In the movies you often seen knights, soldiers and nobles wearing armor all the time. Standing guard, traveling, just hanging around. In particular chain mail is depicted like this. I was thinking, mail is kinda heavy and probably unconformable. While warriors trained in it, it was likely a pain to wear for very long. Not to mention that it's high maintenance. Straps and leather break and wear out, the armor will rust if you aren't careful, and the like. I bet it's also hot to wear.
So my question is, how often did people where that armor? Did they travel to the battlefield wearing something more comfortable and then put it on a little before the battle started? Did they really have guards stand around in mail?
A mail shirt isn't that heavy for a man in good shape, 20-30 pounds depending on how long (to hips or knees). Plus it's equally distributed across your body.
20-30 pounds sounds quite heavy when you have to wear it the whole day and move in it. Siege should be able to tell us how hard it is...
Quote from: Zanza on January 16, 2012, 09:06:36 AM
20-30 pounds sounds quite heavy when you have to wear it the whole day and move in it. Siege should be able to tell us how hard it is...
No he won't, he just carries around the medieval mindset.
I'm really bad with weights and have no clue how much 30 pounds is but...surely modern soldiers carry around so much on their back when they're out marching?
And that's not very evenly distributed.
Quote from: mongers on January 16, 2012, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 16, 2012, 09:06:36 AM
20-30 pounds sounds quite heavy when you have to wear it the whole day and move in it. Siege should be able to tell us how hard it is...
No he won't, he just carries around the medieval mindset.
:XD:
It's not that heavy, no, though after a full day of wearing it my shoulders were very sore.
Quote from: Tyr on January 16, 2012, 09:25:41 AM
I'm really bad with weights and have no clue how much 30 pounds is but...surely modern soldiers carry around so much on their back when they're out marching?
And that's not very evenly distributed.
WWI infantrymen carried something like 250 lbs in their pack IIRC (I've got the actual numbers somewhere, but I'm not going to look it up--and of course if varied a bit from one country to another). WWII soldiers didn't have that much of a load, and most modern infanty has a bit less than the WWII era I think, but it's still way more than 30 lbs, and as stated, it's not evenly distributed.
250 lbs? I couldn't even carry that for a mile. That sounds way too much.
The weight of chainmail at least is well within the weight of the normal load of infantry men through all of history. I'd expect you could carry it when in the field. Though, I suspect while on guard duty they would carry lighter kit, probably like the Yeoman Warders in the Tower of London. Heavy cloth which is capable of stopping small knives, deflecting most light slashing weapons and enough weight to stop anything more than a aimed powerful arrow.
Wearing a mailshirt is not too bad, it's a bit like being 30lbs overweight as the weight is so well-distributed.
US marines in World War 2 carried a pack that weight somewhere around 70 lbs.
Chainmail is not the most comfortable to wear, 30 lbs is a lighter shirt - one that was reinforces on the shoulders or other vital bits might be 45 or more lbs. That is a lot of weight to carry on the shoulders, and even a good stout belt didn't lower this down too much. Plus, to distribute the weight better straps would be needed. Remember, under this was also a thick gambeson, so it was often hot as well.
Now, that said, it is not the easiest to put on quickly for a fight, heavy, to not shift it needs to be at least belted - and there is no real good way to carry it other than to wear it. Soldiers who did have it would often wear it, but when in a place that they could take it off, I am quite sure they did.
Now, after antiquity, it was not all that common, at least until the High Middle Ages. Before 1000 (as a rough year), it was for leaders, richer cavalry, and the nobs.
PDH brings up a good point. If your choice is either to wear chainmail, or to carry it around unworn, you'd be a fool to carry it around unworn.
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2012, 10:53:42 AM
WWI infantrymen carried something like 250 lbs in their pack IIRC (I've got the actual numbers somewhere, but I'm not going to look it up--and of course if varied a bit from one country to another).
That sounds extremely implausible, especially considering that people back then were a whole lot skinnier than they are now.
My +5 helm of disintegration weighs nothing.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2012, 09:02:57 AM
A mail shirt isn't that heavy for a man in good shape, 20-30 pounds depending on how long (to hips or knees). Plus it's equally distributed across your body.
It's not distributed equally across your body. Most of the weight is on your shoulders.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2012, 11:16:56 AM
US marines in World War 2 carried a pack that weight somewhere around 70 lbs.
Chainmail is not the most comfortable to wear, 30 lbs is a lighter shirt - one that was reinforces on the shoulders or other vital bits might be 45 or more lbs. That is a lot of weight to carry on the shoulders, and even a good stout belt didn't lower this down too much. Plus, to distribute the weight better straps would be needed. Remember, under this was also a thick gambeson, so it was often hot as well.
Now, that said, it is not the easiest to put on quickly for a fight, heavy, to not shift it needs to be at least belted - and there is no real good way to carry it other than to wear it. Soldiers who did have it would often wear it, but when in a place that they could take it off, I am quite sure they did.
Now, after antiquity, it was not all that common, at least until the High Middle Ages. Before 1000 (as a rough year), it was for leaders, richer cavalry, and the nobs.
Well the Bayeux tapestry depicts mail being carried around. It looked like it was carried on a spit, and carried by some servants.
I wish I could remember the book that said one of the factors in the decline in the Roman army was them not wearing their armor as they marched around and started having it carted around for them.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2012, 12:37:11 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2012, 11:16:56 AM
US marines in World War 2 carried a pack that weight somewhere around 70 lbs.
Chainmail is not the most comfortable to wear, 30 lbs is a lighter shirt - one that was reinforces on the shoulders or other vital bits might be 45 or more lbs. That is a lot of weight to carry on the shoulders, and even a good stout belt didn't lower this down too much. Plus, to distribute the weight better straps would be needed. Remember, under this was also a thick gambeson, so it was often hot as well.
Now, that said, it is not the easiest to put on quickly for a fight, heavy, to not shift it needs to be at least belted - and there is no real good way to carry it other than to wear it. Soldiers who did have it would often wear it, but when in a place that they could take it off, I am quite sure they did.
Now, after antiquity, it was not all that common, at least until the High Middle Ages. Before 1000 (as a rough year), it was for leaders, richer cavalry, and the nobs.
Well the Bayeux tapestry depicts mail being carried around. It looked like it was carried on a spit, and carried by some servants.
Well, yeah, if you could afford a good set of chainmail and it had to be carried, you'd have servants do it for you.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2012, 12:37:11 PM
Well the Bayeux tapestry depicts mail being carried around. It looked like it was carried on a spit, and carried by some servants.
The common soldiers didn't wear mail though at this time, linen, heavy cloth, wool, leather...those were the armor of the average Guillaumes - the nobles have people to carry it for them.
Quote from: DGuller on January 16, 2012, 11:35:01 AM
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2012, 10:53:42 AM
WWI infantrymen carried something like 250 lbs in their pack IIRC (I've got the actual numbers somewhere, but I'm not going to look it up--and of course if varied a bit from one country to another).
That sounds extremely implausible, especially considering that people back then were a whole lot skinnier than they are now.
From my youthful days of lugging around large rucksacks/bergens 25% of your body weight is a good sustainable weight limit to carry. For some if not most western militaries 40% was not at all uncommon.
I suspect nowadays with equipment creep, Seigy's colleagues are going to be transporting around quite a bit more than that 40%, hence the concerns about infantry tactical mobility.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2012, 11:16:56 AM
......
Now, that said, it is not the easiest to put on quickly for a fight, heavy, to not shift it needs to be at least belted - and there is no real good way to carry it other than to wear it. Soldiers who did have it would often wear it, but when in a place that they could take it off, I am quite sure they did.
.....
Yes, it seems to be one of the key determining factors in the defeat of the 'Norwegians' at Stamford Bridge.
I have a friend who's into medieval armor and has a chain shirt. According to him, it's not something you'd enjoy wearing constantly - as was said, the weight is mostly on the shoulders. Plate (the type used in actual combat, not ceremonial full armor) is a different story, being much better distributed around your body, to the extent that you could swim or do cartwheels in it if you were fit enough.
From what I've read the biggest issue with armor was not the weight but the heat.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2012, 12:31:16 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2012, 09:02:57 AM
A mail shirt isn't that heavy for a man in good shape, 20-30 pounds depending on how long (to hips or knees). Plus it's equally distributed across your body.
It's not distributed equally across your body. Most of the weight is on your shoulders.
But that's exacty where you want to carry weight from. Why do you think they make backpacks?
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2012, 02:55:29 PMBut that's exacty where you want to carry weight from. Why do you think they make backpacks?
Modern backbacks rest on your hips, no?
Quote from: Zanza on January 16, 2012, 03:00:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2012, 02:55:29 PMBut that's exacty where you want to carry weight from. Why do you think they make backpacks?
Modern backbacks rest on your hips, no?
Some weight is transferred to your hips, yes, but in my experience the majority is on your shoulders.
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2012, 03:01:54 PM
Some weight is transferred to your hips, yes, but in my experience the majority is on your shoulders.
I think most is on the hips. That's certainly how I wear mine and what I find most comfortable. Most of the forces on the shoulders are horizontal, for balance.
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2012, 10:53:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 16, 2012, 09:25:41 AM
I'm really bad with weights and have no clue how much 30 pounds is but...surely modern soldiers carry around so much on their back when they're out marching?
And that's not very evenly distributed.
WWI infantrymen carried something like 250 lbs in their pack IIRC (I've got the actual numbers somewhere, but I'm not going to look it up--and of course if varied a bit from one country to another). WWII soldiers didn't have that much of a load, and most modern infanty has a bit less than the WWII era I think, but it's still way more than 30 lbs, and as stated, it's not evenly distributed.
Not unless they were ants and could carry 2x their body weight.
Quote from: Maximus on January 16, 2012, 03:52:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2012, 03:01:54 PM
Some weight is transferred to your hips, yes, but in my experience the majority is on your shoulders.
I think most is on the hips. That's certainly how I wear mine and what I find most comfortable. Most of the forces on the shoulders are horizontal, for balance.
I think a lot of this comes down to your build and gate, I have broader shoulders and relatively narrow hips, so didn't carry too much on the hips.
Also I've seem people walk/march effectively leaning somewhat forward, I presume then a significant part of the weight is being supported by the back itself.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 16, 2012, 03:53:06 PM
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2012, 10:53:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 16, 2012, 09:25:41 AM
I'm really bad with weights and have no clue how much 30 pounds is but...surely modern soldiers carry around so much on their back when they're out marching?
And that's not very evenly distributed.
WWI infantrymen carried something like 250 lbs in their pack IIRC (I've got the actual numbers somewhere, but I'm not going to look it up--and of course if varied a bit from one country to another). WWII soldiers didn't have that much of a load, and most modern infanty has a bit less than the WWII era I think, but it's still way more than 30 lbs, and as stated, it's not evenly distributed.
Not unless they were ants and could carry 2x their body weight.
I've read lots of reports from the Klondike gold rush about how the Chilkat indians made a fortune because they could carry~200lb on their back over the pass (most a white man could carry was about 100lb).
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2012, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2012, 12:31:16 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2012, 09:02:57 AM
A mail shirt isn't that heavy for a man in good shape, 20-30 pounds depending on how long (to hips or knees). Plus it's equally distributed across your body.
It's not distributed equally across your body. Most of the weight is on your shoulders.
But that's exacty where you want to carry weight from. Why do you think they make backpacks?
Not quite. Ideally you want it distributed as widely as possible. Especially when you are going to fight in it. What do you think is easier, using shield and sword with 30 pounds of weight on your shoulders or spread all around your torso?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 16, 2012, 03:53:06 PM
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2012, 10:53:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 16, 2012, 09:25:41 AM
I'm really bad with weights and have no clue how much 30 pounds is but...surely modern soldiers carry around so much on their back when they're out marching?
And that's not very evenly distributed.
WWI infantrymen carried something like 250 lbs in their pack IIRC (I've got the actual numbers somewhere, but I'm not going to look it up--and of course if varied a bit from one country to another). WWII soldiers didn't have that much of a load, and most modern infanty has a bit less than the WWII era I think, but it's still way more than 30 lbs, and as stated, it's not evenly distributed.
Not unless they were ants and could carry 2x their body weight.
What about giant ants? :hmm:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 16, 2012, 12:47:34 PM
I wish I could remember the book that said one of the factors in the decline in the Roman army was them not wearing their armor as they marched around and started having it carted around for them.
Did the Roman Army really decline all that much? Even in their decadence they rarely lost a battle.
Quote from: Valmy on January 16, 2012, 05:03:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 16, 2012, 12:47:34 PM
I wish I could remember the book that said one of the factors in the decline in the Roman army was them not wearing their armor as they marched around and started having it carted around for them.
Did the Roman Army really decline all that much? Even in their decadence they rarely lost a battle.
The corrolary to that is that in their decadence they knew that they couldn't win the battle so they preferred not to fight it.
Quote from: Valmy on January 16, 2012, 05:03:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 16, 2012, 12:47:34 PM
I wish I could remember the book that said one of the factors in the decline in the Roman army was them not wearing their armor as they marched around and started having it carted around for them.
Did the Roman Army really decline all that much? Even in their decadence they rarely lost a battle.
I'd assume relying on barbs and butter in hair wearers counts as a decline.
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2012, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2012, 12:31:16 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2012, 09:02:57 AM
A mail shirt isn't that heavy for a man in good shape, 20-30 pounds depending on how long (to hips or knees). Plus it's equally distributed across your body.
It's not distributed equally across your body. Most of the weight is on your shoulders.
But that's exacty where you want to carry weight from. Why do you think they make backpacks?
Where else would you carry a heavy pack from, but your shoulders? You carry it from your shoulders because there's not really anywhere else to carry it from. Still, it's not evenly distributed.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 16, 2012, 01:24:46 PM
I have a friend who's into medieval armor and has a chain shirt. According to him, it's not something you'd enjoy wearing constantly - as was said, the weight is mostly on the shoulders. Plate (the type used in actual combat, not ceremonial full armor) is a different story, being much better distributed around your body, to the extent that you could swim or do cartwheels in it if you were fit enough.
I suspect modern reproduction mail is lighter then mail used in the middle ages. I imagine they use lighter alloys now. Hardness is not important in a reproduction, while it was at that time. Quality was probably spotty though.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2012, 11:16:56 AM
Now, after antiquity, it was not all that common, at least until the High Middle Ages. Before 1000 (as a rough year), it was for leaders, richer cavalry, and the nobs.
I didn't realize Orks wore chainmail in 40k.
Combat load for air assault missions adds 100 lbs to your body weight.
Average is about 70, though.
Bare basic combat load (helmet, body armor (front, back and side plates), 210 rounds of 5.56mm, M4 Carbine with optics and electronics, Mbitter radio, first aid, camelback with 3 litters of water, PVS-14 night vision equipment with base plate and rhino mount, 1 frag, 1 flash-bang, 1 nine-banger, 1 smoke/signal, eye-pro, tac gloves, knee pads, elbow pads, spare batteries, GPS, map and compass, and you are about 60 lbs over your body weight.
I would assume medival soldiers would take off their helmets any time the enemy wasn't within striking distance, but would wear the mail armor the whole day when campaigning or when on guard duty. But I really don't know. We wear full battle-rattle at all times when outside the FOB, COP, or whatever type of base we are in.
And yes, the shoulders hurt bad when wearing modern armor for any extent of time.
Quote from: Siege on January 16, 2012, 06:50:30 PM
Combat load for air assault missions adds 100 lbs to your body weight.
Average is about 70, though.
Bare basic combat load (helmet, body armor (front, back and side plates), 210 rounds of 5.56mm, M4 Carbine with optics and electronics, Mbitter radio, first aid, camelback with 3 litters of water, PVS-14 night vision equipment with base plate and rhino mount, 1 frag, 1 flash-bang, 1 nine-banger, 1 smoke/signal, eye-pro, tac gloves, knee pads, elbow pads, spare batteries, GPS, map and compass, and you are about 60 lbs over your body weight.
I would assume medival soldiers would take off their helmets any time the enemy wasn't within striking distance, but would wear the mail armor the whole day when campaigning or when on guard duty. But I really don't know. We wear full battle-rattle at all times when outside the FOB, COP, or whatever type of base we are in.
So Seigy how much of a % of your body weight does it represent ?
Quote from: mongers on January 16, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
From my youthful days of lugging around large rucksacks/bergens 25% of your body weight is a good sustainable weight limit to carry. For some if not most western militaries 40% was not at all uncommon.
I suspect nowadays with equipment creep, Seigy's colleagues are going to be transporting around quite a bit more than that 40%, hence the concerns about infantry tactical mobility.
I weight 190 lbs. My soldiers weight from 170 to 220.
Quote from: Siege on January 16, 2012, 07:28:47 PM
I weight 190 lbs. My soldiers weight from 170 to 220.
OK, so it's doable, under 40%, rather than superhuman strength territory.
What's the weight of all the kit you have to leap out of a Stryker with and how much does it affect you mobility in engagements ?
Quote from: mongers on January 16, 2012, 07:32:43 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 16, 2012, 07:28:47 PM
I weight 190 lbs. My soldiers weight from 170 to 220.
OK, so it's doable, under 40%, rather than superhuman strength territory.
What's the weight of all the kit you have to leap out of a Stryker with and how much does it affect you mobility in engagements ?
We do stryker operations with bare minimum combat load because the strykers are always nearby to provide resuply and support-by-fire. If we have to move away from the strykers to a position were the strykers cannot get to us, we go "dismounted load" wich adds an assault pack with ammenities like extra ammo and water, TSE kit (tactical site exploitation), MRE rations, spotter scopes, long range radios (ASIPs), litters, etc. Between 70 and 80 lbs per.
Keep in mind we keep in the strykers special assault packs for quick resupply that contain only ammo already loaded in magazines, water and food. If the shit hits the fan and we have to fight in place far from the strykers we can always send a team back to the strykers and bring 3 of those assault packs to resuply our position. The enemy is pretty good at using the terrain to separate us from our vehicle support. We are pretty good at letting the enemy think we cannot fight without vehicle support.
I do not think that modern warfare and medieval warfare were very much alike. For instance, Knights didn't have to worry IEDs. Knights also trained alot but rarely got into big fights. Siegey has probably seen more combat in one tour then an average knight would see in his whole life. The knights battles might be more intense though. For instance, an English Civil War known as the Anarchy lasted about 17 years but only saw something like four or five major field battles.
Knights got a lot of practice running down civilians though. Sure they weren't major battles, but much of Medieval Warfare was raiding and destroying farming implements (i.e. peasants). Pleanty of practice there.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2012, 06:18:52 PM
I suspect modern reproduction mail is lighter then mail used in the middle ages. I imagine they use lighter alloys now. Hardness is not important in a reproduction, while it was at that time. Quality was probably spotty though.
My suit of lorica hamata is made from iron chain that is supposedly an accurate copy of the original. The chainmail you typically see in Hollywood is definitely fake, though (I think it might be made from plastic).
The reproduction chainmail (admittedly not trying to represent BCE/Ancient armor, but Medieval armor) I have seen has often been steel, to cut down on the rusting. It was still of weights that were what people think the armor was.
Man, I carried 100 pounds over my shoulder for about 20 feet earlier today and I could really feel it in my legs and spine. Granted, it wasn't very well balanced, and I doubt assault packs are shaped like bags of flour.
P.S. my own pussitude notwithstanding, there is no way WWI infantry were carrying 250 pounds. Maybe WWI pack animals.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 01:32:07 AM
P.S. my own pussitude notwithstanding, there is no way WWI infantry were carrying 250 pounds. Maybe WWI pack animals.
I find this extremely hard to believe too.
I was thinking that it's probably made from Stainless steel, rather then a harder steel.
I found the Italians friendly, if dirty and untrustworthy.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 02:22:29 AM
I found the Italians friendly, if dirty and untrustworthy.
Was this supposed to go in the Scorpio thread?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2012, 02:28:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 02:22:29 AM
I found the Italians friendly, if dirty and untrustworthy.
Was this supposed to go in the Scorpio thread?
Yes, I believe so. Ah well.
TABLE I
Loads Carried by Various Units
and/or Carried at Various Times*
UNIT Weight(kil
French Poilu (WWI) 39
British Infantry on the Somme (WWI) 30
French Foreign Legion (WWI) 45
Wingate's Chindits (WWII) 32-41
U.S. Forces in North Africa (WWII) 60
U.S. Marines in Korea 38
U.S. in Vietnam** 34
Falklands Campaign 54
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA212050
Clearly that table does not take into account the metal lathe, sack of coal, and miniature pony each infantryman had to carry into battle during the Great War.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 03:38:24 AM
Clearly that table does not take into account the metal lathe, sack of coal, and miniature pony each infantryman had to carry into battle during the Great War.
:D
In fairness, the Legion Etrangere is still carrying a shitload of weight. Right at 100 pounds. Falklands, even more. And what the fuck were Americans in North Africa lugging on their backs? Their wives? Their fat wives?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 03:44:26 AM
In fairness, the Legion Etrangere is still carrying a shitload of weight. Right at 100 pounds. Falklands, even more. And what the fuck were Americans in North Africa lugging on their backs? Their wives? Their fat wives?
Fat moroccan women.
Maybe additional water :hmm: ?
At least in part.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 03:55:45 AM
Maybe additional water :hmm: ?
At least in part.
Knowing American soldiers they probably pissed it away somehow...
Quote from: 11B4V on January 17, 2012, 03:54:14 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 03:44:26 AM
In fairness, the Legion Etrangere is still carrying a shitload of weight. Right at 100 pounds. Falklands, even more. And what the fuck were Americans in North Africa lugging on their backs? Their wives? Their fat wives?
Fat moroccan women.
Friendenhall and his bunker.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 17, 2012, 03:55:45 AM
Maybe additional water :hmm: ?
At least in part.
This has always been my biggest concern, when doing expedition type activities, water weight a lot and you can't do without it.