The evolution of Armour

[Easy-Kill]

I have recently been reading about the formation of the New Model Army during the English civil war period. The discussion in the 'Transition from swords to guns' thread prompted me to read a little deeper into the use of armour during this period and it seems that with the formation of the New Model Army (and subsequently the English Army), the use of body armour seemed to fade out. At the start of the English civil war, body armour was still used extensively, and there were even squadron sized Cuirassier units sporting such armour as:

And here is a painting of Charles I himself wearing Cuirassier armour

There seems to have been quite a distinct evolution of the use of armour within the English/British army. I have an intimate understanding of the current body armour, why it was developed and how etc.), I would like to learn more about how armour evolved (with a particular focus in the UK) between 1066 and 1990s. Specifically, what were the internal and external influences, why did it happen in such a way, what about the 1700-1990 period, body armour in the two world wars etc. etc.

I would also be interested in any sources that people have, particularly any first hand sources that anybody could provide. Actually, very interested to hear about anything anyone can provide.

 

[D Inqu]

The correct word is not "evolved". The British use of armor generally followed the trend of northern and western Europe. In short:

1066: Typical Normann setup. Chainmail on both cavalry and trained infantry. The drafted troops had minimum armor
Crusades: armor gradually becomes heavier, both for knights and well-off infantry, but the spread is slow due to cost.
Hundred Years' War. Plated armor appears, but is extremely rare. I remember reading on the prices of a set of armor for the period. It was about the same as a 100-head cattle herd - far too much for most knights, who would try to make do with sets inherited from their fathers and slightly changed.
Porst 100-years war: Britain's development of armor slows down due to lack of land wars with major powers. The full plate remains a toy for some filthy rich soldiers
Civil War: well crafted armor is avaliable for some minimal sized units (like photo in OP), but again was way too expensive to see any real use. A simple cuirass and helmet were the typical for the pikemen, but even they were already outnumbered on the battlefield by musketeers.
Pre-WW1: with the exception cuirassiers, armor disappears from the battlefield.
WW1: helmets appear, but are not bulletproof. Instead being shrapnel-proof. Bulletproof armor is tested in many countries, but never takes off. The key problems are weight, mobility (especially in trench mud) and the fact that the bullet can do heavy damage without even piercing.
WW2. Basically same. Britain introduces armor for pilots, soviets introduce armor for assault brigades for urban combat, but they remain situational niche solutions.

The modern bulletproof armor is a lot more recent than most people realise. Especially the modern combined armor, including hand/arm protection and ballistic googles. All this stuff is last two decades at most.

 

[Easy-Kill]

The correct word is not "evolved". The British use of armor generally followed the trend of northern and western Europe. In short:

1066: Typical Normann setup. Chainmail on both cavalry and trained infantry. The drafted troops had minimum armor
Crusades: armor gradually becomes heavier, both for knights and well-off infantry, but the spread is slow due to cost.
Hundred Years' War. Plated armor appears, but is extremely rare. I remember reading on the prices of a set of armor for the period. It was about the same as a 100-head cattle herd - far too much for most knights, who would try to make do with sets inherited from their fathers and slightly changed.
Porst 100-years war: Britain's development of armor slows down due to lack of land wars with major powers. The full plate remains a toy for some filthy rich soldiers
Civil War: well crafted armor is avaliable for some minimal sized units (like photo in OP), but again was way too expensive to see any real use. A simple cuirass and helmet were the typical for the pikemen, but even they were already outnumbered on the battlefield by musketeers.
Pre-WW1: with the exception cuirassiers, armor disappears from the battlefield.
WW1: helmets appear, but are not bulletproof. Instead being shrapnel-proof. Bulletproof armor is tested in many countries, but never takes off. The key problems are weight, mobility (especially in trench mud) and the fact that the bullet can do heavy damage without even piercing.
WW2. Basically same. Britain introduces armor for pilots, soviets introduce armor for assault brigades for urban combat, but they remain situational niche solutions.

