Military Review

What unites the knight and the tank?

102



In the passage of the gallery, the shadow of the knight Fitz-Urs darted, blocking the rays of the setting winter sun. “Where is the traitor?”

The knights rumbled armor on the stone slabs of the Canterbury Cathedral, ignoring the crowd that had fled to the protection of the archbishop. “They kill our Father.” Becket's reverence was great. The boat in which the prelate landed was carried by people from the coast to Canterbury. Now their anger seemed immense.

“I am not a traitor. I am the Archbishop of Canterbury. ” From the darkness emerged Thomas Beckett, similar to the emaciated ethereal shadow.

This was followed by a skirmish, during which Reginald Fitz-Urs, William Tracy and Richard Brit thrust their swords into the archbishop. The fourth knight, Hugh de Morville, alone, restrained the onslaught of the angry mob.

Having executed the atrocity, the knights silently left the cathedral. People who threatened to break the killers, at the sight of them, frightened against the walls. Despite their numerical superiority, the supporters of Becket did not dare to stand in the way of the Azraels — the merciless Angels of Death.

* * *

The murder of Thomas Becket, 1170 year.

The main salt of this stories that the four mentioned villains with the same demands and threats already visited Becket on the morning of the fateful day. Alas, due to the presence of the monks, servants and minions of the Archbishop in the house, I had to wait a little with the execution of the sentence. Having been deprived of armor, the knights felt insecure and hurried to get out into the street. There, having arranged a halt under the fig tree, the four turned to battle armor. From this point on, the killer tactic has changed. The surprise factor has been lost, and secrecy is no longer thought. After arriving at vespers, the knights were not afraid to break into the cathedral, full of a crowd of archbishop's followers.

So invincible felt the killer in the armor!

Masterfully crafted (albeit primitive by today's standards) armor turned people into walking Tanks. Powerful, unpunished and invulnerable in most situations.

Despite their superiority, the presence weapons and available for combat means, the defenders of Thomas Becket moved back, not knowing which side to attack the armored monsters.

If you wish, you can find hundreds of similar examples from that era. The concept of the knight itself was its security. The weapon was secondary. Quality armor cost a fortune and were an exclusive attribute of the nobility. Without them, engaging in close combat was considered meaningless.

“Marshal, do not kill me! I am without chain mail! ” - shouted to his opponent Richard the Lionheart. He shouted, of course, in French, because the British sovereign did not speak English.

The strength of the armor was so great that until the end of the XII century. Knights fought in tournaments with sharply sharpened weapons without any consequences for each other. Entertainment for the nobility is not more dangerous than racing or parachuting from a skyscraper.

For seven centuries, the “sword” absolutely lost to the “shield”. The means of defense were superior to the means of attack.

Of course, absolute security did not exist. Like a modern tank, the knight had a chance to meet with a special tool, against which no defense saved. For many centuries before the appearance of firearms, no armor could withstand the shot of the Welsh “Longbow”. However, they did not even think about abandoning the lats. The spectrum of threats in combat is not limited to one long bow.

Shining armor disappeared as a technical tool. But security as the most important principle of military science remained.

The temporary abandonment of heavy armor was due to the lack of a suitable mobile “platform” suitable for the placement of protection against firearms. Just as the appearance of a knight chained in armor was impossible, until the invention of stirrups (VIII century AD).

With the development of technical means, the concept of a “highly protected combat unit” has acquired a new meaning. The knights were replaced by tanks, naval battleships, protected aviation complexes and other technical means, exploiting the idea of ​​the trinity of mobility, security and firepower.

What unites the knight and the tank?


The first such opportunity presented itself to the military the fleet. The introduction of a steam engine coupled with the invention of the propeller immediately led to an increase in the size of ships. From here there was only a step to the introduction of protection and the transformation of the ship into a combat platform that dominates everything that was encountered on the battlefield.

The magnificent debut of the battleships was the battle of Liss (1866 year), in which the impotence of artillery against the ship's armor was recorded. In total, the Italian and Austro-Hungarian fleets made 6,5 thousands of shots at each other (most of them point-blank), and having failed to sink a single battleship by force of artillery fire.

Half a century later, the value of armor was confirmed in the Tsushima battle. For the sinking of the battleships of battleships it took a completely insane number of hits from the guns of quite a child's caliber.

A good example and survival standard was the Eagle, according to which after the battle an damage atlas was compiled. Over fifty hits main and medium caliber, not counting the "scratches" from small shells!



View “Eagle” after the battle does not give reason to doubt the conclusions of foreign experts.

But surprisingly ... from the 900 members of his crew, the victims of the battle were 25 people.

Such a simple and obvious fact, indicating the importance of security.

Armored vehicles

The main road is the one on which the tank is traveling.


The introduction of armor on land was delayed until the appearance of powerful and compact internal combustion engines. But there was hardly such an opportunity - and they could not be stopped ...

Lords of the battlefield. Since their first triumph in 1916, thousands of armored vehicles have been pounding their sorrowful paths on the battlefield. And, despite all the progress of anti-tank weapons, it has not yet found any reliable means capable of stopping the armored vehicles.
Multi-million "Abrams" can be made from a penny RPG. But who counted how many grenade throwers would fly off before this to their Sharia paradise?

How many people crawled with a grenade launcher across the burning land, trying to target the devilish “shaitan arba”?

The development of engines and transmissions provides an even more impressive level of protection. The whole history of the evolution of tanks is a continuous increase in the combat mass of vehicles.

BMP-2 - combat weight 14 tons.

T-15 “Armata” - combat weight 50 tons.



