Re: (TFT) Stewing in Your Own Juices

[raito@raito.com]

Quoting lifeisfun@aol.com:

> Of course, I will admit having a scant education in armoring.  I 
> should probably sit silently in the shadows and let others duke out 
> the details.  But, I'll say just about anything to start up a debate. 
>  That's just who I am.

And I'll debate nearly anything. So here we go...

> Anyway, about the statement below:  When I found myself dying in my 
> ringmail on a hot summer day, it was entirely due to the metal 
> heating up in the sunshine.  Wood can also get hot in the sun, but if 
> I was to make some sort of armor out of wood, it would not be with 
> big blocks or shingles.

Yet I have seen people attack wood with a large variety of tools and weapons,
nearly always to the wood's disadvantage.

> Personally, I look at armor from the perspective that it is good 
> against specific types of attacks.  The different weapons do 
> crushing, piercing, friction/burning or slicing damage.  I don't 
> think that I could make a suit of wood armor that would be effective 
> against piercing damage.  But, I think I might be able to make 
> something useful against the other three.

I've generally disliked such systems, because they don't conform to my
experiences.

> Slicing damage is deferred by putting something hard enough or thick 
> enough to keep the wearer from being cut.  I think strips of wood 
> might be capable of absorbing most cutting edges.  Of course, the 
> edge might stick in the wood, and that would be a problem.

I can cut a 1" thick rod of cocobolo (pretty hard stuff) pretty easily with a
sharp sword. That's not much protection (though it might make for ablative
armour).

> Crushing damage is deferred by displacing the force of a blow over a 
> larger area.  I've argued before that ringmail/chainmail isn't a very 
> effective defence against crushing blows.  After all, a hammer 
> focuses its force and is trying to break your bones, not cut your 
> skin.  Chain makes your skin harder, but it is also very plyable and 
> it doesn't distribute the force very well.  I wouldn't want to be 
> beaten by a hammer wearing my ringmail.  Of course, any padding you 
> are wearing under the chain would help.  I think that hardened 
> leather might be a better defense against a hammer than chain.  And 
> no, I don't want to be a test subject.

Mail by itself isn't worn. Mail over the 4 fingers of horsehair quilted 
gambeson
is pretty stout stuff. I wouldn't bet on the leather. As an aside, the leather
armour thing is a weird one for archaeolgy. There's little direct evidence for
leather as armour, some anecdotal evidence, and little else. And leather
doesn't decompose as much as some think. The Churburg S13 breastplate (1360)
still has its lining. And then there's all the stuff they dug up from the
trashpits backing the levees along the Thames.

> arrow "can" penetrate a breastplate under the right conditions.  But, 
> I also think that most plate style armor is designed to deflect 
> piercing blows and is not intended to simply be thick enough to stop 
> the penetration when it hits on a perfect right-angle to the plane.

I think you'd think wrongly. Early in the gunpowder age, armours were
specifically proofed against guns.

> You know, on a completely different tangent, I didn't like wearing 
> the ringmail in the cold either.  Maybe i'm just a girly-man.

Nobody likes wearing armour in the extreme cold.

Neil Gilmore
raito@raito.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"