Retro-modern armour for alternate timelines

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

I was aware of the ceramic; I wasn't aware that steel was an option.

Metals, especially steels, have the sometimes useful advantage that they can take a hit, even a penetrating hit and aside from the actual impact point be effectively as strong as they were when undamaged. Ceramics tend to weaken dramatically or simply become useless after they've had a hole put in them.

Steel also has the advantage over some ceramics and over aluminium alloys of being dense, and thus less bulky for the same protection.

Sometimes all this makes steel an attractive choice, even when it's not the best protection per unit of weight.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Metals, especially steels, have the sometimes useful advantage that they can take a hit, even a penetrating hit and aside from the actual impact point be effectively as strong as they were when undamaged. Ceramics tend to weaken dramatically or simply become useless after they've had a hole put in them.

Steel also has the advantage over some ceramics and over aluminium alloys of being dense, and thus less bulky for the same protection.

Sometimes all this makes steel an attractive choice, even when it's not the best protection per unit of weight.

That all makes sense, and I had heard that the ceramic inserts don't tend to last long when shot.

Edit: Also sounds like a TL8 armour steel breastplate over a kevlar "gambeson" is not only practical, it also sort-of already exists. Heh.

[DanHoward]

All but the thinnest kevlar vests are too bulky to wear under a breastplate. They would need to be worn over the top. This was the case historically as well. Arming garments were never meant to provide additional protection. They were designed to stop chafing and improve the fit of the armour. Padded armour such as gambesons and jacks were worn over the top of metal armour.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

All but the thinnest kevlar vests are too bulky to wear under a breastplate. They would need to be worn over the top. This was the case historically as well. Arming garments were never meant to provide additional protection. They were designed to stop chafing and improve the fit of the armour. Padded armour such as gambesons and jacks were worn over the top of metal armour.

Every single reference I have ever encountered that ever addressed it, placed the padding under the metal armour.

I fail to see how padding worn over the armour would reduce chafing or improve its fit.

Edit: Also "too bulky to be worn under shaped metal" is nonsense, as all that would be needed would be to move the breastplate out from the body a bit.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

Every single reference I have ever encountered that ever addressed it, placed the padding under the metal armour.

I fail to see how padding worn over the armour would reduce chafing or improve its fit.

Edit: Also "too bulky to be worn under shaped metal" is nonsense, as all that would be needed would be to move the breastplate out from the body a bit.

From what I've seen, the metal armour was fitted to the wearer while the wearer was already wearing the padding, so I agree, it certainly should have been worn under the armour (and in fact, some, perhaps most or all, gambesons had bits for the armour to attach to, so you [b]couldn't]/b] wear it without the gambeson underneath).

[DanHoward]

You are confusing armour and arming garments. Standalone armour such as gambesons and padded jacks are an inch or two thick and rigid as a board. They can't be worn under any other kind of armour. Low-Tech treats these as medium and heavy layered cloth.

There were lighter, more flexible, variants that were meant to be worn over the top of (not underneath) other kinds of armour such as mail. Low-Tech treats these as light and medium layered cloth.

Arming garments such as pourpoints, aketons, and arming doublets were designed to be worn under armour. The intent was to stop chafing and to improve the fit of the armour. They are no heavier and provide no more protection than winter clothing. The only padding some have is a little in the shoulders (for comfort, not protection). Some had a lightly padded integrated liner instead of a separate garment. Low-Tech includes the cost and weight of all these variants in the armour stats. The Loadouts book sometimes separated them out and listed them individually but the DR provided by them is zero in most cases. A couple are DR1, which was being generous.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

You are confusing armour and arming garments. Standalone armour such as gambesons and padded jacks are an inch or two thick and rigid as a board. They can't be worn under any other kind of armour. Low-Tech treats these as medium and heavy layered cloth.

There were lighter variants that were meant to be worn over the top of (not underneath) other kinds of armour such as mail. Low-Tech treats these as light and medium layered cloth.

Arming garments such as pourpoints, aketons, and arming doublets were designed to be worn under armour. The intent was to stop chafing and to improve the fit of the armour. They are no heavier and provide no more protection than winter clothing. The only padding some have is a little in the shoulders (for comfort, not protection).

I'm going to need citations on this. I have never so much as heard of a two-inch-thick gambeson.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

Edit: Also "too bulky to be worn under shaped metal" is nonsense, as all that would be needed would be to move the breastplate out from the body a bit.

If you ever get the chance to wear properly-fitted historical armour, you will see that this isn't possible.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

I'm going to need citations on this. I have never so much as heard of a two-inch-thick gambeson.

There are no Medieval European gambesons in existence. Everything you have read is baseless speculation from people who have never studied historical armour. Those who seriously study this subject have had to look at textile armour from other cultures around the world and the construction is pretty consistent across regions and time periods.

There are some later European textile armours dating to the Renaissance period.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

If you ever get the chance to wear properly-fitted historical armour, you will see that this isn't possible.

This is simultaneously the best kind of unconvincing ('if a circumstance that almost certainly isn't available happens, you'll see how wrong you were for reasons I can't bother to articulate!') and phrased to suggest you've failed to understand the proposal.

"Move the breastplate out from the body a bit" would entail re-sizing if the armor is closely fitted. It's incompatible with the breastplate being 'properly fitted' to be closer to the body.

Also, modern mail-order munitions ballistic plates are, as discussed up-thread and easily verified with a search, basically not-at-all fitted breastplates. Needless to say those are in fact possible and are worn over significant ballistic fabric protection in some cases.