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 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?
    • By Waffentrager
      Disclaimer: Yeah naturally Japanese tanks arent a big focus here, so I usually ignore posting things of the matter here. But like the O-I article I posted here oh so long ago, this article comes with the results of some days spent in the archive reading and (continuing to do) translating pages of reports that havent been read in like, decades. So with that said, hope you enjoy. Still a matter I'm unfinished diving into.
       
      ---------
       
       
      Type5 Ho-Ri : The Japanese Ferdinand       As of recently, I've gone through the Japanese National Archive files, looking through to find documents that relate to my studies. While I was there, I stumbled across something that caught my interest. Of said documents, the one of most importance was a file called "Military Secrets No.1". The reports were held by the Ministry of Defense, Army records section, Munitions Mobilization district. Contained in these files were a 3-page production chart of late war tracked vehicles of the Japanese army. Located within the chart I found a number besides the Type 5 Ho-Ri tank destroyer. A vehicle that until recently was only known to have made it to wooden mockup stages. In this lengthy article I will cover my findings on the tank project. Unfortunately visual representations of the tank are still being looked at. So I will use existing found sources for this.    

      National Institute for Defense Studies " Military secret No.1 "
       
          In September of 1942, the Japanese Army Staff came to the realization that they had no choice but to design a series of tanks to compete with the arrival of the American Sherman tank. Three concepts were proposed by the Staff, each with their own gun selection; Kou (47mm), Otsu (57mm), and Hei (75mm). As combat data filtered back to Japanese high command, the model Kou concept would later merge with Otsu concept, becoming the basis for the design of the Type4 Chi-To. The Hei proposal would eventually lead to the development of the Type5 Chi-Ri.   Additional impetus for new development projects came from a change in the Weapons Administration Headquarters Research Policy in July 1943, a change which was made as a result of analyzing and examining the situation of the tank warfare between the German army and the Soviet Union. Through analysis of this data, the Army's tank doctrine shifted to an emphasis on developing tanks which prioritized the anti-armor mission instead of prioritizing infantry support with limited anti-tank capability. Upon the promulgation of this policy, the Japanese Army decided to develop a series of tank destroyers alongside the medium tanks being designed.   As a result, the Type5 Chi-Ri, Japan’s primary medium-tank project, would become the basis for a new anti-armor vehicle. This was a natural choice for IJA command; the Chi-Ri project was more mature. Additionally, it held the most advanced technology Japan produced at the time, technology which would become ubiquitous in the designs that would be made until Japan's defeat in 1945.  

      Testing model of Chi-Ri. Used to trial the series of cannons and turrets designed for the tank. In the photograph it is captured by US forces after the gun had been dismantled for further trials. By Japan's defeat in 1945, three models of Chi-Ri entered production.
       
       
      The tank destroyer built upon the chassis of the Chi-Ri would eventually be called the Ho-Ri. Development of this vehicle began shortly after the development of the Chi-Ri, when it had been decided that the tank would use the coil spring suspension system that Japanese manufacturers were already familiar with. After this decision was made, the Army also began work on designing the tank destroyer’s superstructure and casemate. The first design the Army came up with mimicked the Chi-Ri chassis entirely, though the turret was replaced with a reinforced rear-mounted superstructure.   The Experimental 10cm Cannon   With the development of a new series of tank destroyers taking place, the Army decided to design and produce a new high capacity anti-tank gun to fit the role. On July 22 of 1943, the Army Military Customs Council began designing a 105mm caliber anti-tank gun. Once the design of the cannon had been completed, construction of the cannon took place around a steel shielding that was to be the Ho-Ri's superstructure plating. The trial placement was capable of traversing 10 degrees to the left and the right, elevating by 20 degrees, and depressing by 15. The gun weighed 4.7 tons, with a barrel length of  5.759 m.    During one of the first council meetings that took place on the 30th of June, however, the council gave Major Ota and Lieutenant Colonel Neima  of the Army Weapons Administrative Division, the two chief engineers of the Experimental 10cm project, the task of achieving the requirement that the gun meet 200mm penetration at 600 meters distance and 1000m/s velocity. Naturally, the tank gun was not capable of this, and, instead, the Experimental 10cm had a muzzle velocity of 915m/s with AP (900m/s with HE), and achieved a performance of 150mm penetration at a distance of 1000 meters.   The 10cm Experimental Anti Tank gun relied on a system similar to the Type5 75mm Anti tank cannon in relying on an autoloading mechanism for the tank.  This mechanism was known as a semi-automatic loading system, different to the ordinary "autoloader" you see in other vehicles. Unlike the typical autoloading system, the loading crew of the gun system placed the individual shells on the chamber, the system automatically ramming the shell into the breech and forwarding to operation. This gave the effect of automating half the loading routine, as the name suggests. The Experimental 10cm was put into service with the Ho-Ri in 1945. The technical name for the model to be used on the prospective production model was known as the Type5 10cm anti tank cannon.   The shell rammer used a horizontal chain closing type, and the automatic loading machine was attached to the back of the gun. It was used because loading ammunition of 123 cm total length and 30 kg weight was deemed too strenuous on a small Japanese physique. Various artillery parts had been diverted and referred to in order to shorten the time of development. The autoloading machine adopted the mechanism of the Type3 12 cm AA Gun for inspiration. The automatic loading mechanism was a continual source of problems, but was repeatedly refurbished to eliminate the drawbacks.     Photograph of the Experimental 10cm Anti tank cannon during trials. Note: The shielf and protector are used on Ho-Ri prototype. Gun was first tested separately and then placed in tank prototype.    Ho-Ri Designs   Originally, the Ho-Ri was to keep the secondary 37mm that had been mounted on the Chi-Ri design. The reason for this addition was due to the limited gun-traverse on casemate tank destroyers. Additionally, the primary cannon could only do so much for itself. Hence, to combat many anti tank threats which the Americans could have dedicated to the assault on Japan, the 37mm was seen as being an efficient method of providing additional firepower against infantry and combat vehicles. To this end, the 37mm gun offered a range of APHE and smoke shells. The 37mm was capable of an elevation of 20 degrees and depression of -15 degrees. The mount itself also offered a horizontal traverse of 20 degrees. The 37mm gun could also be used as a ranging device for the main cannon, however this most likely would not have been needed due to the high velocity of the main gun.  

      Outline of the Ho-Ri design I. Technically entered modified construction of one of the 3 Chi-Ri units.
       
       
      The development of the Ho-Ri design was split into two concepts. One being a rear mounted superstructure on the Chi-Ri chassis with a central stationed engine, and the other having a centralized superstructure with a rear engine placement. The Ho-Ri engine selection was different from the traditional diesel that the Army had kept with for most of their tank production. Japan used a BMW designed gasoline V12 aircraft engine . The main reason for this change was due to industrial capacity of Japan reaching its peak, aircraft development was still  a heavy priority and many assets were available for useage. The output of the tank was 550hp/1500rpm.   The Ho-Ri II’s design also enabled  the option of adding a 20mm AA station on the rear hatch for additional protection. However, the likelihood of it being useful is up for debate. In addition, central placement of the superstructure enabled 60 rounds for the main cannon to be stored instead of the Ho-Ri I’s 40 rounds.    In terms of armour, both vehicles were to keep the Chi-Ri hull, hence the maximum frontal armour of these tanks was only 75mm. On the superstructure, however, armor thickness was increased to 100mm. By the time both designs, which had been developed in parallel, were presented to Army General Staff it was too late; the war was almost over, and the thickness of the armor was no longer sufficient against US armaments. Nevertheless, the design showed promise. Thus, while neither design was chosen for production, the Ho-Ri I was adopted as the main influence for the third revision of the tank. This third vehicle is commonly labeled as Ho-Ri III. Technically, however, none of the Ho-Ri vehicles were numerically designated.        Ho-Ri III wooden mockup.   Ho-Ri III took the basis of the Ho-Ri I, and revamped it to fit the needs of the military. The frontal plate of the tank was sloped at a 70 degree angle and increased to 120mm thickness. In this configuration, the tank was capable of withstanding most anti tank measures the Unites States could bring to the home islands of Japan. The designers of the tank built a wooden mockup form of the revision 3 design and presented it to the general staff, at an unknown date. The Ho-Ri kept its general composition the same as the prior designs, but this change was what the Army Staff ultimately decided to go with and schedule the Ho-Ri for prototype construction. The tank would have a crew total of 6; driver, gunner, two loaders, radio operator, and commander. The past designs made use of the 37mm that the Chi-Ri hull had present, however, with the chosen slope change on the Ho-Ri III, this was no longer present and a crew member spot was open. The 6th crew member was placed as the second loader to assist with the autoloading mechanism and provide shells for the primary loader.   The construction of the prototype was completed in 1944. The tank achieved a speed of 40kmh during the trials. The tests were seen as a success, resulting in the Army ordering 5 units of the tank. The tank was put in service as the Type5 Ho-Ri, as the production model started in 1945. However, by the time of the war's end, the series of tanks only made it to 50% completion. Only one operable prototype had been completed fully. Reports of the trial are still being processed at this time [11/15/16].   My research continues. I have been spending days now trying to go through everything and get the details of the tank out to the light. Once all the documents are collected together and  organized, translated, and put back together I will write a follow up article to this.     You can view full post with all images on my blog post:   http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/11/type5-ho-ri-japanese-ferdinand.html
    • By Priory_of_Sion
      The Manhattan Project gets all the glory(it deserves it), but the Soviets quickly developed their own atomic weapons. They had some help through espionage, but I think it might be another piece of McCarthyism to dismiss Soviet atomic scientists. 
       
      Here is a post on the Nuclear Secrecy Blog on the early program. Good insight, but not the end-all-be-all of information on the subject. 

      A Model of the First Lightning/Joe 1 bomb?
×