Re: Silk body armor
From: Bob Keeter (rkeeter_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 02/06/05
- Previous message: Paul J. Adam: "Re: Blue on Blue in Iraq"
- In reply to: Louis Boyd: "Re: Silk body armor"
- Next in thread: Risto Rautiainen: "Re: Silk body armor"
- Reply: Risto Rautiainen: "Re: Silk body armor"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:48:45 GMT
Interesting little tidbit of trivia. . . . Perhaps. . . .
Muslim soldiers that battled the Crusaders routinely wore densely
woven silk undergarmets under their metal armor. If an arrow
pierced the metal, it would pull the silk into the wound.
The silk would then allow a surgeon to easily extract the arrow
in spite of the nasty barbs often put on the projectile. Incidentally
this also kept the arrow from dragging bits and pieces of virtually
irretrievable cloth, armor, mud, dirt, etc into the wound.
The lightly armored troops often had nothing but their silk
underclothes to at least minimize the damage.
So.. . . . maybe silk has been "body armor" for a bit longer
than the latest news release. 8-)
Regards
bk
"Louis Boyd" <boyd@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ctv9ne$8sj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> Paul Saccani wrote:
>
>> They have been using silk body armour in Thailand for years now, and it
>> is
>> effective. Silk is cheaper than kevlar for them.
>> cheers,
>
> If your enemy's body armor is effective it simply means your arms are
> inadequate.
>
- Previous message: Paul J. Adam: "Re: Blue on Blue in Iraq"
- In reply to: Louis Boyd: "Re: Silk body armor"
- Next in thread: Risto Rautiainen: "Re: Silk body armor"
- Reply: Risto Rautiainen: "Re: Silk body armor"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|