From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Aluminum Armour (was Re: HELP WANTED RE KINGDOM AWARDS)
Date: 20 Dec 92 09:50:44
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
	<1992Dec17.163843.5220@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
	<DOCONNOR.92Dec19053924@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<1992Dec19.180756.13410@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:07:56 GMT


ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman) writes:
] 2. Why would it be better [to use steel instead of aluminum]? 
] One answer, related to the quote above, is that by using aluminum 
] instead of steel he runs a serious risk of disseminating false 
] knowledge. 

Soe risk, yes : I'll address each point you raise.

] What material you use may have a considerable effect
] on what you can do with it, how it acts, etc. Part of the fun of 
] trying to do things more authentically is that the material teaches
] you--with the result that you end up knowing more than if you simply
] tried to fake it.

This is no doubt true of many projects, but I don't think the
differences between steel and aluminum or brass (which I've
seen one Persion lamellar plate using) make mch difference to
the construction of lamellar, since the plates are just little
flat peices of metal whith holes in them. Contrast this with
late-period armour that has fluting and compund curves.

] Consider the present case. Dennis does not know how thick the real
] armor ought to be, and he is never going to learn--at least, not from
] this particular project (he might come across the information in his
] reading).

Actually, I'm trying hard to find this information out. I'll need
it if I ever submit the armour to an A&S competition. I'll also
need evidence that, as I suspect, real lames were forged not cut.

] If he made the armor from steel, he would come closer (although still
] not perfectly close) to learning what that kind of armor is like--at
] what thickness it is uncomfortably heavy, whether it stretches or
] abrades lacing material, at what thickness it bends easily,

I disagree. If I were to simply cut my lames out of 20 guage hot-rolled 
sheet steel and drill holes in it, still not having a clue as to the
thickness of the real lames, it would be wrong for me or anyone else 
to assume this armour was close to period armour in weight. This is 
the error we see repeated again and again with mail, which even tho
period mail was made of iron-alloy just like SCA mail, it was typically
less than 1/4 as heavy.

If as I assume period iron lames were forged, they could be considerably
harder and more brittle than hot-rolled steel sheets. Plate armour
would probably have been anealed to take the brittleness out, but
lamellar is so easily repaired there's no need to do this. A harder
plate could have been considerably thinner. Also, there's the question
of what the plates are meant to do : if a metal plate causes a sword
blow to go flat or an arrow to skip off, its done it's job, and all
it needs to be is smooth and hard to accomplish that. 

How easily steel or aluminum bends is very dependant on how it's
been heat-treated and worked. So just cuting plates out of steel
sheet doesn't really teach you anything about that either.

As to abrasion : hot-punched holes probably don't abraid silk they
way drilled holes would abraid it or nylon. So again, just working in
steel doesn't really teach you anything about that.

 ...  . One result of his "dissemination of information" may
] be a lot of people, less well informed than he is, getting a vague
] idea that good, strong, lamellar metal armor weighs five pounds. 

Not if my documentation is good. And if I enter the armour in
an A&S competition, the local people I know who judge them won't
let me get away with sloppy docs. 

] Indeed, I would describe one of his earlier posts (if I remember it
] correctly) as an (unintentional) dissemination of misinformation --
] certainly he left this reader with the impression that he was asserting
] that metal Mongol armor was substantially lighter than it would be if
] made of steel sufficiently thick for SCA fighting. Only in further 
] discussion did it come out that he was treating a conjecture as a fact, 
] since he did not actually have evidence on how thick the armor was.

This is true, and I appologize. But the people who argued that period
Mongol was as heavy as it would need to be to be used in the SCA were
equally guilty. I still maintain my position as possible and not unlikely.

] Furthermore, if Dennis chose to impose the constraint on himself of
] using period materials wherever practical, that constraint might push
] him in interesting directions--such as exploring period ways of
] making light, strong, lamellar armor. The Japanese alternated rawhide
] (very tough, period stuff that almost noone in the SCA uses) lamellae
] with metal ones--did the Mongols?

I have seen all-leather and all-iron mentioned, and iron with occassional
brass plates, but nothing like you describe. I have no evidence for it in
Persian or Yuan armour either, as yet. I have seen leather flaps tied on
to the bottom of leamellar : this is in fact what two of the holes
in the nine-hole Persian/Mongol/Yuan plates are for.

] By doing it that way he well learn less about period lamellar armor,
] and be likely to spread less accurate information, than if he used
] a more nearly period material.

The implication is that by using steel I could have reduced or eliminated
the need to research the weight of period lamellar. This may actually be 
more dangerous than if I use aluminum : If I use aluminum, few people
will assume my armour is of period weight unless I can prove it. If I use
steel, most people will assume that the armor is of near-period weight,
regardless of the guage steel I use. This is what has happend again and
again with chain. It may also be true of leather armour : how many people
(besides probably Duke Cariadoc) know, for a fact, how thick the
leather used by the various cultures for armour was ? How many people
have intentionally made their leather armour of period-weight leather ?

A thought : look for example at artistic restoration, where blatently
modern materials are used for repairs so that no one will ever confuse
the repair with the original. By this philosophy, it's better to use
aluminum if you don't know exact facts out the period armour : fewer
people will come away assuming what you've done is right.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com