Personal Armor in 19th Century Warfare

othyrsyde

Is there any way to have personal armor developed to be at least worth the investment during the 1800s? I've read about iron vests during the ACW, but they never caught on due to weight, varied results, and views of cowardice by the majority of soldiers who didn't use them.

At least in regards to my TL, the mass conscripted armies the period is known for can't be supported due to my POD of a plague. So my thought was their would be a continuance of small professional armies with an aim to reduce casualties, resulting in war tech developing along those lines. Armor was my first thought, but any other ideas would be welcomed too.

Hoping for some thoughts on the subject, and if it would even apply. Also, I know my POD is ASB, but after that it's straight AH that I want grounded in reality. Any help is much appreciated :D.
 

carlton_bach

I'm not sure where tro start. A nineteenth century setting without a burgeoning population is going to be different at so many levels that personal armour will be trivial. You have changed the historical fundamentals massively: no industrial proletariat (labour is now scarce, not abundant), no mass emigration (everybody is needed at hopme, and as a result large parts of the world will not be Europeanised), no mass armies meaning a totrally different kind of war, and likely a different pattern of powers. It is quite possible that "uncivilised" auxiliaries like the pandurs, haiduks and cossacks will continue to play an important role, and may even be imported to European battlefields. With soldiers rare, the extra men might well make much more of a difference.

Still, you are probably better advised to look to tactics than technology. A soldier that needs survivability on a 19th-century battlefield needs a low-visibility uniform, a horse, and a long-range, accurate rifle, not a steel cuirass.
 

othyrsyde

First off, I'm really sorry about my second post, had too much fun last night out on the town.

HereticAscendant said:
We(The Korean)made Bullet-proof armour with layers of cottons.

During the United States expedition to Korea(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_expedition_to_Korea), it is reported by US soldiers that the armour can defend its wearer against bullets and bayonets.

Unfortunatly, the armour was highly inflammable because it was made almost entirely of cotton. it was also too heavy and hot to wearer.
Click to expand...

Cool, I'll look into it since Korea plays a huge role in the TL.

carlton_bach said:
I'm not sure where tro start. A nineteenth century setting without a burgeoning population is going to be different at so many levels that personal armour will be trivial. You have changed the historical fundamentals massively: no industrial proletariat (labour is now scarce, not abundant), no mass emigration (everybody is needed at hopme, and as a result large parts of the world will not be Europeanised), no mass armies meaning a totrally different kind of war, and likely a different pattern of powers. It is quite possible that "uncivilised" auxiliaries like the pandurs, haiduks and cossacks will continue to play an important role, and may even be imported to European battlefields. With soldiers rare, the extra men might well make much more of a difference.

Still, you are probably better advised to look to tactics than technology. A soldier that needs survivability on a 19th-century battlefield needs a low-visibility uniform, a horse, and a long-range, accurate rifle, not a steel cuirass.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I knew European colonization would be fundamentally altered, as would the industrial revolution, but not the use of the auxiliaries. This is giving me a lot of ideas. I was sure the rifle would catch on a lot earlier and camouflage, but wasn't a 100% certain. I just got the idea reading about how tactics and the formation of armies changed after the Black Death and I had a friend suggest the armor idea.

Any suggestions or articles and books on tactical development?
 
Last edited:

Danth

I heard Germany at the start of ww1 was making body armour experimentally that could happen faster with you pod
 

carlton_bach

Everybody was making body armour throughout the 19th century. Nobody could make it work, though. There is no feasible anmount of armouring that will protect you from a rifle bullet and can be carried on the person. You can protect vital areas (the head, and possibly the heart from the front with some kind of cardiophylax ripoff), but only against secondary threats. In a more fluid and less lethal battle, you could see that catch on earlier because people would use *machine guns and exploding ordnance to find individual soldiers earlier. But even these things will not guard you against a direct rifle hit.
 

othyrsyde

carlton_bach said:
Everybody was making body armour throughout the 19th century. Nobody could make it work, though. There is no feasible anmount of armouring that will protect you from a rifle bullet and can be carried on the person. You can protect vital areas (the head, and possibly the heart from the front with some kind of cardiophylax ripoff), but only against secondary threats. In a more fluid and less lethal battle, you could see that catch on earlier because people would use *machine guns and exploding ordnance to find individual soldiers earlier. But even these things will not guard you against a direct rifle hit.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured when the idea was pitched to me. Aside from helmets and you didn't see 'armor' return until Kevlar, and that's not going to be invented for quite some time, especially in my TL where the industrial revolution has been massively delayed. When I saw the vests of the civil war I had some hope. The earlier use of helmet and vest for shrapnel is a something I could see too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top