Yep, a bit like "Die Hard". Lots of spectacle. Whether or not it accurately represents what went on is hard to verify at this distance in time. About the only _reliable_ source is battlefield bodies, such as at Wisby (only 100 years too late). Everything else, whether pictorial or written, is subject to the same cautions regarding sensationalism.
On the other hand, check out the "test cutting" sites at
http://www.thehaca.com/spotlight/TestCutting/TestCuttingEvent2.htm and
http://cuttingtest.tripod.com/cuttingtestphotos/index.htmlWhile not perfect tests (one day we'll get full scientific tests that are (i) complete and (ii) independently verifiable), they are a good step in the right direction. There is a thread about what would constitute a proper test of armour at
http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001032.htmlWe still really don't know for sure, no matter how much theorising goes on, until it is properly and fully tested. Till then, it all tends to be hot air. Fun, though.
------------------
Egfroth
Major Bloodnok, Queen's Forty-Third Deserters (retd.) "Do you know what it's like to be in the thick of a bloody battle, with bullets flying and sabres clashing?"
Ned Seagoon: "No."
Bloodnok: "Pity; I was hoping you could tell me . . ."
see my webpage at
www.geocities.com/egfrothos[This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 04-06-2002).]