From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: On the nature of armor....
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:06:44
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
	<DOCONNOR.92Dec15135839@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<1992Dec15.224236.23311@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
	<DOCONNOR.92Dec16085344@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<1992Dec16.182444.8662@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM's message of Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:24:44 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:
] >] 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.
]
] Since I have heard this problem described both locally and in this
] forum.  The appropriate answer appears to be:  Learn.

Sorry, IMHO there's no way you can learn every sound that every weapon
you face will make when it its every part of your armour at various
levels of force. Now "learn" may be YOUR opinion of a solution,
but it's contrary to mine. Since it's me and my armour at
question, I'll do it my way, thank you.

] >It's also NOT what my persona (13th C. Mongol) would have worn.
]
] Setting aside any grumbles about the SCA recreating
] *Western*Europe*--and also granting that a Mongol was likelier to be
] found at least *near* there than a Japanese, I would point out that a
] 13th century Mongol wouldn't even know what aluminum *was*--let alone
] be wearing armor made of it.

Their were Mongols in Russia, Poland, Persia, Germany, Palestine and Egypt.
Your definition of the geography covered by the SCA is IMHO needlessly
narrow and hard to justify. However, you your welcome to abide by it
and never adopt a persona in any of the regions I've mentioned.

( Chingiss Khan had secret pacts with Venice, tho : maybe you'd
  better avoid there too. Oh, and exchanged ambassadors with
  the King of France and the Pope. And the Mongol threat had
  enourmous political consequences all over Europe. Seems
  kind of odd for the SCA to pretend they don't exist ... )

] >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.

] [ my comments on stiffness deleted ]
]
] How *much* heavier would stiff enough steel be?  By the ratio of
] densities of the two materials (~2.5, if I remember right), or less
] than that?  Proper heat treatment of a suitable steel might well get
] you the stiffness you want without an undue increase in weight.

6061 T6 aluminum has a modulus of elasticity near that of any commonly
available sheet steel. Given that resistance to a bending moment is 
proportional to that modulus times the thickness squared, obviously
it will be much stiffer.

] [ on appearances ]
] >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.
]
] Laquered or painted--I agree.  I have my doubts about the anodized.
] Cooked-on linseed oil would not only look period, but I'm told it *is*
] period.  Forge-blackening looks very good too.

Laquer and paint would wear off aluminium quickly, and I will
almost never have the time to dissasemble the armour, re-finish it
and re-assemble it : there's just too much fun in my life.
If anodization looks like laquer, who should care ?

] >One should do as one likes within the rules, and allow other
] >the same freedom.
]
] Hmmm....  I'm not entirely sure I agree with that sentiment.  I think
] that it is better to adhere to what the rules mean rather than freely
] interpreting them to ones own ends.

When we get to "the rules don't mean what they say, they mean
this", we're into a mess of conflicting opinion. I have no
need to press my opinion on another, and won't allow it to
be done to me. I avoid lots of grief in this way.

] >That's fine with me. But it doesn't address my point : if you
] >really want the edge in speed wear woad.
]
] That's been tried too--though not (so far as I know) for that specific
] purpose.  I think the answer out to be--if you want speed, take up
] rapier.

We're talking speed as an advantage in the context of heavy-weapons,
are we not ? Let's not go off on an irrelevant tangent.

] [WRT authentic mail]
] Henrik of Havn had welded his mail by ca. AS 6.  I'll agree that it
] was inauthentically heavy--being made out of coathangers--but it *was*
] welded.  At least one company offers a hauberk of welded mail.  As i
] recall the weight given is around 15 lbs.

As I've said : I've heard of it, but all of what I see ain't it.

] My point is that steel mail--almost no matter how poorly done--is
] closer to period practice than aluminum anything--no matter how finely
] done.  I am less concerned with arriving at some specific degree of
] periodness than I am that efforts should be directed in that
] direction.

I disagree. Aluminum lamellar of period design is a better tool
for teaching about medeaval armour than steel armour patterned on
a flak jacket. 

] >] 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 ? 
]
] It worries me in the sense that SCA folk moving *away* from period
] materials rather than toward them makes me wonder if the interest is
] in the Medieval or in winning.  What direction do we wish the Society
] to go in?

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.

] >Do you fear you'll come to some
] >harm because I'm making aluminium lamellar ? 
]
] Hardly.  Even if we meet and you defeat me because you are fresher and
] less burdened that I it will do me no harm.  However, I question who
] will have truly 'won' the bout in the sense of recreation of period
] practice and ideals.

In my mind, I "win" every fight I'm in, because I always enjoy it !
This is a good attitude for me to have : door shield and short
sword are my favorite tourney weapons now, so I lose a LOT.

] >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.
]
] And some of them do...

This is not honorable practice, as you know. Let's restrict
ourselves by assuming all combatants are honorable since
there's no use fighting at all if they are not.

] 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.
Motivation can be very complex : more than my own needs dictated
the choice of aluminium, since we're armouring my wife too.

Gotta run, sorry this is a bit rushed.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com