The “blurred” front line and the need to maintain a database in urban areas abolished all outdated requirements and canons when creating armored vehicles. Designers are trying to provide all-protection protection, as a result, any sample of armored personnel carriers (armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicles) approaches in mass and security to the main battle tanks. Indeed, who said that ten fighters locked inside an infantry fighting vehicle require less protection than the three-person MBT crew. If we consider that they are on the same street and are forced to confront the same threats?


“Namer” (mass 60 tons). Modern Israeli armored personnel carrier on the Merkava-4 MBT chassis


The increase in mass and security of the main battle tanks is so obvious that it is not even a reason for discussion.

At the same time, neither the development of a DZ nor the creation of an active “Afganita” cancels the main principle of armored vehicles. The main line of defense is still a physical multi-layer barrier, made of steel, ceramics and depleted uranium. Even the “Royal Tigers” did not know such slabs of thickness.

Fans of all sorts of active defenses and “fragments of the field” ejected towards ammunition, those who are trying to oppose physical protection to them, do not understand the very principle of operation of such systems.

Why did not any oligarch guess to install dynamic protection containers on his armored limousine? The answer is simple: when activating the DZ, the hexogen containers will destroy the limousine, “collapsing” it inside like a tin can.

Just as large high-speed fragments from intercepted by “Afganitom” ammunition, punch a car through.

All existing types of “active armor” require the direct application of physical protection. and turn the protected object into a ... tank.

No “Afghan” without classic armor does not work.

Personal protective equipment

As for personal protective equipment, in this context, the mention of them looks frivolous.

A modern fighter in body armor is not an analogue of a medieval knight in the sense that a knight clad in armor in the conditions of that era was a much more significant combat unit dominating the battlefield.

Even being dressed in the equipment of the “Warrior” and armed with the most powerful handguns, the modern soldier does not have the superiority that the knight had in relation to everyone who met him on the way.

Nowadays, a tank can be considered as an analogue of a knight, but not an individual person.
Author:
102 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nix1986
    Nix1986 23 January 2017 07: 17
    +3
    "Nowadays, a tank can be considered an analogue of a knight, but not a separate person." We are waiting for the appearance of a compact power source, exoskeletons are already there, and it is not so difficult to "weld" armor on them.
    1. smershxnumx
      smershxnumx 23 January 2017 08: 52
      +13
      As I saw the photo of "Eagle" - I immediately understood who the author of the article was wassat
      1. dokusib
        dokusib 23 January 2017 10: 42
        +6
        I understand who the author of the article is already on the third sentence. ARMOR wink
        1. dumkopff
          dumkopff 23 January 2017 14: 06
          +5
          In terms of style, it was clear from the first sentence that it was Oleg Kaptsov. "And I recognize the dear by his gait ..."
      2. Kenneth
        Kenneth 23 January 2017 23: 33
        +1
        Photo Borodino for obvious reasons not shown.
        1. acrshooter
          acrshooter 25 January 2017 09: 40
          0
          So add yourself ... About the principle of direct action, I hope you heard?
          Sincerely, Arthur
        2. Ulan
          Ulan 25 January 2017 19: 44
          0
          Yes, "Eagle" is perhaps not a very successful example, since it was the last of the four, on which the fire of the Japanese squadron was concentrated. And yet he took many hits.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. demiurg
      demiurg 23 January 2017 14: 14
      +3
      The exoskeleton compensates for mass, but who compensates for inertia? How to stop abruptly in the exoskeleton? )) Or all dashes on the field will end upsten?
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 23 January 2017 20: 23
        +2
        The exoskeleton compensates for mass, but who compensates for inertia? How to stop abruptly in the exoskeleton? )) Or will all dashes on the field end with an upstate?
        Perhaps only by the principle: the rhino does not see well, but this is not his problem ...
        wassat
    3. KaPToC
      KaPToC 23 January 2017 22: 18
      0
      Quote: Nix1986
      We are waiting for the appearance of a compact power source, the exoskeletons are already there, and it is not so difficult to "weld" armor on them.

      Man is too compact for this - a weak link.
      1. acrshooter
        acrshooter 25 January 2017 10: 21
        0
        Not only compact, but also vulnerable.
        And when you try to book all life support systems, you get a tank again.
        Sincerely, Arthur
        PS Although I am sincerely convinced that science fiction writers are a little visionaries ...
        1. brn521
          brn521 25 January 2017 12: 55
          +1
          Quote: acrshooter
          I am sincerely convinced that science fiction writers are a little visionaries ...

          I recall a nuclear bomb in some Soviet science fiction, written before the Second World War. Jug with two handles. You fly on an airplane, bite a fuse over the city and immediately drop it. The striking factor is a fiery radioactive fountain that beats at the crash site and pollutes the city. What surprised me - the author at that time already knew something about uranium, radiation and its negative effect on the body.
  2. kalibr
    kalibr 23 January 2017 07: 25
    +8
    Oh yes Oleg! As Becket painted the murder, it is enviable ...
  3. Maegrom
    Maegrom 23 January 2017 08: 04
    +1
    Too many mythologies in one article.
    Firstly, the power of a knight and a tank - mobility and a cannon (spear strike). Parthian and Byzantine armor is heavier. Armor is needed, but it has proved ultimatum in very rare cases. The tank and the knight break through the enemy’s defense strategically and tactically.
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 23 January 2017 08: 36
      +5
      * Heavier than the armor of the early knights. Until the second half of the 13th century, this was nothing more than full chain mail. Quite a vulnerable defense.
      The knight, unlike the common people in the Temple, is a professional warrior.
      In addition to the Welsh bow ultimatum in the article and for some reason, it was better against early armor against a crossbow, a variety of maces and six-feathers, later clerics, coinage, halberds, stilettos for finishing off, and arquebuses. Oriental bows in the early stages.
      The results of the battles - the highest mortality of the highest, richest and most armored nobility in the battles of the centenary war (even before the kingdom of the firearm and in the era of almost maximum protection - armor and chain mail, deaf helmets).
      And earlier death from the accidental arrow of that same Richard, the Lionheart, not Vali, should prompt some thoughts.
      There are plenty of examples in almost any conflict, and regardless of the instant era that seems to the author from Charles the Great to Karl the Bold.
      1. Sergey-8848
        Sergey-8848 23 January 2017 15: 26
        +5
        Indeed, in honor of the feast of which saint is the bow called a superweapon against a knight? Yes, the same crossbows - no longer in honor, or what? (Well, you can’t attract not even facts, but fabrications for the ears to please your thoughts).
        The coexistence of armor and means of their penetration was long, centuries-old, and periodically the advantage was inclined in one direction or another, until the advent of a new process technology.
      2. andrewkor
        andrewkor 23 January 2017 18: 47
        +2
        mention Vasya Buslaev with his shafts !!!
  4. tchoni
    tchoni 23 January 2017 08: 37
    +3
    Oleg, look pliz, here is this video: https: //youtu.be/p8Ngp8xeSqw
    And, try to pierce a 2 mm plate of steel 20 from an onion.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 January 2017 08: 55
      +2
      In the video DZ installed on the lining thickness of 30-40 cm (moment 1: 05)
      And the damper - the whole bochin Nissan, against a single block DZ

      I did not hold the bow in my hands, I heard that the Welsh bow was powerful
      Welsh arrows pierced the oak gates of the tower, which were as thick as 4 fingers ... William de Braoz also testified that one of his soldiers in a battle with the Welsh was wounded by an arrow that passed through the thigh, covered with armor on both sides
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 23 January 2017 10: 21
        +1
        I do not in any way claim that DZ solves the problem of protecting equipment completely. I just urge you not to idealize one of the methods of defense, and to maintain a reasonable balance. If from a PG7V grenade with 300 mm armor penetration it can be reliably protected by passive means, then from a grenade launcher with 700-1000 mm armor penetration this is almost not realistic. Plus, even if we manage to implement such protection on the sides. there will be a roof and a bottom .. Plus, the price of such a machine and manufacturability will be in question. So it turns out that in some cases, it is easier to make an iron in 30 mm and close its dz (as they did on the kurgan) than to make a monster like the name, which in the end will have to be covered with both dz and active protection.
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 23 January 2017 10: 29
        +1
        And the armor could be chain mail and hairline. Which onions easily pierces. there would be a corresponding arrow .. Personal experience and a large number of videos from YouTube show that problems arise with breaking through 1mm steel. at least in recursive bows.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 23 January 2017 22: 24
          +3
          Quote: tchoni
          And the armor could be chain mail and hairline. Which onions easily pierces. there would be a corresponding arrow.

          The so-called armor-piercing arrow does not penetrate the armor, it has a thin tip that penetrates between the rings of chain mail, against the armor such arrows are useless.
      3. KaPToC
        KaPToC 23 January 2017 22: 22
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I did not hold the bow in my hands, I heard that the Welsh bow was powerful

        No matter how powerful the bow was, its power was limited by the strength of a person, it was the crossbow that was the first serious weapon against professional warriors in armor.
  5. Gunther
    Gunther 23 January 2017 08: 43
    +3
    Quote: Author
    ... the modern soldier does not have the superiority that the knight had in relation to all who met on his way.

    And who met him on the way?
    Have you met the Saracens?
    )))
    Better about your favorite "lunar tractor" ...
  6. kit_bellew
    kit_bellew 23 January 2017 08: 58
    +13
    No armored monsters in the XII century there was not and could not be. Western European armor of that time - chain mail of various weaving density and, at best great helm, optional - Legging Bracers. This one withstood, so to speak, armor chopping blows with a sword, and even then unsuccessfully inflicted. The main defense of both the equestrian and the foot warrior was a shield, or rather, the ability to use it.
    The "crowd of adherents of the archbishop" could easily work out the dispersed hooligans, simply by knocking them down and plugging them with a pitchfork. Chain mail - I repeat, chain mail, and not full armor of the XNUMXth century, as, apparently, the author sees it, the knights would not have been saved. Another thing is that peizans, artisans and monks were not eager to get a meter of steel in the stomach or lose their head.
    The concept of a knight itself was its security. The weapon was secondary.

    Author, learn the materiel. Raising a nobleman is the possession of weapons and horseback riding. Life depended on mastery of the sword, ax, sword and horse. Rite you with chain mail and let you out on a long road - maybe one of her looks will save you from a bunch of loafers, but you definitely don’t from a trained fighter. And from a direct blow to the chest with something sharper or heavier.
    Armor, of course, is a good thing. But in the tank the crew of the couch "military" is doomed. Preparation decides everything. So that!
    1. avt
      avt 23 January 2017 10: 02
      +6
      Quote: kit_bellew
      Author, learn the materiel.

      laughing Abaldel! give such advice, and even with an explanation
      Quote: kit_bellew
      Raising a nobleman is the possession of weapons and horseback riding. Life depended on mastery of the sword, ax, sword and horse.

      Another good thing write that the actual combat, not tournament, armor is more than 30 kilograms and did not weigh! Etozh Oleg, Armored "!
      No “Afghan” without classic armor does not work.
      Well, what are the tankmen !? Now he has reached you bully Hold on to it! The best tank in the world is the German "Mouse"! It's big and the armor has never been thicker. bullyP.S. Oleg ! When you write a fantasy about a land battleship, keep in mind - the Soviet science fiction writer Kazantsev, I think, in the "Burning Island" has already walked on it. Well, this is so - a note for another fantasy.
      1. kit_bellew
        kit_bellew 23 January 2017 10: 15
        +3
        Oleg, as I understand it, is it known for its opus? Well, call me, I'm a new person.
        In general, if you play starcraft, for example, you need to increase the armor, yes wassat
        1. avt
          avt 23 January 2017 10: 27
          +8
          Quote: kit_bellew
          ? Well, call me, I'm a new person.

          No forgiveness! Not a gram, not a millimeter! Not Celsius, but GMT! wassat Register on the site and do not know that for Oleg the armor is holy! request ...... Life cycle with nails to the patriarch! bullyBut the truth is there are moments - Oleg really gives out cool fantasies, that’s what, and his syllable is really quite worthy, I’ve been telling him here for a long time - write fiction! Really go.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 23 January 2017 22: 29
            0
            Quote: avt
            Oleg really cool fantasy gives out

            Yes, he needs to put a monument for the popularization of the site.
          2. For your motherland, your mother))
            0
            Oleg - armored saints (like George - the Victorious);)))
            But Kaptsov writes is really interesting and fruitful.
        2. KaPToC
          KaPToC 23 January 2017 22: 28
          0
          Quote: kit_bellew
          In general, if you play starcraft, for example, you need to increase the armor, yes

          Gold shells needed - wargaming knows.
    2. kolyhalovs
      kolyhalovs 23 January 2017 10: 08
      +3
      Another thing is that peysans, artisans and monks were not eager to get a meter of steel in their stomach or lose their heads.

      A plus to this is the fact (according to this article) that their idol was already dead by that time. And why climb on the rampage?
  7. Comrade Stalin
    Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 10: 15
    +2
    Solid armor like Maximillian appeared in the 14th century, and they were incredibly expensive, only kings, dukes and counts could afford them. Their appearance is a response to the appearance of crossbows with armor-piercing bolts that easily pierced brigantines and multilayer quilted armor with chain mail. But by the middle of the 16th century, the muskets were ubiquitous, and they were a thing of the past.
    Just as it was impossible for a knight to be clad in armor before the invention of the stirrups (XNUMXth century AD).

    No need to repeat the rubbish of the New Age historians. Stirrups have always been known since the time they invented the saddle. What do you think, how then, without stirrups, mounted on horses?
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 23 January 2017 10: 32
      0
      off the stool? or what does Fomenko have?
      1. Comrade Stalin
        Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 10: 38
        +2
        In vain irony. Have you ever seen a horse at all? How would you climb a saddle without stirrups? With one dashing 2 meter jump? Yes, Olympic jumping champions would envy you. Yes, in full gear lol . Fomenko, of course, is full of nonsense, but the fact that absolutely impossible to trust historians of the past is for sure. Take at least the same Karamzin. Obviously the little man wrote under the order of liberals of that time, or he himself was a liberal.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 23 January 2017 16: 14
          +2
          cavalry existed from 9th century BC From the time of stools yes

          there is a true alternative version, according to which a man mounted a horse only in modern times (with the advent of the armor that protected him from the horse), a century so at 17-18m. Using a stool, of course. The saddle then later the cavalry appeared, and the stirrup laughing around the Olympics 80
          1. Comrade Stalin
            Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 21: 15
            0
            I see ... You are hopeless. Do not be offended, but people like you are called old farts. And deservedly so.
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 23 January 2017 21: 45
          +3
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          One dashing jump on 2 meters?

          Why not 2,12?
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          Stirrups have always been known since the time they invented the saddle. What do you think, how then, without stirrups, mounted on horses?

          Silently. And the horses used to be smaller.
    2. kalibr
      kalibr 24 January 2017 21: 19
      +2
      The Greeks, Romans, Scythians, Parthians, Gauls, Nimidians, etc. did not have stirrups. Invented from in Korea (north) and from there they dispersed around the world. And they mounted horses very easily, without stirrups. They were stunted ... Moreover, in the Middle Ages, when he was knighted, he had to sit in the saddle without stirrups! In armor. I don’t know, it seems to have been written about this everywhere. Starting from Cardini to a reading book on the history of Cf. centuries for the 6 class.
      1. Comrade Stalin
        Comrade Stalin 25 January 2017 00: 25
        0
        With 30 kg of armor and an additional 10 kg of weapons? Yeah! Where are the current Olympic champions in jumping to medieval knights.
  8. androv
    androv 23 January 2017 10: 41
    +1
    and so little about armadillos?
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 23 January 2017 10: 50
      +1
      They drowned (s)
  9. Alanart
    Alanart 23 January 2017 13: 15
    +6
    Quote: Comrade_Stalin
    In vain irony. Have you ever seen a horse at all? How would you climb a saddle without stirrups? With one dashing 2 meter jump? Yes, Olympic jumping champions would envy you. Yes, in full gear lol . Fomenko, of course, is full of nonsense, but the fact that absolutely impossible to trust historians of the past is for sure. Take at least the same Karamzin. Obviously the little man wrote under the order of liberals of that time, or he himself was a liberal.


    Regardless of the content of the article. Purely for stirrups. I saw a horse near, from the saddle, as a rule, I do not fall, although I do not even reach the third category. for old, fat and lazy to regularly practice :)
    I want to say that on a horse, if it is not a monster of 180 at the withers or more, a person of average height and minimal physical training can climb easily and immediately. It’s like jumping onto a fence or railway platform. And you can ride without stirrups (and even need to develop the right muscles, balance and proper fit), and sometimes even more convenient. Any office hamster, if he is not disabled and at least remembers his childhood sports, can be trained to ride in the saddle on any gait without stirrups for a month in three not very intense trainings. And there is no question of a more or less prepared athlete. My wife and I, my third in show jumping, jumped 120 without stirrups in order to build up balance for the sake of pleasure.
    It is difficult to shoot accurately from a bow and implement a ramming "knightly" spear strike without stirrups, and chopping fleeing infantry or chasing off impudent dogs with a whip (in our reality) is a sheer pleasure :) Although stirrups are certainly more convenient.
    As for the fact that there were always stirrups. Look at the equestrian statues of the ancient period, they are all without stirrups. Well, or on the painting of pots and bas-reliefs. Even if we assume that the stirrups were erased / chipped there, then the riders there all sit with their socks down. In the stapes, the position of the leg is different - the heel is lower than the toe. Well, if you learned to ride with stirrups, you won’t bother with one thing, except at a step on relaxation.
    1. Comrade Stalin
      Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 13: 45
      0
      You do not confuse dwarf Mongolian horses with European horses and Arabian horses. At the withers, they just reach 180 cm. You consider the people of the Ancient World to be idiots who invented writing, counting, geometry and arithmetic, discovered planets, built observatories, invented a wheel, discovered metallurgy, such idiots who did not think of such an elementary thing as stirrups? Maybe then they came up with a staircase only in the 8th century, and before that people jumped to the second floor like a kangaroo?
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 23 January 2017 20: 34
        +4
        You do not confuse dwarf Mongolian horses with European horses and Arabian horses. At the withers they just reach 180 cm.
        It’s you who don’t confuse the late-breed riding horses with the ancient ones that were used much earlier.
        Do you think the people of the Ancient World are idiots
        We do not consider ancient people to be idiots. Rather, we consider you, to put it mildly, insufficiently informed on the issue under discussion. Before blaming knowledgeable people for not knowing anything, take the trouble to acquire a store of knowledge on a topic of comparable volume.
    2. dumkopff
      dumkopff 23 January 2017 14: 13
      +2
      Destrier (Destrier) - the horse of a knight of the era of the high Middle Ages. Growth 175-200. +30 kg of armor. Plus, the knight’s own height is 155-165 cm. Could not jump.
      1. Comrade Stalin
        Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 14: 21
        +2

        Did riders with stools go? Or, after all, since people already knew about ladders and rope ladders that climbed the masts of ships, didn’t they have the brains to come up with such an elementary thing as stirrups? Maybe the sailors of the Ancient World jumped on the masts too?
        1. dumkopff
          dumkopff 23 January 2017 14: 34
          +2
          Stirrups appeared in the 3-4th century AD. By the time of the Middle Ages they were used with might and main.
          1. Comrade Stalin
            Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 14: 48
            +1
            And when did the saddles appear? Actually, a saddle is a more complicated thing than stirrups. That is, you are for the historians of the 30th century who claim that people of the 20th century walked because they were too dumb to invent a car, but they flew on airplanes.
            Well, you at least claim that a person invented stirrups in the 3rd or 4th centuries AD, unlike an author who considers his ancestors to be completely dumb, and writes that they invented stirrups in the 8th century.
            1. dumkopff
              dumkopff 23 January 2017 15: 08
              +3
              Many seemingly obvious things were not invented right away.
              For example, on the topic of the intermediate cartridge, work really began to be carried out almost in the 40s. Although Fedorov also used a 6,5 mm Arisak cartridge for his machine gun. And even before the 1st World War one could guess that the killer range of 2 km is too much. Anyway, 99% of the soldiers will not hit the target from 700 meters.
              What a variety of forms of cans were, until the Germans in the 30s created a modern 20-liter.
              Or a linearly elevated layout of towers on battleships and battlecruisers. It would seem obvious that this gives the maximum UGN for each barrel, and the Americans tested on Michigan. But you’re a feat - another 7-8 years were built very differently.
              This I mean, what seems obvious today, was far from obvious 100 years ago.
              1. Comrade Stalin
                Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 21: 36
                0
                The wheel is an unobvious thing, and the plow too. Yes, even a knife is harder than stirrups. Stirrups are essentially just ropes on the saddle, which are needed for the convenience of climbing a horse. Do you really think that our ancestors were so stupid that they could not think of simple ropes on their saddles for the convenience of climbing? !!!
                1. dumkopff
                  dumkopff 24 January 2017 06: 39
                  +1
                  Do not believe it, but the civilization of South America did not know the wheel. Although there are also not quite stupid people lived.
                  1. Comrade Stalin
                    Comrade Stalin 24 January 2017 08: 15
                    0
                    Because in America there were no horses. Why do they need a wheel if there is nobody to harness?
                2. Alanart
                  Alanart 24 January 2017 11: 26
                  0
                  Quote: Comrade_Stalin
                  The wheel is an unobvious thing, and the plow too. Yes, even a knife is harder than stirrups. Stirrups are essentially just ropes on the saddle, which are needed for the convenience of climbing a horse. Do you really think that our ancestors were so stupid that they could not think of simple ropes on their saddles for the convenience of climbing? !!!