The modern bulletproof armor is a lot more recent than most people realise. Especially the modern combined armor, including hand/arm protection and ballistic googles. All this stuff is last two decades at most.

Thanks for the insight.

Essentially, the IED threat has caused a step change in the way in which we protect our soldiers. Similarly, the decisive battle strategy of the English Civil War (though I believe this was Prince Maurice of Nassau's strategy) meant that the Pikeman was no longer the pivotal part of an infantry company and that use of terrain, hedgerows and massed firepower started to overcome the weakness by which Pikemen would address. For instance, no body armour was ordered for the New Model Army (and there are other reasons for this).

I am principally interested in whether there were any other instances which changed the way armour was used (e.g. the use of massed firepower at Agincourt/Crecy. I simply do not know where to start looking at the moment.

 

[D Inqu]

Thanks for the insight.

I have been intimately involved with the development/deployment of the current body armour (and it is absolutely brilliant); You wouldn't imagine the amount of science which went into its development. The reason I used the word evolved is because a lot of science went into the current generation of protection, particularly from lessons learned during Op Telic/Herrick.

Essentially, the IED threat has caused a step change in the way in which we protect our soldiers. Similarly, the decisive battle strategy of the English Civil War (though I believe this was Prince Maurice of Nassau's strategy) meant that the Pikeman was no longer the pivotal part of an infantry company and that use of terrain, hedgerows and massed firepower started to overcome the weakness by which Pikemen would address. For instance, no body armour was ordered for the New Model Army (and there are other reasons for this).

I am principally interested in whether there were any other instances which changed the way armour was used (e.g. the use of massed firepower at Agincourt/Crecy. I simply do not know where to start looking at the moment.

Well, with modern armor, there were several key breakthroughs and "see-sawing" of warfare. First after WW2 all participating nations did their stats and worked out that the key preventable reason for casualties is shrapnel, no bullets. Hence the key was on having shrapnelproof APCs (not bulletproof), and later various flak jackets, again against shrapnel.

In the late 70-s we had Kevlar, one of the key breakthroughs in getting lightweight shrapnelproof and relatively cheap material, which paved way for light but reliable protection, against shrapnel. At the same time, with experience in Vietnam (and later analysing Soviet war in Afganistan), the need for bulletproof protection became apparent. As the probability of aww-2 war essentially dropped to zero, but minor conflicts increased, we had this revolution in body armor to give us what we have today.

As for medieval periods, there were several points.
1. Early middle ages. Viking raids forced kings to abandon armies of armoured peasants and maintain a relatively well equipped force in chainmail
2. Early crusades. Being far away from home, with limited manpower, crusaders had to minimise their losses. The formation of holy orders allowed a professional infantry force to exist. Armor became much heavier, with neck and face protection for helmets, and heavier shields. Knight adopt the great helm
3. Late crusades. The appearance of a more organised cavalry archer force (as well as the spread of the crossbow), both in the middle east and also the mongols, forced another major change. The heavier infantry started adopting plates in their armor and full face helmets. In eastern europe, the plated mail stated to replace chainmail. Most importantly, it's the appearance of a new geometry in helmets. The early peaked and beaked helmets which would deflect blows from the likely direction of the strike.
4. Post HYW. Massed use of crossbows (and longbows by the Enlish) in western europe make the final push in armor technology. The full plate armor makes use of everything that is available at the time. The armet-type helmets make striking the opponent very difficult. At the same time, the armor allows good mobility. It takes the spread of firearms to make this armor obsolete.

 

[Hibernian]

There's an interesting question here. Was it the increased firepower of guns that made armour obsolete or was it that armour was just regarded as too expensive to equip an army with in the post-1700 era?

I mean, was armour that could be made in the 18th and 19th centuries unable to protect against musket balls, or was it about economics?

 

[D Inqu]

There's an interesting question here. Was it the increased firepower of guns that made armour obsolete or was it that armour was just regarded as too expensive to equip an army with in the post-1700 era?

I mean, was armour that could be made in the 18th and 19th centuries unable to protect against musket balls, or was it about economics?

Both.

The armor on the photo in the OP was outrageously expensive and the age of large armies was not possible.
Mass produced cuirasses weight had to increase to increase resistance to bullets to the point it was impractical except for cavalry.

And again, with the spread of artillery armor became a hindrance with armies in tight formation. Speed to move out artillery reach became more mportant.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Both.

The armor on the photo in the OP was outrageously expensive and the age of large armies was not possible.
Mass produced cuirasses weight had to increase to increase resistance to bullets to the point it was impractical except for cavalry.

That isn't strictly true (edit: the cost part). In the English Civil War (more detail is given in the other thread swords-guns), a Pikeman's armour was cheaper (1pound 2shillings) than the cost of victuals (food/accommodation) for a soldier per month (1pound 5shillings). Furthermore, it was only about double the cost of a musket (firing 12 shots to the pound of lead) and bandoleer. As this does not include the cost of ammunition I am disinclined to believe the argument of 'it costs more'.

What was seen in the English civil war was a transition from siege/counter-siege warfare to decisive battle warfare. As a result, troops were able to use the terrain better, relying on hedgerows and skirmishing to provide dominant positions on the ground, replacing the role that Pikemen traditionally played.

 

[Xeorm]

That isn't strictly true (edit: the cost part). In the English Civil War (more detail is given in the other thread swords-guns), a Pikeman's armour was cheaper (1pound 2shillings) than the cost of victuals (food/accommodation) for a soldier per month (1pound 5shillings). Furthermore, it was only about double the cost of a musket (firing 12 shots to the pound of lead) and bandoleer. As this does not include the cost of ammunition I am disinclined to believe the argument of 'it costs more'.

What was seen in the English civil war was a transition from siege/counter-siege warfare to decisive battle warfare. As a result, troops were able to use the terrain better, relying on hedgerows and skirmishing to provide dominant positions on the ground, replacing the role that Pikemen traditionally played.

From what I remember though, your linked Pikeman armor would be cheap compared to the sort of full body armor presented at the top. Mainly as it's cheap because it gets rid of a lot of the more expensive portions of joints and needing to get the armor tailored.

But I'd imagine a large portion is that unless you protect a lot, your armor's not terribly useful versus indirect fire from artillery, and you're much better off being able to move faster to a position where you can be safer.

 

[D Inqu]

That isn't strictly true (edit: the cost part). In the English Civil War (more detail is given in the other thread swords-guns), a Pikeman's armour was cheaper (1pound 2shillings) than the cost of victuals (food/accommodation) for a soldier per month (1pound 5shillings). Furthermore, it was only about double the cost of a musket (firing 12 shots to the pound of lead) and bandoleer. As this does not include the cost of ammunition I am disinclined to believe the argument of 'it costs more'.

What was seen in the English civil war was a transition from siege/counter-siege warfare to decisive battle warfare. As a result, troops were able to use the terrain better, relying on hedgerows and skirmishing to provide dominant positions on the ground, replacing the role that Pikemen traditionally played.

I clearly said cost of the advanced armor like the one on the photo. The armor on the photo in OP was insanely expensive. The pikeman cuirass was of course cheap in comparison, but its protective qualities were not keeping up with evolution of fierarms.
New model army already had less pikemen than musketeers. Counting cavalry, the pikemen were a minority

 

[gagenater]

From what I remember though, your linked Pikeman armor would be cheap compared to the sort of full body armor presented at the top. Mainly as it's cheap because it gets rid of a lot of the more expensive portions of joints and needing to get the armor tailored.

But I'd imagine a large portion is that unless you protect a lot, your armor's not terribly useful versus indirect fire from artillery, and you're much better off being able to move faster to a position where you can be safer.

Armor is utterly worthless against artillery. The best body armor in the world doesn't help if the upper half of your body is knocked 3 meters (10') from the lower half by a cannonball that outweighs your armor. Even the 'little' balls coming out of a cannon's cannister shot are around double the weight and double the muzzle velocity of a musket ball. The sheer impact will kill you even if it doesn't technically punch a hole in your armor (which it probably will)

 

[krieger11b]

In the US Army I had some of the new ceramic armor. There were 3 different sized plates for the front and back pouches of vest. Did not critically impead the ability to manuver. I was really impressed, I also had in the past worn the same bullet resistant vests using the old multi level kevlar method the police used, and those were far more uncomfortable and limited manuverability.

The kevlar armor also made you far hotter as it was like a tight blanket around your body.

 

[Easy-Kill]

From what I remember though, your linked Pikeman armor would be cheap compared to the sort of full body armor presented at the top. Mainly as it's cheap because it gets rid of a lot of the more expensive portions of joints and needing to get the armor tailored.

Well, the book I am currently reading (and I alluded to it in the other thread) was that the proponents of reducing armour in the English Civil War (George Monck being foremost) did so not due to cost, but due to a change in strategy. Monck felt that the increased armour lacked manoeuvrability. This was particularly the case on the open battlefield when strategists of the era sought to defeat enemy armies on the open battlefied, as opposed to undermining their resource and support by capturing towns/cities (especially when they were hard to defend in the first place).

What I mean is that it was an fundamental change in the way battles were fought which drove the change in armour at this time particular time. I am trying to understand whether there were other evolutionary changes in battle which led to armour.

I clearly said cost of the advanced armor like the one on the photo. The armor on the photo in OP was insanely expensive. The pikeman cuirass was of course cheap in comparison, but its protective qualities were not keeping up with evolution of fierarms.
New model army already had less pikemen than musketeers. Counting cavalry, the pikemen were a minority

I was only using the armour in the original post as an example. As far as I am aware, there were only two full Curassier regiments during the English Civil War: The Royal Horse Guards (Ironically raised by Cromwell and was probably not equipped with full Curaissier armour) and the Earl of Essex's Lifeguards. The armour above would have been a novelty on the battlefields of the English Civil War; Pikeman armour would not have been. Furthermore, it was designed to withstand pistol shot (18 shot to the pound of lead). Incidentally, this means it would also have stopped a carbine bullet from a cavalry unit.

At the start of the English Civil War, Pikemen accounted for about 1/3 of a Regiment of foot's fighting force. At the battle of Edgehill, the Royalist foot was about 50/50 pikemen to musketeers.

There is no known record for the purchase of armour for Pikeman armour of the new model army. However, we do know from battles such as 'The Battle of Torrington' that Pikemen were a significant part of the infantry force (the push of pike was decisive in this battle). It was only at the end of the English Civil Wars and the establishment of the English Army that the use of Pikemen became all but non-existent.

 

[noobermenschen]

There's an interesting question here. Was it the increased firepower of guns that made armour obsolete or was it that armour was just regarded as too expensive to equip an army with in the post-1700 era?

I mean, was armour that could be made in the 18th and 19th centuries unable to protect against musket balls, or was it about economics?

From what I have read some armies were widely armoured, such as the Tercios in the Elizabethan-Phillipian era, and their cuirasses provided protection against bows of all kinds and even harquebus shot. It was the musket which had the power to overcome any armor that could be worn by a reasonably mobile soldier. By 1630 muskets had been shortened to the point they could be carried by a reasonably mobile soldier and had been given flint lock mechanisms to replace the match lock. Combined with new quick firing artillery and tactics to employ these new weapons armour became less and less effective.

20th century helmets were designed to protect the soldier more from shrapnel than bullets, as were the armoured vests(flak jackets) worn by bomber crews during WWII and vehicle crews afterwards. "Bulletproof vests" meant pistol bullets until the late '90s/early 21st century, when the ceramic plates mentioned by krieger finally gave some proof against AK rounds.

 

[Henry IX]

The driving force behind armour changes and then its gradual disapearence are complex but a few factors underlie the changes. The first is technology - the movement from mail to plate is only possible with improved manufacturing techniques. Your average village blacksmith could manufacture mail. It was time-consuming and expensive but in essense simple to make. Plate armour involved an enormous amount of specialist knowledge - you need to temper the the plates differentially and attach them in the correct positions to make them effective and mobile. Hence, plate only becomes common when Europe's economy becomes large and complex enough to support large manufacturing centres with specialist jobs to produce the armour.

The second factor is that as long as war is a privately funded affair there is a significant driver for the extremely wealthy to commission the best armour that can be manufactured. It is no coincidence that the disapearence of full suits of plate, such as in the images, coincides in England with the disapearence of the privately funded warrior. No administator will spend that sum of money to protect a single individual - it is far more efficient to simply employ more lighter armoured cavalry. Most of the cavalry in the civil war did wear some simple armour (breast and back + helm).

The third factor is the arrival of massed firepower capable of penetrating any armour. This combines with the public funding of the military to make heavy armour a very poor investment. Indeed given how rare actual melee combat was for infantry in this period, most charges ended with one side retreating rather than facing the charge of the defender's shot, armour for any infantryman, even a pikeman was of limited value. Prior to the arrival of massed gunpowder weapons with a sufficient rate of fire (say 2 shots per minute) heavy armour is critical as it allows charges against the enemies firepower. Without an armour upgrade cavalry would have been unable to attack powerful missile units such as longbowmen and arblasts.

The fourth factor was tactical. The change in the nature of warfare meant that mobility was becoming a greater factor compared with staying power compared with earlier warfare. A sensible commander would therefor favour lighter armour, particularly in the infantry.

 

[AzagalTheGreat]

Thanks for the insight.

I have been intimately involved with the development/deployment of the current body armour (and it is absolutely brilliant); You wouldn't imagine the amount of science which went into its development. The reason I used the word evolved is because a lot of science went into the current generation of protection, particularly from lessons learned during Op Telic/Herrick.

Essentially, the IED threat has caused a step change in the way in which we protect our soldiers. Similarly, the decisive battle strategy of the English Civil War (though I believe this was Prince Maurice of Nassau's strategy) meant that the Pikeman was no longer the pivotal part of an infantry company and that use of terrain, hedgerows and massed firepower started to overcome the weakness by which Pikemen would address. For instance, no body armour was ordered for the New Model Army (and there are other reasons for this).

I am principally interested in whether there were any other instances which changed the way armour was used (e.g. the use of massed firepower at Agincourt/Crecy. I simply do not know where to start looking at the moment.

Mind I correct you, Its Maurits van Oranje-Nassau, Son of William of Orange.

 

[Haccoude]

The problem was that even though armour was fully capable of keeping up with handheld guns (no amount of personal armour can protect you from cannon), it required armour becoming both heavier and more expensive to do so, the increased cost mostly ment that heavy cavalry in complete plate armour became fewer specialised cavalry regiments, rather than the backbone of western european cavalry as it had been. The French armies of the Italian wars which were 1/3 cavalry to 2/3 infantry, where the majority if not all cavalry was Gendarmes in plate? Completely unthinkable in the early 17th century due to the costs involved.

It was however the weight of the armour that dealt the death blow, people involved in the English Civil war (I have a name and quote in a book at home) mentioned that plate had become so heavy, that even the royalist nobles who could still afford it had discarded limb protection towards the end of the war. Not because the weight rendered them unable to move or mount their horses without aid, but because the weight on their arms and legs was too uncomfortable to effectively fight while wearing it.

That's why heavy cavalry in the second half of the 17th century only wore helmets, breastplate and left vambrace, by discarding the rest of the armour what was left behind could more easily keep up with guns by becoming heavier and more protective, while still not being as uncomfortable as less bulletresistant armour from the first half.