Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Weight of a 9mm cuirass? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Alexander H.




Location: United States
Joined: 06 Sep 2020

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Tue 08 Sep, 2020 9:53 pm    Post subject: Weight of a 9mm cuirass?         Reply with quote

Hello, new member to the forum long time lurker.

So I been awfully curious as to how heavy a "bullet proof" curiass was compared to plate armor made before guns started dominating the battlefield. From what I heard, you would need at least 4mm of steel to have a hope of protecting you from a musket and I've heard claims that some historical curiasses could be as thick as 9mm.

I've been browsing some musuem sites that provided the weight of 3 quarter armor but they don't see to provide the armor's thickness. Would anyone happen to know how much a 9mm curiass would weigh and is there some some sort of mathematic formula you could use to determine a curiass based on its thickness?

Thanks in advance.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,569

PostPosted: Tue 08 Sep, 2020 10:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Cuirasses were only that thick across the chest. The thickness tapered off at the sides. It isn't possible to come up with a simple equation to determine the weight.

Here is a typical example. The breastplate is almost 9 mm across the chest but tapering down to around 6 mm at the shoulders and 3 mm at the sides. Weight is 7.5 kg (note that this isn't including a backplate).
http://www.allenantiques.com/A-209.html

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Alexander H.




Location: United States
Joined: 06 Sep 2020

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Wed 09 Sep, 2020 9:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for the anserw. That's a lot lighter than I'd thought it be.

I found a video of people shooting at a 5mm-7mm, I wonder if a 9mm breastplate would be able to withstand some of the more powerful shots it failed to deflect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGj0M-NJDGA&ab_channel=SylviaLeever
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,569

PostPosted: Thu 10 Sep, 2020 2:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There are at least three incidents of these breastplates stopping cannon balls.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,418

PostPosted: Thu 10 Sep, 2020 4:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alexander H. wrote:
Thanks for the anserw. That's a lot lighter than I'd thought it be.


You might not think "light" if you had to wear something like that for a while... Razz

Quote:
I found a video of people shooting at a 5mm-7mm, I wonder if a 9mm breastplate would be able to withstand some of the more powerful shots it failed to deflect.


If the metal is the same, sure. All other things being equal, thicker is more resistant. Of course, 7mm of good steel will probably protect better than 9mm of plain iron, BUT there are a LOT of subtle variables!

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Tyler C.




Location: Canada
Joined: 20 Aug 2019
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 149

PostPosted: Thu 10 Sep, 2020 7:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alexander H. wrote:
Thanks for the anserw. That's a lot lighter than I'd thought it be.

I found a video of people shooting at a 5mm-7mm, I wonder if a 9mm breastplate would be able to withstand some of the more powerful shots it failed to deflect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGj0M-NJDGA&ab_channel=SylviaLeever


I don't have anything to add, but that's a great video! Thanks for sharing.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,569

PostPosted: Thu 10 Sep, 2020 7:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tyler C. wrote:
Alexander H. wrote:
Thanks for the anserw. That's a lot lighter than I'd thought it be.

I found a video of people shooting at a 5mm-7mm, I wonder if a 9mm breastplate would be able to withstand some of the more powerful shots it failed to deflect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGj0M-NJDGA&ab_channel=SylviaLeever


I don't have anything to add, but that's a great video! Thanks for sharing.


Sylvia Leever has done some good research on this subject. Here is one of her papers:
Sylvia Leever, “For Show or Safety?” Arms & Armour, 3.2 (2006) pp. 117-125

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Graham Shearlaw





Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Sun 13 Sep, 2020 12:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Proof armour is a balance of more then just the metal's thickness or composition.

There the construction, its not uncommon for armours made of squares, scales or lamellar to have them pushed into the wearer's body.

The technical ability of time really matter, the entire Anima school of armour is born due to the problems with heat treating large plates to the newest stranded.
The later Duplex armours with the two layers of metal could easily have both a hard face an tough ductile layers.

The angle of the armour surface helps too, see the shift towards the pescod breastplate and its greater deflection angles.

Henry the VII's armours are a great look at how this change happened.

View user's profile Send private message
Martin Kallander




Location: Sweden
Joined: 25 Sep 2018

Posts: 93

PostPosted: Sun 13 Sep, 2020 2:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I thought lamellar was good because the plates would fly away when shot, taking the bullet with them
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,569

PostPosted: Sun 13 Sep, 2020 3:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Martin Kallander wrote:
I thought lamellar was good because the plates would fly away when shot, taking the bullet with them

Nope. The best bulletproof armour until the invention of aramid was steel plate. Ideally, one made with differential hardening but that was difficult to do so they compromised with duplex and triplex constructions.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Graham Shearlaw





Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Sun 13 Sep, 2020 3:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Martin Kallander wrote:
I thought lamellar was good because the plates would fly away when shot, taking the bullet with them

The plates are just torn free an carried in to the wound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxFY917UH8

Don't feel to bad about it lots of WW1 armour was made up from small plates.
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Kallander




Location: Sweden
Joined: 25 Sep 2018

Posts: 93

PostPosted: Mon 14 Sep, 2020 3:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Graham Shearlaw wrote:
[quote="
The plates are just torn free an carried in to the wound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxFY917UH8

Don't feel to bad about it lots of WW1 armour was made up from small plates.

Huh, that was the video I got the idea from. My memory of it has really warped over time.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Mon 09 Nov, 2020 4:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Another issue that might be worth mentioning is that 9mm sounds unlikely for a one-piece breastplate. Sounds to me more like it'd be the combined thickness of the breastplate (which might be pretty thick already) plus a similarly thick plackart -- say, 5mm cuirass/4mm plackart or 3mm plackart on top of a 6mm cuirass. And as has been stated above, this would represent the maximum thickness on both items, probably right on the central ridge.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,569

PostPosted: Mon 09 Nov, 2020 1:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Another issue that might be worth mentioning is that 9mm sounds unlikely for a one-piece breastplate. Sounds to me more like it'd be the combined thickness of the breastplate (which might be pretty thick already) plus a similarly thick plackart -- say, 5mm cuirass/4mm plackart or 3mm plackart on top of a 6mm cuirass. And as has been stated above, this would represent the maximum thickness on both items, probably right on the central ridge.

I know of at least a dozen one-piece breastplates that are 8 mm or thicker on the chest.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Graham Shearlaw





Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Mon 09 Nov, 2020 7:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

That level of localised thickness is maybe an artefact of the forging procure, if your starting with a billet you hammer it in to a blank an from there shape it from the centre stretching out the metal more towards the side an edges.

If you have a large even plate to work with you still have a greater thickness in the centre but its not nearly so thick.
Dish an raising breastplate from a 2-3mm thick plate doesn't give the same amount of metal movement.

If you look at modern helmets there often dished in to half's an welded, it makes then uniformly thick.
Heres one of the few cases of a helmet being dished from a billet, note that its stretch the metal alot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOztX_5uO9M VS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_lsij2Qa50 the modern welded halfs.


Makeing armour thicker was the easiest way to make it stronger against shot, more metal was by the time armour thickness start to rise, a really cheap to solve the issue.




Besides making something weightier has long been away to give the idea of quality.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Weight of a 9mm cuirass?
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2021 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum