Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[warty goblin]

I believe this gets back to the idea that the portion of the wing that is most exposed, the joint that is about as far foreward as the head we are so diligently helmet-ing, is ALSO armored, however awkward that would be. It would protect against barbs like you describe, and other casual attacks toward the wings, while letting the armored portion protect the weak spots (like the wing- armpit) from various polearms.

Yea, the current armor design has it's flaws, which is why I'm here.

Can you armor the actual wing membrane itself though? I'd think not, for reasons of aerodynamics and weight. A lack of armor there rather reduces the utility of armoring the front of the wing, since a strike delivered with reasonable competence will simply angle itself around the protected forwards surface and into the membrane. In the case of an axe or other bladed pole-arm, this is just a matter of reaching the blade a bit further forwards.

I finally bit the bullet and re-uploaded a picture that was marked Mature ( for blood) so I can show it to you. the anatomy of the species is significantly off, but the armor is significantly better.

Yeah, let's keep the mature content at a bit of blood, please. No offense or personal judgement intended, but the other sorts of mature stuff that shows up on fur sites really isn't my thing.

Spoiler

Show

You'll note in this version that the shouders of the wings are fully armored- while that would need to be opened up a bit to let the wing membrane down the body, it only opens them directly AWAY from the enemy.
Also, while having a significantly different wing design, the location of the fork strapped to her wing is approximately where I want to armor- so that with the wing folded, the wrist is protected. (again, see how far foreward that wrist is in this pic, with the good anatomy but crappy armor)

Unless I'm missing something, the wings need to beat in order to fly, yes? That requires not just an opening, but a large enough opening to allow some freedom of movement. You see the same thing in human torso armor; the arms need to move so the arm openings tend to be much larger than you need to just stick the limb through. The armpit also being one of those points on a human that are pretty much impossible to armor well; chainmail or padding is the only stuff that can go there without crippling mobility.

My thinking is that the wing-openings are very much a second set of armpits for your dragon creature. Which isn't to say the instant she steps into battle every enemy on the field will jam a pike through them, just like a person in armor isn't always stabbed in the armpit. But because it is a vulnerable and available target, it's something anybody fighting in armor needs to be aware of and actively defend against.

One question I realize I haven't asked (and if you said and I missed it, my apologies), how do one of these dragon creatures stack up against a human (or whatever they usually fight) in terms of mass? If they weigh as much as a grizzly bear, people are going to be a lot less willing to grab a dagger and jump into a wrestling match with them. If they're human-ish in mass though, that's a much bigger issue.

[Rakaydos]

Can you armor the actual wing membrane itself though? I'd think not, for reasons of aerodynamics and weight. A lack of armor there rather reduces the utility of armoring the front of the wing, since a strike delivered with reasonable competence will simply angle itself around the protected forwards surface and into the membrane. In the case of an axe or other bladed pole-arm, this is just a matter of reaching the blade a bit further forwards.

While I dont disagree exactly, I'm assuming the wing limb has comparable ranges of mobility to a humanoid forelimb. (albet the DIRECTION of those ranges are going to be altered by the body style) As such, just as a human can grab a bus strap over their head and still rotate their elbow ~90 degrees, I'm assuming this species learn in boot camp to drop their elbow when using their wings to parry high, dropping the wing membrane away from the attack, and at least make it so you need a longer bill to inflict wing damage. (which of course leads to polearms with longer bills- or faster spears that can pull back and stab below the guard, through that turned membrane below) In either case, I will presume Heavy combatants (the ones more likely to be engaged with polearms) will not be using their wings to fly much, so membrane wounds would be the equivilant of geting a cut on the ear- painful perhaps, and considerably easier to achieve, but not something that would seriously affect combat performance.

Unless I'm missing something, the wings need to beat in order to fly, yes? That requires not just an opening, but a large enough opening to allow some freedom of movement. You see the same thing in human torso armor; the arms need to move so the arm openings tend to be much larger than you need to just stick the limb through. The armpit also being one of those points on a human that are pretty much impossible to armor well; chainmail or padding is the only stuff that can go there without crippling mobility.

My thinking is that the wing-openings are very much a second set of armpits for your dragon creature. Which isn't to say the instant she steps into battle every enemy on the field will jam a pike through them, just like a person in armor isn't always stabbed in the armpit. But because it is a vulnerable and available target, it's something anybody fighting in armor needs to be aware of and actively defend against.

yes and no, mainly due to the horizontal body form. In short, there would be an arm pit, but it would be like stabbing the armpit of someone lying prone on a shelf at chest height- you would have to go entirely around the shoulder armor, then come BACK with your weapon. I see it more of an issue for flanking attacks, someone who can get under the wing while it's extended to exploit the weakness.

One question I realize I haven't asked (and if you said and I missed it, my apologies), how do one of these dragon creatures stack up against a human (or whatever they usually fight) in terms of mass? If they weigh as much as a grizzly bear, people are going to be a lot less willing to grab a dagger and jump into a wrestling match with them. If they're human-ish in mass though, that's a much bigger issue.

My usual benchmark in explaining the race is "4 foot tall at the shoulder," so less vertical reach than a human, but more mass from the horizontal form- call it about a 10'- 12' wingspan fully extended (not that they would do that in ground combat) and a comparable length if you include the ~7-8' tail

[Galloglaich]

That depends upon what you hope to learn. Do you want to know specifics about battles, or understand the systems of warfare and how they fit into the society of the time

You are either missing the point or, due to the debate, talking past me on this one. What I'm saying is that in the last 30 years especially, but really for much of the latter 20th and 21st Century, the shift has been away from the really good, comprehensive summaries like that made by polymath, multi-lingual geniuses like Hans Delbruck and Henri Pirenne or Von Clauswitz and the like, and into more specialized research that the generalists never really caught up with.

In other words, all the specific details contain major revelations which should be in the general histories but aren't. As I mentioned before, you can also see an example of this in microcosm on Wikipedia.

Kulikovo (1380) is a single battle, is it correct to assume that gunpowder weapons were significant in every battle they fought at that time? Is it even justified to believe that gunpowder weapons were commonly used at that time?*

Yes, absolutely, of course. In fact the Muscovites and the Russians more generally (though Veliky Novgorod was better) were actually a couple of generations behind most of the rest of Europe on gunpowder weapons. I have some evidence in fact that the defeat of the Mongols by the garrison at Krakow 100 years earlier was partly due to gunpowder weapons.

Based on your asterix, I guess you are aware of the high development of early gunpowder weapons by that time. By 1400 they were already making rifled barrels in the German towns. But I think while you are clearly well informed on firearms post 1500 (better than I am anyway) I think you are not at all on the early firearms, cannon and gunpowder.

Anyway, it's been enough generalizing, here are some specifics I quickly googled today.


Here are a couple of useful resources on early gunpowder weapons in general:
http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Black...Matchlocks.htm

http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/cannon.htm

Timeline of cannon use (in addition to the Battle of Chioggia which you already mentioned, though cannons seem to have been used during the entire campaign of the 3rd Venetian Genoese War)

1326 Early cannons are depicted in manuscripts from 1326,
"De Nobilitatibus, Sapientii et Prudentiis Regum"
and "De Secretis Secretorum"
1333 Edward III orders gunpowder from a York apothecary
1338 Battle of Arnemuiden September 21 French with Genoese crossbowmen capture The Christopher which was armed with 3 guns of iron. The first gun shots were fired in a naval battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arnemuiden

"The Battle of Arnemuiden was a naval battle fought on 23 September 1338 at the start of the Hundred Years' War between England and France. It was the first naval battle of the Hundred Years' War and the first recorded European naval battle using artillery, as the English ship Christopher had three cannons and one hand gun"

"iii canons der fer ove v chambre" and "un handgone"
(3 cannons of iron with 5 chambers* and one handgun).

1350 Petrarch describes cannon as being in common use
1350 Liber Ignium (by "Marcus Graecus") and another manuscript by John Arderne publish gunpowder formulae and show images of cannons being fired.

1359 Battle of Barcelona

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barcelona_(1359)

"a bombard was mounted aboard the Catalan nau and her shots heavily damaged one of the biggest naus of Peter I"

1370 Gun foundry established in Augsburg

1377 gunpowder formula in manuscript from Rothenburg
1378 Venetian ships are bombarded by canon from Kotor
1382 gunpowder forumla in manuscript from Nuremberg

Handgonne from Danzig circa 1380 (I think it's a replica made from a wax mold)

Spoiler

Show

Encyclopedia Brittanica says:

"...by the middle of the 14th century, the English, French, Spanish, and other navies mounted guns. Most were relatively small swivel pieces or breech-loading deck guns located in the castles fore and aft, but heavier
guns were added later."

Battle of La Rochelle 1419
"Use of heavy guns by the Castillian fleet"

More to come...

Double-barreled handgonne circa 1420

Spoiler

Show

G

* 5 chambers suggests it was a breach-loader like many of the early cannon were

[warty goblin]

While I dont disagree exactly, I'm assuming the wing limb has comparable ranges of mobility to a humanoid forelimb. (albet the DIRECTION of those ranges are going to be altered by the body style) As such, just as a human can grab a bus strap over their head and still rotate their elbow ~90 degrees, I'm assuming this species learn in boot camp to drop their elbow when using their wings to parry high, dropping the wing membrane away from the attack, and at least make it so you need a longer bill to inflict wing damage. (which of course leads to polearms with longer bills- or faster spears that can pull back and stab below the guard, through that turned membrane below) In either case, I will presume Heavy combatants (the ones more likely to be engaged with polearms) will not be using their wings to fly much, so membrane wounds would be the equivilant of geting a cut on the ear- painful perhaps, and considerably easier to achieve, but not something that would seriously affect combat performance.

I wouldn't think you'd want an enormous amount of vertical flexibility in the wing joints, that just requires additional effort to hold them outstretched and rigid with every downstroke.

Also note that if the wings are something like those of a bat, the elbow joint is actually behind the shoulder socket. Then there's a very elongated wrist bone arching towards the head again, and the long finger bones that support the wing membrane itself.

yes and no, mainly due to the horizontal body form. In short, there would be an arm pit, but it would be like stabbing the armpit of someone lying prone on a shelf at chest height- you would have to go entirely around the shoulder armor, then come BACK with your weapon. I see it more of an issue for flanking attacks, someone who can get under the wing while it's extended to exploit the weakness.

The major motion of a wing is up and down, which really requires openings in the armor for the wing to move through a wide vertical range. Further, a wing is long in the horizontal, it's attached the the body over a significant proportion of the creature's overall length. It's like if I had a membrane of skin that stretched between my arm and my hip; any armor I wore would have to be open along there so I could move my arm. Now if I ran into battle hunched over, and wanted to be able to move my arms vertically in that orientation, I'd need openings along the back and sides to allow that - for purposes of this example suppose I can rotate my shoulders farther back than I actually can.

I'm just not seeing how it's possible to do a good job of covering those openings, no matter how much armor I slap on the outside of my arms. Getting around armor like that is no different than reaching around a shield, something that's quite commonly done.

My usual benchmark in explaining the race is "4 foot tall at the shoulder," so less vertical reach than a human, but more mass from the horizontal form- call it about a 10'- 12' wingspan fully extended (not that they would do that in ground combat) and a comparable length if you include the ~7-8' tail

That's good to know, but I was more interested in simple weight. Having more mass is an advantage in grappling, and grappling is something anybody fighting in armor has to be concerned with. Period manuals make it pretty clear that pinning an adversary via some rather savage wrestling techniques - up to and including breaking their spine - and then driving a dagger through the eyeslit, armpit or anywhere else possible was a common tactic. I don't see that changing for fighting armored dragon sorts of things; a dagger through the eye is gonna kill them as well as it does a human, and there's so much more throat to cut.

[Galloglaich]

This is the gun from Sweden, a beautiful, extremely sophisticated weapon, (pintle mounted, breach loading, very long barrel) though I was wrong it's not from 1380, it's from a wreck in 1452. However the article says that by 1397 such guns were "commonly mounted on ships and castles" as you can read for yourself in the image.



This was in fact the niche they had in the Baltic in the second half of the 14th century through the early 15th, when the Czechs introduced the use of (mostly light) cannon and hand-guns in the open field (though there I know of early successful experiments with this as far back as 1395 including the use of guns on horseback). And then the French and Burgundians started using bigger guns, bombards etc., in the second half of the 15th Century, with a corresponding increased systematic use on ships as I've already pointed out many times, though as you can see above, in more isolated incidents and specific regions (and not just the ones mentioned above), big guns were also being used on ships as early as the 1350's.

The main niche of the early firearms though were on castles, boats, and guns - and in offensive siege warfare as well. This runs through the military history of the region. And that was the basis of my objection to your claim way upthread.

The reason it's important to make this point, is that it's one of the principle cliché's of RPG's - the idea that gunpowder, guns, cannon, and all the other interesting pyrotechnic weapons came around way after the Medieval period or that they were only used for 'smoke and noise' until muskets came along or that guns came after plate armor rather than the reverse. It's something that really needs to be debunked.

The truth is you can't understand the late medieval world (the world of plate armor and longswords and so on) without understanding gunpowder.

G

[Mathis]

That is some really interesting information on gunpowder weapons and their use from both of you. I enjoy hearing your points on the problems with sources also, not a problem I run into much in linguistics. For anyone interested the warhammer fantasy RPG has a good mix of gunpowder and more typical fantasy cliches like fully plate-armoured knights, can recommend it with the highest praise I can give.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the origins of the term bullet-proof how armour was tested against gunpowder weapons? How the armour came from the manufacturer with a dent from being shot at? Sometimes with varying degrees of amount of gunpowder used, I'm sure.

[Rhynn]

gunpowder and ... fully plate-armoured knights

Two things that actually belong together quite strongly, outside of silly fantasy based on D&D instead of history.

[Galloglaich]

That is some really interesting information on gunpowder weapons and their use from both of you. I enjoy hearing your points on the problems with sources also, not a problem I run into much in linguistics. For anyone interested the warhammer fantasy RPG has a good mix of gunpowder and more typical fantasy cliches like fully plate-armoured knights, can recommend it with the highest praise I can give.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the origins of the term bullet-proof how armour was tested against gunpowder weapons? How the armour came from the manufacturer with a dent from being shot at? Sometimes with varying degrees of amount of gunpowder used, I'm sure.

Thanks, that makes the whole (sometimes exhausting ) process of discussing all that stuff more worthwhile. I hoe it is useful.

You are correct about bullet proofing, there are even in fact many pieces of armour still around with proof marks on them. It was riginally done with crossbows (in Milan they had two grades, the 'largo' crossbow proof and the 'piccolo' proof, for different rates) later on (by the mid 15th century roughly) they started proofing armor with firearms.

G

[Rakaydos]

I wouldn't think you'd want an enormous amount of vertical flexibility in the wing joints, that just requires additional effort to hold them outstretched and rigid with every downstroke.

Also note that if the wings are something like those of a bat, the elbow joint is actually behind the shoulder socket. Then there's a very elongated wrist bone arching towards the head again, and the long finger bones that support the wing membrane itself.

The motion I describe doesnt involve the Radius and Ulna bones pivoting against each other- it simply requires a functional ball socket for the wing. A real life bat should be entirely capable of the motion I describe- indeed, it is required for a bat to walk on all fours using their "wrists" as forelimbs.

Spoiler: Bat image

Show

Note that in this image, the bat's elbows are splayed to the side and upward, and it is using it's wrist/knuckles to grip the branch, with the fingers of the wing folded back, out of sight. I'm assuming only that my dragon has comparable mobity, so that armoring those knuckles lets me, for example, use the same pose as the bat to "parry low left" (from the bat's perspective)

The major motion of a wing is up and down, which really requires openings in the armor for the wing to move through a wide vertical range. Further, a wing is long in the horizontal, it's attached the the body over a significant proportion of the creature's overall length. It's like if I had a membrane of skin that stretched between my arm and my hip; any armor I wore would have to be open along there so I could move my arm. Now if I ran into battle hunched over, and wanted to be able to move my arms vertically in that orientation, I'd need openings along the back and sides to allow that - for purposes of this example suppose I can rotate my shoulders farther back than I actually can.

I'm just not seeing how it's possible to do a good job of covering those openings, no matter how much armor I slap on the outside of my arms. Getting around armor like that is no different than reaching around a shield, something that's quite commonly done.

Ah, you are referring to simply having any gap at all where the wing meets the body- yes, of course there would be a weakness there. I was confused by the discussion focusing on the armpit, which I see as being consiterably more protected than the human equivilant, at least from the front. (as the human requres to expose this weakness anytime the limb moves foreward, whereas in this species, as you said, the elbow is always behind the shoulder to one degree or another.)

That's good to know, but I was more interested in simple weight. Having more mass is an advantage in grappling, and grappling is something anybody fighting in armor has to be concerned with. Period manuals make it pretty clear that pinning an adversary via some rather savage wrestling techniques - up to and including breaking their spine - and then driving a dagger through the eyeslit, armpit or anywhere else possible was a common tactic. I don't see that changing for fighting armored dragon sorts of things; a dagger through the eye is gonna kill them as well as it does a human, and there's so much more throat to cut.

I would put a typical Drake (this species) as a bit heavier than a typical human, but their elongated form would grant a leverage advantage to the human. Writing out unarmed combat manuals for nonhumanoids is a little beyond my intent at this point but we can assume that overall they would be roughly equal.

[AgentPaper]

I would put a typical Drake (this species) as a bit heavier than a typical human, but their elongated form would grant a leverage advantage to the human. Writing out unarmed combat manuals for nonhumanoids is a little beyond my intent at this point but we can assume that overall they would be roughly equal.

This doesn't make much sense. From your description, they seem to be roughly the same size as a human, and flight-capable animals tend to be much lighter than similar-sized animals.

Normally this wouldn't really bother me much, but it just seems strange that you're so concerned about the intricate details of the joints of the armor they would "realistically" use, but so willing to hand-wave away the basic principles of biology and physics.

[warty goblin]

This doesn't make much sense. From your description, they seem to be roughly the same size as a human, and flight-capable animals tend to be much lighter than similar-sized animals.

Normally this wouldn't really bother me much, but it just seems strange that you're so concerned about the intricate details of the joints of the armor they would "realistically" use, but so willing to hand-wave away the basic principles of biology and physics.

Crazy biology is the buy-in for the premise; it's just what you've gotta accept to get anywhere with the concept. Crazy weaponry/armor isn't required for the concept, conditional on the biology working out in the first place.

[Mathis]

Thanks, that makes the whole (sometimes exhausting ) process of discussing all that stuff more worthwhile. I hoe it is useful.

G

I suspect that I'm like many people here who mostly just read the quality discussions that go on in this thread without making my appreciation vocal as often as it should be made. I don't think anyone here just takes anyones word as proof, so all the work people put into linking sources and mentioning authors and books is a great help in growing my hobby-level interest.

So to anyone who takes their time to add to this thread I say a sincere thank you.

[Galloglaich]

Thanks.

The thing is for me, I'm here really just to learn from others and to disseminate hard to find information on things I've researched already. Interpretations and opinions... I'll share mine same as the next guy but as you say they are much less valuable. I try as much as possible to stick to sources and to expand discussions with more data points when they seem to be stuck in ruts or clichés. I have seen people in this forum over the years become much better informed and the questions reflect a greater understanding of "Real World Weapons or Armor" in the general public. If I've helped with that in any way it's well worth the effort.

And I myself have learned a lot from this forum and a few others I frequent (some which I post to like here and many which I don't).

I left a lot of forums though over the years because they devolve too often into contests. The signal to noise ratio drops sharply and it quickly becomes a waste of time.

G

[Rakaydos]

This doesn't make much sense. From your description, they seem to be roughly the same size as a human, and flight-capable animals tend to be much lighter than similar-sized animals.

Normally this wouldn't really bother me much, but it just seems strange that you're so concerned about the intricate details of the joints of the armor they would "realistically" use, but so willing to hand-wave away the basic principles of biology and physics.

Crazy biology is the buy-in for the premise; it's just what you've gotta accept to get anywhere with the concept. Crazy weaponry/armor isn't required for the concept, conditional on the biology working out in the first place.

Thank you warty, that is an exelent responce.

Agent, I understand your concerns, but in my very first post in this thread I established that physics apply EXCEPT when it comes to the physiology of the Drakes. I'd be more concerned about that if this was for science fiction, but though I hadn't gone looking for a specific explanation, the magic system I've got for their setting would handle this without comment, despite not being practical for casting- in fact, it's use to give a supernatural physiology would actually reduce their natural casting abilities making having their equipment be practical all the more important.

[Raum]

Thank you warty, that is an exelent responce.

Agent, I understand your concerns, but in my very first post in this thread I established that physics apply EXCEPT when it comes to the physiology of the Drakes.

Problem is, you've asked for a 'real world' set of equipment. In the real world, biology drives armor at least as much as function drives form.

Use mass as an example, is your flyer limited in how much he/she can lift? Does distribution matter at all? If not, put chain on the joints for mobility and plate everywhere else.

It only becomes complicated if biology does matter. But, when it only matters 'when you want it to' you're going to get a lot of 'doesn't make sense' responses. Should be expected when you're being intentionally (presumably ) inconsistent.

[Mr. Mask]

I'm going to second Mathis' appreciation. I've been following this and many other discussions quietly, not wanting to interrupt. How early and how common gunpowder weapons were is of particular interest to me.

[Rakaydos]

Problem is, you've asked for a 'real world' set of equipment. In the real world, biology drives armor at least as much as function drives form.

Use mass as an example, is your flyer limited in how much he/she can lift? Does distribution matter at all? If not, put chain on the joints for mobility and plate everywhere else.

It only becomes complicated if biology does matter. But, when it only matters 'when you want it to' you're going to get a lot of 'doesn't make sense' responses. Should be expected when you're being intentionally (presumably ) inconsistent.

yea... I'm trying to limit my implausabilities to the standard fantasy faire- scaled beasts that fly and fight. In my first post I establish that they can carry more than they can lift off the ground with, which separates the Light and Heavy combatants. But I'm presuming the standard concerns of real life armor apply- stuff like how the more you wear the less agile you are and the less endurance you'll have. Warty has been helpful in refining the more conventional aspects of my equipment- it's just points relating specifically with no real world equivilant (wing parrying) that we dont see eye to eye.

[Animastryfe]

My copy of The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, by Sydney Anglo, arrived today.

The targe is the only shield I know of where the shield is attached to the arm, leaving the hand free. However, I think that hand was only used to wield a dagger or similar one-handed weapon. Are there cases where a small shield attached to the arm was used while wielding a two-handed weapon?

[Mr. Mask]

I've seen a couple of drawings of archers wielding shields as they drew their bows, if that's help. I don't know much about it beyond the illustration or two I once saw, however. Total War has them as an available unit, but that's more of a negative indication rather than a positive one.

[JustSomeGuy]

If i may take the thrad back a little ways:

On the discussion of sail power, and speed sailing with the wind, against it, across it etc. it was mentioned that sailing with the wind would be slower than across or nearly against it.

I don't know much of anything about aerodynamics, lift etc. beyond that possibly wings create a pressure differential and the lift is towards the lower pressure side (happy to be corrected btw).

This morning it was pretty gusty, but not like a consistent strength wind. There was a flight/flock whatever of little birds, and they absolutely raced when going with the wind.

Is there something different between how sails work and how bird wings work? I would put it down to birds being fully in thte air vs. ships being in the water while using the wind for propulsion, but then agai nthat is why i bring it up - what is going on and why?

[Galloglaich]

Im no expert on it but i think that had to do with the keel. Ships which dont have al keel ate faster downwind, i believe

G

[warty goblin]

I suspect that I'm like many people here who mostly just read the quality discussions that go on in this thread without making my appreciation vocal as often as it should be made. I don't think anyone here just takes anyones word as proof, so all the work people put into linking sources and mentioning authors and books is a great help in growing my hobby-level interest.

So to anyone who takes their time to add to this thread I say a sincere thank you.

I'll second this. Love reading the discussions, but lack the expertise or background to make any meaningful contributions to many of them.

yea... I'm trying to limit my implausabilities to the standard fantasy faire- scaled beasts that fly and fight. In my first post I establish that they can carry more than they can lift off the ground with, which separates the Light and Heavy combatants. But I'm presuming the standard concerns of real life armor apply- stuff like how the more you wear the less agile you are and the less endurance you'll have. Warty has been helpful in refining the more conventional aspects of my equipment- it's just points relating specifically with no real world equivilant (wing parrying) that we dont see eye to eye.

Yeah, parrying weapons with limbs - even armored limbs -isn't really a thing anybody does as anything but a last ditch try-not-to-die-right-now sort of thing, so far as I can tell. A person's first defensive goal is to not get hit at all, and trying to redirect a strike with one's fleshy bits is very close to getting hit. There's still the blunt trauma, the chance that something like a halbard or other polearm can hook and throw you, and so forth. If a person isn't relying on their weapons for defense, they bring a shield; they don't go around catching sword or poleaxe blows on their vambraces.

[Brother Oni]

Chiming in on appreciation of the information.

As Warty said, quite a lot of the time, I have little or no expertise in the field currently being discussed.

You are correct about bullet proofing, there are even in fact many pieces of armour still around with proof marks on them.

An additional example of this are the tameshi gusoku armours ('bullet tested')that became semi popular in Japan during the 16th Century and were typically sold with the bullet dent intact as proof of their resistance.

On the discussion of sail power, and speed sailing with the wind, against it, across it etc. it was mentioned that sailing with the wind would be slower than across or nearly against it.

As I understand it, it's to do with the amount of available sail.

Age of Sail ships have multiple sails set along the length of the ship. When travelling directly downwind, the closer sails block access to the wind, compared to sailing across it since with the aid of moveable sails (hence my earlier question regarding sailing technology), you can redirect your sails to optimally take advantage of the wind.

Ships with only a single sail are usually of the fixed type and hence work optimally when sailing directly downwind.

Birds essentially only have a single 'sail' or rather a set of moveable surfaces with which to take advantage of the wind, so they move faster with the wind.
The small birds you saw are moving fast between a combination of gliding when the wind is down (and Newton's Third Law) and accelerating when the wind is blowing.

Edit: Ooops, page 50. New thread here.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Closed for Length. Move along to the new one.