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
- 1506 Views
You posted this exact same question one year ago, with a lot of discussion
10/02/2012 06:29:28 PM
- 973 Views
I suppose I am on a...
10/02/2012 11:00:47 PM
- 897 Views
Re: You posted this exact same question one year ago, with a lot of discussion
10/02/2012 11:04:33 PM
- 1019 Views
Re: You posted this exact same question one year ago, with a lot of discussion
11/02/2012 01:37:27 PM
- 1061 Views
My thought was always about weapons.
11/02/2012 06:31:45 AM
- 1097 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
- 958 Views
Ummm, Warders...
14/02/2012 01:39:23 PM
- 799 Views
How would Cuendillar armour help against channelers?
14/02/2012 07:58:58 PM
- 891 Views
It can not be directly effected by the OP
14/02/2012 09:08:57 PM
- 761 Views
some simple ideas for defeating warders armoured such.
14/02/2012 09:52:41 PM
- 899 Views
Re: some simple ideas for defeating warders armoured such.
14/02/2012 10:54:26 PM
- 746 Views
which way is it?
15/02/2012 04:14:41 AM
- 769 Views
Actually I'd call the Seanchan tactically inferior to the White Tower in using the power
15/02/2012 01:48:55 PM
- 876 Views
That's really not my point.
15/02/2012 03:21:15 PM
- 756 Views
I never said that they could not be stopped
15/02/2012 01:58:41 PM
- 865 Views
I really think you're over-estimating how difficult it would be.
15/02/2012 03:22:44 PM
- 807 Views
Not nesecarrily
15/02/2012 04:01:45 PM
- 812 Views
You just said that most of their tactics are indirect.
15/02/2012 05:44:22 PM
- 926 Views
..and you are creating new tactics
15/02/2012 06:32:02 PM
- 759 Views
*shrug* I don't see it as some world-shaking action
15/02/2012 08:47:40 PM
- 771 Views
But it is brand new, and if you're digging holes earth-shaking seems discriptive
15/02/2012 09:14:12 PM
- 799 Views

Not accurate
15/02/2012 03:54:00 PM
- 876 Views
You are thinking too far inside the box
15/02/2012 04:23:28 PM
- 843 Views
I disagree
15/02/2012 04:43:33 PM
- 810 Views
If armor is of no benefit...
15/02/2012 06:19:30 PM
- 715 Views
Missing my point ... Cuendillar armor is impractical not useless
15/02/2012 07:00:48 PM
- 820 Views
nope
15/02/2012 07:21:03 PM
- 740 Views
*Shrug*
15/02/2012 08:28:48 PM
- 868 Views
Re: *Shrug*
15/02/2012 09:07:24 PM
- 1031 Views
No way they could pull off what you are talking about with current tech
16/02/2012 01:55:19 AM
- 806 Views
Re: No way they could pull off what you are talking about with current tech
16/02/2012 03:23:34 PM
- 742 Views
Re: It can not be directly effected by the OP
15/02/2012 02:37:40 AM
- 753 Views
Maybe, maybe not
15/02/2012 02:12:59 PM
- 739 Views
Re: Maybe, maybe not
15/02/2012 06:11:42 PM
- 894 Views
I'll happily amend my initial statement to "maybe even challeling ones"
15/02/2012 07:03:48 PM
- 770 Views
what a lot of people are forgetting with their suggestions of plate armor...
13/02/2012 02:36:50 PM
- 943 Views
Your understanding of how plate armor functions is in error
14/02/2012 01:45:37 PM
- 779 Views
I believe AND I was hoping you would go into the physics of it :p
14/02/2012 11:01:18 PM
- 758 Views