Armour in the Wild West

[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