Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Matchlock vs Armor

  1. #1
    goro's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    7,418

    Default Matchlock vs Armor

    Did the armor of the samurai proved any resistance to gun fire?and if so could it be life saving or if not could it actually be more damaging because the shot could take small pieces of the armor inside the wound?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by goro View Post
    Did the armor of the samurai proved any resistance to gun fire?and if so could it be life saving or if not could it actually be more damaging because the shot could take small pieces of the armor inside the wound?
    Tameshi gusoku (bullet tested armor), was the method used by armor makers in Japan to show how resistant their armor was to matchlock bullets. By firing a bullet at various individual panels so that a purchaser could see how effective the armor he was thinking of buying would be against gunfire. Armor damaged by gunfire in battle would have been repaired and lacquered again leaving no trace of the damage. In most cases the bullet marks seen in existing samurai armor are tameshi marks and not actual battle damage despite the claims of the owner or dealer. On tameshi gusoku the shots were fired before lacquer was applied and the armor was then finished leaving the marks in the armor as proof, here are some examples.






  3. #3
    goro's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    7,418

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    damn i didnt know that.very interesting.so when did armors became useless against guns in japan?

  4. #4

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    When rifles were used
    Sweat Saves Blood
    -Erwin Rommel

  5. #5

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by goro View Post
    damn i didnt know that.very interesting.so when did armors became useless against guns in japan?
    Towards the end of the Edo period traditional samurai armor was relegated to store rooms for the most part and the armor worn be security officials (various clan and shogunate retainers, police etc) was of the lightweight portable variety that was useful for defending against swords and other hand weapons, as the use of firearms by the general population was not allowed. When clans started to purchase modern firearms during the 1800s in preparation for defending against the Western intrusion and the impending civil war between the shogunate supporters and the supporters of the Imperial court use of armor in Japan was doomed, although the Japanese were one of, if not the last great armor using nation. I seem to remember reading a description of some die hard individuals wearing armor right up to the last of the samurai conflicts in the 1870s.

  6. #6
    Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wretched hive of scum and villany
    Posts
    2,004

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    Matchlocks weren't especially strong at penetration (although, they did, if loaded hot enough) because unlike modern bullet, which pierces and then expands, a musket ball simply punched through. I think its possible that early Japanese firearm technology was poor and the materials used in matchlocks was such low in quality (given that Japan was rather resource poor) that early firearms weren't strong enough to be loaded so hot that they'd pierce armor effectively and consistently. This might explain the continued use of armor by Japanese warriors.
    Last edited by Princeps; May 22, 2011 at 03:51 PM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by Princeps View Post
    Matchlocks weren't especially strong at penetration (although, they did, if loaded hot enough) because unlike modern bullet, which pierces and then expands, a musket ball simply punched through. I think its possible that early Japanese firearm technology was poor and the materials used in matchlocks was such low in quality (given that Japan was rather resource poor) that early firearms weren't strong enough to be loaded so hot that they'd pierce armor effectively and consistently. This might explain the continued use of armor by Japanese warriors.
    It was not a case of poor firearms technology that allowed Japanese armor makers to develop bullet resistant armor, it was the result of armor makers who created armors using new materials and methods to work around the newly acquired firearms. Armor of lessor quality was not bullet resistant. Japanese matchlocks (Tanegashima) from what I have read were of very high quality once the Japanese learned the secret on their manufacture from the Portuguese and over came a few initial problems. In the 1500s the Tanegashima was probably as good as one could get in the fire arms department, but the Japanese did not keep up with the other firearms using nations in developing new and improved firearms, their isolation kept them from having to confront that reality until the 1800s when they were forced to rapidly modernize.

    As far as being resource poor, that would depend on the resources you are referring to and the time period. Iron was plentiful enough in the 1500s that the Japanese were able to manufacture vast amounts of Tanegashima in a relatively short period of time and they were also able to supply armor and other weapons made of steel and or iron to low level soldiers, this is a sign that iron was not in short supply.

    It is now known that Japanese armor makers developed layered armor using iron plate laminated to steel plates. http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-w...e-plate-armour

    Europeans also developed improved armors. http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-w...etproof-armour but they also continued improving their firearms while Japanese firearms development was frozen in time.

    During the Edo period a concerted effort was made to remove firearms from use in Japan which extended the ability the samurai to wear and use armor and since the predominant weapons that were in use by the average person of the period would have been swords, yari and truncheons the lighter weight armor of the period provided a good defense. In the 1800s when modern firearms became available to the Japanese once more not all clans purchased and trained with these weapons, the clans that did have the financial means and foresight to acquire modern firearms came out ahead in the unrest and civil war that ended the samurai era.

  8. #8
    EmperorBatman999's Avatar I say, what, what?
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Why do you want to know?
    Posts
    11,891

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    So what was the secret behind bulletproof armor? European cuirassiers armor was only resistant to pistol shots. And I don't think the actual principle or bullet design really changed much between matchlocks to flintlocks, just how the actual explosion that propelled the shot was initiated. In that case, a fuse leading to the powder, but in a flintlock, spark from rubbing metal against flint.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-w...f-plate-armour



    DUPLEX BULLETPROOF ARMOUR

    The question

    During the 16th-century improvements in firearms and gunpowder led to the wearing of fewer, but thicker pieces of armour. In recent years it was realised that some of the surviving breastplates had been made by combining two thinner plates. X-radiography was undertaken to identify maker’s stamp marks on the rear plates or those that are obscured by paint or corrosion on the front.

    Results of analysis

    X-radiography very successfully allowed many maker’s marks to be identified so that the date and provenance of the breastplates could be determined. However, the X-radiographs also revealed an entirely unexpected feature. Some of the “duplex” armour contained three breastplates. Others had further scrap iron or even armour, such as a tasset from a pikeman’s leg armour, sandwiched between the inner and outer plates.

    Significance

    In an additional twist it appeared that some duplex armour was not simply cobbled together old armour, but had been newly made that way. Was this to provide more effective protection? A clue to the possible benefits of such armour may be found in 19th-century research into the protection of iron-clad ships. Penetration by the projectile is achieved through the propagation and growth of a crack in the metal. Where two layers are used the interface between the two acts as a barrier to the crack and thereby prevents failure.

    Output

    Since publication in the Arms and Armour Journal, many more examples of duplex armours have come to light worldwide. It is hoped that recent collaboration with the Technical University of Delft into the impact resistance of armour will be expanded to test the relative merits of single and double layers of armour.




    http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-w...e-plate-armour



    THE METALLURGY OF JAPANESE PLATE ARMOUR

    The question

    Compared to European armour, a very limited amount of Japanese armour has been examined metallurgically. Documentary sources, such as the text of Sakikabara Kōzan published in 1800, suggest that, particularly with the introduction of firearms in the 16th-century, Japanese armourers went to considerable lengths to increase the protection offered by their armour.

    Could metallographic examination of some stray plates donated for scientific analysis, tell us more about the metallurgical quality and effectiveness of Japanese armour?

    Results of analysis

    This section of armour is of composite construction, comprising an outer face of steel (shown as the dark-etching phase in the micrograph above) and an inner lining of pure iron (the bright phase, ferrite). The steel is distinctly harder and tougher which would help prevent the penetration of projectiles, whilst the softer iron behind is ideal for absorbing the energy of the impact.

    The content of slag inclusions is exceedingly low compared with other traditionally produced ironwork and the ferrous plate is protected from corrosion by numerous coats of lacquer.

    Significance

    This armour has clearly been constructed from two different carefully chosen and skilfully worked materials, such that even with a thickness of about 1mm the armour would provide the best possible level of protection for the wearer.

    A piece of cheaper armour, examined at the same time was constructed entirely of soft iron containing many slag inclusions so the quality of armour may be very variable.

    Output

    The results of this recent research were first made public in a series of talks that accompanied the Royal Armouries Shogun exhibition in 2005. A broader research project looking at the metallurgy of Japanese armour is now planned.

  10. #10
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tulifurdum
    Posts
    1,317

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    The proofness of armour against bullets depends mostly of the range at which the gun is fired. Black powder propelled round lead bullets have a very bad aerodynamic behaviour, so they loose velocity and therefore energy rather soon. (BTW modern bullets do not penetrate so well because they expand, but because they are, if used by the military, usually FMJ bullets which do NOT expand, because of the hard covers over the lead core; they also have of course far greater velocity and energy even at far ranges than old black powder propelled bullets). Tests with original 16th c. guns loaded with powder weights given as usual in old manuals showed however that these old guns reached relatively high muzzle velocities. At short range most armours could be pierced. Range could be estimated as about 5 metres for pistols and about 30 to 40 metres for arquebuses. The heavy muskets of the 16th and early 17th century would have pierced at far greater ranges. In Japan normally only the lighter arquebuse was used, as far as I know. Cuirassiers of the 18th and early 19th c. were normally considered more or less save from gunfire at distances over 50 metres. The guns of the 18th c. could be compared in performance with 16th c. arquebuses.

    Bulletproof cuirasses would have been quite expensive and heavy. That, combined with the fact that the number of soldiers increased considerably after the 16th c., resulted in the decline of the use of armour in European armies.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Matchlock vs Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by geala View Post
    In Japan normally only the lighter arquebuse was used, as far as I know. .
    Take a look at this monster Tanegashima.

    I have never seen any information on the conditions that samurai armor were bullet tested under, the load, or bullet size used, the distance from the target and if the "Tameshi" armor was specially constructed for such a test or if it was the standard heavy duty armor that the armorer offered.




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •