The why did anyone ever wear it? By your logic, wouldn't everyone just go into battle naked and thus have the greatest amount of mobility?
Fine functional (iron) plate armor restricts mobility less than you think. And when you can construct it form 1/16th or 1/32nd thich plates instead it gets even better. When we change the discussion to a scale mail variant then the discussion of mobility becomes even less relevant. A C scale jerkin would probably weigh less, and restrict less than a leather one, and warders have been shown to wear that regularly.
No matter how you slice it (no pun intended) C, as a material for armor, makes excellent sense.
As for your suggestion for plated city walls or gates, there would indeed be benefits, though far less often. Absent rams and trebuchets, city walls and gates are resiliant even when made of stone and regular iron because there is no real need to be concerned about weight and mobility.
It is those 2 concerns that makeS C be so effective. Use of armor has always been a trade off between better protection, and the weight a being or vehicle can handle with the mobility limitation that weight causes.
Iron is approximately 480 pounds per cubic foot. 40 pounds of iron is about 144 cubic inches. 144c ubic inches flatened to about 1/16th inch creates a sheet of iron about 3' by 10'; yes that is right feet, not inches. If you can actually manage to roll the sheet to 1/32nd you doubble the size of that final sheet. Even when you factor in that C is heavier than a like mass of iron (we don't know how heavier, just that it is mentioned several times as fact). a full suit of C plate armor would still only be about 20 to 40 pounds (depending on how thin your technology/skill allows you to roll the iron).
When you consider that the swords warders swing around weigh the better part of 10 pounds, the weight of armor (because it is distributed around the body) would hardly be noticed.
Fine functional (iron) plate armor restricts mobility less than you think. And when you can construct it form 1/16th or 1/32nd thich plates instead it gets even better. When we change the discussion to a scale mail variant then the discussion of mobility becomes even less relevant. A C scale jerkin would probably weigh less, and restrict less than a leather one, and warders have been shown to wear that regularly.
No matter how you slice it (no pun intended) C, as a material for armor, makes excellent sense.
As for your suggestion for plated city walls or gates, there would indeed be benefits, though far less often. Absent rams and trebuchets, city walls and gates are resiliant even when made of stone and regular iron because there is no real need to be concerned about weight and mobility.
It is those 2 concerns that makeS C be so effective. Use of armor has always been a trade off between better protection, and the weight a being or vehicle can handle with the mobility limitation that weight causes.
Iron is approximately 480 pounds per cubic foot. 40 pounds of iron is about 144 cubic inches. 144c ubic inches flatened to about 1/16th inch creates a sheet of iron about 3' by 10'; yes that is right feet, not inches. If you can actually manage to roll the sheet to 1/32nd you doubble the size of that final sheet. Even when you factor in that C is heavier than a like mass of iron (we don't know how heavier, just that it is mentioned several times as fact). a full suit of C plate armor would still only be about 20 to 40 pounds (depending on how thin your technology/skill allows you to roll the iron).
When you consider that the swords warders swing around weigh the better part of 10 pounds, the weight of armor (because it is distributed around the body) would hardly be noticed.
Functional Cuendillar Armor: Possible or impossible?
- 10/02/2012 04:45:34 PM
1646 Views
You posted this exact same question one year ago, with a lot of discussion
- 10/02/2012 06:29:28 PM
1109 Views
I suppose I am on a...
- 10/02/2012 11:00:47 PM
1033 Views
Re: You posted this exact same question one year ago, with a lot of discussion
- 10/02/2012 11:04:33 PM
1141 Views
Re: You posted this exact same question one year ago, with a lot of discussion
- 11/02/2012 01:37:27 PM
1176 Views
My thought was always about weapons.
- 11/02/2012 06:31:45 AM
1233 Views
Certainly possible, but given the effort most women have to put toward changing even a small item
- 12/02/2012 05:10:35 AM
1100 Views
Ummm, Warders...
- 14/02/2012 01:39:23 PM
948 Views
How would Cuendillar armour help against channelers?
- 14/02/2012 07:58:58 PM
1011 Views
It can not be directly effected by the OP
- 14/02/2012 09:08:57 PM
917 Views
some simple ideas for defeating warders armoured such.
- 14/02/2012 09:52:41 PM
1046 Views
Re: some simple ideas for defeating warders armoured such.
- 14/02/2012 10:54:26 PM
885 Views
which way is it?
- 15/02/2012 04:14:41 AM
896 Views
Actually I'd call the Seanchan tactically inferior to the White Tower in using the power
- 15/02/2012 01:48:55 PM
1002 Views
That's really not my point.
- 15/02/2012 03:21:15 PM
889 Views
I never said that they could not be stopped
- 15/02/2012 01:58:41 PM
980 Views
I really think you're over-estimating how difficult it would be.
- 15/02/2012 03:22:44 PM
946 Views
Not nesecarrily
- 15/02/2012 04:01:45 PM
931 Views
You just said that most of their tactics are indirect.
- 15/02/2012 05:44:22 PM
1044 Views
..and you are creating new tactics
- 15/02/2012 06:32:02 PM
903 Views
*shrug* I don't see it as some world-shaking action
- 15/02/2012 08:47:40 PM
874 Views
But it is brand new, and if you're digging holes earth-shaking seems discriptive
- 15/02/2012 09:14:12 PM
914 Views
- 15/02/2012 09:14:12 PM
914 Views
Not accurate
- 15/02/2012 03:54:00 PM
996 Views
You are thinking too far inside the box
- 15/02/2012 04:23:28 PM
978 Views
I disagree
- 15/02/2012 04:43:33 PM
933 Views
If armor is of no benefit...
- 15/02/2012 06:19:30 PM
850 Views
Missing my point ... Cuendillar armor is impractical not useless
- 15/02/2012 07:00:48 PM
994 Views
nope
- 15/02/2012 07:21:03 PM
867 Views
*Shrug*
- 15/02/2012 08:28:48 PM
1033 Views
Re: *Shrug*
- 15/02/2012 09:07:24 PM
1200 Views
No way they could pull off what you are talking about with current tech
- 16/02/2012 01:55:19 AM
961 Views
Re: No way they could pull off what you are talking about with current tech
- 16/02/2012 03:23:34 PM
894 Views
Re: It can not be directly effected by the OP
- 15/02/2012 02:37:40 AM
885 Views
Maybe, maybe not
- 15/02/2012 02:12:59 PM
859 Views
Re: Maybe, maybe not
- 15/02/2012 06:11:42 PM
1037 Views
I'll happily amend my initial statement to "maybe even challeling ones"
- 15/02/2012 07:03:48 PM
895 Views
what a lot of people are forgetting with their suggestions of plate armor...
- 13/02/2012 02:36:50 PM
1049 Views
Your understanding of how plate armor functions is in error
- 14/02/2012 01:45:37 PM
904 Views
I believe AND I was hoping you would go into the physics of it :p
- 14/02/2012 11:01:18 PM
874 Views
