What if people realized silk was more bulletproof than steel in XVI century?

What if people realized silk was more bulletproof than steel in XVI century?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What number do you think that numeral represents anon

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      16, isn't it obvious?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I wanted to say "please be joking" but at this point I also realize my countrymen are morons.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >so dumb they think stupidity exists only around them
          Ironic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >so dumb he misreads a simple sentence

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's -4, idiot.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      americans know how many Black folk were whipped per day in 18th century and all the buck breaking theory is taught during buck history month
      yet they dont know roman numerals
      sad state of affairs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      16, isn't it obvious?

      I wanted to say "please be joking" but at this point I also realize my countrymen are morons.

      >so dumb they think stupidity exists only around them
      Ironic.

      I don't get it

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if you wear a 1inch thick silk padded vest it might stop pistol bullets, too expensive to be practical though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      An inch of silk would be massive overkill for black powder pistol bullets. An inch of layered silk would stop a musket ball dead in it's tracks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        these are better
        a musket ball will still frick you up through a vest, it's like a shotgun slug

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you know how many people have actually been killed in the last 100 years by Backface Deformation?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            about 3.50

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not an inch. I dont know where he got that ludicrous thickness from but an inch of layered Silk would be excessively bulletproof with plenty of thickness to spare for padding the blow.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >stops the bullet
    >dies from internal bleeding
    You can't stop a 30 grams and 350-450m/s bullet with a not rigid vest.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >grams
      >m/s
      The least you can do if you're going to pollute our board with your filthy presence is to speak Gunish like the human beings you poorly imitate.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Mass of a .75 musket ball: 430gr (30grams)
        Velocity of a military musket load +-100gr of bp so 1500fps (450 m/s)

        It's funny when most most SAAMI specs for calibers are obviously watered down (38sp, 32acp, 8x57 IS...) some guns aren't able to be proofed for euro use due to shit build...

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I wasn't asking you to translate because we don't know the stats on a musket, I only wanted you to stop shitting up the board with nogunsistani gibberish.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      soft vests can indeed catch it. nobodies ever died from a intercepted bullet. it'll leave a bruise with a soft vest but not a big deal.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Technically incorrect. Some cop died when his vest stopped a .45-70, didn't penetrate but instead got sucked into the wound like a fricking cartoon. Still intercepted it and the kevlar didn't break one bit.

        >In 1980 Deming Police Officer Royce Bennett was shot in the chest by Billy Ray Gibson with a Marlin 1895 45/70 in a close contact shooting. The bullet, a 405 grain SP, did not pentrate Bennett's vest, but pushed the kevlar vest around the impact area into his chest cavity, severely bruising and stopping his heart.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Is there any way you could survive that with immediate medical attention?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            From what I've heard, it'd be like a million to one odds even if you were shot inside the hospital's emergency lobby. The docs could literally be standing within touching distance and you'd still have a better chance of winning the lottery than surviving that kind of hit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            maybe if you were defibbed immediately after.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It'd be a lot easier to make a rigid component that could stop BFD through a fabric it couldn't penetrate, than to make a rigid component that could stop the ball cold

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    wouldn't matter, too expensive

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They wouldn't have the capability to harvest or synthesize that amount of silk anyways. But even in fricking classical times, people already knew that soft padding was an effective way to stop projectiles.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >XVI
    Nobody does this anymore, Rome fell a long time ago and the only people still using this numerical system are those that do so for intellectually masturbatory reasons, as are those that still use Latin for anything.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      571 years is not that long

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >growing up teachers said soldiers didn't have body armour until recently because the technology wasn't there yet
    >half of modern bulletproof armour is just a steel plate and some padding
    >it took hundreds of years for guns to make people stop wearing full plate

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Plate was shit against guns. And, no, trauma plates are not just "a steel plate and some padding".
      Try harder, sweaty.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        steel was still necessary because it wasnt until the 1700s that muskets were the only weapons on the battlefield
        before that they still had to deal with hordes of pikemen
        also, plate armor would've been particularly effective under a siege where falling rocks and debris was easily stopped by armor

        >Plate was shit against guns
        clearly not, according to the image you replied to

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they would literally shoot a gun against the plate armor and point to the dent it made as proof against bullets, hence the term bulletproof

        plate armor wasnt fully abandoned until about the 1500s, when a full suit capable of stopping shot was too heavy to march around in
        but even then, it persisted for a bit longer amongst the wealthy who could afford it and had assistants to help them in and out of armor
        armor wasnt fully phased out until the 1600s, when muskets were able to penetrate thick steel armor even out of a pistol, but that was 100 years after the dominance of firearms started and 200 years after guns were deployed en masse

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sir Tubbingsby

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        do not fricking bully him

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >XVI century
    Just say 16 you moron. Are you really trying to act sophisticated despite posting on form with people with double digit IQs.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    steel was cheaper than silk.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      furthermore, it was far easier to increase steel production than it was to obtain more silk.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      not the kind of armor they were using, they could cost several months of an armorer's pay, covered in gold and carefully heat blued
      they sure as hell would've used silk if they knew

      furthermore, it was far easier to increase steel production than it was to obtain more silk.

      availability would've been an issue yea

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Armour HAD to be covered in gold

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ok boys, it's the 16th century and we've paid a king's ransom to equip you all with silk armour instead of steel
    >Gets stabbed by a pike instead

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fine silk was, quite literally, valued at its weight in gold. Steel was far cheaper. If you are going to include the cost of a fine craftsman's work to turn it into useable armor, you need to do that for both.

    Silk armor in the 16th century is a stupid idea.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What if people realized silk was an exceptionally expensive luxury commodity that literally had to be transported across the globe back then

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They hadn't stolen silkworm rearing secrets yet so the impact in Europe would have been small

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what if... you made armor out out multiple thin layers of steel instead of one layer of thick steel?
    Or layered alternating layers of silk and a thin steel?

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    remember, ceramic armor was only discovered after in the 20th century because some guy decided to decorate his armor with enameling.

    we could've had ceramic armor in 15th century.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *