Was watching a documentary series on ancient wars in Britain. Made me wonder how well modern general issue personal armour would cope with ancient weapons, very poorly I suspect.

Typical ancient weapons include the longbow and crossbow, broadsword and dagger, battleaxe and halberd, pike and javelin, musket and grapeshot.

A volley of arrows coming down closer than a foot apart at an angle of more than 45 degrees would take out many modern soldiers. The halberd was designed to take out even knights in full metal body armour.

Would I be right in thinking that modern personal general issue armour is inferior even to chain mail on leather? And inferior to even carrying a small round shield because a shield can be moved up and down to counter threats whereas a bullet-proof vest can’t.

On a side note I happened to note that the personal armour of the ancient Romans in Britain was better than most if not all armour used in much more recent battles – the long rectangular slightly curved shield closely resembles the shield of modern riot police and could be used the same way. The use of a defensive multiple “flying wedge” to break up an opponent’s front line is a better tactic anything since.

Also on a side note, how would fencing gear cope against ancient weapons?

Define “Better”. Modern armour is effective against the likely threat (high speed metal), is lighter allows the wearer more freedom of movement than ancient armour, especially when combined with modern weapons designed to keep threats at a far enough distance so that the more basic/ancient weapons are out of effective range.

Interesting idea about the longbow though, but we have howitzers which are even more effective against modern personnel armour.

You could turn it around and ask how would ancient armour cope with modern small arms and high speed rifle fire.

Let’s take a taser back to the Crusades.

Divine Angel said:

Let’s take a taser back to the Crusades.

That’s an interesting thought. What would be the result?

Could we replicate ancient armour with more modern materials and make it lighter but just as effective

Cymek said:

Could we replicate ancient armour with more modern materials and make it lighter but just as effective

Possibly it could be printed out on a 3D printer.

Modern armour doesn’t need to do what historical armour did, because the knights can be machine-gunned or bombed long before they get near enough to wield their halberds or what have you.

OTOH, modern armour probably doesn’t offer much protection to modern soldiers either, in real combat situations. It’s probably a “better than nothing” strategy.

Bubblecar said:

Modern armour doesn’t need to do what historical armour did, because the knights can be machine-gunned or bombed long before they get near enough to wield their halberds or what have you.

OTOH, modern armour probably doesn’t offer much protection to modern soldiers either, in real combat situations. It’s probably a “better than nothing” strategy.

Yes I’ve read news articles how our Australian soldiers are buying their own body armour as what they are supplied is inadequate, thousands of dollars worth, it may have been up to 30 thousand.

Depends on how often modern warfare is fought at close quarters with weapons like halberds and swords or arrows. Which I’d guess is not very often. The armour they wear is probably designed more for protection from shrapnel than sharp bladed weapons. It’s not that the modern armour is bad, it’s that the weapons have been replaced with something more effective like an assault rifle. Much more effective but being a two-handed weapon there is no free hand for other weapons.

party_pants said:

Depends on how often modern warfare is fought at close quarters with weapons like halberds and swords or arrows. Which I’d guess is not very often. The armour they wear is probably designed more for protection from shrapnel than sharp bladed weapons. It’s not that the modern armour is bad, it’s that the weapons have been replaced with something more effective like an assault rifle. Much more effective but being a two-handed weapon there is no free hand for other weapons.

The closest you’d probably get would be combat knife fighting and their would be soft body parts unprotected even with good quality armour

A bayonet charge is probably as close as modern combat gets.

grabs knee

>>Let’s take a taser back to the Crusades.

Wouldn’t a knights armour simply short out the taser charge?

Tamb said:

>>Let’s take a taser back to the Crusades.

Wouldn’t a knights armour simply short out the taser charge?

Sure, but if you am’t on horse back, you’re cuffed anyway.

Bubblecar said:

Modern armour doesn’t need to do what historical armour did, because the knights can be machine-gunned or bombed long before they get near enough to wield their halberds or what have you.

OTOH, modern armour probably doesn’t offer much protection to modern soldiers either, in real combat situations. It’s probably a “better than nothing” strategy.

Did you read about American soldiers in Iraq that were going over areas were fighting had occurred to pick up stuff to stick on their uniforms or what seems to be most inadequate protective gear?

ms spock said:

Bubblecar said:

Modern armour doesn’t need to do what historical armour did, because the knights can be machine-gunned or bombed long before they get near enough to wield their halberds or what have you.

OTOH, modern armour probably doesn’t offer much protection to modern soldiers either, in real combat situations. It’s probably a “better than nothing” strategy.

Did you read about American soldiers in Iraq that were going over areas were fighting had occurred to pick up stuff to stick on their uniforms or what seems to be most inadequate protective gear?

Yes Australians as well in Afghanistan were buying their own.

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

Modern armour doesn’t need to do what historical armour did, because the knights can be machine-gunned or bombed long before they get near enough to wield their halberds or what have you.

OTOH, modern armour probably doesn’t offer much protection to modern soldiers either, in real combat situations. It’s probably a “better than nothing” strategy.

Yes I’ve read news articles how our Australian soldiers are buying their own body armour as what they are supplied is inadequate, thousands of dollars worth, it may have been up to 30 thousand.

I wish that they weren’t in the situation of being at war. But given how American is estimated to have spent three trillion dollars, seriously they can’t have provided proper gear? Surely one of their big business mates was selling those. /cynic

ms spock said:

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

Modern armour doesn’t need to do what historical armour did, because the knights can be machine-gunned or bombed long before they get near enough to wield their halberds or what have you.

OTOH, modern armour probably doesn’t offer much protection to modern soldiers either, in real combat situations. It’s probably a “better than nothing” strategy.

Yes I’ve read news articles how our Australian soldiers are buying their own body armour as what they are supplied is inadequate, thousands of dollars worth, it may have been up to 30 thousand.

I wish that they weren’t in the situation of being at war. But given how American is estimated to have spent three trillion dollars, seriously they can’t have provided proper gear? Surely one of their big business mates was selling those. /cynic

I’d believe them selling knock off armour to troops as kickbacks were given to those making the decisions on what to purchase.

if I were in a war with a rifle I would get my hands on the armour piercing type

if you have the jump on the enemy but its just you , you can hold off a large number of men simply by wounding a few and waiting for others to rescue them, you can wound them too and then things just get silly because you have lots of people rolling around screaming out in pain with people trying to rescue them. you would try to aim for muscle mass if you could – if they were stood motionless – don’t smash bones because hitting the femur will kill them – bad for the reasons outlined below.

I’m fairly sure armour piercing rounds will act differently in the body, they would be more likely to travel through the body in a straight line rather than spin around inside, if in doubt go for a nick on the fatty thigh about an inch in. even a grazing wound will see them out of action and sent back.

under no circumstances kill them, a wounded person eg shot in the leg might not return to the battle for years, it costs squillions of dolalrs treating them and then giving them pensions – the government you went up against would curse you because

1 its costing them millions in the short term to house them and treat them AND pay them

2 it will cost them millions in the long term for paying more or less everything to help the “veterans”

edit

wookiemeister said:

if I were in a war with a rifle I would get my hands on the armour piercing type – of round

if you have the jump on the enemy but its just you , you can hold off a large number of men simply by wounding a few and waiting for others to rescue them, you can wound them too and then things just get silly because you have lots of people rolling around screaming out in pain with people trying to rescue them. you would try to aim for muscle mass if you could – if they were stood motionless – don’t smash bones because hitting the femur will kill them – bad for the reasons outlined below.

I’m fairly sure armour piercing rounds will act differently in the body, they would be more likely to travel through the body in a straight line rather than spin around inside, if in doubt go for a nick on the fatty thigh about an inch in. even a grazing wound will see them out of action and sent back.

under no circumstances kill them, a wounded person eg shot in the leg might not return to the battle for years, it costs squillions of dolalrs treating them and then giving them pensions – the government you went up against would curse you because

1 its costing them millions in the short term to house them and treat them AND pay them

2 it will cost them millions in the long term for paying more or less everything to help the “veterans”

I have read that the better idea is to wound soldiers rather than kill them as like Wookie said it means other troops stop fighting to help them

if you going to shoot anyone in any serious way, shoot the officers.

anyone strolling around with rank easily observed is asking for it

in a prolonged war the soldier needs to evolve a working relationship with the enemy

Cymek said:

I have read that the better idea is to wound soldiers rather than kill them as like Wookie said it means other troops stop fighting to help them

It’s one of the reasons that military rifle bullets are full metal jacketed. Penetrate, wound not kill.

• Penetrate, wound not kill.

Wouldn’t it be better to kill because keeping prisoners, particularly injured ones, would be a drain on resources…

furious said:

• Penetrate, wound not kill.

Wouldn’t it be better to kill because keeping prisoners, particularly injured ones, would be a drain on resources…

Don’t take prisoners. Most wounds occur within reach of their own side.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

I have read that the better idea is to wound soldiers rather than kill them as like Wookie said it means other troops stop fighting to help them

It’s one of the reasons that military rifle bullets are full metal jacketed. Penetrate, wound not kill.

they have the tendency to do terrible damage internally

if you are fighting a fanatical enemy such as the Japanese, ISIS or anyone that beheads prisoners etc you need a different strategy – they don’t care about their wounded – allah will protect them and if not they go to heaven to their virgins anyway

you need knock down power in the form of 7.62mm or similar

the ideal rifle might be an AK47 knock off made your own side with more accuracy and a good sight

weight can be reduced by using plastic for the stock

you might want some connection for a bi-pod so you can shoot accurately over great distances – ideally 600m – 800m

you want the option to allow belt feed if need be (yes all sounds very far fetched

if a lone gunman was to surprise and stymie an enemy force he could set up blow a few thousand rounds on them, then quickly move and take sniping shots

furious said:

• Penetrate, wound not kill.

Wouldn’t it be better to kill because keeping prisoners, particularly injured ones, would be a drain on resources…

no just don’t take wounded prisoners, just move on and let someone else work it out

you ideally want wounded that can be evacuated under their own steam fairly quickly with assistance

fighting against trained armies in many ways is slightly easier for someone that can work alone

in my experience you can predict how they will be doing something – all these things have been drilled into them

the biggest cause of let down on battle was the 5.56 mm rifle issued by the british, it was inherently unreliable, stoppages, jamming etc. the only good thing was the sight. anyone with a steady hand can fire a rifle with little to no training.

whomever you are fighting consider this

if you are injuring them – how will it affect their life? are you going to give them some terrible wound that they will carry for the rest of their life?

wookiemeister said:

fighting against trained armies in many ways is slightly easier for someone that can work alone

in my experience …

which is?

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

fighting against trained armies in many ways is slightly easier for someone that can work alone

in my experience …

which is?

world of warcraft

Penetrate, wound not kill.

you want the projectile to expend all its energy within the target. and it is really hard in the heat of a firefight to wound deliberately. so you’re shooting to kill.

party_pants said:

Depends on how often modern warfare is fought at close quarters.

A lot of the fighting was at close quarters in World War 1. More modern than that at close quarters would include Rwanda, but I don’t know if they had personal armour there.

As for ancient armour and modern weapons, I’d rather be in ancient Roman armour than modern armour if confronted with a flame-thrower or hand grenade. Not so sure about machine gun or sniper.

Riot police armour would be the closest modern equivalent ancient Roman armour.

Tamb said:

>>Let’s take a taser back to the Crusades.

Wouldn’t a knights armour simply short out the taser charge?

Yes. I don’t know how many people fighting in the Crusades would be wearing full armour though. I had visions of chain mail acting like a Faraday Cage, although I don’t know if that would actually happen.

if I were in a war with a rifle I would get my hands on the armour piercing type

I’d be more inclined to go incendiary rounds.

if you have the jump on the enemy but its just you , you can hold off a large number of men simply by wounding a few and waiting for others to rescue them

That trick exterminated the buffalo. Wound the first one but through the lungs so it couldn’t scream. Then others would come around trying to figure out what was wrong. Once I wanted to write a science fiction story in which aliens used exactly that strategy to wipe out the humans.

under no circumstances kill them, a wounded person eg shot in the leg might not return to the battle for years, it costs squillions of dollars treating them and then giving them pensions – the government you went up against would curse you

Agree, but beware of revenge.

Can I get and answer to the original question, how good is modern armour against ancient weapons?

I don’t know the answer but it sounds like a Mythbusters episode waiting to happen.

Divine Angel said:

I don’t know the answer but it sounds like a Mythbusters episode waiting to happen.

Was thinking that – especially the tasered knight.

I should have checked the web on modern armour ancient weapons. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080408135020AAGp87E

ie. Can a knife pentrate a bulletproof vest ?

Absolutely … bulletproof vests are designed to stop BULLETS not knives. It might take a little bit more force to stab through one, but its not really that hard. Bulletproof vests are actually quite malleable, and are made up of multiple layers of fabric and kevlar — they help minimize the impact of a bullet by distributing its impact over a larger area. And, a key component that is instrumental is the design of kevlar is that the object must be traveling at an extremely high velocity. A blade can go right through a bulletproof vest because it was not designed or meant to protect against that kind of a weapon. They actually make stab proof vests … they work a completely different way.

Edit: “Bulletproof Vest” is also somewhat of a misnomer … they cannot offer 100% protection against bullets. Regardless of whether or not the vest actually succeeds in stopping the bullet you are going to be injured. It would be kind of like being hit with a frozen paint ball — it will leave bruises, and can even break bones. Furthermore, the police version of a bulletproof vest your average beat officer wears is not designed to offer relative protection from rifled ammunition, nor from point-blank handgun rounds (especially higher caliber rounds). Military combat body armor is much different from that Police Officers wear … it is designed to protect against rifled ammunition.

Source:Former Police Officer — in the Academy they demonstrated this, and one of our instructors slowly pushed a knife through a Level III vest like it was butter.

i reckon it would be far superior. the old stuff couldn’t stop crossbow bolts or close range longbow arrows which have far less hitting power than modern projectiles. only when the armour steel was hardened did it work against the projectiles. modern stuff would still have no probs with penetration.

Looking up the web on ancient Roman shields, it was only 5-6 mm thick but included 3 glued layers of wood (like 3-ply but probably hardwood for higher strength) covered in canvas (from hemp?) and leather (possibly vegetable-tanned full-grain that is set into a rigid solid by heat-treatment).

Geez. Sounds like a homemade, wearable sweat lodge.

I’d say that something designed to take a bullet would more than adequately stop a long bow arrow

it would also depend on the armour type and arrow tip type.

composites are stronger than steel

Divine Angel said:

Geez. Sounds like a homemade, wearable sweat lodge.

Yeah, isn’t all personal armour? Only good for fighting in cold climates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1nLRymWv-CA

JudgeMental said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1nLRymWv-CA

“Twang n Bang”
LOL

mollwollfumble said:

ie. Can a knife pentrate a bulletproof vest ?

Absolutely … bulletproof vests are designed to stop BULLETS not knives. It might take a little bit more force to stab through one, but its not really that hard. Bulletproof vests are actually quite malleable, and are made up of multiple layers of fabric and kevlar — they help minimize the impact of a bullet by distributing its impact over a larger area. And, a key component that is instrumental is the design of kevlar is that the object must be traveling at an extremely high velocity. A blade can go right through a bulletproof vest because it was not designed or meant to protect against that kind of a weapon. They actually make stab proof vests … they work a completely different way.

Edit: “Bulletproof Vest” is also somewhat of a misnomer … they cannot offer 100% protection against bullets. Regardless of whether or not the vest actually succeeds in stopping the bullet you are going to be injured. It would be kind of like being hit with a frozen paint ball — it will leave bruises, and can even break bones. Furthermore, the police version of a bulletproof vest your average beat officer wears is not designed to offer relative protection from rifled ammunition, nor from point-blank handgun rounds (especially higher caliber rounds). Military combat body armor is much different from that Police Officers wear … it is designed to protect against rifled ammunition.

Source:Former Police Officer — in the Academy they demonstrated this, and one of our instructors slowly pushed a knife through a Level III vest like it was butter.

Bummer, didn’t get to see that when I went to their open day.

A grateful Marine showes the piece of shrapnel that lodged in his armored vest instead of his stomach during a patrol action. Throughout the battlefields of Korea, Marines welcomed the M-1951 armored vest, constructed of nylon and Doron fiberglass. First issued in the spring of 1952, it weighed 7.75 pounds.