From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: On the nature of armor....
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:16:26 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

Dennis O'Connor writes:
>whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>] In article <> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>] >whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>] >Your right, of course. I have no plans for aluminium knees or elbows.
>] >I'm going to use steel, my wife is getting stainless steel.
>]
>] And yet....  Not for the body....
>
>It's pretty adequately explained elsewhere why I'm using aluminium 
>for the rest, and steel for cops and helm. It's even explained
>later in this article. If you don't already make a practice of
>reading an entire article before following-up, I'd recommend it.

I am in that habit, though it doesn't guarantee that I remember all
the details several articles later.  As I recall, the basic reasoning
was that you hold that steel of the correct thickness is not
sufficiently rigid and steel that is stiff enough is too heavy.

My effort in the remark was to contrast the willingness (for safety
and current rules, I presume) to use steel at the indicated points
while being unwilling to do so where not required to do so where not
required to.  I think this adequately makes my point about how I feel
about using rules.

>] [ my comments on stiffness deleted ]
>]
>] How *much* heavier would stiff enough steel be?  By the ratio of
>] densities of the two materials (~2.5, if I remember right), or less
>] than that?  Proper heat treatment of a suitable steel might well get
>] you the stiffness you want without an undue increase in weight.
>
>6061 T6 aluminum has a modulus of elasticity near that of any commonly
>available sheet steel. Given that resistance to a bending moment is 
>proportional to that modulus times the thickness squared, obviously
>it will be much stiffer.

Now that we're discussing purely technical issues...  Did the Mongols
use exclusively flat (or gently curved) pieces, or did they do any
small scale forming that would increase stiffness without adding
wieght?

>] [ on appearances ]
>] >That depends on a lot of things. To the uneducated, polished
>] >stainless probably looks best. And to me, laquered, painted
>] >or anodized armour looks better than rusty cold-rolled steel.
>]
>] Laquered or painted--I agree.  I have my doubts about the anodized.
>] Cooked-on linseed oil would not only look period, but I'm told it *is*
>] period.  Forge-blackening looks very good too.
>
>Laquer and paint would wear off aluminium quickly, and I will
>almost never have the time to dissasemble the armour, re-finish it
>and re-assemble it : there's just too much fun in my life.
>If anodization looks like laquer, who should care ?

Okay.  let me put it this way... *Does* anodized look like lacquered?
From lacquered finishes and anodized objects I've seen, I would (for
myself) have to say no, but your mileage may vary.

>] >One should do as one likes within the rules, and allow other
>] >the same freedom.
>]
>] Hmmm....  I'm not entirely sure I agree with that sentiment.  I think
>] that it is better to adhere to what the rules mean rather than freely
>] interpreting them to ones own ends.
>
>When we get to "the rules don't mean what they say, they mean
>this", we're into a mess of conflicting opinion. I have no
>need to press my opinion on another, and won't allow it to
>be done to me. I avoid lots of grief in this way.

the rules mean what they say.  They also say that they are *minima*.
While no one will be faulted for adhering to the minima expressed, one
can still hope for efforts to exceed them.

>] >That's fine with me. But it doesn't address my point : if you
>] >really want the edge in speed wear woad.
>]
>] That's been tried too--though not (so far as I know) for that specific
>] purpose.  I think the answer out to be--if you want speed, take up
>] rapier.
>
>We're talking speed as an advantage in the context of heavy-weapons,
>are we not ? Let's not go off on an irrelevant tangent.

Okay.  On topic....  Is speed that desireable in heavy combat?  What
do you feel are the trade-offs?  What would you wish to do even if it
meant a loss of speed?

>] My point is that steel mail--almost no matter how poorly done--is
>] closer to period practice than aluminum anything--no matter how finely
>] done.  I am less concerned with arriving at some specific degree of
>] periodness than I am that efforts should be directed in that
>] direction.
>
>I disagree. Aluminum lamellar of period design is a better tool
>for teaching about medeaval armour than steel armour patterned on
>a flak jacket. 

And steel done to a period design is better than either.  At least I
think so....

>] >] It is not that you're working in aluminum, pre
>] >] se, but that you've already done work in steel that worries me.
>] >
>] >Does it really WORRY you ? 
>]
>] It worries me in the sense that SCA folk moving *away* from period
>] materials rather than toward them makes me wonder if the interest is
>] in the Medieval or in winning.  What direction do we wish the Society
>] to go in?
>
>Almost all SCA material is OOP in some way : look at the alloy
>content of the steels people use ! It's always been this way.

True as far as it goes.  However note that wrought iron is hard to
obtain--which would be the appropriate material, but at least a mild
steel is close in compostition--a low carbon alloy of iron.  Not
perfect by any means, but a lot closer than aluminum.  In addition,
hardened leather is both period and the raw material is obtainable.
Before you protest, I will agree that most modern leather is chrome
tanned, but vegetable tanned leather is available, too.

>] >Do you fear you'll come to some
>] >harm because I'm making aluminium lamellar ? 
>]
>] Hardly.  Even if we meet and you defeat me because you are fresher and
>] less burdened that I it will do me no harm.  However, I question who
>] will have truly 'won' the bout in the sense of recreation of period
>] practice and ideals.
>
>In my mind, I "win" every fight I'm in, because I always enjoy it !

I'm delighted to hear that.

>] I think the base question remains--to waht end does one make armor?
>] If the armor is intended to look period but maximize the edge in
>] combat, then *I* think it is a move in the wrong direction.  If it is
>] the closest ones skill, available materials, time, and funds will
>] supply, then one notes that the *intent* is to be as period as those
>] constraints permit--and that is a moving in the right direction.
>
>Judging intent is reserved for telepaths. You don't know mine.

I would hope that I know your intent to the extent that you expressed
it in this forum, and to that extent I am not trying to judge anyone
nearly so much as to express opinions about what I think are preferred
directions in SCA usage.  The motives you have expressed a valid, but
I disagree that they should override the general thrust of SCA
direction.  You are the best judge of how you wish to make your armor.
Others will judge you by what they see and hear of you while you are
in it.  A major point that concerns me is the unspoken but (to me)
apparent theme that outward appearance is sufficient despite inward
construction and that the results are advantageous in combat (if only
through a lessening of fatigue).

At this point, we are probably repeating ourselves without either
convincing the other.  Some of the other commentators are starting to
express opinions now, so we will have to see what develops.

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca