Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Collimatrix

Unusual Materials in Arms and Armor

Recommended Posts

Most historical arms and armor were made of metal, leather and stone.  This is the thread for historical weapons and armor made of weird shit.

 

682px-Armor_and_helmet%2C_Gilbert_Island

 

This is an example of armor made from the Gilbert islands made of thick, woven coconut fiber.  The helmet is made from a pufferfish.

 

I've seen a set similar to this in another museum.  The woven fiber body armor looked like it would be reasonably effective.  Coconut husk is pretty tough and the vest was very thick.  I wasn't so sure about the helmet.

 

The Gilbertese were also the foremost users of shark's tooth weapons, although other Polynesians used them as well:

 

t56tVoX.jpg

 

Several historical examples I've seen are these strange, branching designs:

 

6DxvIpF.jpg

 

ZtSj9lz.jpg

 

 

Polynesians were not the only ones to use teeth in their arms.  The Mycenian Greeks made helmets out of boars teeth.  One such helmet is described in the Iliad, and there are a few archeological discoveries of such:

 

Boar_tusk_helmet_from_Athens.jpg

 

eQ3jb75.jpg

 

And finally, a club used by Inuits made from the penis-bone of a walrus:

 

NQUEU2u.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wooden armour of the Tlingit is pretty fascinating.

I do occasionally wonder why laminated wooden breastplates and the like weren't more common as a relatively cheap and lightweight form of protection. My guess is that glue was an issue, as with composite bows. Even so, a layup of alternating strips held together with hide glue/pitch/resin and rawhide would be doable pretty early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like I'm definitely not the first person to ask this question.

General consensus is that making a wood breastplate just gets you something heavier than a metal equivalent and takes relatively more work. I'm not too convinced by this, but will post my more detailed thoughts in a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm procrastinating on this, here's another thing I wonder about: just how cheap was padded or quilted armour? I imagine that in some societies the cost of the fabric and time would be significant. This would also depend on the quality of the cloth, which would of course affect the quality of the armour.

Going with a modern analogy, a ballistic vest is about 2-4 times as expensive as a high quality jacket. This is partly because kevlar is expensive, but also because you have 15-30 times the fabric going into the garment (all those layers).

In the end, I'm not sure that a good gambeson was all that much cheaper than, say, lamellar armour covering the same area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but a gambeson is useful to wear under standard armor of the day, and therefore will be in steady production, while lamellar armor would not be.

So a peasant could pick up a used gambeson or whatever on the cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but a gambeson is useful to wear under standard armor of the day, and therefore will be in steady production, while lamellar armor would not be.

So a peasant could pick up a used gambeson or whatever on the cheap.

I'm pretty much ignoring that factor here, but it is certainly true.

A garment optimised for padding might, however, look a bit different from one optimised for protection. I'm thinking here of two layers of cloth with stuffing in between versus multiple layers. So you might find that a mail hauberk plus padded undercoat (both widely made) is actually cheaper than a suit of cloth armour (layers of high quality linen or similar with leather facing) for the same level of protection. The padded undercoat alone, however, would still provide a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm procrastinating on this, here's another thing I wonder about: just how cheap was padded or quilted armour? I imagine that in some societies the cost of the fabric and time would be significant. This would also depend on the quality of the cloth, which would of course affect the quality of the armour.

Going with a modern analogy, a ballistic vest is about 2-4 times as expensive as a high quality jacket. This is partly because kevlar is expensive, but also because you have 15-30 times the fabric going into the garment (all those layers).

In the end, I'm not sure that a good gambeson was all that much cheaper than, say, lamellar armour covering the same area.

 

 

I'm not familiar with the historical sources or archaeological finds regarding quilted armor, but a few possibilities occur to me.

 

The first is that the Gilbertese coconut husk armor above shows that you do not need to use the same type of fabric for armor as you do for clothing.  It may be misleading to look at the cost of a square meter of fabric intended for clothing, multiply that by the amount that would be in an armored garment, and come up with a cost at the end.  It seems reasonable to me that you could take shortcuts in the production of armor fiber; card it less, use courser fibers, or even just stuff a bunch of fiber between two textile layers.  Only the innermost layer (or your undershirt) will be touching your skin, the rest is just fiber that needs to be strong and between you and the incoming blades.

 

Another thing that occurs to me is that lamellar armor needs a rather lot of dissimilar materials.  You would need cows for leather and someone who knows how to work leather and a smith who knows how to make the metal bits and someone who can assemble them all.  In a society without motorized transport of materials, that might suck.  It could well be easier to source a bunch of fiber locally, since every farmer's wife will have a spinning wheel, than it would be to source the components of lamellar armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like I'm definitely not the first person to ask this question.

General consensus is that making a wood breastplate just gets you something heavier than a metal equivalent and takes relatively more work. I'm not too convinced by this, but will post my more detailed thoughts in a bit.

Okay, detailed thoughts time.

From bow making, which would use a lot of the same skills and techniques, you have a couple of issues with making a wooden breastplate. The first is your raw material: there are all sorts of woods and some will be better for the task than others. One approach would be to make a laminated, curved structure to get your breastplate in a solid piece and limit splitting. This implies that you need thin strips, as wide as possible, for steaming to a form and laminating together. Which also sort of implies the technological wherewithal to make boards and planks. So anywhere with a viable shipbuilding industry or access to bamboo is off to a good start.

The next issue is your glue. Unlike a bow (which you can keep in a case until needed), your breastplate needs to be able to get wet for extended periods without coming apart. This means that fish or hide glue is tricky (although you can use it for the core) and that the surface needs to be protected by a covering, wax or lacquer. The best approach, I'm guessing, would be something like a resin or pitch-based glue, a rawhide covering and a wax or paint coat.

The final issue is manufacture. Taking all of the above together you have a pretty complex process: making and steaming strips to shape, layup over a form (perhaps with pinning), drying, covering and finishing. It would draw on a bunch of existing tech (bow making, shipbuilding and, of course, shield making) and be reasonably involved, but the product wouldn't be any better or worse than a metal equivalent overall.

Given the above, my guess is that we don't see much wood armour simply because any society big and complex enough to have an industry capable of making it generally had other, equally-good options for getting there. It wouldn't necessarily be cheaper ir easier to mass produce, and would still rely on a number of products and processes to pull off.

For the wildcard: I sometimes wonder why it took so long to discover linoleum, given that the properties of resin and linseed oil have been known forever. My guess is that it is, in fact, old news and somewhere out there there is an ancient piece of plastic waiting to be discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The early "gambeson" are pretty simple. Anything from a simple linen or wool tunic with straw stuffed into it all the way up to quilted leather or linen jackets. They really didn't show up in Europe as widespread until the 13th century. There is some great level of debate on their use during the migration period and Viking age Scandinavia due to lack of archaeological evidence. We do know the Byzantines and steppe tribes wore them and the Kievan Rus had contact with both, so it is likely the eastern armies used them. This is also where the parts of the lamellar armor found at Birka Sweden are theorized as originating from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reserving spot for actual writeup on Chinese Paper armor.

 

It was actually a thing but it's really hard to get actual data on it.

 

Semi related, a great deal of the more fantastic Japanese armors were simple rawhide plates faced with paper-mache and lacquer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi related, a great deal of the more fantastic Japanese armors were simple rawhide plates faced with paper-mache and lacquer.

They also did things like using butted mail (and, closer to the topic, bamboo slats) in armour. Japanese armour is a wonderland of slightly off-kilter stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Militarysta
      Well known APC Rosomak in Afgan. version armour:
       

       
      Orginally it was israeli but after that it was produced by polish company "Mikanit":
      http://www.mikanit.com.pl/produkty/oslony-balistyczne.html
       
      Now, we know patent draws and description:
       

       

       
       
      Composition:
      2 mm HHS + air + 6,7 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap + 3,5 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap  + 20 mm aluminium + 5 mm aluminium.
      There is possibility that layout could be 4+3 (composite) and single composite layer can have up to 6mm thick and single HHS layer can have  4mm thickness. Layers can be separate up to 45mm.
       
      Accoding to manufacurer this armour can protect against ATGM and RPG's up to 500mm RHA penetration.
       
      Whole armour is combat proven in Afganistan - there are known some "Rosomak" whit 3x RPG's hits diretly in to this armour - no penetration at all, no engine damage. 
       
       
       
       
       
    • By Collimatrix
      Here at Sturgeon's House, we do not shy from the wholesale slaughter of sacred cows.  That is, of course, provided that they deserve to be slaughtered.
       
      The discipline of Military Science has, perhaps unavoidably, created a number of "paper tigers," weapons that are theoretically attractive, but really fail to work in reality.  War is a dangerous sort of activity, so most of the discussion of it must, perforce, remain theoretical.  Theory and reality will at some point inevitably diverge, and this creates some heartaches for some people.  Terminal, in some cases, such as all those American bomber crews who could never complete a tour of duty over Fortress Europe because the pre-war planners had been completely convinced that the defensive armament of the bombers would be sufficient to see them through.
       
      In other cases though, the paper tiger is created post-facto, through the repetition of sloppy research without consulting the primary documents.  One of the best examples of a paper tiger is the Tiger tank, a design which you would think was nearly invincible in combat from reading the modern hype of it, but in fact could be fairly easily seen off by 75mm armed Shermans, and occasionally killed by scout vehicles.  Add to this chronic, never-solved reliability problems, outrageous production costs, and absurd maintenance demands (ten hours to change a single road wheel?), and you have a tank that really just wasn't very good.
       
      And so it is time to set the record straight on another historical design whose legend has outgrown its actual merit, the British EM-2:
       

       
      EM-2ology is a sadly under-developed field of study for gun nerds.  There is no authoritative book on the history and design of this rifle.  Yes, I am aware of the Collector's Grade book on the subject.  I've actually read it and it isn't very good.  It isn't very long, and it is quite poorly edited, among other sins devoting several pages to reproducing J.B.S. Haldane's essay On Being the Right Size in full.  Why?!!?!!
       
      On top of that, there's quite a bit of misinformation that gets repeated as gospel.  Hopefully, this thread can serve as a collection point for proper scholarship on this interesting, but bad design.
       
      Question One:  Why do you say that the EM-2 was bad?  Is it because you're an American, and you love trashing everything that comes out of Airstrip One?  Why won't America love us?  We gave you your language!  PLEASE LOVE ME!  I AM SO LONELY NOW THAT I TOLD THE ENTIRE REST OF EUROPE TO FUCK OFF.
       
       
      Answer:  I'm saying the EM-2 was a bad design because it was a bad design.  Same as British tanks, really.  You lot design decent airplanes, but please leave the tanks, rifles and dentistry to the global superpower across the pond that owns you body and soul.  Oh, and leave cars to the Japanese.  To be honest, Americans can't do those right either.
       
      No, I'm not going to launch into some stupid tirade about how all bullpup assault rifle designs are inherently a poor idea.  I would agree with the statement that all such designs have so far been poorly executed, but frankly, very few assault rifles that aren't the AR-15 or AK are worth a damn, so that's hardly surprising.  In fact, the length savings that a bullpup design provides are very attractive provided that the designer takes the ergonomic challenges into consideration (and this the EM-2 designers did, with some unique solutions).
       
      Actually, there were two problems with the EM-2, and neither had anything to do with being a bullpup.  The first problem is that it didn't fucking work, and the second problem is that there was absolutely no way the EM-2 could have been mass-produced without completely re-thinking the design.
       
      See this test record for exhaustive documentation of the fact that the EM-2 did not work.  Points of note:
       
      -In less than ten thousand rounds the headspace of two of the EM-2s increased by .009 and .012 inches.  That is an order of magnitude larger than what is usually considered safe tolerances for headspace.
       
      -The EM-2 was less reliable than an M1 Garand.  Note that, contrary to popular assertion, the EM-2 was not particularly reliable in dust.  It was just less unreliable in dust than the other two designs, and that all three were less reliable than an M1 Garand.
       
      -The EM-2 was shockingly inaccurate with the ammunition provided and shot 14 MOA at 100 yards.  Seriously, look it up, that's what the test says.  There are clapped-out AKs buried for years in the Laotian jungle that shoot better than that.
       
      -The EM-2 had more parts breakages than any other rifle tested.
       
      -The EM-2 had more parts than any other rifle tested.
       
      -The fact that the EM-2 had a high bolt carrier velocity and problems with light primer strikes in full auto suggests it was suffering from bolt carrier bounce.
       
       
      As for the gun being completely un-suited to mass production, watch this video:
       
       
       
      Question Two:  But the EM-2 could have been developed into a good weapon system if the meanie-head Yanks hadn't insisted on the 7.62x51mm cartridge, which was too large and powerful for the EM-2 to handle!
       
      Anyone who repeats this one is ignorant of how bolt thrust works, and has done zero research on the EM-2.  In other words, anyone who says this is stupid and should feel bad for being stupid.  The maximum force exerted on the bolt of a firearm is the peak pressure multiplied by the interior area of the cartridge case.  You know, like you'd expect given the dimensional identities of force, area and pressure, if you were the sort of person who could do basic dimensional analysis, i.e. not a stupid one.
       
      Later version of the British 7mm cartridge had the same case head diameter as the 7.62x51mm NATO, so converting the design to fire the larger ammunition was not only possible but was actually done.  In fact, most the EM-2s made were in 7.62x51mm.  It was even possible to chamber the EM-2 in .30-06.
       
      I'm not going to say that this was because the basic action was strong enough to handle the 7x43mm, and therefore also strong enough to handle the 7.62x51mm NATO, because the headspace problems encountered in the 1950 test show that it really wasn't up to snuff with the weaker ammunition.  But I think it's fair to say that the EM-2 was roughly equally as capable of bashing itself to pieces in 7mm, 7.62 NATO or .30-06 flavor.
       
       
      Question Three:  You're being mean and intentionally provocative.  Didn't you say that there were some good things about the design?
       
      I did imply that there were some good aspects of the design, but I was lying.  Actually, there's only one good idea in the entire design.  But it's a really good idea, and I'm actually surprised that nobody has copied it.
       
      If you look at the patent, you can see that the magazine catch is extremely complicated.  However, per the US Army test report the magazine and magazine catch design were robust and reliable.
       
      What makes the EM-2 special is how the bolt behaves during a reload.  Like many rifles, the EM-2 has a tab on the magazine follower that pushes up the bolt catch in the receiver.  This locks the bolt open after the last shot, which helps to inform the soldier that the rifle is empty.  This part is nothing special; AR-15s, SKSs, FALs and many other rifles do this.
       
      What is special is what happens when a fresh magazine is inserted.  There is an additional lever in each magazine that is pushed by the magazine follower when the follower is in the top position of the magazine.  This lever will trip the bolt catch of the rifle provided that the follower is not in the top position; i.e. if the magazine has any ammunition in it.
       
      This means that the reload drill for an EM-2 is to fire the rifle until it is empty and the bolt locks back, then pull out the empty magazine, and put in a fresh one.  That's it; no fussing with the charging handle, no hitting a bolt release.  When the first magazine runs empty the bolt gets locked open, and as soon as a loaded one is inserted the bolt closes itself again.  This is a very good solution to the problem of fast reloads in a bullpup (or any other firearm).  It's so clever that I'm actually surprised that nobody has copied it.
       
      Question Four:  But what about the intermediate cartridge the EM-2 fired?  Doesn't that represent a lost opportunity vis a vis the too powerful 7.62 NATO?
       
      Sort of, but not really.  The 7mm ammunition the EM-2 fired went through several iterations, becoming increasingly powerful.  The earliest versions of the 7mm ammunition had similar ballistics to Soviet 7.62x39mm, while the last versions were only a hair less powerful than 7.62x51mm NATO.
       
      As for the 7mm ammunition having some optimum balance between weight, recoil and trajectory, I'm skeptical.  The bullets the 7mm cartridges used were not particularly aerodynamic, so while they enjoyed good sectional density and (in the earlier stages) moderate recoil, it's not like they were getting everything they could have out of the design.
       

      note the flat base
       
      In addition, the .280 ammunition was miserably inaccurate.  Check the US rifle tests; the .280 chambered proto-FAL couldn't hit anything either.
    • By eggs benedict
      hello everyone!
      so i read that the T-90 shares the T-72B turret , thus BDD armor , however this documentary (?) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKGv5JQBTI8 says "aluminums and plastics".
      is this any legit? did they like , keep the t72b cavity design and change the fill?
       
      also , did the combination on new welded towers change?
×