A female without a penis.
Why? Because I CARE!
*Tal* fucked around with this message on 04-07-2004 at 09:20 AM.
Edit: Had to adjust wording there.
Besides, If a penis was present, I woulda put some text in, along the lines of "Somthor's Prom Date" or somethign lame like that. I'm actually being nice, and sharing boobs, and you people are UNAPPRECIATIVE!!!!
www.girlsgonemild.com
You're gonna share the rest, right? 
quote:
Lady Delirium had this to say about Pirotess:
i still think nikki nova isn't hot
She's quite manly looking. It's her facial structure. Too angular.
quote:
Ares got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
She's quite manly looking. It's her facial structure. Too angular.
And I don't think there are many guys here that are looking at her face. 
Those ain't them.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
Extra AC vs piercing? 
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
This one time, at Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael camp:
Silly Tarquinn, you should know that historically chain mail was (and in this case no doubt still isn't, wink wink nudge nudge) any defense against piercing.
Actually, it was.
There are a lot of mistaken positions on what chain was, and was not used for. There are many more mistaken thoughts on how it was, and was not made. The common "Gamer Historian" ideal, is that chainmail was made from about 20guage wire, and riveted. This would make it very light, and vulnerable to piercing attacks. However, steel back then was much weaker than modern steel, and in 20guage would barely halt the flight path of a thrown butterknife.
The "Modern Armourer" Ideal, is that it was made from riveted 16-14 guage steel, in large links. This makes for the links in the maille shown above, only add another 40-50 hours time to rivet all those links. It looks open, and covers a lot of area quickly, thus making the armourer more money, in a shorter amount of time, because they can use readily available, cheap materials, to make a heavy, combat grade tunic, and then add 300$ to the price because they slung some brass rivets into the rings.
In actuality, the metal was anywhere from 18-10 guage, and the ring size usually varied throughout the piece, because the rings wwere wound on wooden rods, which, will compress over time, making the inner diameter of the ring smaller, and smaller. The weave was usually kept fairly close together, to help prevent penetrating attacks from slipping by. The main problem with this was the English longbow, the Crossbow, and the Handgun. All three penetrated ALL forms of armor fairly easily. And, of course, as with any armor, if the enemy had you dead to rights, you were toast anyway. The reason the armored warrior lasted much longer in battle, was because his armor would defend him against the accidental, and light shit. This is why in the history, and story books, the brave Knight always dies of some horrendous, massive, and obviously mortal wound. If you were hit hard enough or skillfully enough to get killed, your ass was gonna die anyway.
As for the idea that chainmail was only useful against one attack or another..
I know a weave that if used in the right wire guage, and inner diameter of ring, will prevent a needle from penetrating. Thats right, a needle. There is one that is semi rigid, that is excellent against blunt attacks, such as from a mace, or hammer. And most forms are very good defense against a slashing attack, and from lighter draw bows, firing wide bladed arrows, which were the most common used, as the common footsoldier had no armor.
There is your history lesson for today. Any arguements, or questioning of my knowledge shall be dismissed with a wave of my hand. I shall do this, because I have put more time and effort into my study of historical armor, than most of you have put into learning how to get laid. And I have been studying this shit longer than some of you have even been alive.
And I'll have Callalron back me up.. cuz.. you know.. he was there..
Hence the fact you have things like half-plate mail (metal breastplate and such over a chain mesh underneath). Hybrid armor that would give you the best of both worlds.
However, I cede the point, as I don't have any quotable hard sources for this sort of thing.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about the Spice Girls:
I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that chain mail, physics-wise, was good for dispersing an impact effectively over a wide area (from, say, a sword or mace blow, not unlike primitive Kevlar), but was (to an arrow, for instance) essentially just a collection of interwoven holes, since the weave was not always tight enough to block an arrowhead.Hence the fact you have things like half-plate mail (metal breastplate and such over a chain mesh underneath). Hybrid armor that would give you the best of both worlds.
However, I cede the point, as I don't have any quotable hard sources for this sort of thing.
Well, after about 5 minutes of real world experience. (I.E. playing with the stuff) you would know that it was useless against a blunt force attack, such as from a mace. There ARE weaves that exist that will work against it, but they are very heavy, and tend to be almost as rigid as plate anyway. They restrict movement as well, which is a key benefit of chain armor.
Half plate, and Chain under the breastplate were indeed used, by those who could afford it, but by the time something like that came into realization, and fashion in battle, it was pointless. It would not defend against a gunshot, or Crossbow very well, and weighed twice as much as either a chain hauberk, or plate armor alone would, with no real added protection. However, it did have value in some areas, such as tourney, and gladiatorial combat, because it was intimidating. A breastplate, made to look as if it were the muscular torso of a mighty warrior, has the same effect in European tournaments, that the demon faced Mempo worn by the samurai had on thier enemies. Intimidation. You cause your opponant to lose confidance, and you will win. You walk on the field looking like a human tank, while your opponant is wearing a few scraps of leather, or an old rusty breastplate, and you're likely to win.. and if not, hell, fall on him.
Knights, from France, to Germany, England, Spain, Italy, wherever.. For the most part did not wear plate armor at all, other than at Tourneys, or when they had to look the part. For actual combat, they tended to use chain armor, over a padded gambeson, and under a leather or heavy cloth tunic. The tunic helps very little, other than to stop the lightest of blows, and to display heraldry. The chain stopps the main methods of attack, and the gambeson prevented blunt attacks.
Hard as it is to believe, the simple padded gambeson, the most common of armors in history, was one of the best protecting pieces of armor known. Imagine, if you can, walking onto the field of battle, weating the remains of two quilts, sewn into the form of a long tunic, and you have what most of the fighters in dark age battles wore to war.
quote:
Tal NSFW!! said:
simple padded gambeson
Got one of those, it's nice. I look like a walking black quilt.
quote:
Tal NSFW!! had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Actually, it was.The main problem with this was the English longbow, the Crossbow, and the Handgun. All three penetrated ALL forms of armor fairly easily.
And I'll have Callalron back me up.. cuz.. you know.. he was there..
Not nessicerly you needed to have the right arrow head called a bobbin point, and even then against good armour you needed to shoot at the right angle at a short distance or it wouldnt penetrate, but there were places you could aim for that were lightly protected.....
you may know more than me, but I do know this
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Random Insanity Generator had this to say about Knight Rider:
And I don't think there are many guys here that are looking at her face.
her legs are pretty beefy too
quote:
Somthor had this to say about Captain Planet:
Not nessicerly you needed to have the right arrow head called a bobbin point, and even then against good armour you needed to shoot at the right angle at a short distance or it wouldnt penetrate, but there were places you could aim for that were lightly protected.....you may know more than me, but I do know this
The word is Bodkin, and you are still wrong. Hell, I have a longbow (Hybrid English/Native American) that only has a draw of 35#, but it'll put a period arrow (cedar shaft, broad point) through 18 guage sheet steel. It's a pretty long lecture on physics, that I dont wanna go into right now, but the summary is like this. The length of the bows limbs, the bow string, the length of the arrow, and a whole bunch of other factors combine, to produce a maximum of force with a minimum of draw. Now, if my 35# bow can send an arrow through the metal door of a buick, imagine what a 100-150# draw English longbow could have done.
Also, the length of flight, and the angle of the arc ADD to the force behind the arrow. The greater distance of flight, and the higher the angle, the more punch it has. At a short distance, you are forced to aim in a much flatter trajectory. This reduces the length of flight, and the force added by gravity on the downward arc, and reduces the penetration power on the arrow.
quote:
Lady Delirium wrote this stupid crap:
her legs are pretty beefy too
Well, being a porn star that really doesn't surprise me.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael spewed forth this undeniable truth:
English longbow punched pretty little holes in plate armor. Saw a demonstration once.
with the soft iron arrow heads of the day or modren tool steel? again its all about angle and distance.
quote:
From the book of *Tal*, chapter 3, verse 16:
[QB]The word is Bodkin, and you are still wrong. ]
oops i ment bokin i always say bobbin for some reason, still Im not entirly wrong studies done show that often it could not.
i'll point to a very nice episode of the history channel where they examined Agincourt, and they showed it wasnt the archers arrows that wond the day becsue they were about useless on the feild that day. they dug up the period arrow head examined it made copies then took a EXACT copy of a typical brest plate of the day and, it couldnt penetrate......
This is an impossible victory for you, Somthor.
quote:
We were all impressed when Mr. Parcelan wrote:
If it comes down to a contest of Tal's opinion against Somthor's, I'll go with Tal. Not out of dislike for Somthor, but just because Tal is more educated in every way.This is an impossible victory for you, Somthor.
I'd go with Tal just because of the owned picture he posted.
I mean, shit. Like, wow.
quote:I'm a bit more concerned about the knees. Her knees and feet resemble one of the following:
Roll the dice to see if Lady Delirium is getting drunk!
her legs are pretty beefy too
Meh, whatever. I actually like the pictures anyway, though they're nothing spectacular. If she was a man, or is a man, it doesn't matter, because I'll never have sex with her/him anyway.
[EDIT] Typo. `Doc fucked around with this message on 04-08-2004 at 08:23 PM.
quote:
Somthor had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
oops i ment bokin i always say bobbin for some reason, still Im not entirly wrong studies done show that often it could not.i'll point to a very nice episode of the history channel where they examined Agincourt, and they showed it wasnt the archers arrows that wond the day becsue they were about useless on the feild that day. they dug up the period arrow head examined it made copies then took a EXACT copy of a typical brest plate of the day and, it couldnt penetrate......
I'll own your punk ass more when I get to work.
yeah
definitely a man
Hips are efeminate, as is the ribs, and shoulder girth. If it was a he, he'd be a fairy in every way because that body is all feminine save for the ankles. So in either case he/she would be better off.
I'm pretty sure it was a woman to begin with though.
quote:
Nobody really understood why *Tal* wrote:
I'll own your punk ass more when I get to work.
thats nice dear, be sure to catch that History channel episode I spoke off it vaildates my point.
quote:
A sleep deprived Somthor stammered:
thats nice dear, be sure to catch that History channel episode I spoke off it vaildates my point.
