Why Btonze Age?

[abaris]

I doubt the rider would have cared about the physics as long as he didn't get an arrow in his back.

But it's interesting to us what really makes it stop. That's what it's all about. curiosity, isn't it?

[Minimalist]

Agreed......................... once the shooting stops.

[Gawdzilla]

Did you see the one where they demonstrated that the piece of silk on the back of a horseman could stop an arrow?

I didn't see it on mythbusters but in another documentary. About these contraptions on the backs of Japanese Samurai.



SWome british military historian, who's featured quite often in these kinds of documentaries presented it by trying out himself. Soemhow I never can't remember his name.

This guy.

[Anomalocaris]

japanese armor works somewhat differently from rigid armor like plate armor or linen cuirass. Japanese armor often consists of individual lacquared tiles that maybe semi-rigid, but that are hold in place by a elastic webwork of cords. So the energy of the impact is absorbed over a large area. The airspace behind the armor probably allow the surface layer to move back and stretch the cords without bruising the flesh behind it.

Silk can also be woven very tightly, to the point where just a handful of layers of silk can present a waterproof and airtight barrier. So silk probably works even better than linen if glued into little plates.

[abaris]

 

Silk can also be woven very tightly, to the point where just a handful of layers of silk can present a waterproof and airtight barrier.   So silk probably works even better than linen if glued into little plates.

I'm sure, it can. But the point of this experiment was to prove that the pocket of air serves as protection.

[Minimalist]

japanese armor works somewhat differently from rigid armor like plate armor or linen cuirass.  Japanese armor often consists of individual lacquared tiles that maybe semi-rigid, but that are hold in place by a elastic webwork of cords.  So the energy of the impact is absorbed over a large area.  The airspace behind the armor probably allow the surface layer to move back and stretch the cords without bruising the flesh behind it.  

Silk can also be woven very tightly, to the point where just a handful of layers of silk can present a waterproof and airtight barrier.   So silk probably works even better than linen if glued into little plates.

You know, that's really a good point.  Armor, in order to justify the cost of production and the impact on movement, had to work.  That is to say that no one would have created it/ worn it if it did not stop the primary threat faced by a soldier.  Think about the "armor" shown in the Star Wars movies:



It is apparently ineffective against ray guns so why wear it?  Because the producer thinks it looks cool?  That would not cut it in real life.  As European armies moved to muskets armor for the soldiers dwindled away because it was not going to be effective against musket and cannon.  Vestiges survived in officer's gorgets and certain heavy cavalry units like the cuirassiers.



So, yeah.  If armorers went through the trouble of making something you can bet your ass that it served an actual military need at the time and was not a mere decoration.

[abaris]

So, yeah.  If armorers went through the trouble of making something you can bet your ass that it served an actual military need at the time and was not a mere decoration.

Which is up for debate in this example. It probably served some purpose as far as sabres were involved, but with a volley of muskets it added to the damage. I can't find the pictures right now, but there are several of these shot through at Waterloo.

[Minimalist]

Again, its a vestigial reminder of knights in armor, you know how romantic the French can be.  In fairness though, the cuirass was "proofed" against pistol bullets and since cavalry was ideally supposed to fight other cavalry and they would have been armed with pistol and saber one could argue that it would provide protection against that threat.  It would probably stop a musket ball at long range too, but there it is so much more likely that you'd hit the horse if you hit anything.

[abaris]

Again, its a vestigial reminder of knights in armor, you know how romantic the French can be.  In fairness though, the cuirass was "proofed" against pistol bullets and since cavalry was ideally supposed to fight other cavalry and they would have been armed with pistol and saber one could argue that it would provide protection against that threat.  It would probably stop a musket ball at long range too, but there it is so much more likely that you'd hit the horse if you hit anything.

We had the same units in our cavalery, although black. Probably because it came cheaper to not add a shiny finish. But the point is, hardly anything in 18th and 19th century attire made much sense in terms of protection. It was rather to impress the opposing force.

[Minimalist]

French Napoleonic re-enactors.... although the guy on the end looks like he has been hitting the croissants a little too hard.  Colorful but hardly armored.  Recall that the cavalry units tended to be recruited from the upper classes and still retained some of that chivalry bullshit as opposed to the grunts.