Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A Senefelder · 4th August 2009, 03:19 PM

Jim, I now remember where I read about silk used for bullet proof armour and boy was I wrong. Its from L.Ron Hubbard's Final Blackout, his version of Things to Come written in 1939. It not a bad story even though the inspiration is obvious but as its written mostly on a soldiers level after 30 years of fighting and complete exhaustion of all involved the gear used is a mishmash. The item in question is worn by " the Lieutenant ", the stories anti hero and is refered to as a battle cloak, made up of multiple layers of quilted silk which according to the story would stop bullets, but did suffer attrition through use and would eventually become useless.

" As far as I can see, the reason for no armour most of the time is for similar reasons heavy plate was given up in Europe in the 17th century;
Bullets could still go through it sometimes, and it was heavy and cumbersome.
Better move fast and light than pack the weight. ......so the buff jacket and steel cap replaced the heavy stuff. This is rather over-simplified, but I think you may understand what I mean."

My understanding is that much of Europes ruling class was forced into a deciscion in the later 17th century. Firelocks were much more reliable than matchlocks and much more expensive and armies had achieved enourmous protonational levels that were increadibly expensive to keep in the field, armour even the basics of breast plate and helmet for armies of several tens of thousands were also expensive and a choice had to be made by those paying for it all. The newest, most up to date firelocks or body armour and the choice across the board in Western Europe was the latest gun technology. Yes much of the full harness of the previous century had already been discarded but the helmet and breast plate were the last to go, and the first pieces to be resureccted with the dawing of the 20th century and the manufacturing muscle of the industrail era to produce not just as many up to date fire arms as needed but also body armour as well. If you think about it simply standing in lines 60 feet away in brightly colored uniforms blazing away at each other using volley fire is the definition of suicide. With the comming of WWI and the power of industrialization every participant began to re-adopt body armour in an acknowlegment of the fact learned centuries earlier that soldiers and thier training are expensive investments, and as such needed proper protection to keep that investment in the field paying dividends and minimize the injuries when suffered to increase the likelyhood of returning to service. Since it re-adoption during WWI bady armour has remained a mainstay for militaries the world over often much heavier than basic plate harness would have been in the 15th or 16th centuries ( with all the additional pieces that have come into service during the US's time in Iraq a full bullet proof body armour rig can come it at 80-90 pounds ) and expirementation to improve it is constant.

4th August 2009, 03:19 PM	#51
A Senefelder Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 214	Jim, I now remember where I read about silk used for bullet proof armour and boy was I wrong. Its from L.Ron Hubbard's Final Blackout, his version of Things to Come written in 1939. It not a bad story even though the inspiration is obvious but as its written mostly on a soldiers level after 30 years of fighting and complete exhaustion of all involved the gear used is a mishmash. The item in question is worn by " the Lieutenant ", the stories anti hero and is refered to as a battle cloak, made up of multiple layers of quilted silk which according to the story would stop bullets, but did suffer attrition through use and would eventually become useless. " As far as I can see, the reason for no armour most of the time is for similar reasons heavy plate was given up in Europe in the 17th century; Bullets could still go through it sometimes, and it was heavy and cumbersome. Better move fast and light than pack the weight. ......so the buff jacket and steel cap replaced the heavy stuff. This is rather over-simplified, but I think you may understand what I mean." My understanding is that much of Europes ruling class was forced into a deciscion in the later 17th century. Firelocks were much more reliable than matchlocks and much more expensive and armies had achieved enourmous protonational levels that were increadibly expensive to keep in the field, armour even the basics of breast plate and helmet for armies of several tens of thousands were also expensive and a choice had to be made by those paying for it all. The newest, most up to date firelocks or body armour and the choice across the board in Western Europe was the latest gun technology. Yes much of the full harness of the previous century had already been discarded but the helmet and breast plate were the last to go, and the first pieces to be resureccted with the dawing of the 20th century and the manufacturing muscle of the industrail era to produce not just as many up to date fire arms as needed but also body armour as well. If you think about it simply standing in lines 60 feet away in brightly colored uniforms blazing away at each other using volley fire is the definition of suicide. With the comming of WWI and the power of industrialization every participant began to re-adopt body armour in an acknowlegment of the fact learned centuries earlier that soldiers and thier training are expensive investments, and as such needed proper protection to keep that investment in the field paying dividends and minimize the injuries when suffered to increase the likelyhood of returning to service. Since it re-adoption during WWI bady armour has remained a mainstay for militaries the world over often much heavier than basic plate harness would have been in the 15th or 16th centuries ( with all the additional pieces that have come into service during the US's time in Iraq a full bullet proof body armour rig can come it at 80-90 pounds ) and expirementation to improve it is constant.