From: cav@bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Shield durability
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:43:19 GMT
Reply-To: cav@bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

Greetings unto the good people of the Rialto from Balderik.

Before I get to the results of my weekend shield chopping
experiment, I would like to address the comments from Graydon.
Graydon brings up a very good point, specifically that we
are not really medieval warriors.  Many of us do pilot desks
for a living and therefore are not in the sort of shape that
real medieval warriors would have been in.  This may very
well be true (personally I think it is true).  I am unsure
as to whether or not Graydon was intending to support my
argument.  If we say for the sake of argument that I am a
reasonably representative sample of SCA fighters, and I am
unable to chop through a plywood shield with a 'normal'
blow, I would think this means the argument that SCA
polearms should be counted as effective against shields
is unfounded.  The fact that an axe wielding housecarl
may have been able to do so does not matter.  There are
no real housecarls in the SCA.  I do not buy the argument
that if joe-weekend-warrior taps my shield with a 4 pound
polearm I should toss it aside because 'if I was a real
housecarl and this was a real axe your shield would be
toast'.  To my mind, this distinction (which I freely
admit I should have made - thanks Graydon) supports my
argument.

Now the results of the testing:

As my 'shield' I used a scrap piece of 1/2 thick 4 ply  
construction grade plywood (the really cheap stuff).
The 'target' was propped up so that the blow would strike
perpendicular to the edge.  The strokes were basically
downward, and the target could not move so the damage
was maximized (a shield held would 'give' under a blow
and some of the force would be absorbed, lessening
the damage). Several blows were thrown with each weapon,
both nominal (ie. a 'good' SCA combat blow) and a
maximal blow which was 180 degree swing with almost all
my force.

Weapon #1 - common camping hatchet
weight 1.75 lbs
length to mid grip - 11 inches
penetration : nominal 1  inch
              maximal 1 3/8 inches

Weapon #2 - Viking Broadsword (Del Tin replica of Abingdon Sword)
weight 3.5 lbs
length to mid grip - 36 inches
penetration : nominal 1 1/4 inches
              maximal 2 1/4 inches

Weapon #3 - German Hand and a half (Del Tin armi antichi)
weight 4.5 lbs
length to mid grip - 43 inches
penetration : nominal - 1 1/2 inches
              maximal - 3 3/4 inches

Weapon #4 - Two handed wood chopping axe
weight 5 lbs
length to mid grip - 24 inches
penetration : nominal - 1 1/2 inches
              maximal - 2 1/2 inches

Even under conditions favouring large amounts of damage (cheap, un-edged
plywood, braced against floor, 180 degree windup, etc.) the plywood stood
up fairly well.  The damage caused by the bastard sword is worth noting.
I attribute the deep penetration to its very good balance and thin cross
section.  The good balance allowed it to develop a very high speed and the
thin cross section allowed it to rip through the plywood without binding
as much as did the broadsword (thicker due to the fullers) and the axes.
The axe probably wasn't a very good indication of the penetrating capabilities
of a poleaxe due to its thicker cross section (note that this makes it good
for splitting logs, but lousy for ripping through plywood).  If and when
I get the opportunity to try this experiment with a real (replica) polearm,
I will do so, but I don't anticipate unusually different results.

Oh ya, I went to fight practice and weighed an SCA polearm.  It weighed 3lbs
(30 % LESS than the bastard sword and about half what my axe would weigh with
a haft of equal length).  The owner admitted that it was a light
polearm, but he said the lightest he had ever heard of was 2 1/2 lbs.
No doubt there are some polemen with somewhat heavier polearms.

So I maintain my position that it is unreasonable for SCA polemen to say
they are at a disadvantage because their polearms are not considered effective
against shields.  It is true that in a war situation, where a shield may
receive a large number of blows from such weapons, this might be unrealistic,
it is no more so than counting the shield destroyed with one or two blows.
Of the many inaccuracies in our combat I think this is a minor one.  I should
think they are at a greater disadvantage not being able to strike feet or
face thrust (in this kingdom).

Another interesting point is that after some of the maximal blows I had a 
fun time getting the weapon out of the plywood.  While it might be interesting
to test the effect of various edging materials, I don't fancy hacking at a 
steel rimmed shield with my pretties.

Of course, this admittedly crude experiment was conducted assuming that
cheap plywood is at least as good as a real period shield.  If anyone can
offer specifics regarding period shield construction (type of wood, lamination
techniques, etc.) I would be extremely grateful.

cheers,
Balderik