I've just found this, thought it might of interest. It was owned by the Australian outlaw Ned Kelly, each member of his gang wore one and they weighed 97lbs. My interest is usually firmly within the Early Middle Ages and the Migration Period but this seems like such a bizarre historical throwback that it's piqued my interest.
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
If this was effective during the period (and presumably it was or why wear it?)then why weren't similar armour adopted by the armies of the time? Was it purely a matter of cost? Thanks.
Last edited by Daniel Michaelsson on Sun 10 May, 2009 12:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Daniel Michaelsson wrote: |
| If this was effective during the period (and presumably it was or why wear it?)then why weren't similar armour adopted by the armies of the time? Was it purely a matter of cost? Thanks. |
Dispite wearing 97 lbs of heavy plate, Ned Kelly was wounded 28 times during the shootout. He was subsequently nursed back to health and then hanged.
The armour was made from plough mould-boards. It was about a 1/4 inch thick and could stop a Martini Henry round at 10 yards. Unfortunately it didn't cover the arms or legs; its weight hampered movement; the narrow eye slit limited visibility too much; and the breastplate was too wide, preventing comfortable use of a rifle.
Last edited by Dan Howard on Sun 10 May, 2009 6:25 am; edited 1 time in total
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
Dispite wearing 96 lbs of heavy plate, Ned Kelly was wounded 28 times by police bullets. |
Yeah, in the unprotected legs.
| Daniel Michaelsson wrote: |
| If this was effective during the period (and presumably it was or why wear it?)then why weren't similar armour adopted by the armies of the time? Was it purely a matter of cost? Thanks. |
Well it weighed 96lbs and even then didn't offer full protection. That's a lot of extra weight to haul around. That said, early in the American Civil War officers and even private soldiers, mainly from the union, purchased metal "bullet proof" breast plates. They were quickly abandoned.
Last edited by Ian Hutchison on Sun 10 May, 2009 6:35 am; edited 2 times in total
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
Dispite wearing 97 lbs of heavy plate, Ned Kelly was wounded 28 times during the shootout. He was subsequently nursed back to health and then hanged. |
True, but I'm guessing that wasn't the armours fault as A) it's barely damaged B) you can see where bullets have deformed the armour without penetration and C) if after 28 bullets he was able to recover I'm guessing they were limb hits for the most part at least.
The police at the time believed that Ned Kelly would have escaped if he wasn't hampered by the armour.
| Ian Hutchison wrote: |
|
Well it weighed 96lbs and even then didn't offer full protection. That's a lot of extra weight to haul around. That said, early in the American Civil War officers and even private soldiers, mainly from the union, purchased metal "bullet proof" breast plates. They were quickly abandoned. |
Yeah, I can see the weight being an issue but with skilled smiths rather than amateur metalwork I reckon the weight could be significantly reduced i.e tempered steel with less material used. Also, it's very interesting about the Union armour, do you happen to know if any survive or any pictures? Thanks
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| The police at the time believed that Ned Kelly would have escaped if he wasn't hampered by the armour. |
Maybe, but he could also have been shot in the heart, lungs, brain et cetera.
Last edited by Daniel Michaelsson on Sun 10 May, 2009 6:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Australian Reporting in! :D
That bad boy is made of ploughs so it didn't cost him a cent (nor the rest of the bushrangers in his gang who supposedly also had armour! And being a bush ranger, you haven't got that much to spend :lol: )
I'd imagine it was just the time, revolvers abounded, calibers and quality of bullets was better and I think it was just prefered that manovrability was more important than taking every slug (beside, armours only so good upto a particular range, or so one would think).
And effectivness? Well as said above, he didn't go down until they shot him in the knees, and apparently they got a bit freaked when he wouldn't die.
But as Ned said: "Such is Life."
That bad boy is made of ploughs so it didn't cost him a cent (nor the rest of the bushrangers in his gang who supposedly also had armour! And being a bush ranger, you haven't got that much to spend :lol: )
I'd imagine it was just the time, revolvers abounded, calibers and quality of bullets was better and I think it was just prefered that manovrability was more important than taking every slug (beside, armours only so good upto a particular range, or so one would think).
And effectivness? Well as said above, he didn't go down until they shot him in the knees, and apparently they got a bit freaked when he wouldn't die.
But as Ned said: "Such is Life."
| Daniel Michaelsson wrote: | ||
Yeah, I can see the weight being an issue but with skilled smiths rather than amateur metalwork I reckon the weight could be significantly reduced i.e tempered steel with less material used. Also, it's very interesting about the Union armour, do you happen to know if any survive or any pictures? Thanks |
Yes, I think I do have some pictures, I will have to scan them though.
EDIT: Found one on the internet:
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
Keep in mind, these were privately purchased so there were/are many varieties.
Also, very similar armor was used during the First World War:
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
and World War II:
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ][img][/img]
Last edited by Ian Hutchison on Sun 10 May, 2009 6:43 am; edited 1 time in total
| Ian Hutchison wrote: |
|
[ Linked Image ] |
That's probably the strangest modern armour I have ever seen :eek: .
The rest of them look very well made. I'm guessing production cost was an issue as well as the weight, I'm sure they weren't made of tractor parts. Thanks for the pictures.
Interestingly enough, the Japanese armour was in fact rather effective, at least as far as pistol rounds go. In his book "Shots Fired in Anger", Lieutenant- Colonel John George (who was a Platoon-Leader on Guadalcanal) noted that a Thompson Submachinegun was ineffective against them due to it's .45-caliber bullets, while an M1 Carbine (as he used in Burma later in the war) would punch right through the armour. That the big, slow .45" bullets wouldn't penetrate should come as no surprise to the reader, but it certainly did to the Marines who were shooting them. On the other hand, if a .30 Carbine bullet will punch through it, a .30-06 will have absolutely no troubles encountering such armour.
Oh, I would suspect that the photo of the fellow with his rifle sloped across his shoulders is either late-19th or very early-20th Century, since the rifle in question is an 1873 Springfield "Trapdoor" rifle, or one of it's immediate descendants.
Nifty photo's, BTW, thanks!
Cheers!
Gordon
Oh, I would suspect that the photo of the fellow with his rifle sloped across his shoulders is either late-19th or very early-20th Century, since the rifle in question is an 1873 Springfield "Trapdoor" rifle, or one of it's immediate descendants.
Nifty photo's, BTW, thanks!
Cheers!
Gordon
| Gordon Frye wrote: |
|
Oh, I would suspect that the photo of the fellow with his rifle sloped across his shoulders is either late-19th or very early-20th Century, since the rifle in question is an 1873 Springfield "Trapdoor" rifle, or one of it's immediate descendants. Nifty photo's, BTW, thanks! Cheers! Gordon |
Yes, I noticed that as well. However, both sources I found containing this image claim the armor is the "Brewster Body Shield" c.1917, a chrome nickel steel helmet and breastplate weighing 40lbs. Pure speculation, maybe the photo was taken during testing and they were firing a .45-70 at it? After all the .45-70 rifles were only retired from army service at the turn of the century and the heavy round might have been useful for testing purposes.
[ Linked Image ]
I've just found this. It is a lot like the WWII (British?) armour Ian posted, but notice the plate greaves - must have been difficult to walk in (and I bet Ned Kelly is kicking himself in his grave for not thinking that one up :D ). It's interesting to notice the cyclic nature of plate from the Lorica Segmentata to mail to plate to unarmoured to plate.
Gordon, is the kind of armour you mean? Or yoroi?
I've just found this. It is a lot like the WWII (British?) armour Ian posted, but notice the plate greaves - must have been difficult to walk in (and I bet Ned Kelly is kicking himself in his grave for not thinking that one up :D ). It's interesting to notice the cyclic nature of plate from the Lorica Segmentata to mail to plate to unarmoured to plate.
| Gordon Frye wrote: |
| Interestingly enough, the Japanese armour was in fact rather effective, at least as far as pistol rounds go. In his book "Shots Fired in Anger", Lieutenant- Colonel John George (who was a Platoon-Leader on Guadalcanal) noted that a Thompson Submachinegun was ineffective against them due to it's .45-caliber bullets, while an M1 Carbine (as he used in Burma later in the war) would punch right through the armour.
|
Gordon, is the kind of armour you mean? Or yoroi?
| Quote: |
| Yeah, I can see the weight being an issue but with skilled smiths rather than amateur metalwork I reckon the weight could be significantly reduced i.e tempered steel with less material used |
Problem here I see - it seems as though thick but softer iron/steel was more effective against bullets. Thinner tempered steel may not have worked as well.
Anf 97 pounds IS a heck of a lot of weight. After all does not a Nroman era mail hauberk weigh far less and over more complete protection?
Not that one would wnat to wear mail against modern bullets, but more of a comparison as to how heavy 97 pounds is.
You'll notice Ned Kelly's armor looks a lot like the Dendra cuirass worn by Dan Howard in his avatar. You'll notice Ned and Dan are both from Australia. Coincidence? Anything you want to tell us, Dan?
Matthew
Matthew
| Matthew Amt wrote: |
| You'll notice Ned Kelly's armor looks a lot like the Dendra cuirass worn by Dan Howard in his avatar. You'll notice Ned and Dan are both from Australia. Coincidence? Anything you want to tell us, Dan?
Matthew |
If so, I think Dan is going to get the worst of it for that bronze :(
You can download the following book for free:
Helmets and body armor in modern warfare (1920)
by Bashford Dean
http://www.archive.org/details/helmetsbodyarmor00deanuoft
Some of the pics already posted above come from this book.
Speaking of modern body armour (civil war onwards), are there any good books on the subject with good quality photos that anyone would recommend?
Thanks
Danny.
Helmets and body armor in modern warfare (1920)
by Bashford Dean
http://www.archive.org/details/helmetsbodyarmor00deanuoft
Some of the pics already posted above come from this book.
Speaking of modern body armour (civil war onwards), are there any good books on the subject with good quality photos that anyone would recommend?
Thanks
Danny.
I think the most salient point here on Kelly ( And I've been to his home town ) is that the reason he chose the armor made from old plough's is because his favourite book was Ivanhoe! Now that is the truth of the matter right there - he considered himself a modern day Knight. ;)
Whitey.
Whitey.
| Daniel Michaelsson wrote: | ||
[ Linked Image ]
Gordon, is the kind of armour you mean? Or yoroi? |
I'm not Gordon, but yes, the armor in the picture is what Gordon is talking about. And the WW2 armors in Ian's photographs too. (Notice the Japanese faces and helmets.)
As for why the armor didn't get so widely adopted for general issue, remember that people already had weapons that could easily pierce such armor since the 16th century--namely, the Spanish musket. Later general-issue smoothbore firearms were generally weaker than the musket in order to make them more convenient to carry and faster to load, but the technology to scale them back up to musket proportions was there and I strongly suspect that it would have been much cheaper to equip a large number of men with such high-powered weapons than to kit out half that number in adequate armor.
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum