The armour thread

Phrossack said:

I'm not really sure which period/type of armor to cover, though. I'll think of something, but any requests?

Click to expand...

I was thinking, I saw in the past some vids testing how effecting armor is, and how it's used, like the knight getting on and off the horse thing. Digging up a few of those would be interesting. And I'd be interested in the type of half armor the Spanish wore in the Conquistador days. Why that style in particular? It's very late in the evolution of armor, so what had they learned that made them go with that type of style?

flyingchicken said:

so much Old World bias in this thread



USA#1

Click to expand...

Actually, I already covered that and other American designs of WWI on the first page.

Phrossack said:

And, of course, there was the ridiculous Brewster body shield, a stupid-looking 40-lb suit that nonetheless could effortlessly stop rifle rounds. In fact, the inventor donned his suit and "stood in front of a Lewis machine gun and received an impact of a number of bullets at full-service velocity (about 2,700 foot-seconds). The inventor said the volley hit him with what felt like a tenth of the force of a sledgehammer."

Click to expand...

.....

God, I've been putting this off. Tomorrow, I promise I'll get in something on ballistic armor of WWII, and then later armor. After that, I'll go to earlier types- Roman, Greek, mail in general, 17th century plate, various medieval designs, 18th- and 19th-century body armor (yes, it existed!), and so on.

Unfortunately for my laziness, promises are binding, so I WILL get it in tomorrow.

Eskimo (?) armour:

Okay, finally forcing myself to do it.

Part Two: Body Armor from the Interwar Period to the Second World War

After the Great War, body armor started to catch on with police and civilians. Silk ballistic vests were popular among gangsters at the time. The Shanghai Municipal Police, a group of proto-SWAT team badasses under famous badass William Fairbairn (known for the Fairbairn-Sykes knife) roughly handled looters, murderers, gangs, rioters, and others in that chaotic city, but they made sure to wear protection.



The infamous American gangsters Kate Barker and John Dillinger both used them. Dillinger was repeatedly saved by his, and his gang often stole vests from police armories. These vests were made of silk, and could stop most pistol rounds of the time quite effectively.



Their use among criminals provoked the development of the .357 Magnum round, which was intended to be able to penetrate silk vests and car doors. The use of silk ballistic vests was nothing new; similar vests were used in late 19th century Korea, and other designs were also popular around the world. Archduke Franz Ferdinand wore one such vest, though he was unfortunately shot in the neck. But more on pre-war designs later.

Silk vests had issues, though: they were expensive ($800 in 1900 money, which is several thousand today). They were also hot, and couldn't stop anything more than the average round from a service revolver. Still, it's pretty remarkable that you can protect yourself from a piece of metal flying at hundreds of feet per second with something you pulled out of a caterpillar's ass.

By the Second World War, most of the old designs of the first war seem to have been forgotten or discarded, and soldiers do not seem to have bought their own armor. However, some countries did invest in new designs. The USSR made a variety of models of steel breastplates culminating in the SN-42. Information on this armor is hard to come by. It was issued to ShISBr RGK (assault engineers) for urban combat and ordnance disposal. Supposedly, it could stop 9mm rounds from an MP-40 at 100 meters, as well as most shrapnel. This sounds odd, since the MP-40's maximum effective range is around 100 meters. The SN-42 weighed 3.5 kg (7.7 lbs), enough to make soldiers complain but much less than modern designs.



This video probably has more information for anyone who speaks Russian.

The Japanese also apparently used their own designs during the war. It's almost impossible to find any info on these designs, though. They were used in combat because several examples were captured by the Allies after battles.



Later in the war, the US began to issue armor as well. The M12 vest was made of a fiberglass laminate called Doron, and saw action on Okinawa. It provided some protection from shrapnel, but little else.


I'm not covering flak jackets, because honestly I think they're boring as they were never meant to stop bullets.

Buletproof vests were invented already before WW1 by two Polish inventors - Kazimierz Żegleń and Jan Szczepanik:

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

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

Back in 2008 I wrote more about their inventions on this forum (but text is in Polish):

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=30511&st=15

First tests of Żegleń's ballistic vest (made of fabric) took place on 16 March 1897.

On 4 June 1897 he carried out some more tests using a dead body of a woman.

Szczepanik's version of ballistic fabric was tested a bit later - in 1901.

Phrossack said:

I'm not covering flak jackets, because honestly I think they're boring as they were never meant to stop bullets.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but remember that during the Great War the vast majority of deaths were from shrapnel, rather than direct hits from bullets. Military body armour can quite happily stop small bullets, particularly fired from a distance, by which I mean pistol calibres and some small assault rifles. However, large rounds such as .308/7.62mm require such heavy protection that it's simply not worth it. Nevertheless, being guarded against the general detritus which an awful lot of weapons produce is certainly helpful. Helmets also serve the more mundane purpose of, well, making sure troops don't bash their heads on resistant surfaces, which happens more often than you'd think.

Flying Pig, did you wear body armor in the military? If yes, what was it like wearing it?

Yes, and it does work. The difficulty is that it's hot and heavy to wear, which means that you often end up leaving it behind when speed or endurance are of the essence. It's also waterproof, a fact which is often overlooked but becomes of great interest when you're somewhere cold and wet with it on. That said, I'm not sure you'll ever find a soldier entirely happy to be carrying around fifty pounds or so of the stuff.

Domen said:

P0l@nd

Click to expand...

I didn't cover Zeglen for two reasons: One, he was pre-WWI, and I haven't done that yet. Two, it's best to avoid any discussion of that country on this forum. Nothing good ever comes of it. Ever.

Also, and this is important, very few of CFCers can actually read that language.

Flying Pig said:

Maybe so, but remember that during the Great War the vast majority of deaths were from shrapnel, rather than direct hits from bullets. Military body armour can quite happily stop small bullets, particularly fired from a distance, by which I mean pistol calibres and some small assault rifles. However, large rounds such as .308/7.62mm require such heavy protection that it's simply not worth it. Nevertheless, being guarded against the general detritus which an awful lot of weapons produce is certainly helpful. Helmets also serve the more mundane purpose of, well, making sure troops don't bash their heads on resistant surfaces, which happens more often than you'd think.

Click to expand...

By flak jackets, I meant the original kind used by airmen to protect against flak shrapnel. Now, I'm not discounting the value of shrapnel protection; it's often the leading killer and maimer in a lot of wars, and even light armor would have gone a long way in the Great War. It's just that I don't find the airmen's gear or light anti-shrapnel vests very interesting.

As for helmets, shrapnel protection is their main purpose (that, and, as you said, head-bumping protection). However, it's important to note that even the original Brodies were tested by having one from each batch shot at close range with a service revolver. Some of the latest helmets are far superior. And these days it actually is feasible to protect against 7.62mm, even 7.62x51mm NATO armor-piercing rounds! More on that in my next post.

Nothing is better than "armoured trousers":

I'm disappointed this thread isn't about tanks and other military vehicles.

I'm disappointed this thread isn't about tanks and other military vehicles.

Click to expand...

Let's change this.

1) Mighty American Rolling Ball Tank (World War 1):



2) Fearsome German Kugel Panzer - Ball Tank (World War 2):

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




Aren't they surprisingly similar? Technology stealing (20 years too late) ???

A rarity below:

Saxon Cuirassiers, but armed, armoured and equipped in a Winged Hussar-fashion (including helmets) during Polish-Saxon military exercise in 1732:

On the left - officer of the Cuirassiers of the Guard Regiment. On the right - soldier of the Cuirassier Regiment "Kurprinz":



Painted by Johann Samuel Mock.

==================================

Russian horse archer (left) and Polish cavalry from the eastern region called Mazovia - first half of the 13th century:

In the center is duke Konrad of Mazovia (the same who invited the Teutonic Order to Poland to fight against Pagan Prussians):



The armour of Konrad and his horse are based on seals of Konrad of Mazovia - mounted seal (1230s) and dismounted seal (1220s):

(but his helmet should be rather a one-piece helmet, not made of tiles like it is painted above):



Picture was painted by Dariusz Bufnal - his website below:

http://dariusz-bufnal-imaging-battles.blogspot.com/

Another Mazovian duke - Ziemowit I (born ca. 1215, died 23 June 1262):



Mazovian armour style was different (much more "eastern") from that used in other parts of Poland.

Poles from Mazovia were using a style of armour more similar to that used by their "eastern" enemies - Lithuanians, Prussians, Russians.

==============================

Doppelnsolder Landsknecht (16th century) by Dariusz Bufnal:

The french (dunno about others) had Cuirassiers right up to the WWI. Here are some nice photos:

French Cuirassiers 1901-1914

The french (dunno about others) had Cuirassiers right up to the WWI.

Click to expand...

Germans and Russians too.

But the French had more (in 1914 France had 12 regiments, Germany 10 regiments and Russia 4 regiments of cuirassiers).

Here a photo of French cuirassiers in August 1914, marching from Paris to the frontline:



Cuirassiers as a separate cavalry type first evolved in Austria in year 1484.

But of course at that time they did not look like 19th century cuirassiers, or even like 16th and 17th century ones.

jlvfr said:

The french (dunno about others) had Cuirassiers right up to the WWI. Here are some nice photos:

French Cuirassiers 1901-1914

Click to expand...

From this link you posted above, I find these photos nice:

A bit like "Saving Cuirassier Ryan":



Wounded cuirassier in 1914:



In colour:

What was the advantage of chain mail over plate armor? I know the Roman Empire (at least from my understanding) shifted from Lorica Segmentata to Lorica Hamata. In the medieval period, both plate and chain mail seemed popular. However, any time there's a program on TV where they test armor (e.g., Deadliest Warrior or one of those other shows with lots of flash and only some substance), chain mail performs terribly. To the point where it doesn't stop any piercing weapons and doesn't really absorb that much of a blunt impact. Given what was said earlier about how hard it was to stab plate armor, I really don't see much benefit at all.

So was the armor in these TV programs just crappily made? Did chain mail really have limited usefulness? If so, what was its point?

Obviously metal plates are much more protective than mail cloth. It was a cost issue probably. Lorica Segmentata was much more expensive. I fact Romans always used chain mail before, along (auxiliar troops) and after plate armor. only at the apogee of Roman Empire plate armor was the standard for legionaries, which tells the whole story.

However, any time there's a program on TV where they test armor (e.g., Deadliest Warrior or one of those other shows with lots of flash and only some substance), chain mail performs terribly. To the point where it doesn't stop any piercing weapons and doesn't really absorb that much of a blunt impact.

Click to expand...

The reason why it performs terribly is the modern chain mail - which is usually just poor quality imitation that lacks the proper thickness (not enough layers of chains) and density (not enough chains in each layer). Plate armour also performs terribly in some tests, while in other tests no arrow can pierce it.

The reality is that a good quality chain mail provided good protection even against arrows.

Accounts say about crusaders who continued to fight despite looking like hedgehogs due to all the Muslim arrows sticking from their chain mails.

In the medieval period, both plate and chain mail seemed popular.

Click to expand...

In most cases soldiers were using both at the same time - wearing plate armour and chain mail below it.

What was the advantage of chain mail over plate armor?

Click to expand...

I think that chain mail - being more elastic - could provide better protection against some types of crushing blunt weapons.

Maybe (but here I'm not sure) it also provided better protection from some types of stab weapons which had enough power to pierce plate.

But chain mail was a heavy armour - its weight was usually greater than weight of more technologically advanced plate armour.

It seems that chain mail also limited body moves of a soldier using it more than an advanced plate armour did.

AFAIK, plate armour provided also much better protection than chain mail against cutting blows - so against weapons such as swords.

And perhaps no chain mail could stop a crossbow bolt or a musket ball - while there were such types of thick plate armors which could stop both.

As for Lorica Segmentata I have read that there were allegedly some cases when it protected against projectiles shot by ballistas.

I've also read about a case when plate armour saved a soldier's life when a cannon ball hit him (he was severely injured but survived).