I never understood why, starting as far back as it was feasible, soldiers didn't have some kind of metal plating (relatively thin I guess for mobility) that they wore under their clothes covering their mid-section (front and back)...? No guarantee obviously, but still could have saved many lives.
-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
-
You may need to edit your signatures. When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.
Why didn't foot soldiers do this back when
- Thread starter bigred
- Start date
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
They did, right up until gunpowder was invented.
However, in reality, I think you would have to look at the body locations where most injuries occur in a gunpowder environment, of high frag explosives and so on. The British introduced the steel helmet in WWI.
Here is a short LindyBeige You tube video on the introduction of the steel helmet and how various statistics where rightly and wrongly applied to its safety benefit.
The Great WW1 Helmet Mystery / 3minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQE0uZUMys
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Thermal
August Member
And the additional weight of steel heavy enough to stop rifle rounds? You'd have some slow and tired soldiers carrying another 40 or so pounds of plate steel.
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,842
They did.
As far back as we can go when metal, be it bronze or iron, was available, soldiers protected themselves with at least a metal plating, or mail, that covered the torso.
The amount of soldiers that were thus protected varied according to who had to buy those protection. If it was provided by the powers that be, the protected fraction of the army was bigger than when a soldier was expected to provide his own. With, in that case, professional soldiers being more protected than conscripted peasants. The stuff being expensive and such.
Even after the introduction of firearms, this continued as long as the main killing method on the battlefield was still the cold steel of swords and spears/lances. (example the 80 year war against Spain). The moment firearms took over as the main killer, this protection disappeared, as protecting against bullets would mean the protecting armour would become too heavy for use on the battlefield. Witness the Napoleonic era.
About the only exceptions during the Napoleonic era, would be cavalry. There the weight issue was a bit less, as the horse would carry it for you and the main weapon you would encounter during actual battle would be sabres or lances. With the armour then being actually usefull again.
The moment where firearms and in this also case rate of fire, were good enough to threaten even these soldiers, as it was during the American Civil War, they ditched their armour as well.
It is only during the last decades where armour can be light enough (relatively) and still be usefull against the expected firearms, that body armour returned to the battlefield.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
One only needs to take a look at what mediaeval knights and generals were wearing. Attached is a picture of the armour of King Erik XIV circa 1562, commissioned in Dresden and made mainly of wrought iron with embossments and engravings of various battles and imaginary medals. It was taken as war booty by the Danes after a sea battle and can be seen at a Swedish museum.
Erik XIV died in captivity in a castle (Gripsholm, I believe - he was moved around) but not - unsurprisingly - in battle. This bespoke armoury for man and horse must have cost the equivalent of £250,000 in today's terms. It can be readily appreciated why his 'countrymen' - and some might say, cannon fodder - could not afford to be similarly attired, having to make do with wooden armour or, if well off, chainmail, which is incredibly heavy, especially for a foot soldier. Of course, it was the foot soldiers who didn't really stand a chance against cavalry.
Attachments
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,842
Maybe that's why Bigred was specifying the armour to be for the torso? That is something else completely, as what you show here.
And footsoldiers do stand a reasonable chance against cavalry. Provided they have a lot of spears/lances or things like that and they have alot of discipline and are willing to just stand there in the right formation.
The last part, discipline, being the most important one. Not something that you can expect with conscripted peasants, but which actually does work.
How important discipline is, you can see during the lunatic Ney attack scene in the 1970 movie Waterloo (the aerial view of that scene, to be precise).
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,842
True.
But there the most important disadvantage of the armour, its weight, didn't count for much, as they wouldn't have to move (other than ducking back into cover).
The moment the war got mobile again, this armour was ditched.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The earliest effective infantry army of early modern history was that of the Spanish tercios who had a unique system of combined arms and armoured footmen.
How it worked:
Whilst this was highly effective and successful for the Spanish, the truth is, foot soldiers were generally a motley crew, standing in the clothes on their back and armed with makeshift farming implements, such as pikes and pickaxes and often only wooden shields. Sure, in the popular imagination and as depicted in oil paintings, these soldiers were all dressed in splendid uniform, wearing bronze helmets topped by plumes made of ostrich feathers or horse-hair and brandishing magnificent swords as they fight face-to-face to the death on the battle fields. Of course, the standard bearers and the drummers and cornets at the front would be dressed in the king's colours but the vast majority of foot soldiers - who were useful in providing the sheer numbers to intimidate and surround the enemy - often as not had to turn up in their own clothing or as sewn together by their womenfolk into some kind of uniform. Swords were incredibly expensive being crafted by skilled workmen using scarce materials. The average foot soldier in north European wars was woefully unprepared for war and many died of the plague or hypothermia without ever stepping into battle. Quite often the large wooden shields were there to defend the firearms discharger - of early guns - against the force of back firing rather than any concern over individual soldiers being shot. Their main defence against gunfire was hunkering down in trenches, a key war strategy.
How it worked:
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Tercio
Whilst this was highly effective and successful for the Spanish, the truth is, foot soldiers were generally a motley crew, standing in the clothes on their back and armed with makeshift farming implements, such as pikes and pickaxes and often only wooden shields. Sure, in the popular imagination and as depicted in oil paintings, these soldiers were all dressed in splendid uniform, wearing bronze helmets topped by plumes made of ostrich feathers or horse-hair and brandishing magnificent swords as they fight face-to-face to the death on the battle fields. Of course, the standard bearers and the drummers and cornets at the front would be dressed in the king's colours but the vast majority of foot soldiers - who were useful in providing the sheer numbers to intimidate and surround the enemy - often as not had to turn up in their own clothing or as sewn together by their womenfolk into some kind of uniform. Swords were incredibly expensive being crafted by skilled workmen using scarce materials. The average foot soldier in north European wars was woefully unprepared for war and many died of the plague or hypothermia without ever stepping into battle. Quite often the large wooden shields were there to defend the firearms discharger - of early guns - against the force of back firing rather than any concern over individual soldiers being shot. Their main defence against gunfire was hunkering down in trenches, a key war strategy.
Last edited:
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,842
Yes.
This was in the time when firearms were important on the battlefield, but weren't capable enough yet to become the main killer there and thus torso armour still had its value.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I'm curious how thick steel would need to be to stop black powder rounds. They are pretty slow and heavy, nowhere near the penetrative power of modern smokeless firearms.
I assume that you are correct and weight is the consideration. Weight is always the enemy of the infantry.
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,842
As always.
The answer is, 'it depends'.
There's a world of difference in penetration capability, between a bullet of a musket in the age of the Tercio's, A Brown Bess musket of Napoleonic era, A Minie ball firing rifle of American Civil War era or one of the last black powder rifles, like the French Gras mle 1874.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Interesting example of a civil war officer surviving what would almost certainly had been a fatal gunshot thanks to a steel vest.
https://emergingcivilwar.com/2019/05/13/colonel-albert-bracketts-body-armor/
The way it is described, I wonder if it wasn't some sort of ring mail rather than solid armor. Article describes him being injured, perhaps with a broken rib, from the impact, but still being able to continue fighting.
Even nowadays, when more money and care is spent keeping soldiers alive, weight is a big consideration, and too much armor is a real problem if it makes soldiers slow and easy targets.
Apparently bullet proof vests were sold to American civil war soldiers, but were pricey, uncomfortable, heavy, and of dubious effectiveness.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2013/04/failed-objects-bullet-proof-vests-and-design-in-the-american-civil-war.html
http://discussions.mnhs.org/collections/2011/11/william-leducs-civil-war-body-armor/
https://emergingcivilwar.com/2019/05/13/colonel-albert-bracketts-body-armor/
The way it is described, I wonder if it wasn't some sort of ring mail rather than solid armor. Article describes him being injured, perhaps with a broken rib, from the impact, but still being able to continue fighting.
Even nowadays, when more money and care is spent keeping soldiers alive, weight is a big consideration, and too much armor is a real problem if it makes soldiers slow and easy targets.
Apparently bullet proof vests were sold to American civil war soldiers, but were pricey, uncomfortable, heavy, and of dubious effectiveness.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2013/04/failed-objects-bullet-proof-vests-and-design-in-the-american-civil-war.html
http://discussions.mnhs.org/collections/2011/11/william-leducs-civil-war-body-armor/
Last edited:
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,842
gypsyjackson
Master Poster
Were there ever any real examples of soldiers being saved by a steel cigarette case? Blackadder aside.
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,842
Not that many, I would wager.
Not only would you need to be in the exact range for the bullet to not have too much energy, in order to be stopped. But in the time, this would be possible (black powder bullets) I don't think too many people would smoke cigarettes (and carry them in a metal case).
It's a numbers game. The only real wars where this could occur are the Amrican Civil war and the Crimean War, I'd guess.
On the other hand. Numbers, being numbers, there's proof of bullets hitting each other. So, anything's possible.
gypsyjackson
Master Poster
Thanks. I ask because there’s a romantic notion that mothers gave their sons cigarette cases to be kept in the breast pocket when they went off to the Great War. It sounds as if the weapons were too far advanced for it to have been effective, even if the carrier had been lucky enough to be hit there and only there.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I very much doubt it. Almost certainly not for a bullet unless it was at extreme long range and had lost most of its power.
Lighter pieces of shrapnel perhaps could be blocked by thinner materials. Flack jackets, which cannot stop a bullet, were later invented precisely to protect soldiers from lighter shrapnel that had enough energy to cause energy, but was able to be blocked by light armor.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 54,285
I would think a Martini Henry would need a considerable thickness of steel to stop it depending on the range of the target.
InrangeTV did a series of videos testing various AP ammunition.
They used standard 'ball' as a control from each gun tested. It barely made a mark on the plate they were using but the AP rounds went through.
here is the first one
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 54,285
they tested some armour too
German WW1 Trench Armour against period loads of ammunition
It is repro armour, no historic artefacts were damaged.
An original trench armour plate was surface hardened when tested was found to stop a 30.06 round at 400 yards and would shatter at 60 yards
they tested modern armour too.
German WW1 Trench Armour against period loads of ammunition
It is repro armour, no historic artefacts were damaged.
An original trench armour plate was surface hardened when tested was found to stop a 30.06 round at 400 yards and would shatter at 60 yards
they tested modern armour too.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Please tell me you're asking why soldiers have always worn their armor on top of their clothes, instead of underneath.
---
Actually I'm assuming this is supposed to be something like, "why did soldiers in the American civil war go into battle without any armor at all - not even a light plate across their torso just to increase their chances a little bit?"
That period of history after mass-produced firearms but before relatively lightweight body armor.
And the answer is, "relatively lightweight body armor". The marginal increase in survivability was generally seen as not worth the cost of the armor itself and not worth the effort of carrying around the extra weight.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Various types of body armor has been around for thousands of years.
I'd wager that pretty much as soon as we started wearing clothes for warmth some prehistoric person noticed that while not perfect if you were wearing, say just a basic, primitive heavy piece of fur or tanned leather or even early very thick woven cloth or whatnot, bites and scratches got stopped some of the time.
It might have been a while before we solidified the concept and really thought hard about, but we've probably had "armor" in some sense pretty close to as long as we've had clothes.
It might have been a while before we solidified the concept and really thought hard about, but we've probably had "armor" in some sense pretty close to as long as we've had clothes.
But, to answer the OP more directly, probably (this is all semi-educated guess work on my part) is that metal was pretty rare and expensive for a good chunk of history and offense always beats defense, so a better, larger sword/axe/whatever was simply better use of the metal you had then a lesser sword/axe/whatever and some armor which only reached the level of "technically better than nothing." A better way to stabby stabby slashy slashy the other guy is a better return on investment then a marginal offset on getting stabby stabby slashy slashy-ed by the other guy.
Speaking personally but unless in a pre-gunpowder age unless I could go full plate I'd rather have as many back up weapons of the highest quality I could reasonable carry before I'd start wasting the weight and cost on metal armor.
And yes weight does suck for an infantryman. It's why literally everyone who hates the M4 as a "weak little plastic weapon" still loves carrying the thing because you can carry it and enough ammo to make a difference without giving up the ability to move.
Speaking personally but unless in a pre-gunpowder age unless I could go full plate I'd rather have as many back up weapons of the highest quality I could reasonable carry before I'd start wasting the weight and cost on metal armor.
And yes weight does suck for an infantryman. It's why literally everyone who hates the M4 as a "weak little plastic weapon" still loves carrying the thing because you can carry it and enough ammo to make a difference without giving up the ability to move.
Last edited:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 54,285
and get run through by a spear.
For the individual, the question often comes down to a choice between protection and mobility. Armor will protect against some, but not all, threats, where agility may keep you from being hit all.
From my own experience as C-130 aircrew, mobility is considered more important. For the Bosnia airdrop operations we were issued flack jackets with survival vests fitted over them for each mission. On arrival at the aircraft we would take the survival vest off the body armor and readjust it to fit properly without the armor. The flack jackets were then stacked out of the way, or substituted for the seat cushions.
The flak jacket issued at that time would not stop an AK round, and was not compatible with the flight helmet, so had strong negatives, and few positives.
From my own experience as C-130 aircrew, mobility is considered more important. For the Bosnia airdrop operations we were issued flack jackets with survival vests fitted over them for each mission. On arrival at the aircraft we would take the survival vest off the body armor and readjust it to fit properly without the armor. The flack jackets were then stacked out of the way, or substituted for the seat cushions.
The flak jacket issued at that time would not stop an AK round, and was not compatible with the flight helmet, so had strong negatives, and few positives.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
There is a direct relationship between the increasing power of firearms and the decline of steel body armour.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,533
In theory, in the 17th century a Cuirrassier's breastplate or Pikeman's breast plate was supposed to be made 'proofe'. It was supposed to have a dent in the armor to show where it was shot during the proof procedure. Of course, they often used a pistol or Caliver bullet to proof the armor, or faked it entirely. A musket round had much greater power. But the cost, ineffectiveness, and increase in musketry (with decline of the Pike) in the field led to armor being pretty much taking a nosedive later in that century.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,533
I read an article once about how when the Union Army was first being built up many soldiers from slightly wealthier families would show up with bulletproof vests (of undetermined effectiveness) and a handgun to use against the rebs at close range. Both of these were often bought by worrisome parents for their boys.
The officers had to confiscate the handguns, as they knew they would more likely be used against fellow Union soldiers in a camp brawl than against the rebel soldiers.
But they didn't bother confiscating the armor. They just let that lesson teach itself. Most of the vests were likely dumped in the first river the newly minted soldiers crossed.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
I've long thought it interesting that the 19th century was pretty much the only one in which (ok, Western) soldiers DIDN't have armor. Or at least helmets.
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
In the Iliad, Homer clearly writes, every time, that if any Greek or Trojan fell, the victor would immediately claim his armour. That certainly suggests the cost of armour.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
More, actually. A rifle round in WW1 needed about half an inch of steel to stop, which also is why tanks were about that armoured, in case you ever wondered.
But let's do some maths. Let's say you need about 0.4 square metre of steel to protect your torso decently from the front. Let's also say you go with about 12.5mm of steel to actually have a reasonable chance to stop a rifle round.
It's marginally not enough, actually. It won't stop even a normal round if it hits perpendicularly, and it definitely won't stop a reversed round, and much less a steel core round. But it will stop normal rounds if they hit angled at all, so let's go with what makes the maths easy.
So that's about 0.4*0.0125=0.005m3 of steel. At a density of about 8000 kg/m3 (give or take a few, depending on the exact alloy,) yeah, that's more like 40kg of steel. Almost twice those 40 pounds.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Lindy is right about some things, but ridiculously wrong about others. In particular about helmets he does the usual nerd idiocy of thinking that if he just heard about survivor bias, certainly nobody else did. I mean, the allies may have been good enough at statistics to determine the exact armament production of Germany, or break several nations' encryption, but surely they were stupid enough to never have heard of survivor bias, if Lindy wasn't there to tell them about it.
Derp.
In reality, there is another well documented phenomenon which Lindy seems to have never heard about, namely that people adjust their behaviour according to the perceived level of risk. If they think that X makes them safer (whether justified or not,) they'll take higher risks than without X, pretty much placing themselves at the same level of risk they find acceptable.
Basically if you put a railing next to a cliff edge, more people go up to the cliff edge to look down.
This can get as ridiculous as that people who were told they were given a lucky ball played golf more aggressively. Which can be unimportant or even good if we're talking about just a golf game with no extra stakes, but bad if you poke your head out of the trench when there's a sniper around. And the use of snipers rose sharply through WW1.
And in WW1 they discovered just that: soldiers who thought that the helmet can stop bullets were actually more inclined to poke their head out and get shot in the head. THAT is why they briefly considered whether or not it's a better idea to recall the helmets.
Of course, it IS possible for the effect to be smaller than the actual benefits. E.g., a railing may still stop more lives even if it makes more people come to the edge and lean over it. E.g., in the case of helmets, it still prevented more deaths from getting hit in the head by a big rock thrown around by a heavy artillery shell, even if, yes, there was an actual increase in soldiers shot in the head.
Last edited:
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,842
Agree about Lindy Beige.
He's certainly enthousiastic about a wide range of subject and he has a way of bringing this clearly for the listener. And everything he says sounds very logical.
Untill the one subject, where I happened to know quite some bit about it and then I went 'Hang on! That's not how this is! The broad general things he said were alright, but not his conclusions.'
Later, way over at Tanknet, somebody, who had been in the US army (or was at that time), said that Lindy's things about medieval fighting were alright, but everything he said about modern warfare was nonsense.
And then I heard, you guessed it, somebody, who did know a lot about HEMA fighhting, that he trusted Lindy about the modern stuff, but that Lindy should not be trusted about anything medieval.
Which confirmed my suspicions from the beginning. He sounds very logical, but the moment you actually know something about the subject, whatever it is, you go 'Hmmmm'. Which is what I did after that with everything he said, dancing excepted, because I gather he's actually a good dance teacher.
So. Lindy Beige.
Broad interest in subjects and if he does make you enthousiastic about a certain thing. Great! Go for it! Go Lindy, in that case!
But don't listen to him for actual knowledge.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
ETA: Oddly, the total. As a general rule of thumb, a soldier can haul about 60 or so pounds of weight while still remaining an effective soldier. How does one distribute that?
Weapons and ammo will use up a bunch. Armor? It used to be a thing back in they day of armor plate. It's coming back into vogue now that we have lightweight kevlar and such.
But there remains the hard limit of how much gear a soldier can carry and remain effective. There is no getting around that.
ETA: Interestingly, the total weight of a soldiers gear has remained static for centuries. Effective soldiers have a limit and that limit has not changed. Sure, the gear has changed, but the total weight has not.
Weapons and ammo will use up a bunch. Armor? It used to be a thing back in they day of armor plate. It's coming back into vogue now that we have lightweight kevlar and such.
But there remains the hard limit of how much gear a soldier can carry and remain effective. There is no getting around that.
ETA: Interestingly, the total weight of a soldiers gear has remained static for centuries. Effective soldiers have a limit and that limit has not changed. Sure, the gear has changed, but the total weight has not.
Last edited:
Not even rifles,. but muskets. Musket-proof armour existed in the 17th century but as you suggest was too heavy for all but certain cavalry or siege applications. For some reason I assumed the OP meant pre-musket.
So-called "trench armour" was actually machine gunner's armour. It was used by sentries as well though, on a limited basis.