The armor thread

[ShotMagnet]

As in 'personal'. Let me hear your opinions, critiques, etc. My opinion is that (thank you Cole Porter) 'everything old' [will] 'be new again', and that the individual soldier will again wear armor which will be both horribly spendy and pre-eminent on the battlefield.

 

Have at.

 

 

Shot

Edited November 26, 2007 by ShotMagnet

[Manic Moran]

Dude, have you been drinking?

 

NTM

[Guest aevans]

Already happened, to the extent it's practical.

[Sardaukar]

Yep. Just look at US soldiers in combat zones.

[pikachu]

Hmm... how would you create the equivalent of Gothic plate armor with modern tech? US troopers today look more like Genghis Khan's Mongols than European knights.

[Assessor]

Hmm... how would you create the equivalent of Gothic plate armor with modern tech? US troopers today look more like Genghis Khan's Mongols than European knights.

 

 

In a sense you already have. Seusenhofer et al provided those who could afford it the best compromise between protection and mobility that was available versus the threats of the time, based on their knowledge and experience of the materials available to them. Their designs and manufacturing processes were updated to take account of user feedback and improvments in their own understanding. It was supplied to informed customers who realised that whilst it was the best there was, it wasn't perfect and could be beaten.

 

Whilst the end result looks different to what Seusenhofer made, the philosophy is the same.

[DougRichards]

Then, as usual, someone will come up with a weapons system capable of neutralising the protective capabilities of armour, and soldiers will stop wearing it as useless and restricting mobility.

 

Then better armour will come along and the cycle will repeat.

[Guest JamesG123]

Hmm... how would you create the equivalent of Gothic plate armor with modern tech? US troopers today look more like Genghis Khan's Mongols than European knights.

 

Probably not.

[KingSargent]

Probably not.

Picture is from the Waterloo Room at L'Invilades, right?

[Guest JamesG123]

Believe so yes.

 

Came across that pic on the net a while a go and have been looking for an excuse to use it. Its quite "striking".

[DougRichards]

Believe so yes.

 

Came across that pic on the net a while a go and have been looking for an excuse to use it. Its quite "striking".

A bit more history on that cuirass: worn by Francios-Antione Fauveau at Waterloo. The wearer was 23 when killed by a cannonball.

 

The major points here are that he was hit by a cannon ball for goodness sake, no armour ever worn by an individual would ever have been able to protect from that sort of impact. It is highly unlikely that the wearer would have been adequately protected from musket fire. The cuirass was meant to protect from other cavalry weapons such as the sabre and the lance, not firearms. There were also psychological reasons to wear armour.

[dpapp2]

Wasn't a cuirass adequate to stop pistol shots (another cavalry weapon)?

[Assessor]

Wasn't a cuirass adequate to stop pistol shots (another cavalry weapon)?

 

Depends. Earlier ones were sometimes "proof marked" indicating they had resisted a pistol shot. But, then as now, it depends on the pistol, the load, the point of impact, the range etc, etc, etc. I think by the Napoleonic age they made little pretence of resisting any sort of firearm. By the English Civil War, many cavalrymen considered a good leather coat (a "buff") and a helmet were sufficient protection against slashes, and that the sort of armour needed to reliably protect versus firearms (not just pistols, as you'd be right up close and personal with musket-armed infantry) was too heavy to allow the wearer to manouver effectively. Hence the abandonment of body armour except for helmets up until 20-30 years ago. As other authors have observed, it cycles. Currently armour is cost and weight effective versus many common infantry weapons. Eventually, it won't be again, and it'll repeat.

[Guest JamesG123]

At the Ft. Benning library they have on display another French Cuirass with a neat musket hole dead center of the chest.

[mikegolf]

Just as a public service announcement:

 

DO NOT TEST THE EMERGENCY QUICK DISCONNECT on your new IOTV (Replaces IBAS).

 

1. It does work very well.

 

2. You need the finger dexterity of a microcosmic artist to get the d$#@ed thing back together again.

 

I had a soldier "try it out" right after being told not to. All 4 parts of the vest dropped off in short order, then he (we) spent an hour putting it back together.

 

Good feature to have in medical emergencies.