Name one disadvantage of these armors

name one disadvantage of these armors

protip:you can't

GLORIOUS NIPPON STEEL

Other urls found in this thread:

greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2016/08/ming-qing-japanese-armour-comparison.html
greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/08/myth-of-shan-wen-kia.html
greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2016/06/scale-and-lamellar-armours-of-ming.html
ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&res=868365&searchu=布甲
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Bulkier than plate.

Its not plate

*blocks your path*

It's as heavy as full plates armour but not as good as full plate armour.

why do they have horns?

Japanese samurai with katana folded 1 mirrion times cut through tiny gaijin brony man.

*Teleports past you*

They require a huge amount of labour and of differently shaped parts to put together. Nanban armor has like a single piece for the chest, much fewer parts to make the helmet and they're way better, especially against its contemporary firearms.

To look taller and demonic.

I thought horned helmets were a disadvantage in combat?

That could hardly protect anyone. A machine gun will turn them into a shredded can.

They look cool stop complaining.

They'de be worn by military aristocrats on horseback using bows and spears.

Oh, and guns.

imagine a samurai toro charging ashigarus with those horns

no shield

who needs a shield when you got oversized shoulderpads?

Actually, Tousei Gusoku was practical as well as intimidating. Made with iron and fully lacquered, they can protect bodies from any arrow and slash.
But they were useless for matchlock bullets.

Why was Japanese armor so badass looking bros?
Even if it didn't protect as well as full plate most of the time it looked so damn cool.

Expensive to make

Japan had a lot of gold

Won't all be spent on making these helmets.

So these are reserved only for the elites. meanwhile contemporary European/Chinese helms are mass produced to a degree and easy/cheap (relatively) to make.

I dont think anyone would claim Japanese armor provided the best protection in the world. It wasnt bad but it had gaps that could be exploited. Japanese swordsmanship and other weapon styles took this for granted.

It is also heavy considering the protection it gives you.

Not every helmet was so elaborate. many were quite simple

All armor had gaps though?

>name one disadvantage of these armors
Me not having a set.

>ywn worship your ancestors armor which you and your family have been caring for for generations

Mail can be made to have no gaps. European plate has far, far fewer and smaller gaps, and different styles could very well have none because of voiders.

Most did yes. the gaps on Japanese armor tend to be a little larger than on European plate, and they seemed to be less likely to use gap armor, though examples of that definitely exist.

What it did cover however was very very well protected. the lamellar plates were very hard to pierce.

Not only was japanese armor actually heavier. It also felt heavier. Steel Plate was designed to share the load between the hips and shoulders making it more comfortable. Japanese armors did not do this and is supported primarily by the shoulders. so it felt heavier for it's weight when compared to european plate armor.

If you're doubting that Japanese armor of that sort was heavier than steel plate, just think about it, a bunch of little steel plates or just a few big ones. Of course singular ones would be lighter.

how does this compare to Chinese armor?

warning:pic may not be historically accurate

They were somewhat similar in terms of their materials and vulnerabilities, though China due to its size and history has a far greater variety of armor.

Chinese armors lacked sufficient hand protection,throat and face protection(though brigandine throat guards and iron mask were used by elites) as well as poor weight distribution.

Japanese armors have a midriff vulnerability,as well as inferior armpit/foot protection.

The Chinese mainly used brigandine while the Japanese preferred laminar,both had lamellar and mail.
greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2016/08/ming-qing-japanese-armour-comparison.html

I have to admit,Japanese armor looks cooler. I prefer Chinese robes to Japanese ones,though

>Chinese only preferred brigandine since late Ming period(although brigandine exists since Tang dynasty), before that they liked to use laminar armour as well.
No. The Chinese adopted cotton/brigandine armors since the Yuan dynasty.

By the Ming dynasty,the rank and file adopted sleeveless(other variants do exist) brigandine armor of varying length replacing the lamellar cuirass.

>Lots of traditional Japanese/Chinese Buddhism sculpture designs are based on Chinese laminar.
This isn't laminar,laminar is made from horizontal bands of plates.

Mountain pattern scale remains enigma to this day e.g. stylistic approach to mail,a unique type of scale armor or even an artistic decoration on textiles(Qing).
greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/08/myth-of-shan-wen-kia.html

The Chinese preferred lamellar armors prior to the Mongol conquest. The Mongols reintroduced front opening lamellars that fell out of use at the end of the Tang dynasty.
greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2016/06/scale-and-lamellar-armours-of-ming.html

Chinese mainly used brigandine only since late Ming period(although brigandine exists since Tang dynasty), before that they liked to use lamellar armour. Lots of traditional Japanese/Chinese Buddhism sculpture designs are based on Chinese laminar.

I wrote it wrong, I mean "lamellar armour. I've visited that site many times, I've already read those articles. But brigandine armors do exist since Tang dynasty, it's recorded in 唐六典, here is the quote:甲之制十有三:一曰明光甲,二曰光要甲,三曰細鱗甲,四曰山文甲,五曰鳥金追甲,六曰白布甲,七曰阜絹甲,八曰布背甲,九曰步兵甲,十曰皮甲,十有一曰木甲,十有二曰鎖子甲,十有三曰馬甲。甲,似物之浮甲以自衛也。《史記》曰:「楚人鮫革以為甲。」《漢書》曰:「魏氏武卒衣三屬之甲。」謂上身一,髀禪一,兜鍪一,凡三屬也。今明光、光要、細鱗。山文、烏金追、鎖子皆鐵甲也,皮甲以犀兕為之,其餘皆因所用物名焉。
ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&res=868365&searchu=布甲

"白布甲","阜絹甲","布背甲" are all some sort of brigandine.

(You)
(You)
What I'm trying to say is although Chinese had used brigandine but it only became majority since late Ming due to: 1. They're more flexible and cheaper to make. 2.The popularity of firearms. 3. Brigandine/cotton(布面甲/棉甲) offered equal or better protection against firearm projectiles (that's what the old records said) with less weight.

I'm aware of the Tang invented some sort of brigandine precursor but I don't think it was referenced in 唐六典.

白布甲 is cotton,阜絹甲 is silk(some modern books have cross referenced Tang Sancai figures to reconstruct this) while I'm not sure of 布背甲.

As 唐六典 doesn't actually explain how these three textile based armors were made,I don't think you can reasonably assume they are representative of brigandine armors.

From an archaeological standpoint,there's too much missing to accurately reconstruct Tang era paper,leather,textile or wooden armors.

What I'm trying to say is although Chinese had used brigandine but it only became majority since late Ming
The main thing I'm contesting is the late Ming postulation,you have edicts in 明會典 that speak of blue brigandine/cloth armor as well as a plethora of pictorial sources that textile based armors supplanted lamellar during the early-mid Ming.

As the thread began with Sengoku period Samurai, I used the armaments of a frontier cavalryman as a rough comparison. If we're comparing ashigaru vs the average Ming soldier there's probably more room for discussion.

At least 唐六典 explained: "明光、光要、細鱗。山文、烏金追、鎖子 are all iron armours, leather armour is made by the skins of Rhino and Si, everything else are named by their materials."(今明光、光要、細鱗。山文、烏金追、鎖子皆鐵甲也,皮甲以犀兕為之,其餘皆因所用物名焉。)

The categorization of Chinese armours is not necessary the same as Western ones. Brigandine is close to "暗甲(hided armour)" in Chinese which could be made by silk,cotton cloth, leather...etc

I feel like modern lightweight versions of these armies should be brought back in the basis of continuing the culture and the fact it looks really cool

To psychologically terrify and intimidate others.

>oh boy, that warlord has horns on his helmet
>pretty sure they were stained with blood
>I should keep my head down and not cause trouble

I'm aware the 唐六典 differentiated the armors,I just don't think there's enough information to postulate whether the textile based armors were brigandine.

There's a distinct lack of Tang artifacts(iirc they found Tang lamellar in South Korea relatively recently) and most of the reconstructions are based on murals or Sancai tomb figures.

The Tang had quite a few examples of outlandish helmet decor that rivaled the Sengoku era.

Yes, but it only massively replaced lamellar after late Ming period. The high/mid ranking officers, even emperors, were still often used lamellars. The average Ming foot solders probably just wore cotton/cloth armours since they're cheap, no better than ashigaru.

They should base their ceremonial military uniforms to this rather than copying the europeans

>Yes, but it only massively replaced lamellar after late Ming period.
Do you have a textual source that the border garrisons mainly used lamellar until the late Ming?

The cavalry from the Imperial garrisons are hardly representative of the country as a whole(though I understand why you would use these individuals as a counterpart to Samurai).

Most soldiers from 平番得勝圖(1574-1576) are depicted with brigandine while officers wear brigandine,lamellar and scale.