| Author |
Message |
Gerald Fa.
|
 Posted: Fri 12 Mar, 2010 10:18 am Post subject: Thickness on armor? |
 |
|
What was the historical thickness on battlefield armor such as Chain-mail, Plate, Gothic plate, the black Landsknecht armor, and the Maximilian armors? Also what was the thinness on the helmets?
I know thickness very from part to part on the armor and on the helmet, but what were they? What mm or gauge?
Thank you so much!
black Landsknecht armor I am talking about:
|
|
  |
 |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
|
  |
|
Gerald Fa.
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Mar, 2010 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | Gerald,
This topic has been discussed before, including in this old thread (among others). |
Oh, I did not know. it that the link? I am still a bit new here...
All the armors were talked about as well?
|
|
|
|
|
Gerald Fa.
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Mar, 2010 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
That some on what I want, but I will read more later. It seems they were talking about helmets only, I wont to know about armor as well. But I will look in to it.
Any one can post on here, feel free to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Mar, 2010 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gerald Fa. wrote: | Oh, I did not know. it that the link? I am still a bit new here...
All the armors were talked about as well? |
There are other threads as well. The forum search function will help you find them. It's best not to create new threads if an idea has already been discussed before.  Simply add to the existing threads.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben P.
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, but then you get thread necromancy
Gerals, I do know that generally the thickest part of plate was the cuirass 1.5-2 mm
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben P. wrote: | | Yes, but then you get thread necromancy |
As Chad Arnow states, it is often best on myArmoury.com to add to worthwhile topics from the past than to create all new ones. This is because myArmoury.com aims to be an archive of knowledge and not simply a means by which people can chit-chat. We aim for more signal and less noise on this forum.
To be clear, our primary goal is to create a repository of archived topics that serve as a informational reference and stand the tests of time. It is a distant secondary goal to provide a medium for discussions and rehashed dialog.
The downfall of a forum environment is the inevitability that worthwhile, valuable information falls into oblivion.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Mar, 2010 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have mentioned this before in some previous threads, but you can get a feel for the range of thickness (I would guess near 3:1) by looking at similar coverage suits of harness in the Higgins Armoury. (The display signs give weight, era, and opinion of type of service.) Some of their "light field" or "parade" suits weighed as low as 35 lbs for the harness. Most were closer to 45-65 lbs, and a couple described as "jousting" harness were described as about 95 lbs.
There was obviously a lot more to it than uniform thickness increase; differential thicknesses in areas expected to be projectile targets as firearms and more powerful bows appeared, fluting and roping, etc. But I think we can still get a general feel for "possible historical range" of thickness simply from these variations in weights.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Mar, 2010 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think I've said this before but keep in mind that the current thickness of extant armours is unlikely to have been the original thickness. Any armour that has come down to us in decent condition is a result of centuries of polishing. Any that have not, have had significant amounts of corrosion removed during restoration. Any discussion of armour thickness needs to be prefaced with this caveat.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Mar, 2010 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Painted armors were obviously not polished, we can say they have original thickness, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Gerald Fa.
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Mar, 2010 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | I think I've said this before but keep in mind that the current thickness of extant armours is unlikely to have been the original thickness. Any armour that has come down to us in decent condition is a result of centuries of polishing. Any that have not, have had significant amounts of corrosion removed during restoration. Any discussion of armour thickness needs to be prefaced with this caveat. |
That is true, and I agree. Do we have any type of measurements from the time in writhing?
| Jared Smith wrote: | I have mentioned this before in some previous threads, but you can get a feel for the range of thickness (I would guess near 3:1) by looking at similar coverage suits of harness in the Higgins Armoury. (The display signs give weight, era, and opinion of type of service.) Some of their "light field" or "parade" suits weighed as low as 35 lbs for the harness. Most were closer to 45-65 lbs, and a couple described as "jousting" harness were described as about 95 lbs.
There was obviously a lot more to it than uniform thickness increase; differential thicknesses in areas expected to be projectile targets as firearms and more powerful bows appeared, fluting and roping, etc. But I think we can still get a general feel for "possible historical range" of thickness simply from these variations in weights. |
WOW, thanks man! I did not think about the thickness simply from these variations in weights… I do not know why. But it also depends on the size of the man…
| Ben P. wrote: | Yes, but then you get thread necromancy
Gerals, I do know that generally the thickest part of plate was the cuirass 1.5-2 mm |
Yea I do get thread necromancy : p at times when looking for some thing… I see, that's what I hard as well on the thickness...
But yes, I read in “The Arts of Making armour”- “The gauges of steel used in authentic armour would have varied from 20 to 16 gauge on field harnesses.”
Also My Armorer said rote this in my facebook:
“The thickness varies throughout the harness. Areas of greater protection (chest, head...etc.) tend to use thicker plates while smaller areas (fingers, throat, the backs of the arms) use thinner plates. Armour is designed to give the greatest amount of protection where it needs it most.”
I guess this helps keep armor light?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helge B.
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Mar, 2010 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think I've said this before but keep in mind that the current thickness of extant armours is unlikely to have been the original thickness. Any armour that has come down to us in decent condition is a result of centuries of polishing. Any that have not, have had significant amounts of corrosion removed during restoration. Any discussion of armour thickness needs to be prefaced with this caveat. |
Does this polishing effect only apply to all-white armour? What about blackened or blued armour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
János Sibinger
Location: Hungary/France Joined: 31 May 2009
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Mar, 2010 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings!
I don't know, If every piece of armour was polished, but as far as I know, before the invention of different polishing compounds they used coal dirt to make metal pieces brighter (I red this in an article about sword making in a lexikon: Révai Nagy lexikon). I don't know, how mouch damage could be caused by this compound.
If bleckened pieces of armour were polished?
As Paul Blackwell writes in the book Basic armouring: "I remember a lovely exhibit in the Tower of London, of 16C armours and portraits of people wearing them. From the portraits it was clear that the armours were originally black, an effect that had long since been polished away!"
About the armour in the very beginning of this topic. The short sleeved versions of these pieces (made for pikemen) weights between 8 and 12 kgs. (Dr Peter Krenn: Harnisch und helm)
And If I may ask a question: How thick were the coats of plates?
I 'm reading the book "Armour from the battle of wisby", it is a great book, but I haven't yet find any clue about the thickness of the plates. I would be pleased, if any of you helped me out!
Thank you!
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic