Armour in the Wild West

[ausjulius]

yup it was the suit i was thginking about,
yes normaly maori combat was involving any armor or large amounts of projectile weapons, no doubt they new of them but didnt use them..
they did have very long lances.. 20 or 30 feet and other weapons like darts and javalins and such but i think these were not frequently used as they were considered cowardly.
there is a lot of accounts of maori standing in the open unprotected and reciving cannon shot while waiting for their oponants to close for hand to hand combat..
i guess this changes after guns became more common as they basicaly reversed their fighting from ritual to desperate trench style warfare with their pa's

[Jim McDougall]

Aiontay, its good to see you back, and thanks as always for the great input.
Interesting notes on the Indian use of swords, and I very much look forward to hearing more on these instances. The comments I noted were mostly based on swords from the mid to latter 19th century, and some instances where these were held only in what appeared ceremonial use. The use of sabres seems to have fallen out of use by the cavalry as well, at least by the time of the Little Big Horn, despite there being some singular and vague reference to same there.

Thanks Ausjulius for the additional notes on the Maori. I was just realizing how little is typically discussed on the weaponry of these warriors, and perhaps this might be a great topic for an independant thread.

All best regards,
Jim

[aiontay]

Yes, by the mid 19th Century swords were probably not as widely used; a pistol would be better. Nevertheless, the ledger art indicates they were used all the way to the end of the fighting on the Plains.

I did consult with two friends (one Choctaw and one Seminole) regarding gorgets. The original shell ones indicated clan/religious-political office. Of course, since in the SE religious/political status depended in part on clan affiliation, the gorgets frequently indicated both things simultaneously. The Choctaw tradition says the first metal gorgets were gifts from the Spanish, which would indicate an introduction by the mid 1600s at the latest. Apparently the Chickasaws had a series of bars engraved on the gorgets that indicated status.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

I suspect that the answer to the riddle of why was armour abandoned in the WW, resides in that once firearms gained ascendancy, it probably would have made more sense to carry extra ammunition and loaded pistols than tens of pounds of armour.

From what I gather, cuirasses made some sense in military battles in affording some marginal protection against light shrapnel, spent bullets and ill directed sword cuts and lance thrusts, but this only in the European context. Once distances were vast, supplies stretched to the limit, self sufficiency and mobility of troopers becoming paramount, there were more important items to carry along than heavy armour.

Just my thoughts....

Cheers
Chris

[celtan]

In a documentary just on about the Romanovs, and the massacre of the Royal Family in Russia in 1918,the young girls were apparantly not killed by the gunfire and ultimately bayonetted and bludgeoned. It was found the bullets were deflected by corsets laden with diamonds and jewels.

That is the kind of image that I try not to picture in my mind. How utterly horrible.

lupus est homo homini

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Aiontay. I think the gorget, which was in European military parlance, a sort of vestigial armour symbol of rank, was likely seen and used in much the same manner by the American Indian tribes, especially when received as gifts from Europeans.
I think the use of the sword was probably effective in the same manner as the tomahawk in 18th century warfare on the frontiers. When the single shot gun(s) was discharged, it was an immediate opportunity for attack.

While I would imagine that the sword did find at least some use on the Plains by Indian tribes into the 19th century, it does not seem in enough presence to have become especially widely known. At least when I think of a Native American warrior, my image would seldom include a sword, and this is I think often the case despite the fact that numerous references in some artwork and descriptions exist. I am under the impression that much of this is within tribal histories, and found apparantly in certain focused research. In "Native American Weapons" ( Colin F. Taylor, 2001, p.54) , the author notes that many of the well travelled British M1796 sabres were sold in the American West in about the 1840's, and that they became a kind of status symbol among many of the tribes. One instance described is of a sword painted red , used symbolically by the Crow leader Wraps Up His Tail, and seems to have been the focus of his supernatural power (Taylor. p.55).

Thank you for the input Chris, and very well made points! It certainly would seem like added weight of ammunition would be more worthwhile rather than extra weight of armour.

Well placed quote Celtan! and it does seem I could have left the graphics of this terrible incident out of the text. As you note, it is an unfortunate element of truth, mans inhumanity to man. I have always managed to rather remove myself from the true nature of arms in that sense, and always focus on the history and symbolism in styles etc. and in that parlance regretably included those details without thinking.

All very best regards,
Jim

[ausjulius]

i think also one has to look at the method of warfare neither the american settlers nor the indians were engaged in any heavy combat or in any large organized encounters.. the indians never fourght in organised groups in that area of the americas.. compared to for exsample the indians on the pacific coast and coastal alaskan natives they used very basic tactics and attacked in a individual manner.. not using group tactisc or any real manouvers invoiving preorganized plans..
generaly you will find in these cultures they combatants lack body armor and sheilds or have very small sheilds or use the infrequently.

as they are attacking as an single person. they have no orders.. attacking with what weapons they personaly own and in what manner they wish,
i thin armour realy coms when
1, you have a people with a structured ordered society with a class or worriors who can be directed by a chief and armed by his direction and controled by his tactics like people of the pacific in micronesia and polynesia western alaska .. or you have to have a seditary people producing agriculture,, that may not have a sturctured society with a hereditary chief but still use things like shield and body armor.. like in papua new guinea, they are able to store in their homes these extra and infrequiently used equipment.. and they fight in a group and not as an individuial with "fighting plans" and "drilling" before the battle.

i think you could say the plains indians culture was buy the time of european contact no longer at this state. no doubt in the past they had a far more complexed social structure and i do seem to recall some finds in the mid west of some form of body armor from earlier times when they were less mobile.
but by the time horses became common i think the lost many of these habits as they didnt suit their lifestyle and style of combat.
it can be seen in central and south america , the settled peoples having body armor and the nomadic ones mostly not having this..

i thin it is obvious why the "cowboys" of the day didnt have body armor.. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians..
if one wants to see the real wild "west" then northen brazil or southern mexico would be exsamples of rely wild frontiers..
and in both these places body armor was actualy used up till the 1890s.. as were swords and spears..


one an other note....
one always has to remember how many millions of starving mouths expired in the life of those young ladies so they could have those jewels in their corsets , as they hardly worked for them

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ausjulius,
Very well thought out assessment of the conditions of warfare experienced in America's frontiers in early colonial times into the movements toward the west.
I am certainly no authority on Native American warfare, but it seems to be that this was a magnificently complex culture, and warfare was inevitable between tribes for numerous reasons. The regimentation of European military and American settlers were incredibly restrictive in trying to combat what was essentially guerilla warfare. There was clearly adaption of strategy and use of weaponry taken by both sides as conflicts continued.

I'm not sure that the use of armour by Indians was likely, with the instance earlier noted an exception, and possibly other singular cases. Mostly I am interested in the use by gunfighters or others in the western frontiers.
You are right, the much dramatized and embellished tales of blazing gunfights being the norm, or fighting off bands of attacking warriors are mostly just that. While there are cases of certain individuals who apparantly knew they were constantly at threat of violence, who may have used some kind of protection such as bullet proof vests, the cases seem to have been rare.

The unfortunate reference I included concerning the Romanov event I think should be dropped, the point was concerning bulletproof vests, and used only in a comparitive analogy. As I have noted, I regret including it as clearly the point of reference was lost in adverse reactions. My apologies to anyone who misunderstood my intent and for having used this tragic reference.

All best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ausjulius,


[QUOTE=ausjulius].. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians.. [QUOTE]

I think that you make an extremely valid point. Frontier societies were nowhere as violent as pop culture, through the efforts of the myth makers, would have us believe. For example, from reading Argentinean literature, one would be led to believe that the gauchos were constantly fighting life and death duels. And whilst in the 1870s the murder rate was 178 times worse than in England, nevertheless and despite such a violent frontier environment, a British immigrant of those days, recalled seeing only one fatal stabbing in a full decade of rural life.

Cheers
Chris

[VANDOO]

I JUST REMEMBERED ANOTHER USE OF BODY ARMOR OF SORTS IN THE OLD WEST. THE HATCHET MEN WORKING FOR THE TONG'S USED PISTOLS, AND EDGED WEAPONS AND WOULD WEAR THE QUILTED CHINESE COATS AND UNDER THEM LOTS OF LAYERS OF CLOTH AND NEWSPAPER OR OTHER MATERIALS. THIS PROVED SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE IN GUN FIGHTS AND THEY WOULD BANG AWAY AT EACH OTHER A LOT LONGER THAN IF THEY HAD NO PROTECTION FOR THEIR BODIES.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO AVOID GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF SUCH A FIGHT SIMPLY WATCH OUT FOR GROUPS OF FAT CHINESE IN COATS. FAT LOOKING CHINESE WERE RARE IN THOSE DAYS UNLESS THEY WERE BUNDLED UP FOR THE COLD OR BATTLE. YOU CAN SEARCH ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS INFO IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I RESEARCHED IN THAT DIRECTION BUT I THINK LOOKING UNDER TONG WARS OR HATCHET MEN SHOULD TURN UP SOME INFO.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

I JUST REMEMBERED ANOTHER USE OF BODY ARMOR OF SORTS IN THE OLD WEST. THE HATCHET MEN WORKING FOR THE TONG'S USED PISTOLS, AND EDGED WEAPONS AND WOULD WEAR THE QUILTED CHINESE COATS AND UNDER THEM LOTS OF LAYERS OF CLOTH AND NEWSPAPER OR OTHER MATERIALS. THIS PROVED SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE IN GUN FIGHTS AND THEY WOULD BANG AWAY AT EACH OTHER A LOT LONGER THAN IF THEY HAD NO PROTECTION FOR THEIR BODIES.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO AVOID GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF SUCH A FIGHT SIMPLY WATCH OUT FOR GROUPS OF FAT CHINESE IN COATS. FAT LOOKING CHINESE WERE RARE IN THOSE DAYS UNLESS THEY WERE BUNDLED UP FOR THE COLD OR BATTLE. YOU CAN SEARCH ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS INFO IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I RESEARCHED IN THAT DIRECTION BUT I THINK LOOKING UNDER TONG WARS OR HATCHET MEN SHOULD TURN UP SOME INFO.

Great information Vandoo! and leave it to you to come up with the exotic!
I had never thought of this particular aspect of the West, and did start looking into more on the fabled Tongs. Naturally I have heard the expressions 'Tong Wars' and 'hatchet man' many times, but never realized the origins of the terms.
The term 'hatchet man' of course conjures up immediate thoughts of the corporate 'efficiency' experts who eliminate personnel, and of course probably derives from the idea of 'hit man' which these Tongs used in thier clandestine dealings. There was apparantly a 1932 movie with Edward G. Robinson "The Hatchet Man" using this premise. It would seem the Tong (transl. =hall) were versions of the Chinese 'triads' who were originally created as protective units but evolved into clandestine crime organizations in the U.S. in the many Chinatowns. Naturally, the weapons used must have been all manner of available tools or implements, and the readily available axe or hatchet was certainly an effective choice.

The Tong Wars were essentially territorial wars between competing groups of these organizations that seem to have taken place frequently from about the last quarter of the 19th century and still exist ,though now more a gang type association. In group conflicts or fights, it is interesting that they contrived these ersatz bulletproof coats, and it is noted that the Tong groups by 1912 indeed carried firearms, even to what types were preferred. In New York, apparantly the On Leon Tong carried Smith & Wessons while the rival Hip Sing Tong carried Colts. With this it would be interesting to discover just how effective these coats might have been against these weapons....rather than the presumed thought of gangs with rather cliche' 'saturday night specials'.

You're right, much in the sameway one would be wary of a guy wearing a trenchcoat entering a convenience store in July, beware of unusually heavy Chinese guys in a group was probably good advice in those days.

All best regards,
Jim

[VANDOO]

HERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF EDWARD G. ROBINSON AND LORETTA YOUNG IN THE HATCHET MAN. I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO SEE THE MOVIE LONG AGO BUT IT SEEMS TO BE IMPOSIBLE TO GET A COPY TODAY PERHAPS IT WILL COME OUT ON DVD EVENTUALLY. PIRATE HATCHET MEN HAVE BEEN FEATURED IN THE JACKIE CHAN MOVIES PROJECT 1 AND PROJECT 1A , A COUPLE OF MY FAVORITES.
THE TONGS OPERATED LIKE A BUSINESS/ COMBINATION SECRET LODGE HERE IN THE USA AND OFTEN WERE VERY INFLUENTIAL IN THEIR COMUNITYS.THEY AVOIDED TROUBLE WITH OTHER COMUNITIES AND USUALLY HAD THEIR FIGHTS SET UP IN AREAS WHERE THE LOCAL POLICE OR BYSTANDERS WOULD NOT SEE ANYTHING. IN SMALLER TOWNS THERE WAS SELDOM ANY TROUBLE AND OFTEN SOME WERE VERY GOOD FOR THE CHINESE COMUNITYS WHO WERE EXPLOITED AND LOOKED DOWN ON BY OTHER RACES. THEY WERE NOTED FOR SMUGGLEING IN WOMEN AND OPIUM AND SOME RAN ALL THE CRIMINAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND SOMETIMES COLLECTED PROTECTION MONEY. NOT ALL WERE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS BUT THE MOST FAMOUS OFTEN WERE, JUST AS OUR MOST FAMOUS GANGSTERS HAVE BEEN NOTED THE MOST IN OUR HISTORY. I SAW SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET ABOUT A TONG HOUSE IN ONE SMALL TOWN THAT WAS BEING RESTORED AND PRESERVED AS A HISTORICAL PLACE. THERE WERE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF SOME OF THEIR BATTLES FROM THE PERIOD IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THERE WERE SOME GOOD ONES IN SAN FRANCISCO.

[fearn]

Originally Posted by ausjulius

i think also one has to look at the method of warfare neither the american settlers nor the indians were engaged in any heavy combat or in any large organized encounters.. the indians never fourght in organised groups in that area of the americas.. compared to for exsample the indians on the pacific coast and coastal alaskan natives they used very basic tactics and attacked in a individual manner.. not using group tactisc or any real manouvers invoiving preorganized plans..
generaly you will find in these cultures they combatants lack body armor and sheilds or have very small sheilds or use the infrequently.

as they are attacking as an single person. they have no orders.. attacking with what weapons they personaly own and in what manner they wish,
i thin armour realy coms when
1, you have a people with a structured ordered society with a class or worriors who can be directed by a chief and armed by his direction and controled by his tactics like people of the pacific in micronesia and polynesia western alaska .. or you have to have a seditary people producing agriculture,, that may not have a sturctured society with a hereditary chief but still use things like shield and body armor.. like in papua new guinea, they are able to store in their homes these extra and infrequiently used equipment.. and they fight in a group and not as an individuial with "fighting plans" and "drilling" before the battle.

i think you could say the plains indians culture was buy the time of european contact no longer at this state. no doubt in the past they had a far more complexed social structure and i do seem to recall some finds in the mid west of some form of body armor from earlier times when they were less mobile.
but by the time horses became common i think the lost many of these habits as they didnt suit their lifestyle and style of combat.
it can be seen in central and south america , the settled peoples having body armor and the nomadic ones mostly not having this..

i thin it is obvious why the "cowboys" of the day didnt have body armor.. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians..
if one wants to see the real wild "west" then northen brazil or southern mexico would be exsamples of rely wild frontiers..
and in both these places body armor was actualy used up till the 1890s.. as were swords and spears..


one an other note....
one always has to remember how many millions of starving mouths expired in the life of those young ladies so they could have those jewels in their corsets , as they hardly worked for them

Hi Ausjulius,

I was thinking through a long list of examples, and my end conclusion is that there's not a great correlation between who's carrying armor and defensive weapons and the social structures you're talking about here. I keep thinking about those shields the Australian Aborigines carried, to cite one example.

A couple of complicating factors play in thinking about this:

1. Social structure. The Indians of 1491 appear to have been more organized than the ones of, say, 1800, or 1850. Epidemics took most of them out. Without getting into the politics of this, we all need to specify what time period we're talking about for any location, to talk about what the level of social complexity was at a place and time.

