Who on general had the best armour in time? (Excluding tanks and stuff)
Was there ever armour that could withstand bullets or crossbow bolts?
Thanks!
Was there ever armour that could withstand bullets or crossbow bolts?
Thanks!
Pistols of the XVI century were as likely to explode in your hand, as they were to fire a bullet in the general direction of the enemy. Well, almost.I would like to see a source for armor stopping reliably bullets from XVIth century firearm at effective range. Even metal-tipped traits shot from arbalest should pierce a XVIth armor at close range, provided it arrives at 90°.
That they help deflect some bullets and stop arrows is very probable, that they protect you from the lucky shoot made from much more than the effective range, I don't doubt it ; but that they stop a whole volley of arquebuses at effective range, I don't believe so. As for stopping a point-pistol shoot, "citation needed", I don't see how it is possible against an iron bullet. I remember of seeing a XVIth century cuirass (or maybe XVth ?) in a military museum, of obviously good quality, that had a bullet hole on the front, and a much larger on the other side.
Due to the scarcity of metal, metal armors in Japan were actually much lighter (just like japanese swords were of good quality because metal was rare enough you paid attention to the quality of whatever you make of it), with few "full-metal plate" armors. At best, they were a combination of metal and leather.
As for the Middle East, the climate meant it was a bad idea to be too armored.
During the latter half of the 16th century bullet resistant armour was actually made in Japan, following the introduction of more effective firearms by the Portuguese. AFAIK, it was more similar to European plate armour than to the lamellar armour that Samurai had traditionally worn. Of course, during the Tokugawa Shogunate guns became a non-issue since only the Shogun's forces were allowed to have them.The Japanese made some excellent light armor, i.e. their famous Samurai body armor, and that was with mostly agility in mind, while protection from gunshot was not considered at all.
The armor wasn't done with modern physics in mind, so I doubt they thought about "stopping" vs "absorbing". Plate armor wasn't that thick and the bullets not very heavy or fast, so I think you would not actually feel a heavy blow, if your survived. If the bullet was not deflected it would punch a big dent into the armor, but that would not give you much of a wound since you'd wear padding under the plate. However if the bullet punched all the way through, the padding wouldn't help you much, the bullet would go right into your body. Either way I do not see how you would feel much of a blow.by effective at stopping bullets do you guys mean penetration of the body, or actually stopping the bullet doing fatal damage.
i seem to remember reading years back that the armor could "stop" the bullet, but the man inside got shaken to death by the impact, if i remember right this was because the steel of the armor was really bad at absorbing and distributing huge forces before transferring them to the wearer it to the wearer
That may well be true.I doubt a guy with a XVI cuirass would be bruised as badly as he was. If the bullet was stopped by the cuirass, the padding underneath would absorb the shock.
They might also have taken off some of the padding? But then each sword blow would hurt like hell. I would probably leave the padding on even if it's terribly hot. And try to stay atop my horse, while the footmen do the fightingThat may well be true.
On the other hand, if you have to run around and fight under the hot sun for five hours, I'd much rather be in a modern kevlar vest than 25 kilos of solid metal. Knights dying of heat exhaustion in battle was a real thing back then...
[...]
Later "curassier" cavalry wore heavy iron breastplates for protection against gunshots, as well as helmets [...]
Reads funny.
´Shall we attack them with our helmets, Sire?´
´Pointless - they are wearing heavy iron breastplates...´
Who on general had the best armour in time? (Excluding tanks and stuff)
Was there ever armour that could withstand bullets or crossbow bolts?
Thanks!
I know, I was simplifying for the masses.Actually, the "dent" in the armor, caused by discharging a pistol at it from point-blank range, was called a "proof mark", which "proved" that the armor was able to withstand a gunshot: Proof of bullet resisitance = "bullet proof".
Fluting was a way of strengthening the armor by adding a series of curves and ridges, which allowed the maker to reduce the total amount of metal used, yet provide the same or better protection. For instance, a sheet of paper laid across the gap between two drinking glasses won't support a lot of weight, but fan-fold it and it becomes fairly strong. The creases in the armor gave it a lot of rigidity, but made it a lot harder to repair if necessary. For the wealthy, it made sense; for the common soldier, it wasn't economically practical.
All armor was manufactured to withstand a point-blank pistol shot. Generally speaking the best armors were available in the early XVIth century but since they weren't useful anymore they were replaced by much more flexible "brigandine" armors, the last full plate armors degenerated to tournaments armors, totally rigid and only covering parts of the body relevant in a tournament, which lasted until the abolition of tournaments in the 3rd quarter of the XVIth century.