Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!drforsey
From: drforsey@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Forsey)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Armoured vs. Unarmoured
Message-ID: <2448@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Apr-84 13:15:39 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2448
Posted: Wed Apr 18 13:15:39 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 03:17:50 EST
References: <6990@decwrl.UUCP>, <981@qubix.UUCP>, <2429@watcgl.UUCP>, <1004@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 70




> (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?