Who made the breakthroughs in Armour???

 

 

 

 

Well, it could serve one mans needs, but can you imagine a squad wearing this kind of armour. They could hardly communicate with each other, and if they face great firepower it would be very unlikely to find cover or retreat. I don't think Ned Kelly could run or bend with this thing.

 

but the greatest armour I thinks is the bulletproof armour

 

I would vote for samurai armour. Ned Kelly's armour was also impressive.

 

Persian/sassanid and sarmatian/hun/avarian armours. Hmmmmm...:-))

 

http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/mode.html - http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/mode.html

 

TSZ

 

realy I thought samurais where always superior above all other swordfighters

 

I hope that was sarcasm

 

Hollywood has alot to answer for

 

 

 

 

 

 

wat do you mean by that

 

It's the fault of hollywood (primarily) that they are seen as some sort of demi-god with sword.

 

like the last samurai movie and what was then the primary weapon of samurais

 

The gothic plate armour was pretty,but the real 100% musketball-proof armour was the 17th century Polish Hussar armour,thank's to which Sobieski destroyed 300 000 turkish army in one of the most important battles-the siege of Wien.

 

We have never fought against 300.000 Turkish army . I don't think their armour was 100% musketball-proof.

 

The number of the turkish at the battle of Vienna varyes from 140 000 to 300 000 in different countryes mostly.Even if we say it was about 200 000 the allied forces were only 70 000,from which 30 000 polish,and in all the historical artikles about the battle you will read that the polish hussars broke the main flank of the turkish Janissary Musketman,who were some of the most skilled musketiers and yet they could't stop the hussars,because the plate of the armour made the bullets bounce off of it,so you can say that if not 100% it was 80-90% bulletproof and surely the most bulletproof armour before the 20th century.

 

Not disputing the musket-proof armour of the Hussar's. Just letting you know that it was by no means the first musket-proof armoury. Musket-proofing superceded crossbow proofing in the 16th century as marks of quality armour. The most famous examples being Maximilian armour. A good example of one of these suits is the armour for fighting in the lists of Henry VIII housed in the Tower of London (A gift from Maximilian).

 

The difference is the muskets developed very quickly.There were lots of armours that could stop early and some of the later gunpowder and musket weapons,but the later musket used by both swedish and turkish soldiers that attacked poland could be stopped(80-90%) only by the hussar armour,but ofcourse there were armours that could prevent death but not heavy wound and were maybe 40-70% bulletproof.So i'm not saying there was no other armour that was bulletproof but that the hussar was the most efficient one.

 

 

Note that the musket was never invented in the 17th century, only became more popular as it got lighter and the flintlock replaced the matchlock. Based on the above I would actually state that the average musket became less powerful in the 17th century as the guns were made lighter in order to be more practicle.

 

That implies that if you took the 17th century muskets and used it on 16th century armour, the armour would fail. This is why I posted the Wiki link above where I argued that if anything, the 17th century muskets would even be less effective against the 16th century armour.

 

I thus repeat my original argument that Hussar armour was not the first armour to be musket proof. If you need proof that these earlier armour were indeed 100% musket proof, read a copy of Ffaulk's "An armourer and his craft". If you need physical proof of this I can point you towards the armour of Henry the VIII in the tower of London which has a round dent on the breast-plate (cuirass) where a 16th century (and thus bigger than a 17th century) musket was fired onto the cuirass to prove it was musket proof. The dent was afterwards decorated with etching to look like a flower. If you are unable to get to London, I see you are from Poland and thus I'm sure excellent examples of 16th century Maximillian armour must be located closer to where you stay.

 

Thanks

Eon

 

As far as hussar armor is concerned, Polish hussars used thicker breastplates in the second half of 17th c. The thickest hussar armor (which I know) is from the begining of 18th c. and is 9mm thick.

Hussar breatplates in the early 17th c. were much thinner - usually about 2-3 mm. They certainly weren't musket proof. They were only pistol-proof.

 

And I agree with Eon that muskets (true muskets) were more powerful in 16th than in 17th c.

 

It's true that karacena wasn't musket proof armor. But I haven't write about karacena. I have written about plate armor (about plate breasplate).

 

Originally posted by Jagiello but it wasn't also the thickest hussar armour.It was heavier,more expensive and weaker than the previous plate armour,but hussars wear it because of the decorations(it was the favorite of Sobieski),but still the early hussar armour (like the musket obviously :D) was better than the "karacena" and it COULD stop muskets ball.

 

Jagiello, look at this:

http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/ksiazki/zbroja.html - http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/ksiazki/zbroja.html

This is a fragment of Sikora's book "Fenomen husarii". It explains my point (or rather my point is based on this chapter of that book )

 

 

Originally posted by Jagiello If as Eondt says there were 100% musketproof armours in europe before the hussar plate armour,i wonder why they all dumped them and started using simple cloth uniform or breastplates-which were never musketproof,

 

I agre with Eondt that there were some musket proof armors in 16th c., but I have to add that they were rare phenomenon. More armours (especially in the second half of 16th c.) were only pistol proof. The most of armours (especially in the first half of 16th c.) weren't even pistol proof.

 

 

Originally posted by Jagiello if they were as ataman says the cavalry at waterloo wouldn't have been stopped by the grenadiers,

 

Jagiello, charges of French cuirassiers at Waterloo weren't stopped neither by English muskets nor by their cannons. These charges were stopped by bayonets.

 

Remember that the armour in the 16th Century that were musket-proof were not munitions grade. The musket-proofing process consisted of tempering the steel to the correct level of hardness vs. flexibility. This is an obviously expensive and laborious project and was thus restricted to the armour worn by the aristocracy (Henry VIII as the example). This technique of tempering plate didn't actually dissapear but were used throughout until the late 18th century (although you could undoubtably argue that by that time the armourers had by no means the skill demonstrated by their predecessors). Munitions grade armour like that of the Hussars achieved there musket-proofing by simply increasing the thickness of the cuirass (the 9mm quoted above). Although this might have meant a heavier breast-plate it was cheaper and quicker to produce as there needn't have been the involvement of master-armourers. You were thus able to produce enough for entire units like the Hussars. 

 

So yes, the examples of the 16th century musket-proof armour is rarer than that of the Hussars. There is enough left though that any sizable arms&armour museum should house an example or two (they were highly prized)

Well I think Gothic armor was one of the best ever!! But all in all I think it’s the western world that always had the best armor for their troops!! Look the Greeks had the best armor for their time, the Romans too. No one can camper their armors at the time, well I have to say I think the mid-east and India came close and were reveals on armor technologies! Anyways  your average Roman and Greek soldier had very good armor. The same can go thru history in the west. Your average soldier in the west was and are still well equipped and armored.

 

Originally posted by Top Gun Originally posted by xi_tujue Originally posted by Athanasios Oh, come on ... i wrote impressive not the most effective. Samurai were killing machines , much more skillful than the westerners of the time. Samurais are only effective vs other samurais there blades couldn pierce any kind of armour besides leather armour. so NO realy I thought samurais where always superior above all other swordfighters

I think they were good but not the best. 

Samurais were more isleted wile Knights and others fought agenst different peoples…

Look how this Knight use his armor as a part of his fighting stile!! Armor, weapons, and fighting stiles goes to gethor in the west. Armor was not just some think a man just ware in battle!  

Chain Mail is bettor for hand to hand combat then the Lamellar armor or Scale Armor . Chain Mail provides excellent protection against slashes, chops, good agents thrust, and pretty good agents missiles. Chain mail is vulnerable against spears I think. I believe it is also the most flexible armor made! It is over all lightweight, wing about 13 lbs. to 30 lbs. the heaviest depending what type of Chain Mail and how much you cover your self. But I think the Roman Lorica Hamata wing about 20 or 25lbs. I think Chain Mail came from the Gals or the Goths not so shore were though. But its from Europe some were.

This two videos are to give you all a peek in true western stile of fighting.

DK EYEWITNESS Books  

“…A suit weighed about 44-55lbs (20-25kg), and the weight was sread over the body so that a strong man could run, lie down, or mout a horse unaided in his aromr. Stories of cranes being used to winch knights into the saddle are pure fantasy…”

 Sallets

Their are 5 different types of Sallets that I know of but 3 out of 5 had the same thing going on. The 5 different are I personally like to label them as.

The Open Sallet  http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/md-301.JPG - http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/md-301.JPG

The Sallet or Basic Sallet 

Closed Sallet http://www.thadenarmory.com/tempport/images/export_sallet02.jpg - http://members.tripod.com/Preachan/icons/german_knt.gif - http://members.tripod.com/Preachan/icons/german_knt.gif

Wide Visor Sallet   http://www.aviapress.com/engl/mrt/mrt16002.jpg - http://www.aviapress.com/engl/mrt/mrt16002.jpg