45 replies to this topic

[HaSY]

how did the bronze armor fell out of use?
and is paper armor effective?

[Boleslaw I]

No, the top plate armour of the 16th century was virtually invulnerable to anything other than axe and clubs,(which is used to deform the armour and not piercing it) it could even prevent a bullet from 200 yards. Combosite bows would not even make a mark on it in 200 yard in fact even in just 50 yards it is unlikely to penetrate, and even if a good angle shot pierced it, the mail inside would still deflect the bolt and preventing any damage.

I agree with warhead in this premise. It is true that plate armour in late 15th century and 16th century is Medieval Kevlar.



This is the best armour piercing equipment using in late 15th century. Elegant but deadly, its casualties is incredible.

[青島Aoshima]

[quote name='TMPikachu' post='4698395' date='Jan 30 2005, 11:35 PM']As much as I hate to say, European armor surpassed that used in the East. The latest forms of plate armor made the wearer pretty much impervious to sword blows, you'd have to nail him with a powerful crossbow bolt, a pick, a polearm, a greatsword or a gun pretty hard to bring him down. No part of the body was exposed (well, a little so you can see, but not much). Anything that can penetrate the plate of the late rennaissance will penetrate any Chinese armor.
The tailor made form fitting plate armors are pretty much the pinnacle of armor design. They were around 70lbs at most, distributed well throughout the body. A wearer could move well in them, though the armor gets tiring to wear as it has no ventilation (bad for hot weather).

If you want it lighter, it came lighter, in forms where it was just torso, pauldrons, and skirt.

For sheer protective value and skill, Europeans eventually had better armourers.

Then again, I've never seen a set of 'real' Chinese lion armor before. Shian Wei Kia, Mountain pattern scale, whatever it's called.
That could be an armor that could be seen as 'equal' to plate armor, with its ingenius design of interlocking scales.
My favorite is the armour of the Tang and the Ming. The Tang for their dragon/beast head sleaves, and the ming for just making cool mountain pattern armour.

when it comes down to it really, I can't say. It's just that I've NEVER seen a real version of this armour, I've seen real versions of European armour, which makes the latter more attractive.[/quote]
the european armour display u have there only appeared in later times as firearms were already invented...

[quote name='青島Aoshima' post='4909361' date='Oct 29 2007, 02:54 AM']...by the way that nice eurpoean helmet of yours there really disables the persons view to the side...try blocking the left or right of your eye with something (which has small holes) and if you tell me you can see something clear then your eyes scar me...that might be why some people dont know how they died...

[quote name='TMPikachu' post='4698561' date='Jan 31 2005, 09:42 AM']Wow, so only the Zhanmadao actually cut through armor? Interesting. Where was this test done?

Also, that picture of brigandine has the plates removed I believe. Probably a set of court 'armour'.

I wouldn't say the red/black ant is too good an example though. Red ants win by numbers, and brings up the image of the 'horde' that is usually attributed to Asian warfare.[/quote]
umm...european armour isnt as protective as you think it is...go by a set wear it and ill slash you with a halbert

by the way...the more light and felxible your armour is then the less internal damage there is...you would get cuts and other wounds but at least your amrour wouldnt pass the potential of the force onto you...i show you with a mace...

[quote name='青島Aoshima' post='4909364' date='Oct 29 2007, 03:22 AM']umm...european armour isnt as protective as you think it is...go by a set wear it and ill slash you with a halbert

by the way...the more light and felxible your armour is then the less internal damage there is...you would get cuts and other wounds but at least your amrour wouldnt pass the potential of the force onto you...i show you with a mace...[/quote]
And also if you are a racsist please talk about this on fightclub.com not on a chinese history forum...and by the way thank the silkroad around the Han dynasty brought the technology of crossbows to europe...know the origin of stuff before you start saying stuff about it....

by all means there isnt an actual best armour you'll get hurt anyway main parts which has a chance to save you would b a sheild and a helmet...a plate? hmm no matter wat angle you make it, itll always have flat faces which doesnt protect much...unless you want to wear a metal ball which has the ability to make sword slide off its surface...oh by the way that sounds like a good idea for fat people in the western world?

Edited by Yang Zongbao, 29 October 2007 - 03:41 PM.

[青島Aoshima]

Later european armour does provide good protection against arrows...but considering why the romans use short swords instead of big heavey weapons...they would simply use their big sheild against weapons like longswords and wait for all the weight which the opponent is carrying to drain his energy and the romans would simply give him a stab up the armpits...so wats all that armour about?

yet stronger crossbows have been developed to penetrate heavy plates...halberts are also good against heavy plate armour...by all means dressing yourself with all this steel disables your moblility...eg during the mongolian empries and their domination towards the west.. the european knights only had one horse as the mongols each had 2 or 3 so they can switch horses as one gets tired... the european knights armour weight not only wastes the energy of himself but also the horses which makes them slow and also would have trouble to catch the mongols...more than that archers of the europeans could only shoot 1 arrow in 2 mins as the mongols could shoot 8 in 2mins

it all relates to some mistakes humans make about the bigger the better....well not always

Edited by 青島Aoshima, 29 October 2007 - 04:08 AM.

[nicholas]

I wonder does Qin's crossbow will penetrate the european armor

[Luk]

‘The difference was the change of warfare and the focus.

Yes plate armor was almost invunerable to any conventional weapon, but by the time the true full plates were around guns were already developing fast. thus the full plates never played much of a role in european warfare as muskets became the mainstream. it's main reason for developing also had far more to do with the aritocratic nature of Europe during that time, in which the nobles try to seek better and better protection over other practicalities... like the fact that the time and metal spent on a good platemail for themself could probably be made into weapons for many other more men.

China by that time was no longer a aristocratic society, military men cared a lot about praticality, both in battle and in production, what kind of armor can be mass produced to fit the incrediable lage army, what weapon would be most effective? armor became ever lighter by the later Ming particularly because firearms are becomming too effective for anything to stop it while still being mass producable’

Thats exactly it, medieval knight was a noble, he wasn’t just a soldier in army.

“Knight was a man that lived between the 12th and 17th centuries who was pledged to serve his liege or king in military service. Generally this pledge was termed that the knight would serve 40 days of each year in military combat for his king. In exchange the knight would receive loot from battles, his own estate and position in the King's court.”

Knights were equipping themselves, they were not regular army and they were called only in time of need. Now about the armor, the funny thing is that knights going to battle often not really even wanted to kill knight they were fighting, they wanted to defeat them yes but if that was possible they wanted to keep them alive. Espacially the rich ones could count on the opponent’s “mercy”. That was exactly because they were noble, they have money and each knight of each country in europe was firstly warrior of god and if two knights fighted then two warriors of god were fighting against each other. So killing enemy not always was something they most desired. And captured noble ( knight ) was paying greatly for his freedom that was the strongest reason to keep opponent hurt but breathing. Each knight have its own emblem and flag which represented who he was. Every one knew who exactly with is he fighting. So what is better to keep you knocked but alive than better armor? And next funny thing is that for most of the time this armors wern’t used in battles but in duels. There are even specially designed armors for horse duels. And this man were not duelling so they could have money to live, that was sport and they didn’t wanted to die while they practiced it.


“yet stronger crossbows have been developed to penetrate heavy plates...halberts are also good against heavy plate armour...by all means dressing yourself with all this steel disables your moblility...eg during the mongolian empries and their domination towards the west.. the european knights only had one horse as the mongols each had 2 or 3 so they can switch horses as one gets tired... the european knights armour weight not only wastes the energy of himself but also the horses which makes them slow and also would have trouble to catch the mongols...more than that archers of the europeans could only shoot 1 arrow in 2 mins as the mongols could shoot 8 in 2mins”

Now about this. Even the really poor knight have minimum 3 horses. One was a courser for traveling. Another was pack horse for all the weapons and armor. And the specially trained war horse ( minimum one, richer knights have many of them and changed them accordingly during the battle ).

About crossbows, yes i believe crossbows will pierce late medieval european armor. ( but bows surely wont).

Next thing english archer could shot 12 arrows in one minute, mayby you think about crossbowmen. Then yes i agree. The greatest advantage of eastern archers were fact that they could fire arrows riding a horse, european archers couldn’t. That was because fighting styles in europe and asia were different. In europe one great battle often decided about everything. And the place were battle will commence was known by both sides. There is not much need in mobility when you must go to one point fight and go home. ( and you often know this point )

So if i were to bet on which army is going to win a campaign then i will surely say asian style of fighting would win the campaign. But if i were to bet in one on one duel then my choice would surely be medieval knight. Mongols were not fighting in europe to maintain control other the region. They hit robbed and run. This was great tactic for fight but you could not control a country with it. And the knight in full charge on a heavy horse wasn'st exactly slow and stopping someone covered in steel riding on a horse with the same armor wasnt something easy to achieve by any means. The smashing power of such charge was devastating and the main goal of it was to break enemy ranks. That i hope explains a bit why the armor was something so important in europe. ( mayby not exactly practical )

Edited by Luk, 12 August 2008 - 08:09 AM.

[YvesYew]

Of course the European's armor is better.
It gives full protection, however, the mobility and speed are sacrificed.
I think, it would be very interesting to see that if the fully armored European soldiers are driven to river, lol
*drowned xD

[theoremus]

I think, it would be very interesting to see that if the fully armored European soldiers are driven to river, lol
*drowned xD

Alexander Nevsky met the Teutonic Knights at a frozen lake (Lake Peipus). While they were fighting eachother the ice broke and the knights fell into the water, most of them drowned because their armor was too heavy.

Of course the European's armor is better.
It gives full protection, however, the mobility and speed are sacrificed.

I think every armor has its pros and cons.
The European armor was made of many pieces which was good for mobility and it protected the whole body.
But European armor was far too heavy and made the warrior kind of clumpsy. A warrior who had to wear such an armor
had to suffer accelerated effort because the armor is so heavy that wearing it costs a lot of energy and enhances your heart frequency which means that you get exhausted a lot faster. (Trust me I was wearing one, it's not only heavy, it feels like you're getting cooked slowly in a pot). It makes you clumpsy because with your armored hands and feet you can't get enough grip, that makes climbing or holding an arrow very hard. At last the more exhausted you are, the less you can concentrate properly on battle. European knights would exhaust after hours, while a warrior with lighter armor would be able to fight the whole day.
And it's not right to think that chinese armor didn't protect the whole body. You might think that an armor of one big plate is better than one of a lot little plates/pieces, but they protect both the same way.

[Taran ap Dafydd]

The art (drawings and sculptures) suggest the Tang had Shan Wen Kia, too. But since there are no extant examples of it from any age, we are left wondering if that armour was anything more than an artist's wet dream...

[brightness]

Alexander Nevsky met the Teutonic Knights at a frozen lake (Lake Peipus). While they were fighting eachother the ice broke and the knights fell into the water, most of them drowned because their armor was too heavy.



I think every armor has its pros and cons.
The European armor was made of many pieces which was good for mobility and it protected the whole body.
But European armor was far too heavy and made the warrior kind of clumpsy. A warrior who had to wear such an armor
had to suffer accelerated effort because the armor is so heavy that wearing it costs a lot of energy and enhances your heart frequency which means that you get exhausted a lot faster. (Trust me I was wearing one, it's not only heavy, it feels like you're getting cooked slowly in a pot). It makes you clumpsy because with your armored hands and feet you can't get enough grip, that makes climbing or holding an arrow very hard. At last the more exhausted you are, the less you can concentrate properly on battle. European knights would exhaust after hours, while a warrior with lighter armor would be able to fight the whole day.
And it's not right to think that chinese armor didn't protect the whole body. You might think that an armor of one big plate is better than one of a lot little plates/pieces, but they protect both the same way.

Heavy armor also rendered being dismounted highly dangerous to a knight. A la Shakespeare's Richard III, "A horse, a horse, my kindom for a horse."

IIRC, plate armor tended to be much thicker than scale armor . . . having many thick plates overlapping each other in a scale design would make the entire suit even heavier than making it out of a few non-overlapping but jointed large plates. Large thick plates disributed the force of thrust to a larger area. Also, when "case hardening" became available, large plate construction with "case hardening" surface treatment would result in much more protection than simple homogeneous iron or even steel plate. WWI Krupp KC-Armor (Krupp Cementite surface hardened) type infantry body armor actually could stop most .45 caliber rifle bullets, and still light enough to allow the wearer to walk around. In ancient times, "case hardening" was a blacksmith "magic"/art-form (just like Damascus Steel), without the systematic scientific approach that modern chemistry/metellurgy had in the early 20th century.

[Taran ap Dafydd]

Heavy armor also rendered being dismounted highly dangerous to a knight. A la Shakespeare's Richard III, "A horse, a horse, my kindom for a horse."

Ummm...
No. Shakespeare's plays and the authors of the 18th and 19th centuries are responsible for this myth.
A knight could, and did do just fine on foot even in full kit. Any armour you can do cartwheels in is an armour that isn't hurting your mobility or flexibility. And that's exactly what you're talking about with properly made plate.

Yes, it weighed around 70Lbs. So it did eat up your energy more and reduced your endurance. However, keep in mind that these are not ordinary people. They trained from youth to wear it. The modern infantryman carries a heavier load in combat. And it's not as spread over the body as plate armour was.

IIRC, plate armor tended to be much thicker than scale armor . . . having many thick plates overlapping each other in a scale design would make the entire suit even heavier than making it out of a few non-overlapping but jointed large plates. Large thick plates disributed the force of thrust to a larger area. Also, when "case hardening" became available, large plate construction with "case hardening" surface treatment would result in much more protection than simple homogeneous iron or even steel plate. WWI Krupp KC-Armor (Krupp Cementite surface hardened) type infantry body armor actually could stop most .45 caliber rifle bullets, and still light enough to allow the wearer to walk around. In ancient times, "case hardening" was a blacksmith "magic"/art-form (just like Damascus Steel), without the systematic scientific approach that modern chemistry/metellurgy had in the early 20th century.

I was going to dispute your assertion in the first sentence of this paragraph, but you did that already with the rest of the paragraph. What position, exactly, are you trying to take here?

[R6Guy]

The modern infantryman carries a heavier load in combat. And it's not as spread over the body as plate armour was.

I always thought that having your shoulders/torso bearing the weight would be the best considering human body mechanics.

[brightness]

Ummm...
No. Shakespeare's plays and the authors of the 18th and 19th centuries are responsible for this myth.
A knight could, and did do just fine on foot even in full kit. Any armour you can do cartwheels in is an armour that isn't hurting your mobility or flexibility. And that's exactly what you're talking about with properly made plate.

Yes, it weighed around 70Lbs. So it did eat up your energy more and reduced your endurance. However, keep in mind that these are not ordinary people. They trained from youth to wear it. The modern infantryman carries a heavier load in combat. And it's not as spread over the body as plate armour was.

Well, reduced endurance (and mobility) was dangerous in a medieval battlefield.

I was going to dispute your assertion in the first sentence of this paragraph, but you did that already with the rest of the paragraph. What position, exactly, are you trying to take here?

1. For the same level of substantial thickness, plate armor would weigh less than scale armor providing same level of substantial protection.

2. Plate armor also offered the possibility of metallurgical surface treatment ("case hardening," "Damascene steel" etc.) How much of that was done for armor in medieval time probably vary significantly, as there were no patent offices or massive international arms mfrs like in the 20th century. From relatively recent studies of medieval battlefield finds, metallurgical special treatment seems to be much more widespread than previously thought (e.g. the large quantity of treated gun barrels and mechanisms found at the Battle of Vienna site; it's much harder to carborize intricate parts like those than carborizing flat armor plates).

3. This wraps back to the earlier point about mobility. If surface treatment like case hardening were indeed widespread, then theoretically, plates strong enough for the rider to render more or less immunity to musket balls would not have been so heavy as to collapse the horse (as previously thought). However, due to the range of motions involved, the horse had to wear scale armor instead of plate armor . . . that left the horse vulnerable to musket balls. At that point, the limiting factor on how much armor a person could wear wasn't so much how much the horse could carry but how much the person could walk around and escape if unhorsed.

[Taran ap Dafydd]

Well, reduced endurance (and mobility) was dangerous in a medieval battlefield.

To put it in modern terms...

I -- or you, I wager -- would be hard-pressed to even complete a 30 mile march with a full combat load (100-150 Lbs, depending on specialty for US Army Infantry). We are not trained for it. But an infantryman Is trained for it and Can do it. Could he do it more easily unburdened? Certainly. Though I may have an easier time of it unburdened than he might, for I am trained to that.
Endurance is a matter of training. Warriors of all periods trained for the type of combat they expected. Sure, a knight might have greater stamina without his armour, but he won't have less stamina With his armour than an unarmoured opponent who trained unarmoured for combat would. I hope I made that clear. Let me know if I didn't make much sense...

1. For the same level of substantial thickness, plate armor would weigh less than scale armor providing same level of substantial protection.

OK. That's the position I was going to take. Even if the exact same metal is used and there is exactly the same total volume of metal, the backing upon which the scales are attached and the method of attaching them will add weight above and beyond what the plate may have.

2. Plate armor also offered the possibility of metallurgical surface treatment ("case hardening," "Damascene steel" etc.) How much of that was done for armor in medieval time probably vary significantly, as there were no patent offices or massive international arms mfrs like in the 20th century. From relatively recent studies of medieval battlefield finds, metallurgical special treatment seems to be much more widespread than previously thought (e.g. the large quantity of treated gun barrels and mechanisms found at the Battle of Vienna site; it's much harder to carborize intricate parts like those than carborizing flat armor plates).

Any metal armour composed of any number of plates allowed for this. Chain is the only type in my knowledge where such surface hardening would be effectively impossible. And I'm sure that a smith with sufficient finesse could still pull it off, given enough time. It was certainly done with llamellar and scale often enough.

3. This wraps back to the earlier point about mobility. If surface treatment like case hardening were indeed widespread, then theoretically, plates strong enough for the rider to render more or less immunity to musket balls would not have been so heavy as to collapse the horse (as previously thought). However, due to the range of motions involved, the horse had to wear scale armor instead of plate armor . . . that left the horse vulnerable to musket balls. At that point, the limiting factor on how much armor a person could wear wasn't so much how much the horse could carry but how much the person could walk around and escape if unhorsed.

It was always how much the person could carry, modified by how much that armour limited his motion and/or wore down his stamina, modified further by cost that affected how protective armour could be. There's a reason most Continental European armies still wore breastplates well into the 17th century.

[brightness]

To put it in modern terms...

I -- or you, I wager -- would be hard-pressed to even complete a 30 mile march with a full combat load (100-150 Lbs, depending on specialty for US Army Infantry). We are not trained for it. But an infantryman Is trained for it and Can do it. Could he do it more easily unburdened? Certainly. Though I may have an easier time of it unburdened than he might, for I am trained to that.
Endurance is a matter of training. Warriors of all periods trained for the type of combat they expected. Sure, a knight might have greater stamina without his armour, but he won't have less stamina With his armour than an unarmoured opponent who trained unarmoured for combat would. I hope I made that clear. Let me know if I didn't make much sense...

I think we are slightly talking past each other on this point. I was thinking along the line that armor design itself (thickness) had to take into account how likely the wearer would survive/escape/remount if he ever became unhorsed. i.e. the risk of being unhorsed was one of the factors that limited the maximum protection the armor could bring. Unarmored opponents tend not to last very long in combat against armored opponent :-) unless the former uses a stand-off projectile weapon with much greater range. The primary risk to an unhorsed armored knight was another knight on a horse, seconded by some armored infantry with pointy objects seeking out weak points in the armor, especially before the unhorsed knight got up from the ground. That's why, getting up and getting the heck out there to mount another horse before continuing battle was of paramount importance. The knight's page and assistants were tasked to render just that kind of help to the knight (besides fighting of course).

OK. That's the position I was going to take. Even if the exact same metal is used and there is exactly the same total volume of metal, the backing upon which the scales are attached and the method of attaching them will add weight above and beyond what the plate may have.

Agreed. I was also thinking in terms of the overlapping issue with scale armor.

Any metal armour composed of any number of plates allowed for this. Chain is the only type in my knowledge where such surface hardening would be effectively impossible. And I'm sure that a smith with sufficient finesse could still pull it off, given enough time. It was certainly done with llamellar and scale often enough.

Not all surface treatments are the same. The purpose of carborization is producing steel with greater hardness; that process also makes the steel more brittle. Hence a lower carbon-content steel backing of substantial thickness is necessary to hold the plate (platellet/scale) together without shattering. That's where the extra thickness to create a gradiant of carborization and extra area to spread the energy of the impact, as in large plate armor, come in handy. Two pieces of treated armor stacked is no where nearly as good as one piece with a cotinuous gradient on one side. That's analogous to the difference between "compound amor" vs. "Harvey armor" . . . the difference can be as much as a factor of two! in terms of equivalent thickness.

It was always how much the person could carry, modified by how much that armour limited his motion and/or wore down his stamina, modified further by cost that affected how protective armour could be. There's a reason most Continental European armies still wore breastplates well into the 17th century.

Again agreed. On-foot mobility was always a limiting factor in the design choice. Too heavy armor, although providing better protection while mounted, would be highly dangerous if unhorsed. IIRC, breastplates were still used among Calvary even during the Napoleonic War. It went out of fashion for much of the rest of the 19th century as Minie ball delivered much greater penentrative power than earlier projectiles. Armor technology caught up again in the early 20th century, as shown in those Krupp cementite front-side only body armor for shock troops.