| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Graham Shearlaw, Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Pieter B.
|
 Posted: Mon 04 Jan, 2016 5:31 pm Post subject: Video: Testing Samurai armor (butted mail stopping a katana) |
 |
|
Hey there guys,
I just stumbled upon this video of an American samurai armor manufacturer putting some of their armor to the test against various weapons of the time. Maybe we can start this year with a slight detour from the usual European armor and look at Japanese armor. I for one know very little about the armor and weaponry of Japan but this video struck me as being of quite good quality. One of the most notable things was (a really thin strip of) butted mail stopping a sword strike.
Maybe we could get a little discussions going on the tests performed, point out what's wrong and such.
Skip to 8:25 minutes for the juicy part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9OvaL2W6BA
PS, this can be seen as a commercial but I am not posting it to advertise and I hope posting the video is not against the forum policy.
|
|
  |
 |
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2016 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are those spot welds holding the cuirass together?!!
jamesarlen.com
|
|
 |
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2016 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | Are those spot welds holding the cuirass together?!! |
I didn't notice those on my first viewing, at what timemark are they clearly visible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2016 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am more impressed that they managed to crease the breastplate with cuts ... its hard to deform metal armour with a sword cut. The brigandine (kikkô) shoulder-piece was very resilient.
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | Are those spot welds holding the cuirass together?!! |
Good catch. From the Iron Mountain Armoury FAQ:
| Iron Mountain Armoury wrote: | Q: Is your armor real?
A: The Iron Mountain Armory uses the same crafting methods used by skilled samurai armor makers in the 16th century. We have integrated some modern techniques, tools and materials to decrease crafting time, increase safety, durability and longevity of our armor. For example: Traditionally the iron plates were only riveted together and would break over time / use. We both rivet and spot weld our iron armor plates together so the iron plates will not separate while rolling around in your armor. We do use some modern glue so our clients do not need to maintenance their armor as much, where traditional glue would come undone. We use modern paints instead of toxic lacquer. |
They do not have a lot of information on their sources and credentials, so caveat emptor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Griffin
Location: The Welsh Marches, in the hills above Newtown, Powys. Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 802
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2016 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its a pretty good video al in all. Its a good look although the Westerner wearing oriental armour always jars. I always try and keep a mempo on or do it honestly and point out, despite the very obvious fact, that its not the norm. Funnily enough a colleague and i both independently arrived at a show format based on the visit of English sailors to Japan in the early 16th cent and brought much arms and armour back. Its the basis of Giles Minton's book 'Samurai William' which is a great read.
Spot welding at 3.07
Currently working on projects ranging from Elizabethan pageants to a WW1 Tank, Victorian fairgrounds 1066 events and more. Oh and we joust loads!.. We run over 250 events for English Heritage each year plus many others for Historic Royal Palaces, Historic Scotland, the National Trust and more. If you live in the UK and are interested in working for us just drop us a line with a cv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2016 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | | I am more impressed that they managed to crease the breastplate with cuts ... its hard to deform metal armour with a sword cut. |
On the reproduction Japanese armours I've handled, the breastplates are thin. Crease-able without too much trouble, I think.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:21 am Post subject: Re: Video: Testing Samurai armor (butted mail stopping a kat |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | Hey there guys,
I for one know very little about the armor and weaponry of Japan but this video struck me as being of quite good quality. One of the most notable things was (a really thin strip of) butted mail stopping a sword strike.
|
Here is a link to a Feature article on this site that sort of explains the basics of Japanese armour.
There is also an illustration showing various patterns of Japanese maille.
http://myArmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html
At least the article gives a good starting point for deeper research.
( I'm sort of biased because I did the illustrations for the article, written by Boris Petrov Bedrosov, using photoshop drawing tools .....   )
Boris also has a very long and detailed Topic showing his making his own heavy infantry Ottoman armour and weapons over at least a 5 year period. ( Just in case you haven't seem the Topic, his skill and craftsmanship is awesome.
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18577
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jan, 2016 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Griffin wrote: | | Its a pretty good video al in all. Its a good look although the Westerner wearing oriental armour always jars. I always try and keep a mempo on or do it honestly and point out, despite the very obvious fact, that its not the norm. |
I don't know ... by the nineteenth century, plenty of Europeans in South and East Asia wore local dress, and plenty of the locals borrowed European revolvers, uniforms, and hats. I would rather see someone with the wrong complexion who acts and moves like the warrior/farmer/artisan whom he or she portrays than one with the right hair and skin who is clearly a sedentary desk worker.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jan, 2016 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some points, like about Samurai being mostly infantry warrior seem weird to me?
Fighting sequences looked a bit sketchy to me as well.
Other than that, actual testing really does look 10 times better than usual 'experiment' we see in TV. With
Very entertaining 25 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jan, 2016 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yeah, I found that weird to, considering when Samurai were conceived as a class, they were meant to be heavily armored mounted archers. But, that doesn't precluded them from learning different skills over time. For example, the Norman chivalry of the Battle of Hastings would be perplexed of how frequently their French descendants in the Hundred Year's fought on foot..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | I am more impressed that they managed to crease the breastplate with cuts ... its hard to deform metal armour with a sword cut. |
On the reproduction Japanese armours I've handled, the breastplates are thin. Crease-able without too much trouble, I think. |
What about extant Japanese armors, if you have ever handled those. Are the reproductions made light as a cost saving measure or are is it historical? I can hardly imagine a modern day armor producers making reproductions less than SCA grade bomb proof
| Quote: | Here is a link to a Feature article on this site that sort of explains the basics of Japanese armour.
There is also an illustration showing various patterns of Japanese maille.
http://myArmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html
At least the article gives a good starting point for deeper research.
( I'm sort of biased because I did the illustrations for the article, written by Boris Petrov Bedrosov, using photoshop drawing tools ..... Wink Big Grin )
Boris also has a very long and detailed Topic showing his making his own heavy infantry Ottoman armour and weapons over at least a 5 year period. ( Just in case you haven't seem the Topic, his skill and craftsmanship is awesome.
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18577 |
Thanks Jean,
I did look at the Yushman project, something which made me realize I don't really know an awful lot about Ottoman armor either. Thanks for the link by the way. Quite an extensive explanation, but that's the way we like it.
| Quote: | | Some points, like about Samurai being mostly infantry warrior seem weird to me? |
I believe they had their own era of fighting mostly on foot with a yari during the 16th century. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject can cover this in more detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | I am more impressed that they managed to crease the breastplate with cuts ... its hard to deform metal armour with a sword cut. |
On the reproduction Japanese armours I've handled, the breastplates are thin. Crease-able without too much trouble, I think. |
What about extant Japanese armors, if you have ever handled those. Are the reproductions made light as a cost saving measure or are is it historical? I can hardly imagine a modern day armor producers making reproductions less than SCA grade bomb proof
| Quote: | Here is a link to a Feature article on this site that sort of explains the basics of Japanese armour.
There is also an illustration showing various patterns of Japanese maille.
http://myArmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html
At least the article gives a good starting point for deeper research.
( I'm sort of biased because I did the illustrations for the article, written by Boris Petrov Bedrosov, using photoshop drawing tools ..... Wink Big Grin )
Boris also has a very long and detailed Topic showing his making his own heavy infantry Ottoman armour and weapons over at least a 5 year period. ( Just in case you haven't seem the Topic, his skill and craftsmanship is awesome.
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18577 |
Thanks Jean,
I did look at the Yushman project, something which made me realize I don't really know an awful lot about Ottoman armor either. Thanks for the link by the way. Quite an extensive explanation, but that's the way we like it.
| Quote: | | Some points, like about Samurai being mostly infantry warrior seem weird to me? |
I believe they had their own era of fighting mostly on foot with a yari during the 16th century. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject can cover this in more detail. |
Ya know, not everyone who does SCA heavy combat walks around wears really thick armor, Helmets are pretty universally thick but breastplates and legs and arms protection vary quite alot in coverage and thickness depending on kingdom. Another thing I've wondered is why Japanese armorers never developed rigid bevors or had the neck covering lames connected by mail links, The demonstrator seems to have relatively easy time severing the neck guard from the face mask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | I am more impressed that they managed to crease the breastplate with cuts ... its hard to deform metal armour with a sword cut. |
On the reproduction Japanese armours I've handled, the breastplates are thin. Crease-able without too much trouble, I think. |
What about extant Japanese armors, if you have ever handled those. Are the reproductions made light as a cost saving measure or are is it historical? I can hardly imagine a modern day armor producers making reproductions less than SCA grade bomb proof
| Quote: | Here is a link to a Feature article on this site that sort of explains the basics of Japanese armour.
There is also an illustration showing various patterns of Japanese maille.
http://myArmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html
At least the article gives a good starting point for deeper research.
( I'm sort of biased because I did the illustrations for the article, written by Boris Petrov Bedrosov, using photoshop drawing tools ..... Wink Big Grin )
Boris also has a very long and detailed Topic showing his making his own heavy infantry Ottoman armour and weapons over at least a 5 year period. ( Just in case you haven't seem the Topic, his skill and craftsmanship is awesome.
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18577 |
Thanks Jean,
I did look at the Yushman project, something which made me realize I don't really know an awful lot about Ottoman armor either. Thanks for the link by the way. Quite an extensive explanation, but that's the way we like it.
| Quote: | | Some points, like about Samurai being mostly infantry warrior seem weird to me? |
I believe they had their own era of fighting mostly on foot with a yari during the 16th century. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject can cover this in more detail. |
Ya know, not everyone who does SCA heavy combat walks around wears really thick armor, Helmets are pretty universally thick but breastplates and legs and arms protection vary quite alot in coverage and thickness depending on kingdom. Another thing I've wondered is why Japanese armorers never developed rigid bevors or had the neck covering lames connected by mail links, The demonstrator seems to have relatively easy time severing the neck guard from the face mask. |
I was just jesting.
My guess is that Samurai never needed anything besides what they used, what they had was good enough for their style of warfare. Maybe they changed or added neck protection during the Sengoku period but I wouldn't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | I am more impressed that they managed to crease the breastplate with cuts ... its hard to deform metal armour with a sword cut. |
On the reproduction Japanese armours I've handled, the breastplates are thin. Crease-able without too much trouble, I think. |
What about extant Japanese armors, if you have ever handled those. Are the reproductions made light as a cost saving measure or are is it historical? I can hardly imagine a modern day armor producers making reproductions less than SCA grade bomb proof ;) |
I don't know whether it's to save weight or reduce cost (by reducing labour).
Old Japanese breastplates intended for battle are thicker. Before guns, you'd expect 2mm or more for thickness (since they could (usually) stop arrows. After guns were in common use, some were bullet-proof thick.
From memory, helmets varied in thickness from a little over 1mm 91.2-1.4mm, iirc) to 3-4mm (or sometimes even thicker).
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2016 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | I am more impressed that they managed to crease the breastplate with cuts ... its hard to deform metal armour with a sword cut. |
On the reproduction Japanese armours I've handled, the breastplates are thin. Crease-able without too much trouble, I think. |
What about extant Japanese armors, if you have ever handled those. Are the reproductions made light as a cost saving measure or are is it historical? I can hardly imagine a modern day armor producers making reproductions less than SCA grade bomb proof |
I don't know whether it's to save weight or reduce cost (by reducing labour).
Old Japanese breastplates intended for battle are thicker. Before guns, you'd expect 2mm or more for thickness (since they could (usually) stop arrows. After guns were in common use, some were bullet-proof thick.
From memory, helmets varied in thickness from a little over 1mm 91.2-1.4mm, iirc) to 3-4mm (or sometimes even thicker). |
Ah that seems a lot more reasonable.
Something I noticed in the video is that the helmet and the breastplate are not raised from a single piece of steel but rather made from several smaller pieces of plate. I also know solid breastplates and helmets made from a single plate appeared in the sixteenth century. Was this a native invention or was it introduced by Europeans? And if it's the latter than how did they influence this change? Was it a conceptual revelation that a single plate could also be used for protecting certain body parts or did they lack the technology needed to make larger plates?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2016 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | Something I noticed in the video is that the helmet and the breastplate are not raised from a single piece of steel but rather made from several smaller pieces of plate. I also know solid breastplates and helmets made from a single plate appeared in the sixteenth century. Was this a native invention or was it introduced by Europeans? And if it's the latter than how did they influence this change? Was it a conceptual revelation that a single plate could also be used for protecting certain body parts or did they lack the technology needed to make larger plates? |
There were 3 major changes going on at once: armies getting larger, widespread adoption of guns, and exposure to European technology (other than guns). Then there's the slow change of growth in the iron industry, and improved iron/steel technology.
Growth in armies, with more demand for armour, drove demand for cheaper armour, which made few-piece and one-piece breastplates more popular (rather than lamellar), and few-piece helmets too. Bulletproofness probably drove these demands, too.
As for native vs European, I don't recall a pre-European example of either a one-piece breastplate or a one-piece helmet bowl. The few-piece helmet bowls (3 plate and 5 plate) only become popular after European contact, and appear to be a purely native development, and one-piece bowls are a natural evolution from them. I don't know when few-piece breastplates (e.g., horizontal strips riveted together; the edges were often cut to look like rows of lamellar armour) became popular, but again one-piece can easily evolve from them.
Few-piece designs have an advantage over one-piece: it's very easy to vary the thickness. So one finds few-piece helmet bowls with 4.5mm thick forehead plates, and thinner plates elsewhere, It was also common for the plates to be laminated (high-carbon steel and iron layers, usually 2 or 3 layers). I haven't seen analysis of Japanese one-piece helmet bowls or breastplates showing whether or not they were laminated. I wonder if lamination was sacrificed for cheaper armour?
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2016 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | Something I noticed in the video is that the helmet and the breastplate are not raised from a single piece of steel but rather made from several smaller pieces of plate. I also know solid breastplates and helmets made from a single plate appeared in the sixteenth century. Was this a native invention or was it introduced by Europeans? And if it's the latter than how did they influence this change? Was it a conceptual revelation that a single plate could also be used for protecting certain body parts or did they lack the technology needed to make larger plates? |
There were 3 major changes going on at once: armies getting larger, widespread adoption of guns, and exposure to European technology (other than guns). Then there's the slow change of growth in the iron industry, and improved iron/steel technology.
Growth in armies, with more demand for armour, drove demand for cheaper armour, which made few-piece and one-piece breastplates more popular (rather than lamellar), and few-piece helmets too. Bulletproofness probably drove these demands, too.
As for native vs European, I don't recall a pre-European example of either a one-piece breastplate or a one-piece helmet bowl. The few-piece helmet bowls (3 plate and 5 plate) only become popular after European contact, and appear to be a purely native development, and one-piece bowls are a natural evolution from them. I don't know when few-piece breastplates (e.g., horizontal strips riveted together; the edges were often cut to look like rows of lamellar armour) became popular, but again one-piece can easily evolve from them.
Few-piece designs have an advantage over one-piece: it's very easy to vary the thickness. So one finds few-piece helmet bowls with 4.5mm thick forehead plates, and thinner plates elsewhere, It was also common for the plates to be laminated (high-carbon steel and iron layers, usually 2 or 3 layers). I haven't seen analysis of Japanese one-piece helmet bowls or breastplates showing whether or not they were laminated. I wonder if lamination was sacrificed for cheaper armour? |
Do you have any documentation on the progress in the iron/steel producing and technology? Was there a shift to water power or something similar? I am getting more and more interested in the medieval and early modern production of steel plates for armor and an Asian perspective on it could perhaps help with explaining the shift from mail to segmentata and plate armor later on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2016 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From what I've seen, the main changes in production were growth in size of bloomery furnaces (tatara furnaces) and higher temperatures in the furnaces. Also more of them. So, higher iron production (more and larger furnaces), and a bigger increase in steel production (due to the higher temperatures). Some info about furnace size at:
https://www.hitachi-metals.co.jp/e/tatara/nnp0203.htm
There were some major improvements to smelting furnaces c. 1200, but AFAIK the changes after that (i.e., during the period we were discussing) were incremental until modernisation at the end of the Edo Period.
Don't know about changes in metalworking techniques over this time.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Tom King
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jan, 2016 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: |
What about extant Japanese armors, if you have ever handled those. Are the reproductions made light as a cost saving measure or are is it historical? I can hardly imagine a modern day armor producers making reproductions less than SCA grade bomb proof
|
on the 3 ~15th-17th century complete suits (infantry style harnesses, not the 80lb gunpowder era cavalry suits mind you) I was lucky enough to examine, the answer is "thin". ~18-20ga lacquered metal. Same for the maille; butted ~18ga in the japanese maille pattern on the extremities (think paperclip thickness, then make it into ~3/16ths of an inch ring diameter maille) and ~18ga splint armor for the lower arm and lower leg. With a 1/4" thick silk faced gambeson.
for the weapons they faced for the first 9/10ths of the history of feudal japan, it was entirely adequate. mind you, historic european armor during the high medieval period was also "thin" compared to modern reproductions, but the big issue with Japanese harnesses is the weight of lacquer and cordage. I'd say a full infantry harness of japanese armor from before infantry hedge-shot tactics would be equal or "worse" protection wise to a typical high medieval european light infantryman in maille shirt, jack, jack chains, "archers knees" and sallet but with the weight of a full european white harness.
this is just my opinion from handling a small number of extant harnesses, so anyone feel free to correct me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jan, 2016 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | From what I've seen, the main changes in production were growth in size of bloomery furnaces (tatara furnaces) and higher temperatures in the furnaces. Also more of them. So, higher iron production (more and larger furnaces), and a bigger increase in steel production (due to the higher temperatures). Some info about furnace size at:
https://www.hitachi-metals.co.jp/e/tatara/nnp0203.htm
There were some major improvements to smelting furnaces c. 1200, but AFAIK the changes after that (i.e., during the period we were discussing) were incremental until modernisation at the end of the Edo Period.
Don't know about changes in metalworking techniques over this time. |
Thanks for the URL, that's the stuff I was looking for. In some old depictions of the Tatara I noticed the bellows were human powered yet they still had gigantic blooms from what I can tell. Do you know if they broke up the blooms while still hot from the bloomery to consolidate them or did they let the entire piece cool first before taking a chisel to it?
Tom;
That is quite thin indeed. Traditionally they did not wear a textile armor in any other place than their arms did they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic