Best type of armor?

[Grand Lord of Poop~]

Ok, history buffs, pour in your knowledge juices! I would like to ask everyone in these forums a question and hopefully start some discussion: what exactly is the best type of armour? remember, this includes every period of history (not quite, look at bottom of post) in terms of success, usefulness, manufacture, etc. I know a lot has to come under consideration, but generally, which one do you think?

edit: actually, make the time period before the gunpowders. but late medieval is ok too.

[LorDBulA]

Well if we talk all periods then i would say some kind of modern body armour (possibly made of kevlar).
It can stop knife, sword, speer, arrow, bolt and even few bullets.

[Laundreu]

I should be writing my 'Brief History of Russia' final paper and not answering this, but...

It's not an answerable question! It really depends on what you most value when equipping your troop(s), really. If it's cost, then (depending on the era) you might go with a chain haubergeon, or cuir buolli (boiled leather), or similar. In terms of sheer defensive power, the articulated plate of the 1500's or so are essentially the best available, worldwide. Of course then some bright bastard figured out the hand-gun thing and all of a sudden wearing 60-90 pounds of armor was pretty useless - that bullet ain't stopping for sheet metal!

(Also, kevlar is not proof against knives/spears/swords/piercing weapons in general, just some lower-power bullets.)

[NeoSpartan]

[NeoSpartan]

oh I am sorry got carried away .... this the best type of Armor.
..........................
......................
.................
...........
......
...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[geala]

Best sort of armour may be a Abrams M1, Leopard 2 or Merkava tank. Bit clumsy although.

Modern body armour consisting of kevlar or similar material with additional massive plates of ceramic-metall compound material would deflect everything that could be thrown or fired by a man in ancient or medieval times and most of that what is fired on recent battlefields. Kevlar or similar aramid materials alone can only defend against handgun bullets. Kevlar is not designed to stand against piercing weapons but in reality it helps a lot. I can punch a hole in my (old) kevlar vest with an icepick but not with a fighting dagger without great problems.

If you set away firearms the best armour for regular battles for me is plate armour around 1450 till 1520. You need several people to slew down a trained person in such a complete harness. Greatest disadvantage is the very problematic heat control in longer fights.

Personally I like low weight and low level armour made from cloth (although heat is a problem either or sometimes more than with plate).

Leather sucks against anything except slashes and mail is as heavy as plate with ridiculously bad results against arrows, bolts and spears. Not bad are oriental armours combining plate and mail, but they are also heavy-weighted.

But mostly I admire people who went to fight with bare bodies. Take perhaps a helmet, shield and javelins and don't care about death.
(So my favorite units are Gaesatae and Nubian Spearmen. Are there other african units in EB, perhaps javelinmen? Would be a pity if not)

[Grand Lord of Poop~]

thank you! that was a very helpful piece of information!

btw: which one provides more defence?
1. lorica segmentata?
2. lorica hamata?
3. or lorica squamata?

[blank]

In the RTW timeframe i'd say scale armor on top of light chainmail paddings.
It may be slightly heavy, but it's also sturdy

[Reverend Joe]

Actually- and correct me if I am wrong- I believe that the late period plate armor was quite resistant to bullets at long to medium range. The problem that finally killed it- and, in turn, the armoured lancers- was extreme expense. It was good to have a group of near-invincible soldiers on the battlefield, but it was far more efficient to replace them with many more less expensive soldiers, since it was numbers that turned the tide in them days.

[Zaknafien]

I dont know what

light chainmail paddings

are.

[blank]

I dont know what are.

they are pieces of chainmail that have been attached to leather to provide extra protection for vital organs

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

thank you! that was a very helpful piece of information!

btw: which one provides more defence?
1. lorica segmentata?
2. lorica hamata?
3. or lorica squamata?

Lorica Plumatta (very small scale over linen, over high quality 6-ring mail).

[geala]

Never saw a replica of lorica squamata in rl let alone was able to test it. I read about it that it was weaker than mail armour like lorica hamata.

That sounds very reasonable from my experience with arms and armour. Small plates of metal can be broken more easily than larger ones. The plates must have a lot of holes in it to pin them on the linen or leather base which makes them even more flimsy. And an upward trust can slide with relative ease through the rows of scales right into your guts (in the normal kind of construction, not the reverse one). Add to this the big weight (even more than mail I think which is very heavy) and the heat problems and stay better with mail. Might be another case if you would live in bow country as scales would deflect missiles way better than mail.

Best defence is offered by the segmented plate armour (that called lorica segmentata because we have no historical name in the scripted sources). Good protection against both cuts and thrusts and against missiles. The rigid defence stops the impact of the attacks, too (no longer dangerous bruises as with mail). But it has drawbacks: not so movable as mail, bad heat exchange, inferior protection of your tigh and complicated to be build/repaired/serviced. Something only a rich and very well organised army could afford for greater numbers of soldiers. No wonder it disappeared in the turbulent 3rd century when Rome was under extreme pressure.

The idea reappeared in the form of lamellar armour of the late roman time but only for some units of cavalry, presumably copied from some eastern enemies.

[Watchman]

Most books on ancient armour I've read term armour along the lines of lorica segmantate either "banded" (ie. made out of horizontal "bands") or, most commonly in the ones that really seem to have an idea what they're talking about, "laminated" (from lames, the AFAIK Medieval term for such horizontal strips).

Anyway, when it could finally be manufactured solid steel plate topped everything else. Light, very strong, and once manufacturing methods were refined a bit, cheap enough to be all but standard issue among even humble rank-and-file close-combat infantry and cavalry. Articulated full harnesses, fit to customer, were of course by far more expensive (so much, in fact, that many among the less wealthy warrior aristocracy couldn't afford one for a long time) but also extremely tough.

By 1600s there had already appeared a division to "infantry" (tough enough to protect from pike and sword, but not thick enough to hinder musket balls much due to weight consideration) and "cavalry" (thick and strong enough, at least at the front, to stop even musket balls at reasonable distances) armour - the latter could afford to be heavier and stronger by the simple expedient that the horse bore much of the load when moving around.

The "full" armour of that period (which would have been regarded as "three- quarter" by Medieval standards) is usually called "cuirassieur" armour, and consisted of basic body armour, a "proofed" helmet, articulated arm defences, and flexible laminated pieces defending the thighs and knees. The front plate was invariably "of proof" that is, thick enough (ca. 4mm) to stop shots fairly reliably. A second plate, the plackart (familiar already form Medieval armour) was often worn over that, and it wasn't unheard-of for there to be a comparable detachable extra plate for the front of the helmet as well. Even without the extra plates the whole assembly was very heavy - well over thirty kilos being the norm; for comparision simple "proofed" body armour and helmet, as worn by lighter cavalry (usually referred to as reiters), totaled under fifteen - and top heavy to boot, and there were the usual heat issues of more totally covering armours. Namely, the buggers were practically thermos bottles.

Such armour could be and was produced en masse in "munitions" grade, often with quite rough finish and no decorations, for the needs of the ever larger armies; but discerning and wealthy customers had theirs tailor-made the old way, and these duly had no end of pomp and luxury in decorations and were also often made very thick and strong to keep their esteemed inhabitants alive in battle. Examples weighing over forty kilos exist in collections. But the protection they gave may well have been worth the expense and encumberance in the eyes of many; there are recorded cases of higher-end armour deflecting literal point-blank pistol shots to the side of the head (the normal use of the pistol in a cavalry melee was to shove it right against the other guy's armour and fire for maximum penetration), and as even standard-grade stuff could be expected to stop musket balls at range...

The problem was that for the price of even one cuirassieur in "munition" armour you couls equip some three lighter reiter line cavalrymen in just breastplates and helmets; and besides having a clear numerical superiority on the battlefield the latter were by far more generally useful. One problem with cuirassieur armour was that its weight and uncomfortability precluded it being worn on the march, and it had to be transported in the baggage train. This promptly reduced the strategic maneuverability of the expensive quirassieurs to the snail's pace the main army crawled along with, and lighter cavalry - who if armoured could easily enough wear their full complement on the march too - had to do such vital things as scouting, skirmishing and ravaging. This was regarded as an acceptable shortcoming (due to the usefulness of cuirassieurs as shock cavalry in actual set-piece battles) until around the middle of the Thirty Years' War, when it started becoming quite clear armies spent by far more time marching around each other, ravaging the countryside, besieging fortified places, skirmishing, and in general doing nigh everything else than fighting set-piece field battles; moreover the increasigly mobile and aggressive tactics developed for mounted troops noticeably reduced the tactical superiority of fully armoured cuirassieurs over their lighter colleagues when those now were fought.

Accordingly lighter cavalry soon took over almost the entire mounted arm, and cuirassieur armour began to be mainly seen worn by their officers who, as important command-and-control personnel, were long by regulation required to don more extensive defensive gear than their subordinates to keep them alive in their often rather vulnerable place right at the front of the squadron.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Never saw a replica of lorica squamata in rl let alone was able to test it. I read about it that it was weaker than mail armour like lorica hamata.

That sounds very reasonable from my experience with arms and armour. Small plates of metal can be broken more easily than larger ones. The plates must have a lot of holes in it to pin them on the linen or leather base which makes them even more flimsy. And an upward trust can slide with relative ease through the rows of scales right into your guts (in the normal kind of construction, not the reverse one). Add to this the big weight (even more than mail I think which is very heavy) and the heat problems and stay better with mail. Might be another case if you would live in bow country as scales would deflect missiles way better than mail.

Best defence is offered by the segmented plate armour (that called lorica segmentata because we have no historical name in the scripted sources). Good protection against both cuts and thrusts and against missiles. The rigid defence stops the impact of the attacks, too (no longer dangerous bruises as with mail). But it has drawbacks: not so movable as mail, bad heat exchange, inferior protection of your tigh and complicated to be build/repaired/serviced. Something only a rich and very well organised army could afford for greater numbers of soldiers. No wonder it disappeared in the turbulent 3rd century when Rome was under extreme pressure.

The idea reappeared in the form of lamellar armour of the late roman time but only for some units of cavalry, presumably copied from some eastern enemies.

I'd have to dissagree. The best armour over all was Lorica Plumbatta as Amaya has already stated. The lamella of the late Empire is decended from this type of sacle-over-mail, not Lorica Segmentata. Segmentata is the worst Roman armour in terms of maitainance. After every battle an armourer has to knock it back into shape and all the rivits, hinges and leather strips tend to break. It fell out of use as soon as the armies had to get off their arses and actually go on campaign. You can see this by the fact that later Lorica has fewer chest plates and split-pin fittings.

That armour is one of my pet hates, apart from the weight its really not worth the hassle.

[Conqueror]

mail is as heavy as plate with ridiculously bad results against arrows, bolts and spears.

I'm no expert on the subject but AFAIK mail works well enough against arrows. And it's not exactly a bad protection against spears either.

[Watchman]

Fair enough, but when all is said and done pointy things are about the best at getting through it. It sort of by default gives them a good starting point, you see.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The best advantage mail has is that it doesn't get bent out of shape. Nothing worse than having a maul stove in your breastplate and then just sufficating.

[NeoSpartan]

I suggest you guys go to:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/

And argue all you want to with roman/greek military historians and reanactors.

They sure know their stuff. This reminds me of and OLD THEAD. In which a similar topic was discussed, Wigferth Ironwall, knows what I am talking about.


and yes I will NOT post anything reguarding what I think. Just stop by RAT and read their threads and info sites.

[Watchman]

Incidentally, isn't this really more of a thread for the Monastery anyway...?

[geala]

I'd have to dissagree. The best armour over all was Lorica Plumbatta as Amaya has already stated. The lamella of the late Empire is decended from this type of sacle-over-mail, not Lorica Segmentata. Segmentata is the worst Roman armour in terms of maitainance. After every battle an armourer has to knock it back into shape and all the rivits, hinges and leather strips tend to break. It fell out of use as soon as the armies had to get off their arses and actually go on campaign. You can see this by the fact that later Lorica has fewer chest plates and split-pin fittings.

That armour is one of my pet hates, apart from the weight its really not worth the hassle.

You may be right. Sounds good in theory. But have you ever been able to test a weapon against lorica plumata? Does someone have practical experiences? I know tests against mail, scales and plate but I can not speak about plumata.

By the way, lorica plumata seems to be too expensive to serve as a normal battle armour for any army. Never heard that it was widely used. It may be used by some very rich officers only. And I'm not sure wether maintainance was so easy; there may be difficulties to care for the places between the scales and the mail (concerning rust). Mail alone and rust is not such a big problem but mail covered by scale...?

I am not sure wether late Roman scale and lamellar armour derives from the very rarely used lorica plumata. Do you have a source for this? I think it was more eastern influence.

The bad image of the segmented plate armour is not totally fair I think. If I would go to battle I would prefer it over the other forms of Roman armour (if it would happen to get an example that fits me well). If I had to service it I would surely hate it. I pity some comrades for this duty. But take into account that segmented plate armour was used for over two centuries by large parts of the army, it could not be totally crappy.


@ Watchman: it was a pleasure to read about your thoughts. I am a bit tired about the common places about armour and its "bad performance" against everything. When it went out of use after 1635 it was more a matter of logistics and changes in the strategic demands than its inability to protect its wearer.

[Dayve]

What about the type of armour the classical Greek hoplites wore? The kind you see early Roman equittes, generals and Triarii wearing? I always imagined that to be really tough and easy to make because it's basically just hardened leather, almost like a really strong plastic...

Imagine if the Romans had discovered lexan...

[Watchman]

That's solid bronze plate, AFAIK. Not exactly the easiest thing to get anything through.

When it went out of use after 1635 it was more a matter of logistics and changes in the strategic demands than its inability to protect its wearer.

A little known fact is that breastplates were in use among shock cavalry into the early 1700s. The fashion was to wear them under the uniform coat so they don't normally show in pictorial sources, but I've seen enough literary references as well as the occasional officer portrait with the uniform open and the armour showing. They apparently dropped out of use after that for a while though, until Frederik the Great of Prussia reintroduced them to a limited degree in the "Napoleonic"-pattern cuirassieurs towards the end of the century.

[geala]

Yes, that's true. Some heavy cavalry had harnesses and -sometimes- helmets. A cuirass of a French Curassier araound 1815 is said to be able to deflect musket balls fired from 50 metres.

And during sieges the use of armour for breast and heads never stopped entirely even in the "naked" centuries from 1650 to 1914.


@ Dayve: Leather normally is a lousy material for armour. Of course it was used nevertheless if nothing better was available.

Greek cuirasses in the Geometric and early Classical periods seemed to be made mostly from bronze. But soon linen harnesses, sometimes added by some scales, came in use. Cloth armour, especially that made of several layers of linen, gives astonishing protection and is lighter and more flexible than rigid defences (But you sweat a lot, I can't imagine it's use in hot climates but indeed it was widely used. Perhaps I would have gone without breast armour in a hot Mediterranean summer; anyway dying young is the best thing. ).

There were phases in which hoplites used less armour. Sometimes no breast armour at all seems to be worn f.e. in the later years of the Peloponesian war. Later armour came back in use and so on.

By the way in my opinion EB is very correct about the armour used. I like it very much.

Edit: what about helmets? Far more important than any other form of armour I think. There were many lovely forms of helmets in the ancient and medieval times, but my two favorites are: 1. one form of Gallic helmet with a wide brim and additional cheekguards (look at my avatar and imagine an additional brim), 2. the medieval salet (Schaller in German) with movable visor.

[Urnamma]

I should be writing my 'Brief History of Russia' final paper and not answering this, but...

It's not an answerable question! It really depends on what you most value when equipping your troop(s), really. If it's cost, then (depending on the era) you might go with a chain haubergeon, or cuir buolli (boiled leather), or similar. In terms of sheer defensive power, the articulated plate of the 1500's or so are essentially the best available, worldwide. Of course then some bright bastard figured out the hand-gun thing and all of a sudden wearing 60-90 pounds of armor was pretty useless - that bullet ain't stopping for sheet metal!

(Also, kevlar is not proof against knives/spears/swords/piercing weapons in general, just some lower-power bullets.)

This is largely true. I will note that there is no 'best' form of armor. Scientific testing has to prove which is better in what situation is a daunting task that I happen to be taking up in a forthcoming book ;)

[Fondor_Yards]

What about the Ceannlann the Dosidataskeli and Uachtarach DuboGaiscaocha use? Just based off the armour ratings, it seems to be the best around.

[Watchman]

Layered, by what has been said here. Good scale over good mail plus of course the usual padding too, and the Dosidataskeli at least wear greaves to boot. Of course that's going to be pretty tough, but it doesn't mean the component layers themselves are "teh best around" - or that the setup would be even close to weight/price/protection-efficient.

[Bert Preast]

I wonder how much of the armour we know of was actually used on campaign. If you look at the conquistadores in the Americas though they were all armoured up to the nines for portrait calls, they ditched it all for simple cloth padding when they were engaged in serious bullying, raping and pillaging.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For me armour is not good if it isn't efficiant. If you can only use it in one battle its no good, if you can't move more than ten paces its no good.

Incidently Lorrica Plumbatta is essentially what was used by Kats, and also by a fair number of Centurians. Obviously the version used by Centurians was less extensive.

[geala]

I wonder how much of the armour we know of was actually used on campaign. If you look at the conquistadores in the Americas though they were all armoured up to the nines for portrait calls, they ditched it all for simple cloth padding when they were engaged in serious bullying, raping and pillaging.

This is a very good question. In longer wars or campaigns or during routine duties the ease of movement, heat exchange and simple convenience win against the wish of better defence during the normally very few times of actual fighting. I imagine that less armour is worn in the frequently unexpected everyday fightings during patrol or skirmishes (not in pitched battles).

You can (try to) work against this human behavior with a strict discipline. So I don't think a Roman soldier of maybe 100 AD dared to march without his segmentata armour or even to "lose it accidentally".