Anti-shardplate weaponry

[king of nowhere]

But that's not what determines what breaks something.  Momentum, surface area affected, and rigidity of the projectile is what determines whether or a projectile breaks though. A very thin arrow which is really heavy and strong and going very fast can punch through things that an equal kinetic energy blanket is going to do nothing on.

 

Kinetic energy is a really really rough measure. Bullets are not all that much more energetic than a mace (or so I see from a quick perusal of Wikipedia), but I think I'd prefer to be hit with a mace rather than a bullet when in Shardplate because the mace will spread the energy of impact around a larger area.

i wanted to say that. yes, what actually break something is incredibly complicated and determined by so many different things that there isn't a real way to predict beside making experiments.

 

there was a thread on how to fight shardbeares a while ago, and my personal version of the roshar hazekiller was equipped with a half-shard shield, a heavy hammer, a heavy crossbow and a thin knife. from afar they use the crossbows to crack the plate as much as possible, in close combat they form a wall of shields and try to smash the hammers on the shardbearer, and if they can they try to jump on him, carry him on the ground with their mass, and use the thin knife on the eyeslit.

 

The balista is still the most effective solution, as it is most likely capable of penetrating a shardplate in one blow. of course it is not very mobile, you have to carry the thing on wheels. However it is pretty accurate; the romans used it to snipe enemy leaders.

 

Big slings also look like some good choice. they probably have a "cracking power" comparable to that of an heavy crossbow. the advantages are that they are lighter and can fire more often. the disadvantages are that you need to take the rocks from somewhere, and they are less accurate.

[Aspren]

But that's not what determines what breaks something.  Momentum, surface area affected, and rigidity of the projectile is what determines whether or a projectile breaks though. A very thin arrow which is really heavy and strong and going very fast can punch through things that an equal kinetic energy blanket is going to do nothing on.

 

Kinetic energy is a really really rough measure. 

 

Fair enough. I don't know the strength and the effective surface area of most of these weapons though. So I couldn't account for them.

 

There's really little difference between kinetic energy and momentum. They're both the derivatives of mass and velocity. You could easily convert the one into the other. Kinetic energy is equal to  the squared momentum of the object, divided by the doubled mass of the same object. 

 

I don't necessarily think that kinetic energy expresses the destructive potential of a projectile much better than if it was expressed as momentum. I just used kinetic energy because it is the more commonly used of the two. Also, it's easier to understand considering that momentum may be measured in different units (kg.m/s, N/s and lb.f/s (I'm not too sure of this one, what do Americans use?)) while kinetic energy is usually just measured in joules. 

 

Bullets are not all that much more energetic than a mace (or so I see from a quick perusal of Wikipedia), but I think I'd prefer to be hit with a mace rather than a bullet when in Shardplate because the mace will spread the energy of impact around a larger area.

 

 

I believe you meant to say that the other way round.  If both the bullet (at point-blank range) and the mace had the same kinetic energy, then bullet is better because the force is concentrated over a smaller area than the mace, making in more likely to crack, if not penetrate, the shardplate. But that's not accounting for the mass of the bullet and its velocity.

[Swimmingly]

Fair enough. I don't know the strength and the effective surface area of most of these weapons though. So I couldn't account for them.

 

There's really little difference between kinetic energy and momentum. They're both the derivatives of mass and velocity. You could easily convert the one into the other. Kinetic energy is equal to  the squared momentum of the object, divided by the doubled mass of the same object. 

 

I don't necessarily think that kinetic energy expresses the destructive potential of a projectile much better than if it was expressed as momentum. I just used kinetic energy because it is the more commonly used of the two. Also, it's easier to understand considering that momentum may be measured in different units (kg.m/s, N/s and lb.f/s (I'm not too sure of this one, what do Americans use?)) while kinetic energy is usually just measured in joules. 

 

 

I believe you meant to say that the other way round.  If both the bullet (at point-blank range) and the mace had the same kinetic energy, then bullet is better because the force is concentrated over a smaller area than the mace, making in more likely to crack, if not penetrate, the shardplate. But that's not accounting for the mass of the bullet and its velocity.

No he got it right: I would rather be hit by a mace than a bullet

[Aspren]

No he got it right: I would rather be hit by a mace than a bullet

 

Not if you were wearing shardplate  .

 

If you weren't wearing shardplate, I'd agree that being hit with a mace is worse. As the bullet does comparitvely less damage as all it does is penetrate your skin and embed itself in your flesh.

 

But If wearing shardplate the chances are that the mace would only cause a jolt, while the bullet is almost certain to penatrate the shardplate.

 

Hell, If you were wearing normal plate armour I assure you that it'd be better to be hit by mace rather than a bullet. There's a reason why plate armour died out soon after the invention of firearms.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Aspren

[Crysanja]

to fight someone in shardplate, i would use a bucket full of pitch and set him on fire.

 

idk how much protection the shardplate gives from liquites/fire, but it should be difficult for anyone to fight, while on fire.

[Swimmingly]

to fight someone in shardplate, i would use a bucket full of pitch and set him on fire.

 

idk how much protection the shardplate gives from liquites/fire, but it should be difficult for anyone to fight, while on fire.

Unless he decides that you want a super-strength burning hug very badly.

[Inkthinker]

I would think (just guessing) that being on fire itself would probably not be much of a problem, unless the flames were near the faceplate or it was really smoky and got inside the helm... and even then, I wouldn't be surprised if shardplate could filter out gases.

I suggest you coat their heads (if not the whole suit) in molten pitch. Set it on fire if you like, but the point is actually to cut off the air supply. If the suit can breathe through its skin (it might), coating it from head-to-toe ought to put a stop to that.

I suggest pitch, but all you really want is something horribly gooey, possibly something that hardens quickly as it cools. You don't want to make it easy for them to wipe it away, and if you can lower their mobility then so much the better. Theoretically, if the gunk is thick and sticky/gooey enough, they won't even be able to pop the armor's seals and escape voluntarily, they're just glued inside to die slowly of suffocation.

[Voidus]

If you're close enough to dump some pitch on them you might as well try to stab them in the eye, but either way I think you'd very quickly lose your eyes
I still think Crossbows would be the way to go, particularly with some attached fabrials for added strength.

[Windrunner]

If you're close enough to dump some pitch on them you might as well try to stab them in the eye, but either way I think you'd very quickly lose your eyes

Not necessarily. This could really be the way to go in a siege scenario. You'd require a Shardbearer without a Blade, or walls that are thick enough to make cutting through with a Blade difficult, but dumping boiling pitch on a Shardbearer from a great height seems to be an excellent tactic to me.

[Voidus]

Not necessarily. This could really be the way to go in a siege scenario. You'd require a Shardbearer without a Blade, or walls that are thick enough to make cutting through with a Blade difficult, but dumping boiling pitch on a Shardbearer from a great height seems to be an excellent tactic to me.

Guess that would work, I was thinking more for the Parshendi Shardbearers on the Shattered plains I guess. But I don't know that in a siege an army would throw the Shardbearers out the front, not until they'd breached the walls.

[Inkthinker]

I'm actually thinking more that you don't want to set it on fire, that would keep it liquid and the Plate might be immune to transferring heat.

Whereas if it's just barely liquid and you pour it on, then it starts to thicken almost immediately, and it's just gummy tar gunk that gets into all the plates and jams it up horribly. Even if you can't suffocate them, you limit their mobility and make them vulnerable to ground troops.

OOH! If you have guys wearing Plate, have 'em throw something full of gunk that smashes open upon impact. Big eggs full of gluey goo, to muck up the enemy and slow them down, if not put them down.

[Voidus]

I have been thinking that With the invention of the Half-Shards that Shardbearers might start carrying Shields now, which does prevent pretty much anything from working. Anyone got ideas for that?

[Natans]

Well one could use a soulcaster to apply the Hannigan approach =)

 

[/

 

 

But given the fact that the shardplate could be immune to fire, maybe explosions aren't a big deal either. What make me think that the voidbringer powers will be awesome to see too. We only looked at the "heros magic system", but if they have a super armor this mean that the bad guys must have their tricks too.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Natans

[QuantumHarmonix]

That makes me wonder how much protection the plate gives against Dustbringers. 

[Inkthinker]

I have been thinking that With the invention of the Half-Shards that Shardbearers might start carrying Shields now, which does prevent pretty much anything from working. Anyone got ideas for that?

Well, it doesn't prevent anything from working, it just provides additional protection against Shardblades that a normal shield would not. They'll still shatter, with enough damage done to them.

Didn't we see Shardbearers using half-shard shields during one of Szeth's assassinations? It's mostly only useful if you're going up against a Shardblade, otherwise I think most of the fighters in Shardplate would prefer to have a free hand, and trust their armor to soak up the hits from normal weapons.

And since only impact weapons are likely to have any real effect, if you're not facing hammers and maces and crossbows and such, then I think you can probably consider yourself fairly safe (presuming you don't encounter any nascent spear-wielding windrunners).

[Voidus]

Well, it doesn't prevent anything from working, it just provides additional protection against Shardblades that a normal shield would not. They'll still shatter, with enough damage done to them.

Didn't we see Shardbearers using half-shard shields during one of Szeth's assassinations? It's mostly only useful if you're going up against a Shardblade, otherwise I think most of the fighters in Shardplate would prefer to have a free hand, and trust their armor to soak up the hits from normal weapons.

And since only impact weapons are likely to have any real effect, if you're not facing hammers and maces and crossbows and such, then I think you can probably consider yourself fairly safe (presuming you don't encounter any nascent spear-wielding windrunners).

They're also generally stronger than regular metal, so I think it'd be useful even when not fighting a Shardbearer, mostly I'm thinking that Shardblades really don't need 2 hands, and that with a shield to block with any form of projectile be it crossbow bolt or even liquids of some form are going to be less useful.

[Inkthinker]

That might indicate a need for a sea change in Shardbearer tactics. Up until now, a sword/shield form has not been traditionally a focus of Shardbearers.

Even though they're light and can cut through near anything, most Blades are larger than claymores. They're often six feet long or more, and come in a variety of widths and shapes. Two-handed forms make sense, you don't need both hands to pick it up so much as you need both hands to control it well.

BUT, half-shards are a recent invention, and there might be a need to change tactics. After all, we're still right at the beginning of the story.
 

[Swimmingly]

heh. I wonder how much it would cost to build a siege wall out of half-shard shields, then layer stone on top so that all the Shardbearers know when they try and slice a hole is "this doesn't work"

[Crysanja]

i dont have any clue about swordmanship/fencing, but i think a shield is usualy used to block most attacks.

 

this is not possible when you fight againsts shards. because they can only take 2 strikes.

 

 

is it worth it, to carry a shield for 2 blocks? - it will require to learn a different style in fighting -

different from the usual shield use, different forms for the shardblade.

 

they more or less need to be invented.

 

in normal combat, youre shard gauntlet/arm can be youre shield. with lots of uses =)

[Tarion]

Honestly, with the strength that Shardbearers have, they could probably just strap a Halfshard to their arm, without losing too much.  It'd let them take a couple of extra hits, which if you're trading blows equally with your opponent is huge.  Being the first to lose a chunk of Plate puts you at a serious disadvantage. 

[Voidus]

i dont have any clue about swordmanship/fencing, but i think a shield is usualy used to block most attacks.

 

this is not possible when you fight againsts shards. because they can only take 2 strikes.

 

 

is it worth it, to carry a shield for 2 blocks? - it will require to learn a different style in fighting -

different from the usual shield use, different forms for the shardblade.

 

they more or less need to be invented.

 

in normal combat, youre shard gauntlet/arm can be youre shield. with lots of uses =)

Could take more than 2 hits, we don't know much about the differences between Plate and half-shards and I think that 2-hits is an estimate from very forceful direct hits.

And even being able to take an extra two hits could well be worth it to gain a new set of Shards. They already have to replace gemstones after every fight so I don't imagine shields would be too different.

[shimwick]

Or you could lug a couple of siege catapults over to the battlefield. I'd like to see a trebuchet get a direct hit on a shardbearer. Preferably by a Lord of the Rings Minas Tirith trebuchet. Death by wall!

[Humph]

Take a comparison of shardplate to glass or to high-strength steels.  Glass is actually a much stronger substance than most folks realize -- what is lacks though is any kind of deformability:  it is "brittle".  It will resist to a certain point and then let go all at once with little visible indication of a problem.  The same thing can occur with high-strength steels, which is why there is such carefully monitoring in the manufacturing process of structural steel under large loadings.

 

The mode of failure of brittle objects would be one of stress concentration to initiate a (microscopic) crack.  The energy required for crack initiation is generally substantially much greater than that required for crack propagation, so the ideal weapon will be one with a non-deformable point, to transfer the most energy to the smallest area, causing a great stress (= force per unit of area) on the armor, thereby initiating a crack in the armor.  Follow-up blows would be about providing the energy for the crack to propogate throughout a large area.

 

Interestingly enough, shardplate seems to have an added element of protection, in that some energy of blows seems to be absorbed into the change of state of the material from solid to liquid.

[shimwick]

Remember how the Parshendi used the slings to crack Shardplate? Catapults would be a slower, more powerful version of that, and a large chunk of stone would, at least, trap them for a time.

[Natans]

Remember how the Parshendi used the slings to crack Shardplate? Catapults would be a slower, more powerful version of that, and a large chunk of stone would, at least, trap them for a time.

 

One direct hit of  a catapult would be enough to kill any Shardbearer, Szeth bold to the face prove this just right.

 

The thing is that it would be almost impossible to use such weapon to kill a Shardbear because catapults are made to attack big stationary targets not a single person that could move with almost inhuman speed =)