Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Diamondeye]

Military guy was a top instructor for US Marine training.

A Marine major I was deployed with had this to say about Marine unarmed combat training: "We're getting overly obsessed with physical fitness and close combat in the Marines. These guys are now taking 2 different PT tests, plus this unarmed combat course. They have fun doing it, and it's effective as far as it goes, but I don't know of a single instance of a Marine's life being saved by the unarmed combat we taught him. Now, how many Marines have ended up in the hospital in the process of learning it? And what good were they to the Corps while they were there?"

Unarmed combat has severe limitations on any modern (as in, Civil War or later) battlefield. The weaponry is too deadly for it to be anything more than a personal survival tool.

[Brother Oni]

What? Technique? I don't really consider harsh physical training to be technique. It might build technique, but that's more of a happy coincidence to being tough as nuts.

I usually find that unless your technique is absolutely correct, you end up injuring yourself. For example in the case of the tree kicking Muay Thai boxers, not hitting the tree with the correct part of your shin.

Unarmed combat has severe limitations on any modern (as in, Civil War or later) battlefield. The weaponry is too deadly for it to be anything more than a personal survival tool.

While true, the close quarters encountered in urban combat can often end up with the two sides literally falling over each other.

I remember an interview with a Royal Marine that during counter insurgency operations in Iraq, he ended up bayonetting an enemy during a house clearance. If you're ending up that close, unarmed combat becomes a distinct possibility and in my opinion, it's better to train for it and not need it, than to need it and not have trained for it.

[Autolykos]

If you're ending up that close, unarmed combat becomes a distinct possibility and in my opinion, it's better to train for it and not need it, than to need it and not have trained for it.

True in theory, but in practice it's always a trade off. If you run every soldier through the training of a MMA fighter, a lot of his other skills are going to suffer. Stuff like situational awareness, marksmanship, heck, even languages are probably saving his butt more often than unarmed combat.
That's not to say they shouldn't get any training - but it's rater low priority and doesn't need to even come close to a professional level. So it's probably best to teach them a few simple tricks and leave it at that. You can teach someone a few simple knife drills in an afternoon that will be enough to cut even quite experienced martial artists (but maybe not the very best) to pieces. He won't be any good at defending himself, but teaching that is *hard* and won't be cost effective when that weapon is more of a last resort anyway.

[Conners]

Not sure that's true. It's true that time training them CQC could be spent training them in something else. However, at a certain point, you won't see major improvements in a skill (unless you devoted everything to it). As long as they keep their marksmanship and etc. to an adequate level, they should be OK.

[Spiryt]

What? Technique? I don't really consider harsh physical training to be technique. It might build technique, but that's more of a happy coincidence to being tough as nuts.

Well, of course technique.

Kicking technique to get as much impact as possible with given motion, to not hurt yourself doing it, stay balanced, ready to strike again or do any other motion, etc.

The fact that it also 'toughening' is obvious, but that's true for really any hard exercise out there.

Becoming tough as nuts anyway can happen during sparring and actual fights and other stressful and 'extreme' situations, it's 'just' an exercise.

[Conners]

What do you guys know about leather armour? Figured the stuff was mostly fictional, in terms of use within medieval eruope. Also figured the only particularly good stuff was laquered lamellar. Some guys on another forum have been telling me about studded leather armour which works, and some other things of that nature. Here's a couple of the posts:

well Lamellar (sp) is actually what the greek's used it was leather armor with strips of bronze inside of it sewn in. but i had to make a leather jerkin for SCA once and it used 2-3 inch thick pieces of leather cutting them into rectangles 6"x4" punching holes in the 4 corners then boiling them in a mixture of wax/water, then using stud's to secure into a 2-3 inch leather shirt. This is studded leather armor and was COMMON in western europe. I then put it on a maniquin to test it and basically couldn't cut through it with any of the several swords i own. finally tried a ceramic knife and was only able to cut through in 1 spot and that was between the squares. and i literally had to line it up then apply pressure and slowly cut.

basically. Do i think a scimitar honed to a razors edge could cut through leather? YES
Do i think a normal period weapon for England dulled from battle or just normal medieval honing? NO

Lamellar was the popular armor of the European East point example being the Byzantine empire and it was light and more flexible then plate with apparently comparable characteristics. Still inferior overall. I would personally use Lamellar because of weight and protection ratios. Yes it was a full body system if you look at the modern dragon scale armor it has similar ideas.

- Frank Sinatra

Anyone able to shed light on how common and useful leather armour was in Europe?

[Spiryt]

I find those quoted posts... Problematic, especially the first one is complete chaos of made up stuff, SCA-nism etc. Starting with Greek Lammellar...

Anyway, what we do know today are some written mentions of leather defenses, and literally like one find.

Mentioned particularly in tournament context, AFAIR.

http://www.masterarmourer.com/13th_century.html

So while something like that was probably used around 13th and 14th century, we don't really know much about it, and it probably never really caught up.

[Yora]

The British Museum supposedly has a leather armor from the Tomb of Tutankhamun in storage, but there are no pictures of it on the internet.

[Storm Bringer]

As far as i know, "studded Leather" armour was a misunderstanding of the historical "coat of Plates" armour, which was a series of plates rivited onto the inside of a leather or padded garment.

they looked something like this, but the reverse looked like this and it appears that someone looked at a picture or statue of a person wearing one, guessing it was armour, and assumed that the outer layer (apprantly leather) was the protective layer, "reinforced" by the small stubs in some fashion.

while it's not clear how they thought small metal studs would increase the protective propeties, they clearly thought it must have worked, becuase thier is plently of pictoral evidence of people wearing this stuff in battle scenes.

So the myth of Studded leather was born, or at least as i understand it.

[Spiryt]

Funnily enough, in case of coat of plates and brigandines, leather doesn't even seem to be favorite backing material, heavy fabrics were apparently very popular.

[Yora]

I think leather does funny things when getting wet. There's more than enough types of cloth that don't.

[fusilier]

What about buff coats, and Spanish leather "cueras"? Those are fairly well represented in the historical record if I'm not mistaken. They aren't hardened leather, however.

[Conners]

How good are they as armour?

[fusilier]

How good are they as armour?

That's a good question. At one point they were widespread and common, so they must have had some utility. Buff coats being popular in the first half of the 17th century -- obviously their bullet stopping capabilities couldn't have been too good, which means their primary effectiveness must have been in hand-to-hand. Cueras were reasonably effective against arrows, but tended to be very heavy, and made of several layers of leather.

[Spiryt]

Actually, I think there are some anecdotes about Gustav Adolf shaking off bullets from his coat, so perhaps they could protect from larger distance shots.

Those were pretty much soft, well threated leather, so coat could be sewn together from many layers of it, forming quite stiff defense.

Spoiler

Show

[Yora]

What can steel weapons and armor do that bronze doesn't?

It's cheaper when you know how to make steel, but when you already have the finished pieces, what advantage does one have over the other.

[Galloglaich]

What can steel weapons and armor do that bronze doesn't?

It's cheaper when you know how to make steel, but when you already have the finished pieces, what advantage does one have over the other.

The short answer is that bronze is similar in many respects to iron, arguably a bit better in some ways, though a little bit heavier. It is more complex to make though because it requires two metals (copper and tin) rather than one. Steel however surpasses bronze in most respects except in difficulty of production.

All bronze is an alloy, so when you are speaking of bronze you are never speaking of one thing, rather it's always a range. Most 'bronzes' are alloys of copper and tin but some 'bronze' military artifacts turn out to actually be brass (copper and calamide / zinc) or alloys of copper and arsenic.

Most alloys of bronze are actually about 5-10% heavier than iron. Steel weighs the same as iron but steel armor can be made about half as thick or less, for the same strength (so potentially 50% the weight) and steel weapons can be made a little lighter as well while being much stronger. So for example, a ten pound bronze armored corslet might be as effective as a nine pound iron corselet or a five pound steel corslet.

Certain alloys of bronze can actually be stronger than iron, and bronze artifacts can be mass-produced more easily since they can be cast. (Cast iron weapons and armor were never made as far as I'm aware, only forged iron). Some bronze weapons such as those found in China were made of different alloys, harder for the blade edges and more ductile for the spine or the center of the blade, which is similar in effect to early forge-welding and pattern welding techniques done to improve iron. In both cases generally far superior to an ordinary wrought iron or cast bronze blade.

Generally speaking bronze is also much more corrosion resistant than almost any ferrous metal until the invention of chromium (stainless) steel in the 19th Century, although some other high phosophorous alloys such as the famous iron pillar of Delhi prove that there were some exceptions to this rule.

Bronze is not however anywhere near as springy and tough as properly tempered high-carbon steel. But making properly tempered high-carbon steel was never easy, historically, and it is still a very expensive material even today.

G

[Spiryt]

Most bronze alloys have high resistance to material fatigue failures, AFAIR. Of course, meaning of it in weapons etc. use would be disputable.

Higher density can be also somehow nice perk for weapon - bigger sectional density of given blade in penetrating stuff.

Although the difference here most probably wouldn't be all that very meaningful compared to actual cross-section, tempering and so on.

[Galloglaich]

What do you guys know about leather armour? Figured the stuff was mostly fictional, in terms of use within medieval europe.

Basically yes.

Also figured the only particularly good stuff was laquered lamellar.

You are probably right about that too.

Some guys on another forum have been telling me about studded leather armour which works, and some other things of that nature.

Here's a couple of the posts:

Originally Posted by FearTheAmish

well Lamellar (sp) is actually what the greek's used it was leather armor with strips of bronze inside of it sewn in. but i had to make a leather jerkin for SCA once and it (snip) This is studded leather armor and was COMMON in western europe. I then put it on a maniquin to test it and basically couldn't cut through it with any of the several swords i own.


Originally Posted by hiddensmoke

Lamellar was the popular armor of the European East point example being the Byzantine empire and it was light and more flexible then plate with apparently comparable characteristics. Still inferior overall. I would personally use Lamellar because of weight and protection ratios. Yes it was a full body system if you look at the modern dragon scale armor it has similar ideas.

- Frank Sinatra

The Byzantines used lamellar but not, so far as I'm aware, leather lamellar. Rather they used iron, which was not necessarily any lighter than plate armor in most cases, probably on balance heavier, since the Byzantine heavy cavalry kit (Klibanion) incorporated lamellar over mail.

Anyone able to shed light on how common and useful leather armour was in Europe?

The very rare examples of what look like stand alone leather armor they have found in Medieval Europe are all heavily tooled parade armor, used for tournaments with non-metal sparring weapons. Leather does not appear to have been used as a primary component of actual battlefield armor in Europe except in the following cases:

• Hardened leather as a stiffener under or over mail armor, usually for chest and thighs (cuirass and cuisses), in the 12th-13th Century. The mail of course is the real armor here.
• As a component of coat of plates or brigandine armor in the 13th-15th Century (textile was more common but leather was used, I have an image of a Spanish 15th Century brigandine with a leather cover). By this I mean specifically as the backing to which the iron plates were attached, the iron plates being the actual armor.
• As a component of textile armor ('aketons' in the British Isles often had a doeskin or leather cover, sometimes sealed in pitch, as a damp weather protection)
• and as a secondary armor worn underneath a cuirass, the famous 'buff coats' of the 17th Century.

All these forms of leather armor, except for the last, have proven to be extremely rare. We have probably twenty times the number of cuir-boulli leather water bottles and cups for example from the Medieval period than we have of any kind of leather armor.

All the modern tests we have done show that textiles, linen, silk, fustian, cotton, turn out to be more effective than any kind of leather, hardened or soft, as armor.

The 'buff coat' type armor is a bit more controversial. There are these accounts of 'spent' musket balls falling off of them. Of course there are also similar accounts of Chinese textile coats stopping .45 bullets from Thompson SMG's in the Korean war, but I wouldn't depend on that actually saving your life.

On the other hand, leather (often buffalo hide) lamellar was apparently fairly common in Central Asia however, and as lamellar it may have been reasonably effective protection against arrows, especially flight-arrows. And I've even some examples of something which looks like 'studded leather'.

European swords were not any less sharp than Muslim sabers. There was no such thing as a 'scimetar' anyway, this is sort of a generic European term for a wide variety of Middle Eastern, Central Asian and South Asian sabers, inward-curving swords like the yataghan, and single-edged swords such as falchions (which were also, of course, indigenous to Europe).

G

[Galloglaich]

Most bronze alloys have high resistance to material fatigue failures, AFAIR. Of course, meaning of it in weapons etc. use would be disputable.

Higher density can be also somehow nice perk for weapon - bigger sectional density of given blade in penetrating stuff..

Yes I think this is why Bronze was more commonly used for mace-heads for so long in Central Asia and Central / Eastern Europe, all the way into the 19th Century in some places.

Bronze was also more popular for gun barrels for a long time, for many of the above reasons as well as because it didn't make unexpected sparks.

Cast iron was a rival to bronze for cannon barrels eventually but I think mainly due to being cheaper; I believe (somebody can correct me) bronze cannon barrels were more popular all the way into the 18th Century. I think only when they wanted precision barrels (and features like rifling) did steel actually start to become common for gun barrels and then only (initially) in certain specific regions like Brescia, I think this rather gradually spread from the 16th Century onward.

G

[Yora]

So basically it comes down to what you can get and craftsmanship, with neither being universally superior?

[Tyndmyr]

What do you guys know about leather armour? Figured the stuff was mostly fictional, in terms of use within medieval eruope. Also figured the only particularly good stuff was laquered lamellar. Some guys on another forum have been telling me about studded leather armour which works, and some other things of that nature. Here's a couple of the posts:

Anyone able to shed light on how common and useful leather armour was in Europe?

It's my understanding that leather did see some use...but it was not particularly common, especially in the sort of armor we see at larps now. Soft, thin leather is of pretty marginal value as armor. Hardened armor has some value, though obviously it's inferior to metal. I believe blackened leather saw some use in italy at one point, but for entirely stylistic reasons rather than armor.

Coat of plates is legit, certainly. Leather as a component of armor was a thing, but the actual protective value almost invariably comes from the metal.

Realistically, it's popular in larp-type stuff because it's cheap, especially if unhardened and without metal of any kind. So, you get thin, un-hardened leather that has only the vaguest of resemblance to anything historical because people like to barely follow the rules with the minimal amount of effort/encumbrance. Don't get me wrong...I do leatherworking myself. It can look awesome and be fun, but it's almost pure fantasy instead of history.

[Yora]

But what would people wear when they expect to be attacked by weapons but they could not afford chainmail?

[Galloglaich]

So basically it comes down to what you can get and craftsmanship, with neither being universally superior?

That depends on the time period. In say, 200 BC, I would say this was the case. By say, 200 AD, you probably have more good steel weapons and iron armor than bronze... by 1400 AD, steel weapons are common and cheap. Any steel sword is going to be better than the best bronze sword.

For say, a halberd, or an arrowhead it might not matter so much.

Steel armor is still expensive and somewhat rare (prestige) kit, rather like a really good ballistic (threat level IV?) vest is today, but it's still clearly better than bronze armor.

Bronze is sill being used though at that time for mace-heads and gun barrels, and for some armor.

But what would people wear when they expect to be attacked by weapons but they could not afford chainmail?

In a word, textile. Gambeson / aketon / jupon that sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson


G

[Spiryt]

But what would people wear when they expect to be attacked by weapons but they could not afford chainmail?

Usually all sort of gambeson, aketon, padded pourpoint and so on.

At least since around ~ 12th century, we can guess that similar things were in use before.

[Galloglaich]

Realistically, it's popular in larp-type stuff because it's cheap, especially if unhardened and without metal of any kind. So, you get thin, un-hardened leather that has only the vaguest of resemblance to anything historical because people like to barely follow the rules with the minimal amount of effort/encumbrance. Don't get me wrong...I do leatherworking myself. It can look awesome and be fun, but it's almost pure fantasy instead of history.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that in comparison to steel or iron armor, leather thick enough to protect you from being bruised by even a rataan stick ala SCA combat, it not exactly light.

A real historical rivated mail shirt which can actually stop sword cuts and arrows weighs around 12 - 15 lbs and is flexible. A leather cuirass by contrast, hardened or otherwise, thick enough to (maybe) stop a sword cut weighs probably quite a bit more than that and will be very stiff and cumbersome. And fairly expensive.

The idea of leather armor as 'light' and 'flexible' and cheap alternative to metal armor is born of a whole host of cliches and mistakes that keep getting repeated around and around in circles. It's up to us to kind of correct that! :)

G

[Tyndmyr]

But what would people wear when they expect to be attacked by weapons but they could not afford chainmail?

Sometimes nothing. Depends how poor you were. Spiryt is correct, though, in that textiles did see notable use. Wooden shields and such were also a common defensive option, even if cheap shields were fairly disposable... but frankly, not everyone on the battlefield even had defensive stuff. Sometimes you're just a dude with a spear.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that in comparison to steel or iron armor, leather thick enough to protect you from being bruised by even a rataan stick ala SCA combat, it not exactly light.

Larp is larger than just SCA though. Consider other organizations, like Dagorhir, and you can definitely see that the rules allow much cheaper/easier/lighter "armor" than metal. The larps for which combat is more of a tap sport are even less likely to require leather to be particularly thick.

[Galloglaich]

Sometimes nothing. Depends how poor you were. Spiryt is correct, though, in that textiles did see notable use. Wooden shields and such were also a common defensive option, even if cheap shields were fairly disposable... but frankly, not everyone on the battlefield even had defensive stuff. Sometimes you're just a dude with a spear.

That does also depend on the era; on late Medieval battlefields armor was pretty ubiquitous.

Larp is larger than just SCA though. Consider other organizations, like Dagorhir, and you can definitely see that the rules allow much cheaper/easier/lighter "armor" than metal. The larps for which combat is more of a tap sport are even less likely to require leather to be particularly thick.

Well, that isn't relevant to the use of leather for 'armor', because in that case it's just a costume isn't it? I mentioned the SCA gear because their kit is assumed to have some protective quality to it, at least against blunt impact, though again, I don't think leather actually holds up to sharp edges very well regardless of how thick it is.

Basically just trying to provide some context on the heaviness of leather as armor, the way it's depicted in RPG's. Obviously it can thin as you like for clothing or decoration (which is actually all armor usually is in most fantasy films and a lot of RPG's).

G

[Storm Bringer]

Bronze was also more popular for gun barrels for a long time, for many of the above reasons as well as because it didn't make unexpected sparks.

Cast iron was a rival to bronze for cannon barrels eventually but I think mainly due to being cheaper; I believe (somebody can correct me) bronze cannon barrels were more popular all the way into the 18th Century.

G

the most common cannon on both sides of the American Civil War of the 1860s, the 12 pdr Napoleon, was a bronze cannon.

as i understand it, the many early cannons were bonze because the early cannonmakers were mostly Bell makers (the only people of the time with experence in working with large amounts of moltern metal), who worked with bronze. Also, I beleive, but cannot confirm, that bronze was preffered for large metal objects because of problems with casting flaws in cast Iorn over a certian size (which is why the greeks could wear solid bronze breastplates but the romans needed segmented iorn armour), which were only overcome in the 19th century.

[Yora]

Sometimes nothing. Depends how poor you were. Spiryt is correct, though, in that textiles did see notable use. Wooden shields and such were also a common defensive option, even if cheap shields were fairly disposable... but frankly, not everyone on the battlefield even had defensive stuff. Sometimes you're just a dude with a spear.

But are there reasons that would make leather inherently inferior to other materials. Having a fabric armor with leather layers would not be leather armor as in the common image, but is there compelling reasons to not use leather in such constructions?

Cowboys wrapped leather over their trousers, though thorny brambles and cattle horms are a completely different beast than sharpened metal blades.