Key Point: Early muskets struggled to penetrate plate armor due to insufficient kinetic energy at longer distances. Despite this, muskets replaced armor on the battlefield because protecting entire armies with armor was too expensive.
In this article, we will discuss the topic of muskets vs body armor. You will see if muskets could actually pierce body armor from different eras. In short, how effective was body armor against muskets? Let’s find out.
Before we begin here is the main takeaway from the entire article where you can see how effective armor was against muskets.
As a general rule early muskets had trouble piercing the plate armor of the era at anything but a close distance. The main reason was that early muskets lacked the necessary kinetic energy to pierce the armor. But even with that shortcoming, the musket managed to displace the body armor on the battlefield because it was very costly to protect the entire army with the necessary body armor. So since armor proved not to be the deciding factor on the battlefield it fell out of use in favor of the cheaper alternative, the musket.
Now, let’s examine why kinetic energy differed so much between muskets across centuries. But first, let’s go a little deeper into both muskets and body armor.
Origin Of Armor And Muskets
Muskets were first developed in the late 15th century. As a weapon, they were a massive improvement on the earlier firearm the “arquebus”. They were lighter and generally more accurate than arquebuses.
Earlier muskets were generally made from wood and metal. And they had a pretty primitive firing mechanism “the matchlock mechanism”. This meant a burning cord was always next to the barrel and the gunpowder (yeah, that doesn’t sound like a good idea to me too), and whenever the soldier wanted to shoot he pulled the trigger which lowered the burning fuse to the gunpowder thus igniting it.
This matchlock mechanism is also one of the reasons why earlier muskets lacked piercing power over longer distances. Their effective range was 100-200 yards but piercing armor was a stretch. You will see how the matchlock mechanism reduced the piercing power of effective muskets.
But all in all, the matchlock trigger was followed by the flintlock and later the percussion mechanism which was way more effective.
What About Armor?
Body armor has been used for thousands of years to protect soldiers from injury. Early medieval forms of body armor included chain mail and plate armor. Plate armor was the most common form of body armor used from the 13th all the way to the 17th century (albeit in a different form). It was made of iron or steel plates that were riveted or laced together. That is the armor you often see in Hollywood movies depicting knights fighting/jousting.
Surprisingly, when paired against early muskets body armor faired rather well. The early muskets just lacked the piercing power needed to pierce through the armor.
It is time you take a look at why early muskets were unable to pierce heavy armor.
What Stopped Early Muskets From Piercing Armor?
Kinetic energy. The rough equation is quite simple. Kinetic energy depends on the mass of the traveling object and of course the speed. And since musket balls were relatively the same weight across the centuries the only deciding factor is. Speed. So why were later muskets faster than earlier ones?
The triggering mechanism definitely played a part. And that is because it made the gunpowder burn more evenly. Let me explain.
In theory, if the gunpowder is properly mixed and stored, it should burn evenly. However, in practice, there are many factors that can affect the burn rate and consistency of the gunpowder. Some of these factors include the quality and purity of the ingredients, the size and shape of the granules, the humidity and temperature of the storage environment, and the way the powder is packed in the barrel.
An uneven burn of the gunpowder can lead to an inconsistent and less powerful release of energy, resulting in lower muzzle velocities. This is why it was important to improve the ignition systems of muskets, to ensure that the gunpowder burns evenly and consistently.
This results in a more powerful and consistent release of energy, propelling the musketball out of the barrel with greater force, resulting in a higher muzzle velocity. Greater muzzle velocity equals greater kinetic energy and thus better piercing power.
Earlier muskets lacked that, partly due to the trigger mechanism and partly because the quality of early gunpowder was also very poor. It wasn’t mixed and stored correctly which meant it wasn’t as explosive as the standardized version in the later centuries.
Here is an example of how earlier muskets faired against plate armor. It’s a short less than a minute-long video.
As you can see armor technology evolved to counter muskets quite effectively. But as the muskets evolved as well the armor became irrelevant. This leads us to why muskets eventually lead to the fall of armor.
Why Muskets Displaced Armor From The Battlefield
The musket made the body armor ineffective on the battlefield because equipping an entire army with body armor was too costly. Even though body armor was effective at stopping musket balls at certain ranges you could not:
- Afford to equip an entire army with armor, it was too costly.
- Cover your entire body in armor, so even if your torso was protected a bullet could still wound your arms or other extremities that weren’t protected.
Even though it took muskets a while to develop the piercing power to counter armor being used. The armor was still impractical due to the cost. So even if an army had armor it wasn’t a guarantee that they would win. So, since armor failed to play a part in the army winning or losing it was not worth the cost.
The number of muskets being fired did have a big part in the army winning or losing so armies focused more on making more use of muskets. Protecting the lives of their soldiers was just too costly. Cynical way of looking at it, I know, but it’s true.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below you can find answers to frequently asked questions people ask whenever they research the topic of how effective muskets were against body armor.
Can A Musket Penetrate Kevlar?
Given its composition and purpose, kevlar armor would provide a significant level of protection against musket fire, making it highly unlikely for a musket ball to penetrate.
Can A Musket Penetrate Modern Armor?
A musket ball would struggle to penetrate modern armor due to its intended purpose of defending against contemporary weaponry. Here is why, modern armor, such as bulletproof vests or ballistic plates, is specifically designed to counteract the force and impact of modern firearms.
In general, the structural integrity and composition of modern armor make it highly resistant to musket fire.
Can A Musket Ball Penetrate Plate Armor?
A musket ball often struggled to fully penetrate its sturdy construction. The force behind a musket shot was typically not enough to completely breach the plate armor, especially in cases where the armor was of high quality and properly forged.
Is A Musket More Powerful Than A Rifle?
Rifles are more powerful than muskets due to their improved accuracy and range. Rifles incorporate rifling, which adds spin to the bullet, resulting in enhanced velocity, accuracy, and penetrating power compared to smoothbore muskets.
In Conclusion
Thank you for taking the time to read this article. I hope you learned a thing or two on the topic of muskets vs. body armor. If you want to continue learning I suggest looking at my article on the topic of crossbows vs. muskets right here.
If that article does not tickle you the right way then you can always check out my other article “7 Interesting Facts About Muskets” just click here to get it.
Take care!