Scale mail in the modern age

[Schmoe]

I saw a very interesting show on the Military Channel last night (Future Weapons). One of the segments was highlighting the latest in modern body armor. The armor is called Dragon Skin, and it's essentially scale armor made from ceramic-composite plates. The scale design mitigates the drawbacks of ceramic-composite plate armor by spreading the impact over a large area, reducing impact damage to the armor and to the body behind the armor. It's pretty remarkable, really.

For reference, on the show I watched them fire 7.62 steel-core rounds at the armor from point blank range. These rounds punch through 1/2 inch steel armor like it isn't even there (as was demonstrated on the show). The Dragon Skin survived multiple hits without any noticeable damage.

I also caught parts of a show on the History Channel (don't remember which one) that described the transition from heavy plate armor on knights to armorless soldiers with the advent of firearms.

Watching the two shows together made me think that armor really has come full-circle. It took a while for the technology to catch up with the ability to stop armor-piercing rounds. But now it seems that the technology is accessible once again. The difference today is the sociology of modern armies. Whereas in medieval times it was acceptable to have heavily armored, socially priveleged knights with heavy armor, yet have masses of troops that were poorly equipped, in modern day armies of democratic nations such a division of privelege is less palatable. That makes the economics of protecting troops a more difficult issue.

Anyway, the two shows were very eye-opening and thought-provoking, and I thought I would share.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Watching the two shows together made me think that armor really has come full-circle. It took a while for the technology to catch up with the ability to stop armor-piercing rounds. But now it seems that the technology is accessible once again. The difference today is the sociology of modern armies. Whereas in medieval times it was acceptable to have heavily armored, socially priveleged knights with heavy armor, yet have masses of troops that were poorly equipped, in modern day armies of democratic nations such a division of privelege is less palatable. That makes the economics of protecting troops a more difficult issue.

But I would argue that the economics really aren't that difficult. In medieval times the poorly equipped troops were mostly levied peasants who were also poorly trained. It wasn't worth spending money on protective equipment for them. Modern armies on the other hand spend a lot more on the training of their troops, therefore the cost of protecting those troops is a much better investment.

Looks like really cool armor. Looking at their website, there are a bunch of other comments I could make about it and its current availability, but it would lead into the political realm, so I'll just leave it at, "Cool, thanks for the link."

 

[Phlebas]

.............
The difference today is the sociology of modern armies. Whereas in medieval times it was acceptable to have heavily armored, socially priveleged knights with heavy armor, yet have masses of troops that were poorly equipped, in modern day armies of democratic nations such a division of privelege is less palatable. That makes the economics of protecting troops a more difficult issue.
...

There seems to be a fairly large division between Special Forces and your average grunt in todays forces at the moment - this level of technology might just add to it

As an aside, I remember watching a documentary about a Police squad training against some Viking / Saxon enthusiasts to learn how to use shield walls properly. Now I just wonder if they'll introduce jousting as part of boot camp?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

As an aside, I remember watching a documentary about a Police squad training against some Viking / Saxon enthusiasts to learn how to use shield walls properly. Now I just wonder if they'll introduce jousting as part of boot camp?

Only for police mounted on horses or motorcycles.

 

[redwing]

What exactly was the transition from heavily armoured knights to armourless soldiers like? I would believe that the first firearms would not pack that much power to pierce through a plate of metal. Did matchlock guns really pack that much "oompf?" I understand the need to disengage from melee to a more ranged combat, and therefore possibly not needing extra personal protection. But did primitive firearms really puncture armour?

 

[Stalker0]

What exactly was the transition from heavily armoured knights to armourless soldiers like? I would believe that the first firearms would not pack that much power to pierce through a plate of metal. Did matchlock guns really pack that much "oompf?" I understand the need to disengage from melee to a more ranged combat, and therefore possibly not needing extra personal protection. But did primitive firearms really puncture armour?

The main reason for the transition was not the power of firearms, it was the ease.

In terms of economics, a group of full trained longbowmen is actually quite expensive. While they are no mounted knight division, it could take many years to get a full group ready to go. However, a group of longbowman was superior to your early musketeers.

However, you can have a group of fully trained musketeers ready in a month. With such an ease of training, armies were able to have fields of these guys. And if you lost a bunch of them you could replace them quickly.

So lets say you have a division of knights vs 5 divisions of muskets (no where near accurate, but just as an example). That division of knights might ultimately win the day because they were the elite powerhouse of the times. However, a king could replace those 5 divisions of muskets faster than all the dead knights. Eventually the economy of war favored the musket.

However, the knight really did not leave the field until the prescence of repeating weapons. Once a gun could fire multiple times without reloading, it truely became the ultimate weapon, completely replacing the longbow.

Mounted Combat would make a reappearance with the prescence of mounted riflemen, who had the same advantage. And then....the appearance of the machinegun.

With a machinegun on the field, the speed of calvary is negated. The main defense against a machinegun is good cover, and infantry can gain cover far better than a man on a horse.

 

[mmadsen]

What exactly was the transition from heavily armoured knights to armourless soldiers like? I would believe that the first firearms would not pack that much power to pierce through a plate of metal. Did matchlock guns really pack that much "oompf?" I understand the need to disengage from melee to a more ranged combat, and therefore possibly not needing extra personal protection. But did primitive firearms really puncture armour?

Primitive firearms could definitely puncture the armor of the day -- which is why armor evolved to be thicker and heavier. Such armor of proof was more expensive and less practical. Soon, it evolved into a single thick breastplate, or cuirass, and knights evolved into cuirassiers, the heavy cavalry of the blackpowder era.

 

[mmadsen]

The armor is called Dragon Skin, and it's essentially scale armor made from ceramic-composite plates.

There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the Dragon Skin body armor:

The Dragon Skin became the subject of controversy with the U.S. Army[8] over testing it against its Interceptor body armor. The Army claimed Pinnacle's body armor was not proven to be effective and that some failed an Air Force test and were recalled.

Pinnacle Armor put out a press release stating that Dragon Skin "did not fail any written contract specifications with the Air Force" although it admitted they did "return the vests to Pinnacle following testing ... to address a manufacturing issue, but that issue did not affect the vests' performance during testing."[9] Defense Review said they saw the test results and that they exceeded that of the Army's Interceptor vest.[10] The Pentagon said the test results are classified and neither side could agree to terms on another, more comprehensive test. The Army wanted to hold and inspect the vests for 1-2 weeks before shooting at them, and Pinnacle wanted them shot at right away from out of the box because they said they feared the Army tampering with them in order to save their currently cheaper body armor program.​

 

[Pbartender]

What exactly was the transition from heavily armoured knights to armourless soldiers like?

Connections, Series 1, Episode 8

Pay particular attention to parts 1 & 2, where he talks about the development of pikes, muskets and bayonets, and their impact on military tactics.

 

[Phlebas]

What exactly was the transition from heavily armoured knights to armourless soldiers like? I would believe that the first firearms would not pack that much power to pierce through a plate of metal. Did matchlock guns really pack that much "oompf?" I understand the need to disengage from melee to a more ranged combat, and therefore possibly not needing extra personal protection. But did primitive firearms really puncture armour?

Cavlalry were wearing cuirass's still into the early 20th century, and it was certainly common in napoleonic times. Cannon was used as early as the battle of bosworth against full blown knights, and it only took another century for full armour to be used more for jousting than combat. as firearms improved the best defense became speed so cavalry used lighter, faster breeds of horses and cut down the weight

i've seen a candle fired from a musket that went through plywood and 2 rows of bricks - even if an early lead shot didn't penetrate top of the range armour it would certainly knock you backwards (and potentially off the back of a horse)

funnily enough - the first use of cavalry was as mounted archers, then they were used to take infantry into the right position, then they grew large enough to be used in direct combat, larger still for heavy armour, then lighter for speed, now only used for transporting infantry from place to place... funny how things go around