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

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.

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

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... :D

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

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.

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

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.

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.

History of Body Armor and Bullet Proof Vests
 

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]

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.

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 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.

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. :D

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

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

Jeff

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