The History channel also says that Hitler fought the Huns with jetpacks.
quote:
Somthor had this to say about Knight Rider:
thats nice dear, be sure to catch that History channel episode I spoke off it vaildates my point.
Lets see... I can watch a TV show, on History Channel, that cuts up and glorifies several points on just about everything they do, seeing as how, you know, it's TV it needs to be semi entertaining. Even though it only has speculative opinions and mostly outsiders views who have only studied books if that... Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr, I can take the word of someone who both studies and practices the subject at hand, also makes the chainmail in question, and uses the bow (That that fucker got instead of me. 
)... Hmm which would I choose.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Lets see... I can watch a TV show, on History Channel, that cuts up and glorifies several points on just about everything they do, seeing as how, you know, it's TV it needs to be semi entertaining. Even though it only has speculative opinions and mostly outsiders views who have only studied books if that... Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr, I can take the word of someone who both studies and practices the subject at hand, also makes the chainmail in question, and uses the bow (That that fucker got instead of me.)... Hmm which would I choose.
In addition, Tal's wife is obscenely hot, whereas Somthor says his is a baby-spitter.
We shall go with Tal.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Captain Planet:
In addition, Tal's wife is obscenely hot, whereas Somthor says his is a baby-spitter.We shall go with Tal.
Her belly is awesome. 
quote:
This one time, at Faelynn LeAndris camp:
Her belly is awesome.
Quite, old bean.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Captain Planet:
Lets see... I can watch a TV show, on History Channel, that cuts up and glorifies several points on just about everything they do, seeing as how, you know, it's TV it needs to be semi entertaining. Even though it only has speculative opinions and mostly outsiders views who have only studied books if that... Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr, I can take the word of someone who both studies and practices the subject at hand, also makes the chainmail in question, and uses the bow (That that fucker got instead of me.
the episode goes in depth of what happened at agincourt and why the french managed to lose. its a a detailed account with complete refernces.
anyway website devoted to this very topic
It seems MR Bob Reed also feels as I do.
I just give the History channel episode as a refernece as it has the tests they did to show why the arrows were not effective. Its somthing you can likly get at your local libary to check for yourself.
I'm sure Tal knows more than I do on this topic but in this case I happen to know that he is not completly correct.
quote:
I have yet to see anyone provide a single instance of a fully armoured man being killed by archery penetrating his armour in a 15th century contex
quote:
Armour never gave complete immunity, but both contemporary records and the best modern testing so far done indicate it would give something close to immunity to the wearer. If you can find an account of a person killed by an arrow in the 15th century precisely because their armour was penetrated by it, as a tank penetrated by a sabot round, I'd love to see the account. I've been studying the specific era for some decades now, and have yet to come across an instance.
Somthor fucked around with this message on 04-08-2004 at 11:42 PM.
you dont have to belive me, you can belive him or debate him instead, after all I am the first tto admit im not that good at debate.
this time its not me who is wrong.
Not to bash on what the History channel says, but iron aint soft. Asking me about the quality of the metal used in my arrowheads, yes, it is modern. But considering I can use the same 35# bow to put an unheaded cedar shaft through two coffee cans.. that arguement is moot. Enough pressure can send a blade of grass through a pine board, and you're going to try and say the materials make that huge a differance?
Ok, lets say they do. A modern steel arrowhead, pierces a sheet of modern steel. Its not like I was shooting at an antique, period steel breastplate.. One, it would be stupid, and two, modern steel will almost always beat period steel. With either modern materials, or period materials, the results would be very similar. Its not like the physics of archery have somehow magically changed since then.
Speaking of Agincourt... That was a victory of strategy, not of a weapon. Yes, it was a shitload of English bowmen, against a bigger shitload of French Cavalry, but the victory was due more to Henry's tactics, and the stupidity of the french than anything else.
As for using the history channel for a source.. well, I've seen them show one point, with an arrow being deflected off armor. And On another show LATER THAT DAY, they showed how arrows and crossbow bolts penetrated armor easily. The show on Deflecting arrows, was not about archery, but about armor. And Armor was designed to lessen the likelyhood of getting hurt. Thats the point of it. Armor was designed to be at odd angles to the traditional means of attack. the face of the helm was rarely flat, as that did not deflect an oncoming shot at all. Aiming for the joints, and openings in armor is possible, of course, but only at close range. Most Archery of that day, was done in masses. At Agincourt, one flight of arrows from either of the flanks, would contain upwards of 2500 arrows, all being generally aimed at the same group of men. With 2500 arrows coming down on your head, the chances of you getting fucked up raise greatly. And usually, if the infantry and cavalry closed to melee range with an archer, the archer either fled or dropped his bow, and grabbed his sword/axe/poleaxe, whatever, and proceeded to fight.
A short answer..
Potential Energy becomes Kinetic Energy
Kinetic Energy is multiplied by the force of acceleration
Acceleration is increased by gravity on the far side of the arc of flight
All the built up energy in the arrow, is focused on one point
That point strikes.
Somthor is wrong, because Armor is pierced.
Armor is pierced, because this is not a staged event for the History Channel.
In Mathematical terms
code:E=MCpwned!
