Every test I've seen where attempting to pierce mail and/or padding underneath is done over a solid surface, like a wooden pell. I'd like to see one over a ballistics gel torso, or something that has the same "give" as a human body being struck. I'd bet the penetration and break rates are lower when the target has movement to it, rather than a fixed solid backing.
In my opinion, the tests we've seen against those solid-backed targets are more indicative of what might happen if you got shot / thrusted when you had your back solid against a solid object (like a wall), and not a battlefield attack.
This is a very important point. Part of the reason mail armor works as well as it does, is because it's a machine with moving parts. The links pull in around the "puckering" caused by a thrust, using more of them to spread the impact. But to do so, the material underneath has to be soft. Padding will help. A person underneath can provide this as well. The damage to the armor will always be greater when it can't move.
But having said that, you can put considerable force behind a spear, and mail with or without padding may be insufficient protection.
do you think it's possible padding was made with boiled wool to help create a greater defense?
That is causing me to do some light research on it, when it existed, and how it was used. Since wool was One of the abundant materials of the middle ages, perhaps it would be possible. (Although modern padding, is mostly linen(Im not sure how historical that is)) It would really change a lot testing wise if the testers used boiled wool surcoats(also note the wool would already have to be knitted so it becomes even tighter, or from what I can gather so far)
Any armor can be compromised, there was no such thing as a fully proofed harness. Since we are talking about personal belief:
My position is this: I do not believe that mail, by itself, is effective, and that it must be combined with some sort of padding to absorb shock to allow it maximum efficiency in preventing injury from attack. I base this on scientific, controlled testing Alan Williams performed for his book “Knight and the Blast Furnaceâ€.
...it is my belief that armor was largely psychological in aspect. That is, it made the wearer more capable in a fight (or rather, that he/she believed this to be the case) and (the hope anyway) it intimidated the opponent. There are countless examples where armor did not keep its wearer from being killed. It isn't perfect- much depended on the wearer being good enough to avoid a killing blow, the armor serves to bolster that ability. That is my belief.
I can agree with this, It also creates things the knight or wealthy foot soldier would just not have to worry about.
