Can anyone identify this island, and where exactly it is located? I found the photo today while looking through old family photos, but can't seem to locate the island. I suppose it may not be near the Admiralty Islands at all, but that would be the most likely scenario. I have looked on google maps and wikipedia but so far, have come up short.

Here is a picture. http://i.imgur.com/FHHjSvC.jpg

I was staying in Trento, Italy and we hiked up Mount Bondone. A few hours into the hike up the mountain, I spotted this gravestone with just a cross on it. I know its a long shot, but I couldn't find any info on gravestones on mount bondone. But then again, my Italian is near non-existent.

And clues/ guesses are appreciated.

Now, concerning the effectiveness of the armour. I've gathered some information that clearly states that the production of bulletproof armour was not only possible, but actually existed in 15-17 centuries. I have brought several examples of such armour, the pictures of which you can find on the internet. Here are the examples of bulletproof breastplates of 16th - early 17th centuries with dents from bullets and musket proofmarks(first and the last one): http://imgur.com/a/cAaLa Not only that, I've also managed to find some book sources that can confirm that(I hope the authors don't mind me using the scans from their books): "The armourer and his craft" by Charles Ffoulkes and "The Knight and the Blast Fournace" by Alan Williams: http://imgur.com/a/eyPRj ; and here's a very interesting table from the Williams's book: http://i.imgur.com/sNTuna8.jpg that shows us the resistance needed to defeat a steel plate of varying thickness and material it's made of, under different angles and also energies that weapons of the discussed period could offer. It allows us to make a conclusion that you would need a ~3.5 mm thick steel plate of the best quality to get a protection against any weapon you could face in a battlefield of that time(except a cannon of course) or 4 mm thick steel plate of the lower grade steel, plus a good shape would only increase it's defensive capabilities.

But let's get back to the pictures of bulletproof breastplates of 17th centuries I've already shown you. You might notice that they don't really look like they are made of the best quality steel, and you'll be right: they weigh 15-17 pounds and have a thickness of 7-9 mm, which allows me to make a conclusion, considering the table we've just seen, that they were made from the cheapest material available, most likely simple iron. And no wonder, armourers of the period had two ways of increasing protection that armour could provide: by using better materials, or by making the armour simply thicker. Naturally, many preferred the second way, due to economical reasons. But just how expensive such a breastplate would be? Here's the link that provides us with the information(it also uses some of the sources above): http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html

Armor of proof is tested during the making with blows or shots from the strongest weapons of the time; if a weapon is listed, the armor does not claim to be proof against everything, only that it is proof up to that weapon's strength (eg pistol proof is not musket proof, but may be sword proof)

Cuirass of proof with pauldrons 40s

Cuirass of pistol-proof with pauldrons 26s

Considering that musket's cost was 16s 6d - 18s 6d, that might be expensive for a common footman, still though, affordable, but let's take a look at the wages(late 16 cen):

1 shilling = 12 pence (d)

Captain 8s/day
Lieutenant 4s/day
Ensign 2s/day
Drummer or trumpeter 20d/day
cavalryman 18d/day
infantry 8d/day

And so it's obvious that it would take quite some time for a footman to gather enough money for a cuirass with pauldrons, but considering that we don't know what kind of material the cuirass was made, even if it's made of the cheapest material, he could still save a coin or two and get only a breastplate that would still greatly increase his chances of surviving a battle. But if you're of a higher rank, it should be alot easier to get a decent protection, so the cost wasn't really a reason for the decline as well, especially if you're of a noble blood. I would also like to mention the vastly increased volume of iron production in the 18th century due to the Industrial revolution, thus making the potential price for the armour even lower.

Was it the weight then? As was said before, a breastplate of proof would weigh 15-17 pounds, which isn't much at all for a soldier. Considering that it could be made from better materials and thus alot lighter, the weight wasn't a problem as well, at least not a bigger problem that the armour was in previous centuries, even if someone would like a bulletproof suit of armour(though I believe it would be costly and pretty heavy for a not well trained man).

So I hope you see now that this is not really a simple question. Taking everything that was said into account, one can easily imagine a picture of an 18th century line battle with infantrymen wearing breastplates and officers and cavalrymen in full harness, but as the history tells us, that never happened, and cuirasses only seldom appeared on cuirassiers and weren't even bulletproof. And that's why I'm here: to figure out either the real reason behind it, or the flaws in my arguments. Thank you for your attention.