From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: On the nature of armor....
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:53:44
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
	<DOCONNOR.92Dec15135839@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<1992Dec15.224236.23311@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:42:36 GMT


whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
] In article <> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
] >whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
] >I have solid-steel armor myself : the first set of alumunium is for
] >my wife. The second set will be for me.
]
] What is your objection to wearing your steel armor?

It's too good : I can't accurately gauge blows to the torso.
And until I removed the tassets, I couldn't even feel blows
to the front upper thigh ( what with (from the inside out)
steel, my well-padded gambeson, and more steel protecting them.

It's also NOT what my persona (13th C. Mongol) would have worn.

] >] Bearing this in mind, remember that one of the protective characteristics
] >] of armor is it's *mass*.  
] >
] >I don't believe this is good reasoning. Yes, mass is good in a helm.
] >
] >However, the same damage mechanisms do NOT apply to the rest of
] >the body. [...]
]
] It can also be applied to joints and hands.  Ribs have realtively
] little protective 'mushiness'.

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.

] >Lamellar armour, by virute of overlapping the scales and lacing
] >it tightly, should be rigid enough from what the more experienced
] >people (including the commercial armourers) tell me. In fact,
] >many people thought that 0.063" thick 6061T6 aluminum was
] >more than I needed, and that 0.050" 6061T6 would do fine.
]
] My question remains--why aluminum?

Partly low maintenance, partly "authentic effect" : period mongol
lamellar was made to impeed cuts from edges and arrows, not to stop
mass weapons. I believe it, like period chain, was relatively light.
However, steel of the gauge used in period wouldn't be rigid enough
to stop a rattan sword from bruising (remember that bruises were
NOT a big deal to real warriors). So by using aluminium, I hope
to have armor about the same weight as period lamellar but with
superior protective characteristics. (Remember, stiffness increases
as the square of thickness : 0.063 is 60% stiffer than 0.050).

] >] What is the purpose of SCA combat?  Is it to re-create period combat? 
] >Obviously not. We're trying to avoid maiming and death.
]
] Ahh... But we're trying to aviod those penaties while putting up as
] much of the appearance of period combat as possible....  I think....

Which is why we pretend to be wearing less armour than we are.

] >] Is combat an end in itself?
] >Depends on who you are. It's fun, it gives a mideaval flair
] >to events, it gets us space in newspapers, it attracts people.
]
] And that flair *looks* better in steel than aluminum.

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.
On the other hand, our baron has gorgeous leather armour.
And we have one guy who fights with this outrageously
colorful, blousy "landsknect" (sp?) outfit over his less-than-
authentic looking armour. The point is : what "looks better"
depends on whose looking.

] This brings up an underlying philosophical point.  Should one adhere
] to the rules Because They Are The Rules, or should one adhere to them
] because adhering t them is the right thing to do?  Should one hew to
] the letter of the law--or rules--or strive to live with their spirit
] even where the intent may be spelled out poorly and a strict reading
] requires doing something that isn't intended?  The formal rules
] *permit* any number of silly things, but they aren't written to
] encourage them.

One should do as one likes within the rules, and allow other
the same freedom.

] >Actually, the people I've seen who really wanted an edge just didn't
] >wear armour at all, except where required. It's people who want
] >to be safe but not slow as dirt who use plastic and aluminum.
]
] Care to come out here and meet some nearby fighters who are quite fast
] in steel armor?  For myself--I'll take the slow-and-in-steel over
] fast-and-in-plastic any day.  

That's fine with me. But it doesn't address my point : if you
really want the edge in speed wear woad.

] >There's also to some extent an authenticity point that's being
] >missed. Common period armour was not heavy : a chain shirt from
] >the period weighed 8 pounds ( at least the one in the Met does ),
] >as opposed to the 16 pounds of steel I wear on my torso. Chain
] >that weight works great against edged weapons, but it wouldn't
] >do much against a rattan sword. The point is : SCA armour is
] >often heavier than the mideaval armour a persona's analouge
] >would have worn, because it's made for a different purpose.
]
] I know a number of fighters who wear mail because they like the look
] and feel of mail--knowing full well that (as real protection) it is
] very poor against SCA weapons.  I share that opinion.  I *love*
] mail--even to the point that if I take up fighting again--that's what
] I'll fight in.

I've yet to see SCA mail that authentically reproduced the
characteristics (lightness and strength) of real period mail,
although I've heard of it. Real period mail is welded or
riveted shut, and the rings have a rectangular cross section
and are hardened. SCA mail is usually just butted, uses wire
two to four times as thick as period mail. Period mail shirts
weighed 8 pounds, SCA mail shirts weigh 30 pounds.

SCA mail isn't period, and isn't effective for SCA combat.
But if you want to wear, feel free : it looks neat anyway !
I'm not the Authenticity Police for anyone but me, after all.

] >] Finally, there is a search for low *maintainence*.  Not having a manor
] >] full of hot-and-cold-running flunkies, one may want armor that doesn't
] >] rust....
] >Can't argue with that. Who would want to ?
] Anyone heavily into authenticity can present excellent arguments
] against it.  Cleaning armor is certainly a period activity.

Excuse me, but I have a life outside the SCA. Cleaning armour
is way, way down on my list of things to do, and always will be.

] 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 ? Do you fear you'll come to some
harm because I'm making aluminium lamellar ? That the Society
will somehow sufer because of it ? Does it bother you that my
2'x4' door shield is made of aluminium ? It weighs 12 pounds, BTW :
I've traded material density for thickness to get durability
and safety. Period shields were light : they were replaced often.
In fact, in period you'd love it if someone cleaved a gash
in your shield, if it meant his sword got trapped !

] >] If you want to wear less weight, then wear less armor and count blows
] >] accordingly--but don't seek low weight as an edge.
] >
] >I count a blow as required by the rules : the actual armour I'm
] >wearing doesn't matter. Otherwise, how would anyone ever kill
] >someone in 16th century plate except with a thrust to the
] >face, armpit or groin, except of course with a great weapon ?
] >If we want to have really authentic rules, then no one less than
] >6' and 200 pounds with less than US$1000 in armour will ever
] >win a tourney.
]
] Nope.  With really authentic rules, there'd be a lot more mail on the
] field--and amateurs can make mail very inexpensively.

You miss my point. You said people should count blows according
to the armour they wore. Late-period plate was almost invulnerable
except at the joints and eye-slots. If a person in late-period plate
were to count blows according to the armour they wore, they
could shrug off almost all blows.

Also to repeat what I said before : SCA mail is usually very
inauthentic, in both material used (unless one counts all steel
as equalled : I consider forged steel very different from
drawn steel wire) and construction techniques. And it have to
count as no armour at all against a mace, of course.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca