From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: On the nature of armor....
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:58:39
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:30:07 GMT



whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
] I'm going to wax philosophic on the recent thread athat started with
] the intent to make red anodized aluminum lamellar armor--and why I
] think it's not a very good idea.
]
] Why does the SCA use armor?  Well...  It was used in our period.  For
] this purpose *any* consistet armor that *looks* right will actually
] serve and anodized alumninum is a perfectly reasonable choice.

SCA uses armor so that combat will be safe. Safety overides
authenticity : you won't be allowed to fight without rigid
elbow, knee and hand protection, even tho it "isn't period"
for much of the chronology and geography covered by the SCA.

] It's the sort of protection one needs (and is required to have) for
] SCA combat.  Will aluminum serve this purpose?  Perhaps...  I know one
] lady who fights in aluminum armor.  She's not very big, and the weight
] savings is probably important.

I have solid-steel armor myself : the first set of alumunium is for
my wife. The second set will be for me.

] However, her back and breast key together in a solid, imcompressible
] unit--making it much better protection than a lot of steel harnesses.

My breast-and-back lock together so solidly I have to take any blow
to them that makes noise : I can't feel it unless it's a full-out
shot from a mass weapon. This is not ideal : I probably die to easy.

] Bearing this in mind, remember that one of the protective characteristics
] of armor is it's *mass*.  (That, by the way, is a major reason that lighter
] material aren't used in helms.  Too light a helm drastically increases the
] risk of neck injuries.)  Aluminums virtue is low weight--thus removing a
] reason for using armor....

I don't believe this is good reasoning. Yes, mass is good in a helm.
Your brains are in their, and don't take being bruised well. An 80g
brain-to-skull impact ( within the head ) will cause brain damage :
as a reference a fall from a horse without a helmet into a hard
object can generate over 200g of impact. So anything that prevents
sudden acceleration of the skull is good, and mass coupled to the
head with padding (i.e. an SCA helm ) does this well.

However, the same damage mechanisms do NOT apply to the rest of
the body. Bruises to muscle do heal, and most of the rigid parts
of the body are encased in soft mushy stuff (i.e. muscle and fat)
already. As long as the blow is spread out over enough mushy stuff,
no serious injury should occur. ( GM did a lot of studies of this
to predict injuries in car accidents, if your interested, although
I don't have the exact references ). Anyway, this would mean
that the rigidity of the material is more important than the weight.
If I could cover my forearm with a perfectly-rigid but massless
material, backed by 6mm of closed-cell foam, I'd gladly let
anyone in the SCA hit that armour with any weapon they had.

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.

] Consider what we do as a sport--the combat at least.  this is probably
] the most controversial point.  What is the purpose of SCA combat?  Is
] it to re-create period combat? 

Obviously not. We're trying to avoid maiming and death.

] 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.

] What are the permitted types of advantages?

Anything that the Marshallate allows, that you would be willing
to fight against yourself.

] consider, for comparison, the ways in which sailing restricts materials
] in boat construction for specific class boats.  There, there is a desire 
] for uniformity of boat to bring out the difference in sailing skills.

That's why in principle all SCA combatants are armoured the same,
for purposes of taking blows. Remeber, the MINIMAL legal armour
is almost NOTHING : knees, elbows, groin, kidney, head, throat,
and neck vertebrae, and breasts for women. NO suit of aluminium
lamellar or plastic plate is going to weigh less than this.
But it will be a lot safer.

So, do we penalize safety ? Do we say "If you want to be
safer, you need to weigh yourself down a lot" ?

] I tend to see the reach for advanced materials in armoring to stem from
] a number of sources.  First, there is cost--whether percieved or real.
] Cariadoc has shown that hardened leather need cost very little more than
] palstic which exemplifies the 'percieved' cost aspect.

Cariadoc's article showed prices ranging from twice to four times
what aluminum would cost you : I can get enough aluminium to make 2
complete toe-to-neck suits of "lamellar & plate-limbs" armour for $40
or less. That's new 6061T6, too, not junk.

[ N.B. "6061" is the alloy designation, and represents a silicon-
  magnesion alloy. T6 is the hardness specification, and depends
  on the heat treatment. 6061 also comes in T4, which is much softer. ]

] There is the skill aspect.  Many folks embarking on their first efforts
] to make armor may not have (or not feel they have) the neccesary skills
] to deal with period materials--so if they cna hide the modern materials,
] they feel the use of them is acceptable.

This doesn't apply to aluminum : it's more difficult to work
than steel or leather. It applies to plastic, but people mainly
get plastic because it's dirt cheap. Some people use advanced
plastics for weight reduction, but it's still not as light
as nothing at all.

] Ultimately (and *I* think, wrongly) there is the search for an edge. 
] This leads  to the very best plastics for low weight, aluminum--touting
] low weight, and so on.

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.

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.

] 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 ?

] Let me now deal with the issue I just raised about seeking an edge.  I
] think this works against basic principles of the SCA--and (I my biased
] and uneducated opinion) against the tenor of idealized Knightly
] combat.  While an edge due to less mass to tote around in combat may
] win you a crown, is it worth it?

Again, tho : nothing weighs less than nothing at all. If you
really want an edge, you'll toss all that armour aside.
The bruises you'll get will end well before your reign does.
Regardless of their materials, elbows and knees don't weight
much. The weight of a kidney belt (since it's not on a limb)
is a lot less important. The weight of a helm is well-situated
from both a balance and energy standpoint too.

] If the goal is to fight joyously with one's peers because It's The 
] Thing To Do, then I think searching for that edge is dishonorable 
] and unchivalrous.

Then does that mean we shouldn't practice more than others ?
That we should all wear identical armour ? That tall people
should be made to use short weapons ?

Disparities will always exist. The key thing that needs to
be done is to avoid pricing people out of contention. I see
no evidence that aluminim or plastics do this : quite the
opposite in fact.

] 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.

--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
From: Beth.Appleton@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Beth Appleton)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet