It's simply a layman's mistake not to account for the displaced water in the "weighted equipment" you're wearing. 65lbs of armor on a thick overcoat might be displacing 50lbs or more.
65 lbs of armor (absent overcoat) displaces about 8 lb, steel 8x denser than water. The overcoat gives positive buoyancy until it becomes waterlogged, which will not take very long unless specially designed for the purpose (padding under armor is normally not designed to be watertight, it's designed to wick sweat away), and will then be mostly neutral.
It's simply a layman's mistake not to account for the displaced water in the "weighted equipment" you're wearing. 65lbs of armor on a thick overcoat might be displacing 50lbs or more.
65 lbs of armor (absent overcoat) displaces about 8 lb, steel 8x denser than water. The overcoat gives positive buoyancy until it becomes waterlogged, which will not take very long unless specially designed for the purpose (padding under armor is normally not designed to be watertight, it's designed to wick sweat away), and will then be mostly neutral.
I've been very very specific that medieval armor wearers wear a quilted undercoat and that is where all the displacement comes from. You're just not appreciating how much displacement actually comes from said coat. Having actually been in the ocean in my firefighting gear; I have direct knowledge of just how buoyant one is in a quilted coat.
It is irrelevant whether or not the padding is "water tight". It is because it is thick, adding thickness to your overall mass; adding "volume" as it were.
You are much, much less dense wearing a water logged quilted coat than you are wearing no coat at all.
The same effect is true of modern (neoprene) wetsuits; which are themselves waterlogged. Wearing only a 7mm full suit and hood, a 6foot man of about 200lbs size will need about 30 lbs weights to be neutrally buoyant in seawater. And perhaps 25lbs in freshwater. It's simply an issue of density; adding 14mm thickness to your body makes you very much "less dense".
Another example are the mark V wetsuit and diving hats which weighed about 135 pounds. (yes...135 POUNDS)
It was completely water logged (as you suggest would make a difference in buoyancy) and you still needed about 55 additional pounds of weight to keep you submerged. (A weight of 190 lbs was common for Mark V Dress)
I'm not trying to be a butthead about this; I'm just emphasizing how wrong people are about it in general. It's just not something people have a lot of experience with.
I almost guarantee that fully armored knight wearing a quilted undercoat with plate mail would likely float or at least be able to swim. I'd be shocked if they couldn't. That being said; I'd be open to an actual test to find out. I couldn't find a realistic one. I found people throwing themselves into lakes with chainmail and a shirt..that test would be invalid. Wearing chainmail and being naked underneath would cause you to sink like a stone.
It is irrelevant whether or not the padding is "water tight". It is because it is thick, adding thickness to your overall mass; adding "volume" as it were.
It absolutely matters whether the padding is water tight. The buoyancy of dry padding is equal to its volume (times the density of water) minus its weight. The flotation of wet padding is equal to that plus the weight of any water it has absorbed. Which, if fully soaked, is enough to reduce its buoyancy to a negative value (the cloth fibers themselves are generally denser than water, the flotation is provided by trapped air).
The reason a neoprene suit floats is because it's made of a closed-cell foam that traps air (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoprene#Aquatics), it would otherwise sink (solid neoprene is denser than water). This is completely irrelevant to medieval armor; the padding in medieval armor is cloth.
It is irrelevant whether or not the padding is "water tight". It is because it is thick, adding thickness to your overall mass; adding "volume" as it were.
It absolutely matters whether the padding is water tight. The buoyancy of dry padding is equal to its volume (times the density of water) minus its weight. The flotation of wet padding is equal to that plus the weight of any water it has absorbed. Which, if fully soaked, is enough to reduce its buoyancy to a negative value (the cloth fibers themselves are generally denser than water, the flotation is provided by trapped air).
The reason a neoprene suit floats is because it's made of a closed-cell foam that traps air (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoprene#Aquatics), it would otherwise sink (solid neoprene is denser than water). This is completely irrelevant to medieval armor; the padding in medieval armor is cloth.
I guess the question would be whether the traditional padding (or whatever padding is traditional in any given D&D campaign) is sufficiently water resistant as not to become fully waterlogged. Or perhaps, not even at all. Given it is a fantasy setting and there is no specific rule either way, that is a decision that can be left entirely up to any given DM.
It also matters, if we're trying to be realistic, how long it would take to become waterlogged. If you quickly wade a stream, then it won't become waterlogged. If you're following Jar Jar to Otoh Gunga, then it probably would.
We've long, long left the point where I think there's actually any value for effort in terms of realism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I mean realisisticly you cant swim with armor on in real life I work out and own a set of full body metal chainmail, that thing makes walking strenuous and i have crossed a river in it before and just walking tru water is very hard, i thought i was going to fall over and drown(we were walking to my friend's cabin and the normal way in had collapsed over the summer), the water over the river was moving slowly and at the lowest point it was 5 feet deep(im a tad over 6ft) and i decided it would be a good idea to cross(i was 16 at the time)
but yeah, Chainmail in walkable water is hard, Plate mail is imposable, also fun fact, chain mail only cost like 400-600$ for a decent set(DnD and TTRPGs have ruined my finances)
Realistically, a person in a D&D world who wears armor is going to be considerably more used to moving about and performing strenuous physical activity than the average person in the modern world.
Fair point, However i do work out and actively swim, im 6ft 2 and weigh 200 ish pounds, i can Calf Raise 680 pounds max(but only once, i rep about 200)
This conversation has been going on for some time and i am now at home so im gonna hop in a pool with my chain mail to see if i can swim with it Reply to me in like a hour if you want to know the results
Everybody would want an answer regardless. Thank you for putting your mail at risk.
I've only ever done the jeans and jacket swim.
Yeah, i failed, i could not swim, i could kinda but i was greatly slowed down by the drag and it was kinda exhausting, might be able to keep it up for a min, so about 6 dnd rounds, but to be fair i am strong as hell for my size,
I mean realisisticly you cant swim with armor on in real life I work out and own a set of full body metal chainmail, that thing makes walking strenuous and i have crossed a river in it before and just walking tru water is very hard, i thought i was going to fall over and drown(we were walking to my friend's cabin and the normal way in had collapsed over the summer), the water over the river was moving slowly and at the lowest point it was 5 feet deep(im a tad over 6ft) and i decided it would be a good idea to cross(i was 16 at the time)
but yeah, Chainmail in walkable water is hard, Plate mail is imposable, also fun fact, chain mail only cost like 400-600$ for a decent set(DnD and TTRPGs have ruined my finances)
I'm going to say you're wrong; but the reason is because you likely threw on some armor and never actually donned it as Medieval warriors would have. Quilted underarmor was a must.
Since I am a Master Diver and dive in chainmail I'd say you simply didn't do an accurate test. See above.
and to SimeonTor, I do in fact have under armor, if im gonna buy armor im not gonna cheep out, Plus i use it for HEMA, it is hit by stuff all the time and if i did not have under armor i would be hospitalized
to be fair my chainmail and other gear weighs 94-98 pounds all together and also those divers had air tanks and flipper's
I mean realisisticly you cant swim with armor on in real life I work out and own a set of full body metal chainmail, that thing makes walking strenuous and i have crossed a river in it before and just walking tru water is very hard, i thought i was going to fall over and drown(we were walking to my friend's cabin and the normal way in had collapsed over the summer), the water over the river was moving slowly and at the lowest point it was 5 feet deep(im a tad over 6ft) and i decided it would be a good idea to cross(i was 16 at the time)
but yeah, Chainmail in walkable water is hard, Plate mail is imposable, also fun fact, chain mail only cost like 400-600$ for a decent set(DnD and TTRPGs have ruined my finances)
Realistically, a person in a D&D world who wears armor is going to be considerably more used to moving about and performing strenuous physical activity than the average person in the modern world.
Fair point, However i do work out and actively swim, im 6ft 2 and weigh 200 ish pounds, i can Calf Raise 680 pounds max(but only once, i rep about 200)
This conversation has been going on for some time and i am now at home so im gonna hop in a pool with my chain mail to see if i can swim with it Reply to me in like a hour if you want to know the results
Dave? Dave? DAAVVEE!!??
Its time to get out of the pool Dave.
Sorry for the late response, i forgot, i allready commented the results, thanks for careing about be tho
However, being positively buoyant in a body of water while wearing platemail is still very different from being able to actually fight in deep water while wearing said platemail. Sure, the quilted undergarment might improve your buoyancy, but it sure as heck isn't going to contribute to you hitting a swimming target that 9/10 times will be more agile than you are in your puffed up, water-logged quilt underwear and a suit of armor not designed for water-maneuverability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
65 lbs of armor (absent overcoat) displaces about 8 lb, steel 8x denser than water. The overcoat gives positive buoyancy until it becomes waterlogged, which will not take very long unless specially designed for the purpose (padding under armor is normally not designed to be watertight, it's designed to wick sweat away), and will then be mostly neutral.
I've been very very specific that medieval armor wearers wear a quilted undercoat and that is where all the displacement comes from. You're just not appreciating how much displacement actually comes from said coat. Having actually been in the ocean in my firefighting gear; I have direct knowledge of just how buoyant one is in a quilted coat.
It is irrelevant whether or not the padding is "water tight". It is because it is thick, adding thickness to your overall mass; adding "volume" as it were.
You are much, much less dense wearing a water logged quilted coat than you are wearing no coat at all.
The same effect is true of modern (neoprene) wetsuits; which are themselves waterlogged. Wearing only a 7mm full suit and hood, a 6foot man of about 200lbs size will need about 30 lbs weights to be neutrally buoyant in seawater. And perhaps 25lbs in freshwater. It's simply an issue of density; adding 14mm thickness to your body makes you very much "less dense".
Another example are the mark V wetsuit and diving hats which weighed about 135 pounds. (yes...135 POUNDS)
It was completely water logged (as you suggest would make a difference in buoyancy) and you still needed about 55 additional pounds of weight to keep you submerged. (A weight of 190 lbs was common for Mark V Dress)
I'm not trying to be a butthead about this; I'm just emphasizing how wrong people are about it in general. It's just not something people have a lot of experience with.
I almost guarantee that fully armored knight wearing a quilted undercoat with plate mail would likely float or at least be able to swim. I'd be shocked if they couldn't. That being said; I'd be open to an actual test to find out. I couldn't find a realistic one. I found people throwing themselves into lakes with chainmail and a shirt..that test would be invalid. Wearing chainmail and being naked underneath would cause you to sink like a stone.
It absolutely matters whether the padding is water tight. The buoyancy of dry padding is equal to its volume (times the density of water) minus its weight. The flotation of wet padding is equal to that plus the weight of any water it has absorbed. Which, if fully soaked, is enough to reduce its buoyancy to a negative value (the cloth fibers themselves are generally denser than water, the flotation is provided by trapped air).
The reason a neoprene suit floats is because it's made of a closed-cell foam that traps air (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoprene#Aquatics), it would otherwise sink (solid neoprene is denser than water). This is completely irrelevant to medieval armor; the padding in medieval armor is cloth.
I guess the question would be whether the traditional padding (or whatever padding is traditional in any given D&D campaign) is sufficiently water resistant as not to become fully waterlogged. Or perhaps, not even at all. Given it is a fantasy setting and there is no specific rule either way, that is a decision that can be left entirely up to any given DM.
It also matters, if we're trying to be realistic, how long it would take to become waterlogged. If you quickly wade a stream, then it won't become waterlogged. If you're following Jar Jar to Otoh Gunga, then it probably would.
We've long, long left the point where I think there's actually any value for effort in terms of realism.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, i failed, i could not swim, i could kinda but i was greatly slowed down by the drag and it was kinda exhausting, might be able to keep it up for a min, so about 6 dnd rounds, but to be fair i am strong as hell for my size,
and to SimeonTor, I do in fact have under armor, if im gonna buy armor im not gonna cheep out, Plus i use it for HEMA, it is hit by stuff all the time and if i did not have under armor i would be hospitalized
to be fair my chainmail and other gear weighs 94-98 pounds all together and also those divers had air tanks and flipper's
Sorry for the late response, i forgot, i allready commented the results, thanks for careing about be tho
I would just live by the encumbrance rules and say that if your encumbered you can not swim.
The "OP Wizard" with Heavy armor when the DM decides to use Encumbrance Rules:"NOOOOOO, Thats not Fair"
However, being positively buoyant in a body of water while wearing platemail is still very different from being able to actually fight in deep water while wearing said platemail. Sure, the quilted undergarment might improve your buoyancy, but it sure as heck isn't going to contribute to you hitting a swimming target that 9/10 times will be more agile than you are in your puffed up, water-logged quilt underwear and a suit of armor not designed for water-maneuverability.