From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: On the nature of armor....
Date: 19 Dec 92 07:03:25
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:16:26 GMT


whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
] 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.

Well, first, the rules don't prohibit aluminum elbows and knees.
Second, I personally feel the minimal joint protection the rules
require for the joints is too little for me, and my steel cops
and elbows are substantially thicker. 

Third, saying someone is "using" the rules, as opposed to "abiding" by
them, carries an offensive negative connotation that only a telepath
could attest to the correctness of. And there are no telepaths. I think
it's at least rude to be so presumptious about other people's motivations.

] 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?

Period lamellar was I think more likely to be forged than cut from
rolled sheet. This would tend to make it harder, stiffer, and more
brittle unless it were annealed after being formed. Since hardness
and stiffness are good in armour, and brittleness is acceptable
in easily-repaired lamellar, it wouldn't surpirse me a bit if
Mongol lamellar was very hard and stiff, which may also have
allowed it to be very thin and consequently light.

When I find some archeologial evidence on this subject, I'll
let everyone know.

Remember that for 13th C. period smiths, hand-forging lots of small
armour bits should have been easier than first making a big sheet of
steel and then cutting little bits out of it. The opposite is
true of most modern people, I believe.

] >] [ on appearances ]
] 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.

I'll let you know when I've built the vats and done some test peices.
I've seen commercial peices that did look like (thin) laquer.

] 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.

I find this impossible to disagree with.

] 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?

Every individual makes this decision. I personally will never
increase my risk of even bruising to gain speed. But I will put
work and money into it. I personally am unwilling to blatently
compromise a medeaval appearance to gain speed. I personally
would be reluctant to use armour that was _much_ lighter than
medeaval armour, and wouldn't do it to gain speed anyway.

I carry a shield in the shield wall. I love being on the sheild wall.
Speed isn't that important in the shield wall. So speed isn't a priority.
Ask me in a couple of years, the answers may be different.

] >[...] 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....

What does armour cut from sheets of cold-rolled steel teach about armour
forged from iron bar stock, that armour cut from sheet aluminum doesn't ?
Possibly the weight of the armour, but that issue isn't resolved : no 
one, not even me, has provided data on what Mongal lamellar weighed.
I am trying to get that data tho !

] >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.

Actually, in some ways (I'm thinking brittleness) 6061T6 may be
closer to forged iron than modern sheet-metal steel is. And we
still need to resolve the weight issue : period armour _may_ have
used steel too thin to protect me to my required level of safety
in SCA combat, and I am making combat armor, not a museum piece.
It is entirely possible that aluminum may make possible a workable
set of armour for the SCA in a period weight range, and steel may not.

] 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.

But I want a "replica" of Mongol iron lamellar, not Mongol leather lamellar.
So tho a valid point for some people, it's not relevant to me.

] >In my mind, I "win" every fight I'm in, because I always enjoy it !
]
] I'm delighted to hear that.

Thanks. Amazingly, the longer we discuss this, the more rational
we both seem to get. That's not how USENET usually works.

] >] 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,

I think you've missed a few key details, like that the original
armor I'm making is for my wife, not for me. It may not have been
mentioned yet that she is mainly interested in combat archery,
not hand-to-hand, so the speed issue changes from blow striking
to running ability. And there are some issues that affect how
much weight she can safely carry. Neither she nor especially
I am willing to compromise on safety, so we chose Mongol lamellar
of aluminum, which satisfies persona, safety and period appearance.

] 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.

The SCA is a non-profit educational organization. See my other
comments about whether material composition affects the suitability
of the planned armour for educational purposes.

] 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

That's pretty much right.

] and that the results are advantageous in combat (if only
] through a lessening of fatigue).

No, that was never the point. Another poster has brought up
the point that less fatigue means you can play longer and
enjoy it more : that's really closer to the truth, I'm hoping
to just enjoy fighting more because of the weight reduction.
The most fatigued I've ever been in a war was from holding
my 12 pound door shield up in the wall while staying in a
crouch behind it, during a bridge battle. The weight of
my armour wasn't even noticable compared to the %&*! shield.

I think I can show evidence that these really are my motives :
I've entered lists with door and short sword, that's hardly the
act of someone seeking an edge ! I wear a 12 gauge helm because
the armourer said it wouldn't dent as easily : that's some evidence
I'd rather be safe than light.

] 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.

Pleasantly enough, I don't seem to find myself or you becoming too
repitious : there always seems to be some neew nuance being expressed.
But it probably is time to let others take up the thread for a while, 
and if it then dies, then perhaps only we few care, and we shouldn't 
clog the net with our discussion.

--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca