deflecting a round from the main gun with magic. How much foresight do they have? If its an hour, then yes, they may understand that they aren't going to win this fight head on. If its anything under ten minutes then irrelevant. Tank rounds can explode. Over a large area. They are designed to hit targets that move at speed. Nobody can run 60+ kph that I've seen. A solid round is used against armour only, no gunner in their right or wrong mind is going to use it against infantry. An anti infantry shot wipes out everything up to 600 metres. Hells, the concussive force of just standing too close to the gun when its fired can be lethal. Modern tanks are also designed as anti air platforms. They can quite easily shoot down a helicopter. A push won't get you to the tank fast enough and you will not survive 1,098 38-inch (9.5 mm) tungsten balls or the three (or four, depending on the commander) machine guns that the tank carries.

 

If they did get in close then they'd need a lot of explosives to take out a tank. More than you'd think, unless you've also got modern military gear. Most likely case is that you'd take out the tracks. Tank doesn't care, just replaces the track and keeps firing and the crew inside would only be irritated. 

 

If we're using soldiers as the shooters then no, rifles are not more accurate than machine guns. Effective range of an M4 is 300 metres. Effective range of a SAW is 400. If we're talking about civilian target shooters then they have no business being on a battlefield in the first place.

 

Completely anecdotal evidence ahead:

 

I'm a good shot. A very, very good shot. At 300 metres I can choose which eye I want to put a hole in with a standard service rifle (Australian), the F88 and it's not a very good rifle. I enjoy shooting rifles much more than guns. I find it relaxing and its hard to beat the feeling of putting a couple of hundred rounds into a target and seeing a single, small hole at the other end. But guns are more accurate. Its the way they're used that gives them the bad reputation. That and video games. Games are unrealistic. 

 

End anecdote.

 

Accuracy isn't a matter of getting one, perfect round on target. Anyone can do that. Accuracy is a function of consistency, being able to land all 30 rounds in a space the size of a 50 cent coin is what you want from a shooter. Guns perform better at range because they are fired from a more stable platform, either a bipod or a fixed position and the gunner is also in a much more stable position. Rifles are not designed to do this and soldiers do not train to do it. Conversely, guns are, and soldiers do. 

 

The reason people think that rifles are more accurate is that guns and rifles are designed for different roles. The gun is a platoon level weapon, it isn't supposed to fire single rounds like a rifle. It is supposed to either perform killing bursts or suppressing fire on an enemy position. If you're basing the argument off things like civilian target shooting or long distance kill records using specialised weapons and rounds then I can understand. But snipers are rare and they don't appear on the battlefield very often. When they do it is for other things like high value target acquisition and commentary. Yes, snipers commentate on the battlefield and spend a lot of time directing the fire of... the machine gunners. Because guns can fire reliably at targets up to a kilometre away. Been there, done that. 

 

The famous 50.cal will punch through the engine block of an armoured vehicle. That is what its designed for, its literally written on the label. 

 

If you really want I'll go into a lecture about barrel harmonics, flight time, machine gun theory and small unit tactics. 

 

TLDR: Foresight is just going to show you all the fun ways a tank will kill you. Guns are seen as less accurate because of the way they're used. They're actually more accurate because of the stable firing platform. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points to get through so I'll break this up a bit.

I was talking about deflecting a round from the main gun with magic. How much foresight do they have? If its an hour, then yes, they may understand that they aren't going to win this fight head on. If its anything under ten minutes then irrelevant. Tank rounds can explode. Over a large area. They are designed to hit targets that move at speed. Nobody can run 60+ kph that I've seen. A solid round is used against armour only, no gunner in their right or wrong mind is going to use it against infantry. An anti infantry shot wipes out everything up to 600 metres. Hells, the concussive force of just standing too close to the gun when its fired can be lethal. Modern tanks are also designed as anti air platforms. They can quite easily shoot down a helicopter. A push won't get you to the tank fast enough and you will not survive 1,098 38-inch (9.5 mm) tungsten balls or the three (or four, depending on the commander) machine guns that the tank carries.

Again, depends on the magic. Balefire? Works just as well on a main round, and indeed on the entire tank.
A couple of seconds, plenty enough for dodging projectiles. Particularly combined with a Mistborns other abilities, which will pretty easily accelerate you to over 60kph.

Depends on the push, Duralumin and Steel? Easy. Regular steel? Probably still yes, but you might need to judge your timing carefully. Again, there's not really many comparisons for a Mistborn, they're a very small, very fast moving target that makes irregular motions and has incredible agility. No helicopter on earth matches a Mistborn for agility.
I did already point out that machine guns are pretty much the worst weapon you could employ against a Mistborn but I'll do so again just to be safe. They're inaccurate, made of metal, vulnerable to sabotage and pretty obvious. Put as many machine guns on as you want that's not going to be any more effective than the one that already fails the job because it's employing metal against an Allomancer.

 

 

If they did get in close then they'd need a lot of explosives to take out a tank. More than you'd think, unless you've also got modern military gear. Most likely case is that you'd take out the tracks. Tank doesn't care, just replaces the track and keeps firing and the crew inside would only be irritated. 

Depends on the explosive, what you're targeting and how experienced you are. Given what Mistborn are I'm inclined to say that any situation in which one found themselves facing a tank they would be experienced enough to handle it. Replace them by getting your head blown off? I'd be a bit more than irritated if I was minus my head. :P
 

If we're using soldiers as the shooters then no, rifles are not more accurate than machine guns. Effective range of an M4 is 300 metres. Effective range of a SAW is 400. If we're talking about civilian target shooters then they have no business being on a battlefield in the first place.

Range /= accuracy. I could launch a piece of metal several kilometers if I wanted, it wouldn't be very accurate though. Accuracy is about how many of your bullets hit the place you want them to hit, machine guns deliberately don't bother with accuracy by instead shooting out about 1000x more bullets. Generally a really good strategy, just doesn't work well against a Mistborn.

 

 

TLDR: Foresight is just going to show you all the fun ways a tank will kill you. Guns are seen as less accurate because of the way they're used. They're actually more accurate because of the stable firing platform. 

If you were a regular person? Sure. Mistborns are anything but regular. Bendalloy alone renders pretty much all guns useless, combine it with steel and atium and you could put a Mistborn up against an entire army and I'd give even odds on them living through it unless you resort to just bombing the whole place and hoping you catch them in it. (Which still wouldn't be guaranteed, Bendalloy + Steel + Duralumin is an absolutely insane combination for speed of movement)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chaos locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...