drforsey@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Forsey) (04/18/84)
> (in reply to the effectiveness of neck thrusts) > Alas, this is not the case. Usually the coif of the helmet > hangs far down over the breastplate, which totally blocks off any > blade penetration. My reference was mainly limited to the open face helm where the neck is covered in chain mail, slashing type weapons are less effective than thrusting types. Is the coif fused to the breastplate, or is it articulated in some fashion? How are these articulations protected. > (in reply to the example that the armpits are vulnerable) > Yes, and no. Yes, in that almost all effective armor did not > have fully articulated armpits (though this problem was finally solved), > no in that no one EVER based a combat strategy around it. > Let me ask you a question.... have you ever tried to hit someone > in the armpit??? DO you know how difficult that is to do on purpose?? You do what you have to do..... As far as basing a combat strategy around it, you base a combat strategy around exploiting your opponents weaknesses. It seems this armpit question must have pertinent at some point, otherwise armour designers, by your own statement, would not have had to "solve the problem". I'd still take your challenge. One reply I got talked about an unarmed man taking on an armoured opponent. (P.S. To this fellow, your mail message was trashed, could you please send on your net address, I have a few more questions to ask) > It is a myth generated by non-SCA types, that says that armor > restricts mobility. IT DOESN'T. NO IT REALLY DOES NOT RESTRICT > COMBAT MOBILITY. (though I will admit tying your shoelaces can > sometimes be a problem). What armor DOES do, is tire you out. > Not in the short run, but over any long period of exersion. Great, this is the type of info I require: My experience with armoured combat is minimal. Another reply I recieved told a story of a fellow doing a somersault in scale armour. But if you could elucidate a little furthur for me. With F=ma and all that, please explain how, in full plate armour, you can move just as fast as without. As for mobility, how much does full plate weigh? Wasn't some of the more elaborate armour made with hooks in it to attach the hoist to get the knight on horseback? When you talk about armour not restricting mobility, what type of armour are you referring to? Does different armour affect style because of problems associated with "not being able to tie your shoelaces"? > I have heard of a fight between experts reaching 15 minutes. > This is amazing, considering that they were whaling away at each > other for that time. (Fights actually take longer, because, just > like boxers, there is time spent 'feeling you opponent out', making > feints, etc.). This type of fight is more like a duel (game?) than melee, I can see it taking longer. Of course, none of this talk could replace actual experience, but this kind of opportunity is somewhat limited. So how about it, in the SCA legends, has there been challenges between individuals whose "armour class" was vastly different?
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (04/20/84)
>> My reference was mainly limited to the open face helm where >> the neck is covered in chain mail, slashing type weapons are less >> effective than thrusting types. Is the coif fused to the breastplate, >> or is it articulated in some fashion? How are these articulations >> protected? No, it is not articulated. It doesn't have to be, because little or no head movement is necessary in fighting. The coif is attached to the bottom of the helmet, and hangs down over the breastplate. It is usually made of cuirboilli (pronounced ser-boy-ee, french for boiled leather), which does an excellent job of deflecting the thrusts high or low. >> You do what you have to do..... As far as basing a combat strategy >> around it, you base a combat strategy around exploiting your opponents >> weaknesses. It seems this armpit question must have pertinent at >> some point, otherwise armour designers, by your own statement, would not >> have had to "solve the problem". I'd still take your challenge. Ah yes, you do exploit your opponents weaknesses, but in striking for the armpit, you have to have the cooperation of you opponent in lifting his arm when you strike.... Not very likely, despite the fact that most combat stances have the arm raised (wielding the sword much like a baseball batter who holds his bat high). As far as "solving the problem", I was talking about the problem of making armor cover armpits fully with articulated plates -- no mean feat. By the way, did you know that the designers of the Apollo space suits looked at a number of full plate suits to see how the articulations were made? >> But if you could elucidate a little furthur for me. >> With F=ma and all that, please explain how, in full plate armour, >> you can move just as fast as without. For the same reason a 180 pound man is about as fast as a 150 pound one. Armor weighs about 30 pounds. Distributed over the body, it can be no more encumbering than 30 pounds of fat. This does make the person slower, but not very much so, and certainly not enough to take advantage of in combat. Add to this, the fact that the unarmored fighter cannot afford to be hit with even a glancing blow - and knows it - andy you have the reason why armor is so effective. >> As for mobility, how much does full plate weigh? Wasn't >> some of the more elaborate armour made with hooks in it to >> attach the hoist to get the knight on horseback? When you talk about >> armour not restricting mobility, what type of armour are you >> referring to? Does different armour affect style because of problems >> associated with "not being able to tie your shoelaces"? This depends upon what you call "Full Plate". *I* call full plate a hauberk, helm, bracers, and trews. All of these armors were open in the back, which did make them a little vulnerable, but also much lighter. It is a myth that real combat plate armor was heavy, since most people get it mixed up with 16th century panoplate (designed only for show, and used only with well rested horses in tournies). IT was actually chainmail that was the heaviest armor, since chain uses its inertia to cushion the blow, as opposed to plate, which spreads out the impact over a wider area. As far as the "not tying shoelaces" problem, it is true that some armors are restrictive in some non-essential movement areas. Think of wearing a very stiff leather jacket. This does not affect style, except that some fine manipulations are not possible unless you take part of the armor off. Hockey and football uniforms are a modern type of armor -- if you think of the things possible and not possible in that type of gear, you have an idea of what you can and cannot do in plate. >> So how about it, in the SCA legends, has there been challenges between >> Individuals whose "armour class" was vastly different? It happens all the time, and the outcome tends to support the RQ idea of parrying, rather than the D&D one of Armor Class. In short, how well you can parry with your shield, is much more important than the difference between scale and plate. Of course, the SCA has a "one hard hit takes out a location" rule, which means that only those people in carpet armor are going to be at a 'armor' disadvantage. Steven M.