From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: On the nature of armor....
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:42:36 GMT

In article <DOCONNOR.92Dec15135839@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>
>
>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.

True--we do heavily compromise authenticity in the direction of
safety.  I would argue that the direction should be to armors that
include the safety elements that we wish to require, and avoiding the
problem of 'looking like an explosion in a time machine.'  As I am
contemplating taking up the sword again, this is one of my most
troubling issues.  I much prefer early armor styles, and--as you
note--they don't include required joint protection.

>] 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.

What is your objection to wearing your steel armor?

>] 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. 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. 

It can also be applied to joints and hands.  Ribs have realtively
little protective 'mushiness'.

>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?

>] 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.

Ahh... But we're trying to aviod those penaties while putting up as
much of the appearance of period combat as possible....  I think....

>] 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.

>] What are the permitted types of advantages?
>
>Anything that the Marshallate allows, that you would be willing
>to fight against yourself.

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.

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

No--but one can build armor from available materials that are
reasonably close to period ones, rather than seeking out materials
that were not available by any stretch of the imagination.  I am not
asking for compulsive authenticity--but rather efforts over time that
move towards authentic materials and practices.

>] I tend to see the reach for advanced materials in armoring to stem from
>] a number of sources.  First, there is cost--whether perceived 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.

Depends on whether one speaks in terms of cost multiples or ina
absolute amounts.  The difference between $10 and $40 is 4-fold, but
neither figure is very large.  For you, what would be the cost of
sufficient, suitable sheet steel to make the lamellae?

>] 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.

Depends on the type of work undertaken and the tools available to work
with.  I do decorative work in wood I wouldn't dream of trying on
leather.  I know people who hold quite the opposite opinion.  I've
found steel easier to work with in many applications than aluminum.

>] 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.

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.  

>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.

>] 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.

>] 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 ?

No--it doesn't mean that.  But it does mean helping your opponent
learn about the nifty shot you jsut killed him with--even if that
means it'll never work on him again.

>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.

I agree about the disparities.  I disagree about the risk of pricing
people out of combat.  Suitable leather and steel for making SCA armor
is readily available.  I know one young man who made his helm in High
School metal shop, for instance, and since many Adult Education or
Junior College shop classes exist, the tools are accessible, too.

The cost of materials isn't an issue.  Indeed--for a first set of
armor, no one will fault those with little resources or undeveloped
skills from taking easy and inexpensive routes.  What is bothersome is
to see a falling back towards modern materials when more period ones
have already been used.  It is ot that you're working in aluminum, pre
se, but that you've already done work in steel that worries me.

>] 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.  A good helm is
probably the only piece of armor that a new fighter ought to consider
spending significant amounts of money one.  The rest can usually be
made (with help), purchased second hand (or cheaply) or initial
verisons made from very inexpensive (or free) materials.  One looks to
see armor that is worn get better over time.

	--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