                  A stirrup is not a climbing rope. Climbing up on a horse to athletic guys like the ancient riders was not at all difficult. Yes, and modern too. Dzhigitovka remember at least. Jumping and jumping from a saddle on the go is quite an ordinary and vital element.
                  A stirrup, not a rope or even a ring, but with a flat base, is needed for good emphasis, to shoot more accurately and chop and stab more strongly. There was a need to effectively multiply by zero brothers in appearance, a stirrup arose.
                  And the rope, God forgive me, is just a useless and suicidal element - the leg gets stuck at once - and remember that they called Mitka.
                3. Alanart
                  Alanart 24 January 2017 12: 34
                  0
                  Stirrup is not an obvious thing. Normally developed kid of the Ancient World to climb a horse they fuck do not need. Yes, and modern, too, for good. Look at horseback jumping off and back into the saddle on the go. And on a standing horse, only rickets, a dwarf or a deep old man will not pile up. Moreover, the horses were not so tall. Well, riding with more or less normal training is also no problem without stirrups and without a saddle as such.
                  The stirrup, and, in good condition, is close in form to the modern one, that is, not a ring or a rope, God forbid, is necessary for emphasis when shooting from a bow and chopping with a sword / saber. Even a ram ramp can be realized without stirrups.
                  Therefore, to a certain level of development of military art, they did not appear. The versions are different, one of them is just about the rope. Heavy horse riders appeared — high wooden saddles appeared — it became hard to pile up in all this gland — a rope loop appeared for climbing. And only then someone lit up with twin stirrups. And here the expanse began, and here the arrogant, sturdy infantry standing on its feet raked for centuries, if not millennia, ridicule of a man-equestrian :)
                  1. kalibr
                    kalibr 24 January 2017 21: 29
                    +3
                    I was interested in this question even when I was writing a book on the English-language historiography of knightly weapons. On some issues, ends meet. I had to go to the hippodrome and ask the guys what they were doing there to help! First of all, they sat the horse with one blanket, as on Greek vases. The horse is modern, but the girl (!) Climbed on it without stirrups! But attacking the target with a spear at the ready did not work! The horse began to spot and feed to the left. They explained to me - he is afraid of "sticks near the eye". Hence the conclusion: the horses of the Sarmatians, who were the first to master the long peaks (and the Parthians), were all trained! It would not have been possible to take the first one from the herd and gallop at the enemy ... There was not even a question about stirrups, why are they?
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 23 January 2017 23: 27
          +2
          And also there is such a photo.This is about stools.
        3. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 24 January 2017 09: 54
          +1
          A documented fact. The peasants of one of the Russian provinces did not use manure in agriculture. Absolutely. Rationale - "nothing good can grow out of shit." More examples of stupidity and idiocy of people to give? Don't you know them yourself?
          1. Comrade Stalin
            Comrade Stalin 24 January 2017 09: 58
            0
            Fake. They just probably decided to burn over the city, and said that they did not use manure.
          2. kalibr
            kalibr 24 January 2017 21: 31
            +1
            In the village where I was a teacher, the dogs threw out the liver - "she is rotten" and the severed heads of sheep, rams, chickens, ducks ... For three years I watched this ...
            1. Comrade Stalin
              Comrade Stalin 25 January 2017 00: 27
              +1
              Well, actually the liver belongs to the liver, and rightly so, that it is given to dogs. For example, I do not eat a liver, only meat. As for the heads, what do you eat heads of chickens, ducks and rams? However, you are a connoisseur of cooking ...
            2. brn521
              brn521 25 January 2017 12: 43
              +1
              Quote: kalibr
              dogs threw out the liver - "it is filthy" and the cut off heads of sheep, rams,

              They lived well, then. The liver is the most nutritious part of the carcass. It just goes bad quickly. Those who lived worse let everything go. Even the intestines were cleaned, boiled, and eaten. There was only a skin and horns. Well, the head of a ram, like eggs, is, as far as I know, a delicacy from the cuisine of nomads.
      2. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 8 May 2017 01: 47
        0
        They didn’t jump on destroys in armor without stirrups, they often climbed a special camping ladder. But this is a special breed. Other types of horses were used for vaulting.
      3. Molot1979
        Molot1979 6 August 2017 12: 23
        0
        Well, when did this beast appear in the world? By then, stirrups had already been invented. As for jumping on a horse in armor, knights are known who climbed the stairs in the same armor on their hands. Pulling up. And nothing quite successfully entertained their ladies. So I don’t see anything complicated in the trick with the horse. The weight of the modern fighter’s calculation is slightly inferior to the weight of knight equipment, but doesn’t this hinder being fast enough agile?
    3. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 23 January 2017 19: 51
      +1
      Your comment was made, I didn’t sit in the saddle even once, I’m afraid of horses, but I know for sure that the Greeks did not know the stirrups, and they considered saddles to be barbarism unworthy of the Hellenes.
      1. Comrade Stalin
        Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 21: 20
        0
        They also compared the Greeks, who lived in tiny islands, with other European nations, who even respected horses very much. Do you even know that "cavalier" in French means both a nobleman and a horseman? The same can be said about the Spanish caballero and the German "reiter", from which the Russian word "knight" comes from.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 23 January 2017 22: 40
          0
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          German "reiter", from which comes the Russian word "knight".

          Or maybe the other way around - a knight's raider.
          1. Comrade Stalin
            Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 22: 46
            0
            Yes Yes Yes. And the word "computer" comes from the Russian word.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 23 January 2017 22: 49
              0
              Quote: Comrade_Stalin
              Yes Yes Yes. And the word "computer" comes from the Russian word.

              You know better... .
        2. Alanart
          Alanart 24 January 2017 13: 08
          +1
          In French, Chevalier. Cavalier (from Cavalli) is Italian. All this, as well as caballero, reitars, etc. appeared much later than antiquity, when the Greeks lived on small islands from Sicily to India and did not like to ride, because they were big guys and preferred a chariot or foot combat. So to compare them with European nations is a little incorrect, due to the lack of such in the world political arena.
          But the Romans, who conquered these Greeks and their descendants, but regularly raked in Asia and not only from heavy cavalry, respected horses. So they respected that they had got equites - rich guys on horses. And then these guys became the estate of horsemen (equities). And then the Karachun came to the Romans, but the tendency for rich boys (and keeping a horse oh how expensive) on horses (Chevalier, cavaliers, caballero, etc.) to become a privileged estate remained.
          1. Mikhail Matyugin
            Mikhail Matyugin 8 May 2017 01: 50
            0
            It would be interesting to listen to a list of wonderful places where the Romans raked in Asia. I’ve “come, saw, won”, I know Magnesia and Tigranokert, but it’s kind of a big deal.
      2. Molot1979
        Molot1979 6 August 2017 12: 24
        0
        That there are Greeks) The then Germans believed that only finished cowards ride in the saddle. And if you saw a detachment of riders in the saddles, then attacked without hesitation, even at a ratio of 10 to 100.
  10. demiurg
    demiurg 23 January 2017 14: 17
    0
    Oleg, thank you very much. I don’t know about historicity, but it’s interestingly told. And special thanks for the photo of Eagle.
    By the way, Novikov-Priboy in Tsushima seems to say that one of the victims on Orel died (suffocated in pairs) when he climbed into a broken rum tank.
  11. Dekabrist
    Dekabrist 23 January 2017 14: 28
    +3
    Stirrups, stirrups - saddlery that helps the rider to ride a horse and maintain balance while riding. The invention of stapes in the IV century by nomads changed the tactics, strategy of military operations of nomads, weapons, and gained rapid distribution around the world. There was an opportunity to deliver saber attacks, more accurately hit the enemy from a bow. The etymology of the word from the common Slavic * strьmen - to pull, stretch, straighten, something elongated or stretched - a rope, belt, feature.
    In Europe, the first written mention of stirrups is contained in the Strategicon of pseudo-Mauritius. It should be borne in mind that this Byzantine text contains an 3 layer. The first is attributed to the master Urbiqui (505 year), the second dates from the reign of the emperor of Mauritius, that is, 582 — 602 for years, and the third to the middle of the VI century. The mention of iron stirrups is in the first part (at the very beginning of the treatise, I, 2), and they are spoken of as a matter of course. Based on this, the appearance of stirrups in Europe can be dated to the end of V - the middle of VI centuries (the time of barbaric invasions from the East). The earliest examples of stirrups in Europe are found in Avar burials of the 7th century in Dacia.
    Well, Claude Blair is a good read. Knightly armor of Europe.
    1. Comrade Stalin
      Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 14: 58
      +1
      Well, that's already progress! Little by little, in 5 years they began to write that stirrups appeared in the 4th century. And then all sorts of "historians" asserted me that even in the early Middle Ages people were so stupid that they could not think of the invention of stirrups. Maybe in 15 years, thanks to the efforts of new historians, we will achieve that it is recognized that the stirrups were invented at the same time as the saddle.
      1. Dekabrist
        Dekabrist 23 January 2017 15: 33
        +2
        I’m not a historian, but I use their best practices.
      2. Alanart
        Alanart 23 January 2017 18: 10
        0
        No, well, I'm not saying that the ancestors were stupid and wiped with a plywood sheet :) But in fact, the fact remains that the horses were domesticated 2-3 thousand years BC, and the stirrups were thought to be tucked in the 4th century, well, maybe earlier a century or two.
        By the way, a good article on the topic of stapes http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/rossiiskii-arheol
        ogicheskii-ezhegodnik / vypuski-ezhegodnika / pdf / Azb
        elev_2014.pdf
        And what about plugging a horse off a stool? Now they are walking, if you please, for example http://www.favouritespb.ru/product/1663/skladnoj_
        taburet_stupenka_dlya_posadki_na_loshad / why not go then :) But such a fool as in the photo and with stirrup is not a fact that you climb, there may not be enough length of the tramp. Definitely need a stool :)
      3. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 23 January 2017 20: 41
        0
        Well now, progress! Slowly over 5 years they began to write that stirrups appeared in the 4th century.
        This progress is exclusively for you. Normal people (not only a narrow circle of scientists) know this from the school history course for the corresponding period.
        And then all sorts of "historians" claimed me
        What can I say about this? .. Go to the library, take a history book on the sunset era of the Roman Empire ... You will learn many interesting things ...
        1. Comrade Stalin
          Comrade Stalin 23 January 2017 21: 23
          0
          Maybe you can also advise me on his "sunset" Gibbon? Or "Technology of Youth"?
          1. Molot1979
            Molot1979 6 August 2017 12: 27
            0
            Do not be angry. We must go and take the textbook. And then argue with historians without knowing the facts, only to expose oneself as a fool.
      4. kalibr
        kalibr 24 January 2017 21: 33
        0
        Claude Blair is a very old English historian. He died a long time ago ...
  12. brn521
    brn521 23 January 2017 14: 49
    0
    A very realistic article. About how the knights are out of date. They ate a lot, were expensive, and the damage was done no more than similar comrades, but without armor. And about how, with the progress of armaments, instead of full-fledged armor, light local booking began to be used, or even completely abandoned.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 23 January 2017 22: 47
      +1
      Quote: brn521
      And about how, with the progress of armaments, instead of full-fledged armor, light local booking began to be used, or even completely abandoned.

      Arms progress is the development of science and technology, and not the inventive activity of the military. When the development of metallurgy allowed us to make knightly armor in a form known to us, the same development of metallurgy made it possible to make handguns.
      1. brn521
        brn521 24 January 2017 12: 59
        +1
        Quote: KaPToC
        When the development of metallurgy allowed us to make knightly armor in a form known to us, the same development of metallurgy made it possible to make handguns.

        Well, with the battleships the same nonsense. Only normal steel, suitable for armor, was invented, as the distance and accuracy of the lesion increased. The same dreadnought than were good? First, from an extreme distance, an ordinary battleship will be pulled with powerful high-explosive shells. And then they will come closer and finish what is left of the battleship. Well and further along the development branch of RCC instead of artillery and air defense instead of armor.
  13. dumkopff
    dumkopff 23 January 2017 15: 00
    +4
    I'm trying to understand: what did Oleg Kaptsov want to tell us? What armor on the tank is needed? So do not go to a fortuneteller.
    Now the truth is quite a controversial idea I will state: The tank was generally born a positional dead end of the First World War. Initially, it was created to break through the enemy’s defense line. Naturally, this requires armor.
    But tanks of the first world war, despite all the external signs of the tank, were not tanks of the classical concept. The classic concept of the tank can be described as follows. By the time of World War I, artillery had become the most effective means of destruction. To carry out deep operations (the methodology of which was worked out during the interwar period and the period of the Second World War), with rapid advance of 200-500 km, it was necessary to ensure the mobility of this artillery by installing it on a mobile and sufficiently mobile platform (yeah, with tracks). Part of this was self-propelled guns, part of it was classic tanks, whose task was to penetrate the breakthrough lane, to provide firepower and suppress resistance in a direct collision with enemy units encountered along the way (the benefit of the defense lanes is not configured there). Since all this grandeur (artillery + platform) is expensive, and in addition it has the habit of eating fuel and lubricants on an industrial scale, it makes sense to reserve a tank so that it can withstand the enemy’s opposition. And less breaks and it is necessary to supply a smaller crowd. Here the concept of the trinity of maneuver-armor-fire is already being born. Moreover, the maneuver is not directly on the battlefield, but on a scale of hundreds of kilometers. Now infantry is becoming a means of supporting tanks. Stripping, suppression of residual resistance. (During the battles in the city, however, the situation changed. The tank turned into a means of supporting infantry, suppressed firing points. But fighting in the city was not the main task)
    It's funny that at present the tank is rolling back to the ideas of the 1st World War. The tank is turning back into an infantry support vehicle. And often the strike force when breaking through defensive lines or during actions in the city. And again, armor is required.
    Are knights and tank invulnerable? It is believed that the overwhelming superiority of the knights was ensured in many respects by the degradation of military science after the decline of the Roman Empire. When system and discipline arose against them, they broke their teeth.
    A modern tank has a protection of + -35 degrees in azimuth. From the sides and especially from the upper floors, it is easily set on fire. True, if this happens, then this is not the fault of the tank, but the whole fault of the command, not able to provide competent interaction.
  14. demiurg
    demiurg 23 January 2017 15: 17
    +1
    Then he sat and thought. For the author there is a very strong topic. Confrontation of the giants. Meet the second tiger and IS-2.
    The confrontation of perfect armor, terrible muzzle energy and skill. Judging by the fact that brigade commanders and commanders of heavy battalions were killed in these meetings, this is really worthy of a separate article.
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 23 January 2017 17: 43
      +1
      Under Krecy, the King died, dozens of higher nobles, and Oleg does not fit into the statistics.
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth 23 January 2017 23: 38
        0
        There they were beaten dishonorably with arrows from horses and trite on the ground.
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 24 January 2017 19: 11
          0
          Check out contemporary non-English studies from this period. The question is: how does the definition of "cut down" apply to an attack by dismounted force against dismounted volunteers? There was no organized counterattack. The attack ended in darkness.
          ZY I don’t like the system with local ranks, how can I “junior in rank” talk in such a tone with “senior”? Rave.
        2. t7310
          t7310 27 January 2017 00: 10
          +2

          battle of crecy
          Dmitry Puchkov
  15. aiw
    aiw 23 January 2017 19: 00
    +4
    Mdya ... Oleg, write about the history of the fleet. About the rest is not necessary.

    Although it is strange that you forgot about the Hampton raid - it was 4 years for Lissa, and it was then that the international community was convinced of the effectiveness of booking ships.

    As for light armored vehicles - now for her there are a number of different options for active protection. There, the main problem is generally the safety of civilians and their dismounted infantry, which is nearby.

    The phrase about how DZ will flatten the oligarch’s limousine uniquely into a memoris, next to your Perls about replacing the ship’s cross-set with an armored belt, etc.

    Well, about the invulnerability of the knights, just like tournament fun with full-fledged military weapons - neighing ... Oleg, all the same, better write about the history of the fleet, it really works out really well for you.
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth 23 January 2017 23: 37
      0
      The knight is confronted by hand weapons of very limited power. The tank is opposed by RPGs, pturs, missiles with GOS finally anti-tank shells. Which reduces his life to minutes with sufficient saturation.
      1. aiw
        aiw 24 January 2017 11: 23
        +1
        How so. Klevets for example pierced many armor.
  16. burigaz2010
    burigaz2010 23 January 2017 23: 47
    0
    Oleg is back in his element! Photo of the battleship Eagle, he seems to have become an icon!
  17. brn521
    brn521 25 January 2017 13: 44
    +1
    If you look for an analogue of tanks in the fleet, as the author is apparently going to do, then only a monitor comes to mind. Maximum armor, minimum valuable body kit, minimum seaworthiness. But you can arrange artillery duel with coastal artillery. While some battleship, butting with the coastal installation, after a while will begin to be a very miserable sight and crawl to be repaired.
  18. SerB60
    SerB60 17 October 2017 14: 44
    0
    I answer the question in the headline: the general is in the unit of power measurement, and horsepower is used both here and there.
  19. Gleb-Kiev
    Gleb-Kiev 28 November 2017 15: 23
    0
    The author of the article on the topic of knightly armor understands a little less than nothing. This is probably why he has the killers of Thomas Becket dressed in armor.

    This phrase alone is enough to understand how sad everything is.
    The strength of the armor was so great that until the end of the XII century. Knights fought in tournaments with sharply sharpened weapons without any consequences for each other. Entertainment for the nobility is not more dangerous than racing or parachuting from a skyscraper.


    And here are miniatures illustrating battle sword tournaments and the consequences of such actions.



    Moreover, there is a lot of modern research on this issue - a sword against chain mail, bows against armor, etc. etc. In the best case, we have parity, superior armor is infrequent, and only very high-quality and expensive sets have it.