2. Social complexity may not add up to military might. An example: I'm reading a book about Estanislao (link), a California Indian who entered the Mission system in 1821, rebelled with 400 followers in 1827, beat the Spanish in several battles, and reconciled in 1829, only to die in 1838 from either smallpox or malaria. Among other things, he built several working forts based on what he learned from the Spanish. Another thing is that he was quite possibly the origin of the Zorro myth. As a devout Christian, he would trap the Spanish, carve an S in their chest, and let them go with no loss of life, at least in the early battles. The last battles got pretty bloody on both sides.

The basic point is that if you're doing a cursory reading of the ethnographic literature, the California Indians weren't politically sophisticated and didn't build forts, use complex weapons or wear armor. However, it took one of them only six years to figure out how to beat the Spaniards at their own game. People can change very rapidly, especially when exposed to new ideas.

I think it boils down to a couple of questions.

1. Can someone make useful armor? This is a technical question, a logistical question, and (in some societies) a financial question.
2. Is it worth making and using that armor? This depends on things like mobility, survivability in the armor when not in combat (from wounds, heat stroke, drowning, etc), and the general trade off between how good the armor is vs. the problems with using it in a particular situation.

Generalizing beyond these two questions is problematic, IMHO.

F

[M ELEY]

Shameless promotion here, but I noticed an interest in breastplates here. I just posted one for sale in the Swap forum if anyone is interested...

[Jim McDougall]

Just when ya thought this thread was done
In "Arms and Armor Annual" (ed. Robert Held, 1973), there is an article titled " Body Armor in the American Civil War" by Harold L. Peterson (p.304-307).
In this the types of armor produced for the Union army were of two basic types, both produced in New Haven, Conn. about 1862.

The most popular was the 'soldiers bullet proof vest' by the G.D.Cook & Co. which was a varying size fabric vest with pockets for insertion of spring steel plates on either side of chest.
The other was by the Atwater Armor Co. of New Haven, and was more complex, actually of a cuirass form much like those of 17th-19th c. .

Obviously the biggest problem with these was weight, and there were also many homemade styles using these concepts. It is noted that hundreds of instances are recorded of soldiers lives being spared by these notably uncomfortable and awkward items, however it appears that those using them were often ridiculed as walking iron stoves etc. Many of these were discarded, but it does seem there are numbers of them in various Confederate museums, taken in battle and of course suggesting obviously that they werent always entirely successful.

Returning to the original theme of the thread, since these vests were well known nearly two decades prior to the period of gunfighters most often discussed in the 1880's to the turn of the century, there would seem to have been potential for being considered.

Best regards,
Jim

[A Senefelder]

Howdy, i'll take the opportunity to first introduce myself, my name is Allan Senefelder and Lee was nice enough to grant me access to the forums a week or so ago. My megher contribution to the subject at hand. The book Steel Pots, The History of America's Combat Helmets, documents a wide variety of expiremental helmets and body armour from WWI the results ranging from the somewhat Ned Kellyish in appearence to positively medieval. The maille face cover mentioned earlier was one of two ideas made for tankers and some machinegun crews both designed to attach to the M1917 helmet. One was as mentioned maille that attached to the helmet, the other was what amounted to plate goggles with vision slot in each side that also attached to the helmet. Another inteseting piece or set of armour from WWI was a " cod piece " and mittens made from leather, with a piece of asbestos ( heat protecion ) over the palms of the mittens and the " important bit " on the cod piece and asbestos the covered in maille in an oriental 4 in1 weave. These were made by the US and used by certain members of artillery gun squads, specifically the feall that caught the spent brass as it was ejected from the breech to be thrown aside. The Italian army issued a vest made up of small plates attached to a leather backing for trench raiding and the Germans issued a breast plate with faulds and a reinforcing plate for the front of the coal schuttle helmet for use by machine gunners and blockhouse guards.

The Moro's have also been mentioned, thier often brass maille and plates coats, casquettel inspired helmets and shields combined with the poor penetrating power of the .38 played hell with US troops during the Moro uprising in the Philippins (sp) just after the Spanish American War. The .38 simply counldn't nock them down and after action reports were filed of officers actually hurling thier empty revolvers at tribsman as the rounds had not stopped them. This is a good part of what spured the US Army to look for a larger caliber service pistol eventually leading to the adoption of the Colt 1911 and the S&W .45 caliber revolver. The events of the Moro uprising stood out enough to be used as fodder for recuiting posters during WWI ( I have one hanging in my foyer ).

During the 19th century, British army cavalry units took to wearing panels of maille on the shoulders of thier coats and either a single ( bridal ) or paired maille covered leather gauntlets in thier combat with native armies in India, as archery, lance, mace and sword were the prinicple weapons they were facing from thier mounted opponents, applied with a zeal that had more in common with the middle ages than the Victorian era. At least one of these units retained little pieces of fine maille worn on the epaulets of thier uniforms ( harkening back to the large maille panels worn for defense ) until, the 1940's, you'll have to forgive me, I don't recall the unit but I did own an officers uniform from this unit about 15-20 years ago.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Allan, and welcome to the forum !!! I'm really glad you joined us here, and especially that you came in on this thread, which I have hoped would keep going as it seems an interesting subject which clearly brings up many applications of body armour in history.

You bring up another favorite topic in mentioning the very colorful pageantry of the British Indian cavalry during the Raj in India. The uniforms worn by the officers in these native regiments are fascinating, and these shoulder chains are one of the most intriguing elements. It seems these were copied from Indian cavalry and became the vestigial items on uniforms from about 1880's until about the 1930's. These British cavalry uniforms are incredibly collectible, and as far as I recall, the regiments most commonly associated with the chains were Bengal units.

When I first began this thread, I sought to discover what likelihood there was that gunfighters in America's wild west might have ever worn any type of bulletproof vest or such protection.

In recent reading there are references to the effectiveness of silk in protection from projectiles, and according to some sources, even bullets.
In images of many of the gunfighters, accurate or not, as well as of gamblers, who would seem to have also needed protection in most cases, an item of clothing popular was the vest, and often it seems made of silk.
My thoughts of course were that perhaps some of these individuals might have sought to acquire these silk vests not only for flamboyance, but for such protection as well.

I was even more intrigued when I discovered that a doctor, from Tombstone of all places, had found that a gunshot victim who had apparantly had a silk handkerchief located at the site of his wounds, and the bullets had failed to penetrate the silk. In this case, the wounds were fatal, but the doctor, George Emery Goodfellow, saw the potential in the silk for protective use.
He apparantly published a paper titled "Notes on the Inpentratibility of Silk to Bullets", however its date and publication seem unclear.
Some sources say 1881, some say in Southern California in 1887. It would seem either case would have been too late for Wyatt Earp or any of the participants at OK Corral on October 26, 1881, to have had any vests of silk.
It has also been shown that a Chicago clergyman Rev. Casamir Zeglen had researched producing these further, and they were unbelievably expensive. The one owner of such a silk vest was Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, who was wearing it June 28,1914....unfortunately his assassin hit him in the neck, above the vest.

Regardless of these notable instances, the use of silk as protective clothing goes back to the Mongols, and one wonders if even the suggestion of such potential might have prompted such extravagance beyond flamboyance.

All best regards,
Jim

[A Senefelder]

Now that you mention it I seem to remember reading something at some point about expirementation using silk and bullet resistance. I'm not sure where I encountered it, more than likely as some sort of military trials, i'll have to see if I can recall where. It involved multiple layer of fabric, I rememebr that.

As I recall ( most of my study is in European A&A for work so i'm not as up on the East as I should be ) the use of silk under armour was found most anywhere horse archery was the predominant mode of combat for cavalry. An arrow is imparted spin to stabilize flight by its fletchings, this means it will continue to rotate as it penetrates a target/person. The density of the weave of the silk a) slowed arrows down and b) since the silk tended not to cut or tear but maintain integrity as the arrow turned as it penetrated the silk would wrap around the head. There are two principle problems when removing arrows one is that as they are usually of some type of broadhead they tend to rip on withdraw and second that because the arrow turned as it penetrated there is no straight withdraw route as sometimes can be had with a bullet. With silk by slowly pulling the silk taught the fabric bound up with the arrow in the wound would unwrap, causing the arrow to turn backwards from how it came in thus roughly mirroring the corscrew channel it created on entry and minimising tearing and since the silk was wrapped around the head tearing from barbs was also minimized.

[Pukka Bundook]

Hi Jim,

I think the silk would work against bullets from a derringer or such, but not against long-arms. This wouldn't be a problem for a gambler as such, where a shot would come from something short over (or under) the card table.

I have not heard of any "Wild West" armour along the lines of Ned Kelly's stuff. His was effective, (His helmet has dents all over it, including one from a Martini-Henry right between the eyes!) ...yet it was also very heavy.
As a side-note, I do not think people are as tough as they used to be!

As far as I can see, the reason for no armour most of the time is for similar reasons heavy plate was given up in Europe in the 17th century;
Bullets could still go through it sometimes, and it was heavy and cumbersome.
Better move fast and light than pack the weight. ......so the buff jacket and steel cap replaced the heavy stuff. This is rather over-simplified, but I think you may understand what I mean.

The one piece of 'armour' I do not understand being abandoned, for cavalry use, (particularly where edged wepons were in use) was the thigh-length heavy boot.

Cheers,

Richard.

[aerosick]

Soft Body Armor
One of the first recorded instances of the use of soft body armor was by the medieval Japanese, who used armor manufactured from silk. It was not until the late 19th century that the first use of soft body armor in the United States was recorded. At that time, the military explored the possibility of using soft body armor manufactured from silk. The project even attracted congressional attention after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. While the garments were shown to be effective against low-velocity bullets, those traveling at 400 feet per second or less, they did not offer protection against the new generation of handgun ammunition being introduced at that time. Ammunition that traveled at velocities of more than 600 feet per second. This, along with the prohibitive cost of silk made the concept unacceptable. Silk armor of this type was said to have been worn by Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria when he was killed by a shot to the head, thereby precipitating World War I.

[READ MORE HERE]

[A Senefelder]

Jim, I now remember where I read about silk used for bullet proof armour and boy was I wrong. Its from L.Ron Hubbard's Final Blackout, his version of Things to Come written in 1939. It not a bad story even though the inspiration is obvious but as its written mostly on a soldiers level after 30 years of fighting and complete exhaustion of all involved the gear used is a mishmash. The item in question is worn by " the Lieutenant ", the stories anti hero and is refered to as a battle cloak, made up of multiple layers of quilted silk which according to the story would stop bullets, but did suffer attrition through use and would eventually become useless.

" As far as I can see, the reason for no armour most of the time is for similar reasons heavy plate was given up in Europe in the 17th century;
Bullets could still go through it sometimes, and it was heavy and cumbersome.
Better move fast and light than pack the weight. ......so the buff jacket and steel cap replaced the heavy stuff. This is rather over-simplified, but I think you may understand what I mean."

My understanding is that much of Europes ruling class was forced into a deciscion in the later 17th century. Firelocks were much more reliable than matchlocks and much more expensive and armies had achieved enourmous protonational levels that were increadibly expensive to keep in the field, armour even the basics of breast plate and helmet for armies of several tens of thousands were also expensive and a choice had to be made by those paying for it all. The newest, most up to date firelocks or body armour and the choice across the board in Western Europe was the latest gun technology. Yes much of the full harness of the previous century had already been discarded but the helmet and breast plate were the last to go, and the first pieces to be resureccted with the dawing of the 20th century and the manufacturing muscle of the industrail era to produce not just as many up to date fire arms as needed but also body armour as well. If you think about it simply standing in lines 60 feet away in brightly colored uniforms blazing away at each other using volley fire is the definition of suicide. With the comming of WWI and the power of industrialization every participant began to re-adopt body armour in an acknowlegment of the fact learned centuries earlier that soldiers and thier training are expensive investments, and as such needed proper protection to keep that investment in the field paying dividends and minimize the injuries when suffered to increase the likelyhood of returning to service. Since it re-adoption during WWI bady armour has remained a mainstay for militaries the world over often much heavier than basic plate harness would have been in the 15th or 16th centuries ( with all the additional pieces that have come into service during the US's time in Iraq a full bullet proof body armour rig can come it at 80-90 pounds ) and expirementation to improve it is constant.

[David]

Originally Posted by A Senefelder

The Moro's have also been mentioned, thier often brass maille and plates coats, casquettel inspired helmets and shields combined with the poor penetrating power of the .38 played hell with US troops during the Moro uprising in the Philippins (sp) just after the Spanish American War. The .38 simply counldn't nock them down and after action reports were filed of officers actually hurling thier empty revolvers at tribsman as the rounds had not stopped them. This is a good part of what spured the US Army to look for a larger caliber service pistol eventually leading to the adoption of the Colt 1911 and the S&W .45 caliber revolver. The events of the Moro uprising stood out enough to be used as fodder for recuiting posters during WWI ( I have one hanging in my foyer ).

I would like to point out that it is unlikely that it was Moro armor which brought about the introduction of higher caliber hand guns in the U.S. military as very, very few Moros ever wore such armor. Only a handful of powerful datus would have owned such armor. It was the intense fierceness of the Moros themselves in battle that kept them coming in spite of having a few rounds of .38s in them.

[A Senefelder]

" I would like to point out that it is unlikely that it was Moro armor which brought about the introduction of higher caliber hand guns in the U.S. military as very, very few Moros ever wore such armor. Only a handful of powerful datus would have owned such armor. It was the intense fierceness of the Moros themselves in battle that kept them coming in spite of having a few rounds of .38s in them. "

I was tooling around looking for stuff on this and stumbled upon this http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg00999.html . I have read other sources regarding the poor penetrating power of the .38, but the Moro expiriences are something of a hallmark. The fella in the link above posits that the poor performance of the .38 during the campaign relates to the age of the loads, .38's had been in storage for a while, well the .45's for the revolvers brought in to replace the .38's were newly made shells, as the explanation for the poor performance of the .38. I cannot speak to the veracity of his claims but it certainly is an interesting theory and not something that would have occured to me.

[VANDOO]

BACK TO THE WILD WEST
THERE IS A STORY BUT NO FACTS TO BACK IT UP AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE CONFLICTING STORIES ABOUT THE GUNFIGHT ITS SELF BUT I THOUGHT IT INTERESTING ENOUGH TO MENTION HERE ANYWAY.
AT THE GUNFIGHT AT IRON SPRINGS IN 1882 BETWEEN WYATT EARP AND THE COWBOY GANG LED BY CURLY BILL BROCIUS WHERE GUNFIRE WAS EXCHANGED AT VERY CLOSE RANGE. IT IS SAID EARP'S CLOTHES WERE FULL OF BULLET HOLES BUT HE WAS NOT WOUNDED AND AS CURLY BILL WAS NOTED AS ONE OF THE VERY BEST SHOTS SOME SAID EARP WAS WEARING BODY ARMOR SO HE SURVIVED. AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE IS NO WRITTEN STATEMENT BY EARP CONCERNING THIS MATTER AND THERE ARE EVEN SEVERAL STORIES THAT SAY EARP NEVER KILLED CURLY BILL AND THAT HE DIED MANY YEARS LATER. BUT AN INTERESTING STORY ANYWAY TRUE OR NOT.

[Jeff D]

How can it be that this hasn't come up yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiQntJC-Efw

Jeff

[Jim McDougall]

Well done Barry! That exact instance was one of the situations that began me on this thread, and I have still been researching to discover more on the possibility of Wyatt Earp ever using such protection. It has been mentioned that it was amazing that in the hail of bullets at the OK corral, Earp remained unscathed.
It is also known that Wyatt was well aware of functional apparal, and the coat he wore that day also had lined pockets to hold his gun, he did not wear a holster. Perhaps this would suggest other features in line with well thought out clothing that would serve well in his obviously threatened work.
It is also interesting that thoughts on bulletproof clothing such as vests were a topic at hand in Tombstone with the doctor previously mentioned. It remains unclear whether discussions on this predated the OK corral incident, but it seems quite possible, and if so, it was a small town, and Earp would certainly seem to have been cognizant of such matters.

Jeff, amazing, I had completely forgotten that scene in one of the legendary greats of spaghetti westerns!! How did you remember that?!! I havent seen the movie in years. Absolutely perfect example, and looks like the screenwriters were definitely on the same page with this idea.

All best regards,
Jim