The Armour Archive

i dont know. trimaris has a rule that requires forearm armour because four folks got their arms broken at some point. wierd thing is that they were all wearing vambraces when these breaks happened (see! vambraces are dangerous). i havent worn a vambrace in 18 years and have never broken my arm.

im not sure i can pick a number on the list. i do not think there really is a worry of life threatening injury from any of our weapons. so, my guess, is to lessen the level of pain from shots. so i guess #1

regards
logan

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:I agree, but if you DO get a broken forearm from getting hit by a club when you have chosen to wear no armor there, do you have a right to complain?

The question needs clarification: "SCA minimums are mean to prevent [absolutely]..." or "SCA minimums are mean to prevent [under most normal circumstances]..."?

If the latter, then I'll go with somewhere in the 6-7 range, but if the former it'd be somewhere up around 9-10.

Most injuries happen neither because of excessive force nor insufficient armour, but because everything lined up just so, the angle was perfect, and BAM! Even with substantially better than SCA minimums, one can get broken playing this game.

Well, to Quote Sgt. Barnes in Platoon, There's the way it ought to be, and there's the way it is...

That being said, since this is a sport, whether we like to see it described as such or not, the main objective should be to prevent injury in general.
Because of the roughness of the sport, the rule that Sir Balin mentioned (being able to go to work the following day) seems reasonable as a lowest denominator.

True, it would be nice if pain and minor injury could be avoided as well, but often the extra armour or protection we associate with preventing those come at the cost of reduced performance. Otherwise we would all end up by looking like Tweedledee and Tweedledum


But leaving individual rules outside and trying to ascertain the main objective, the prevention of injury is clearly the main objective, followed by the prevention of pain. And yes, lawsuits have their place as well in our context.

Additionally, as stated by someone above, no amount of armour will prevent indirect injuries caused by lack of fitness, a health condition or simple sporting injuries like a twisted knee or a torn ligament. So the above must be qualified as well.

my 2 drachmas


Glaukos

I don't think there is a significant risk of catastrophic consequence based on the weapons presently in use. Also, with upping armor standards comes the law of unintended consequences. Just like in football, the more padding that was required the harder the hits required to achieve the desired results. When I first started in the SCA (back before the flood), I wore a freon can helmet, kidney belt, and hockey gloves and that was it. While there were some who wore a fair amount of armor, the majority were similarly attired. I will say the general level of what one calls a killing blow has, on average, escalated greatly as more armor has been required . Having said that, even in the dark ages of the SCA, there were some who required a pretty stiff shot to acknowledge it. We had an individual in this area who was perceived by most as requiring excessive force to exact a killing blow. Although I personally had no problems with the man, many did. I also pointed out to the ones moaning and complaining, that the man in question, wore almost no armor. If you can't fire a shot hard enough to kill someone with no armor, then maybe you had better evaluate your skills in throwing a blow.

IMO, the up armoring also helped push through the stabbing tip. In my mind (rightly or wrongly) there were those who felt that this somehow was going to neutralize the so-called "rhino-hiding". So now, in far to many instances we get the "touch-your-dead" because they stabbed you in the face. As someone who handles real life trauma everyday, I can assure you the human body is significantly more resilient than most think. I see way too many examples of someone catching a tip to the face and calling it good. IMO, this has little bearing in the real world. If we were horsing around in the back yard and you accidentaly stabbed me in the face, I might want to stop and go the hospital to have it checked out. OTOH, if I'm on the field of battle and you stabbed me in the face and I knew you were really trying to kill me, I bet I could hang in there. I may have a broken jaw and be spitting teeth, losing blood and all manner of things but I bet I could continue in the battle just through self -preservation.

End of rant.

But your Grace, you aren't everyone. Which is part of the problem. Taking away just your experience in SCA combat - how many fighters have the combination of physical attributes and experience that you have?

dukelogan wrote:i dont know. trimaris has a rule that requires forearm armour because four folks got their arms broken at some point. wierd thing is that they were all wearing vambraces when these breaks happened (see! vambraces are dangerous). i havent worn a vambrace in 18 years and have never broken my arm.

im not sure i can pick a number on the list. i do not think there really is a worry of life threatening injury from any of our weapons. so, my guess, is to lessen the level of pain from shots. so i guess #1

regards
logan

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:I agree, but if you DO get a broken forearm from getting hit by a club when you have chosen to wear no armor there, do you have a right to complain?

uh oh.... youre now going to get deluged with "what ifs" and "i bets" and theories on how weak the human skull is and how easily someone could push a sword through it..... i know firsthand, trust me.

regards
logan

calgofo wrote:I don't think there is a significant risk of catastrophic consequence based on the weapons presently in use. Also, with upping armor standards comes the law of unintended consequences. Just like in football, the more padding that was required the harder the hits required to achieve the desired results. When I first started in the SCA (back before the flood), I wore a freon can helmet, kidney belt, and hockey gloves and that was it. While there were some who wore a fair amount of armor, the majority were similarly attired. I will say the general level of what one calls a killing blow has, on average, escalated greatly as more armor has been required . Having said that, even in the dark ages of the SCA, there were some who required a pretty stiff shot to acknowledge it. We had an individual in this area who was perceived by most as requiring excessive force to exact a killing blow. Although I personally had no problems with the man, many did. I also pointed out to the ones moaning and complaining, that the man in question, wore almost no armor. If you can't fire a shot hard enough to kill someone with no armor, then maybe you had better evaluate your skills in throwing a blow.

IMO, the up armoring also helped push through the stabbing tip. In my mind (rightly or wrongly) there were those who felt that this somehow was going to neutralize the so-called "rhino-hiding". So now, in far to many instances we get the "touch-your-dead" because they stabbed you in the face. As someone who handles real life trauma everyday, I can assure you the human body is significantly more resilient than most think. I see way too many examples of someone catching a tip to the face and calling it good. IMO, this has little bearing in the real world. If we were horsing around in the back yard and you accidentaly stabbed me in the face, I might want to stop and go the hospital to have it checked out. OTOH, if I'm on the field of battle and you stabbed me in the face and I knew you were really trying to kill me, I bet I could hang in there. I may have a broken jaw and be spitting teeth, losing blood and all manner of things but I bet I could continue in the battle just through self -preservation.

End of rant.

none! i am super-human!

seriously though, im not a particularly large or muscular fellow. an ive been hit many times in my bare arms, sometimes even causing a great deal of discomfort. im just not a fan of rules that do not address safety or give choices. i know a ton of guys that dont wear vambraces and have never been injured. i know i have broken two peoples arms (meaning actual breaks requiring a cast). both were over 10 years ago and both of them were wearing vambraces (much like the four ive been told of here in trimaris).

im allfor folks wearing whatever they are comfortable with and admit that vambraces are probably a good idea. however, i also think its a choice a fighter should be able to make for themselves. im all for society minimums flat across the board.

thats why i answered #1 to the "poll"

regards
logan

Diglach mac Cein wrote:But your Grace, you aren't everyone. Which is part of the problem. Taking away just your experience in SCA combat - how many fighters have the combination of physical attributes and experience that you have?

dukelogan wrote:i dont know. trimaris has a rule that requires forearm armour because four folks got their arms broken at some point. wierd thing is that they were all wearing vambraces when these breaks happened (see! vambraces are dangerous). i havent worn a vambrace in 18 years and have never broken my arm.

im not sure i can pick a number on the list. i do not think there really is a worry of life threatening injury from any of our weapons. so, my guess, is to lessen the level of pain from shots. so i guess #1

regards
logan

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:I agree, but if you DO get a broken forearm from getting hit by a club when you have chosen to wear no armor there, do you have a right to complain?

calgofo wrote:I don't think there is a significant risk of catastrophic consequence based on the weapons presently in use. Also, with upping armor standards comes the law of unintended consequences. Just like in football, the more padding that was required the harder the hits required to achieve the desired results. When I first started in the SCA (back before the flood), I wore a freon can helmet, kidney belt, and hockey gloves and that was it. While there were some who wore a fair amount of armor, the majority were similarly attired. I will say the general level of what one calls a killing blow has, on average, escalated greatly as more armor has been required . Having said that, even in the dark ages of the SCA, there were some who required a pretty stiff shot to acknowledge it. We had an individual in this area who was perceived by most as requiring excessive force to exact a killing blow. Although I personally had no problems with the man, many did. I also pointed out to the ones moaning and complaining, that the man in question, wore almost no armor. If you can't fire a shot hard enough to kill someone with no armor, then maybe you had better evaluate your skills in throwing a blow.

IMO, the up armoring also helped push through the stabbing tip. In my mind (rightly or wrongly) there were those who felt that this somehow was going to neutralize the so-called "rhino-hiding". So now, in far to many instances we get the "touch-your-dead" because they stabbed you in the face. As someone who handles real life trauma everyday, I can assure you the human body is significantly more resilient than most think. I see way too many examples of someone catching a tip to the face and calling it good. IMO, this has little bearing in the real world. If we were horsing around in the back yard and you accidentaly stabbed me in the face, I might want to stop and go the hospital to have it checked out. OTOH, if I'm on the field of battle and you stabbed me in the face and I knew you were really trying to kill me, I bet I could hang in there. I may have a broken jaw and be spitting teeth, losing blood and all manner of things but I bet I could continue in the battle just through self -preservation.

End of rant.

There's a basic problem with the underlying premise in your rant

Sometimes people are amazingly tough/strong/resilient. Sometimes they're entirely the other way around.

For every incident where the knight took a blow that destroyed his nose yet continued to fight on through the battle - and subsequently died from his fatal injury, there's a corresponding incident where someone was put out of the fight, possibly killed, by something that would appear much less.

For every incident where the police officer was shot through the heart and then proceeded to shoot her assailant - and pursue him for several steps - and survived... well, how often would you bet on someone being shot through the heart and living to talk about it ?

As machines, humans are both tough and delicate. Hit the right spot, nothing happens, hit the wrong spot and game over.

Psychologically, how we deal with trauma varies immensely. Some people respond to a threat by running, some by attacking. My personal experience is that when I am startled or otherwise provoked into a reflexive response, it's not good for whatever provoked the response But that's assuredly not universal. Some people are provoked by pain, others completely undone by it.

You never know exactly HOW you'll react in a situation until it actually happens. Mentally, emotionally or physically.



.

dukelogan wrote:im not sure i can pick a number on the list. i do not think there really is a worry of life threatening injury from any of our weapons. so, my guess, is to lessen the level of pain from shots. so i guess #1

regards
logan

I knew an Ansteorran knight who was hit near the edge of his kidney belt with a bastard sword (by the kingdom chiurgeon) and his spleen was ruptured. I think that qualifies as a "life threatening injury".

dukelogan wrote:none! i am super-human!

seriously though, im not a particularly large or muscular fellow. an ive been hit many times in my bare arms, sometimes even causing a great deal of discomfort. im just not a fan of rules that do not address safety or give choices. i know a ton of guys that dont wear vambraces and have never been injured. i know i have broken two peoples arms (meaning actual breaks requiring a cast). both were over 10 years ago and both of them were wearing vambraces (much like the four ive been told of here in trimaris).

I have heard, though it was in the context of Asian martial arts and not from a source that I can guarantee the accuracy of (and don't remember at this point anyway) that in doing very physical and demanding things like this will cause bones to get more dense. That the body reinforces the bones as they take a beating. And testing showed that the arm and leg bones of the martial artists were much stronger and thicker then average. I don't know if they followed someone from before training and then after training for years, or just made the assumption that these people were more close to "average" before they started then they are after years of fighting.

That the bones tended to build up as their skill and strength built up so they could hit harder. So if someone happened to have the strength and skill to do the same things but somehow hadn't built up the bones at the same time would break bones doing the same things.


So if that is true, it could very well be that someone that has been fighting for years can probably take the exact same shot in the exact same armor as someone that is new and the new fighter would break a bone and the old fighter would not.
And you wouldn't have to be a huge muscular person to have a skeletal frame that would take a lot more abuse then a normal person and not have a bone break.

Gotta go with 6.5.

M

Kilkenny wrote:

calgofo wrote:I don't think there is a significant risk of catastrophic consequence based on the weapons presently in use. Also, with upping armor standards comes the law of unintended consequences. Just like in football, the more padding that was required the harder the hits required to achieve the desired results. When I first started in the SCA (back before the flood), I wore a freon can helmet, kidney belt, and hockey gloves and that was it. While there were some who wore a fair amount of armor, the majority were similarly attired. I will say the general level of what one calls a killing blow has, on average, escalated greatly as more armor has been required . Having said that, even in the dark ages of the SCA, there were some who required a pretty stiff shot to acknowledge it. We had an individual in this area who was perceived by most as requiring excessive force to exact a killing blow. Although I personally had no problems with the man, many did. I also pointed out to the ones moaning and complaining, that the man in question, wore almost no armor. If you can't fire a shot hard enough to kill someone with no armor, then maybe you had better evaluate your skills in throwing a blow.

IMO, the up armoring also helped push through the stabbing tip. In my mind (rightly or wrongly) there were those who felt that this somehow was going to neutralize the so-called "rhino-hiding". So now, in far to many instances we get the "touch-your-dead" because they stabbed you in the face. As someone who handles real life trauma everyday, I can assure you the human body is significantly more resilient than most think. I see way too many examples of someone catching a tip to the face and calling it good. IMO, this has little bearing in the real world. If we were horsing around in the back yard and you accidentaly stabbed me in the face, I might want to stop and go the hospital to have it checked out. OTOH, if I'm on the field of battle and you stabbed me in the face and I knew you were really trying to kill me, I bet I could hang in there. I may have a broken jaw and be spitting teeth, losing blood and all manner of things but I bet I could continue in the battle just through self -preservation.

End of rant.

There's a basic problem with the underlying premise in your rant

Sometimes people are amazingly tough/strong/resilient. Sometimes they're entirely the other way around.

For every incident where the knight took a blow that destroyed his nose yet continued to fight on through the battle - and subsequently died from his fatal injury, there's a corresponding incident where someone was put out of the fight, possibly killed, by something that would appear much less.

For every incident where the police officer was shot through the heart and then proceeded to shoot her assailant - and pursue him for several steps - and survived... well, how often would you bet on someone being shot through the heart and living to talk about it ?

As machines, humans are both tough and delicate. Hit the right spot, nothing happens, hit the wrong spot and game over.

Psychologically, how we deal with trauma varies immensely. Some people respond to a threat by running, some by attacking. My personal experience is that when I am startled or otherwise provoked into a reflexive response, it's not good for whatever provoked the response But that's assuredly not universal. Some people are provoked by pain, others completely undone by it.

So, are you suggesting we should call blows based on the lowest common denominator?

erloas -

You're talking micro-fractures. And it is a real thing, and there are school that train it.


.

calgofo wrote:

Kilkenny wrote:

calgofo wrote:I don't think there is a significant risk of catastrophic consequence based on the weapons presently in use. Also, with upping armor standards comes the law of unintended consequences. Just like in football, the more padding that was required the harder the hits required to achieve the desired results. When I first started in the SCA (back before the flood), I wore a freon can helmet, kidney belt, and hockey gloves and that was it. While there were some who wore a fair amount of armor, the majority were similarly attired. I will say the general level of what one calls a killing blow has, on average, escalated greatly as more armor has been required . Having said that, even in the dark ages of the SCA, there were some who required a pretty stiff shot to acknowledge it. We had an individual in this area who was perceived by most as requiring excessive force to exact a killing blow. Although I personally had no problems with the man, many did. I also pointed out to the ones moaning and complaining, that the man in question, wore almost no armor. If you can't fire a shot hard enough to kill someone with no armor, then maybe you had better evaluate your skills in throwing a blow.

IMO, the up armoring also helped push through the stabbing tip. In my mind (rightly or wrongly) there were those who felt that this somehow was going to neutralize the so-called "rhino-hiding". So now, in far to many instances we get the "touch-your-dead" because they stabbed you in the face. As someone who handles real life trauma everyday, I can assure you the human body is significantly more resilient than most think. I see way too many examples of someone catching a tip to the face and calling it good. IMO, this has little bearing in the real world. If we were horsing around in the back yard and you accidentaly stabbed me in the face, I might want to stop and go the hospital to have it checked out. OTOH, if I'm on the field of battle and you stabbed me in the face and I knew you were really trying to kill me, I bet I could hang in there. I may have a broken jaw and be spitting teeth, losing blood and all manner of things but I bet I could continue in the battle just through self -preservation.

End of rant.

There's a basic problem with the underlying premise in your rant

Sometimes people are amazingly tough/strong/resilient. Sometimes they're entirely the other way around.

For every incident where the knight took a blow that destroyed his nose yet continued to fight on through the battle - and subsequently died from his fatal injury, there's a corresponding incident where someone was put out of the fight, possibly killed, by something that would appear much less.

For every incident where the police officer was shot through the heart and then proceeded to shoot her assailant - and pursue him for several steps - and survived... well, how often would you bet on someone being shot through the heart and living to talk about it ?

As machines, humans are both tough and delicate. Hit the right spot, nothing happens, hit the wrong spot and game over.

Psychologically, how we deal with trauma varies immensely. Some people respond to a threat by running, some by attacking. My personal experience is that when I am startled or otherwise provoked into a reflexive response, it's not good for whatever provoked the response But that's assuredly not universal. Some people are provoked by pain, others completely undone by it.

So, are you suggesting we should call blows based on the lowest common denominator?

No. However you appear to be suggesting that we go by an unrealistically high set of assumptions.

And, I repeat myself, extraordinary examples are just that and should not be used for setting normal expectations.

We all need to be armoured against the possibility of Five Pointed Palm Exploding Heart Technique

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pA1N8KzGVg

yep. muay thai guys create a ton of scar tissue on their shins (usually by rubbing them with wooden rolling pin like tools until they bleed) but rely on micro-fracture healing to allow them to throw shin strikes. hours and hours on heavy bags. buakaw por. pramuk has a training dvd which has him shin kicking, and breaking, 3" x 3" wooden posts and of course ernesto hoost has broken a few femurs with his shins.

i mentioned not being too big nor muscular as both are factors that can protect underlying bone. prior to sca sport combat i dont think i did anything that would have strengthed the bones in my forearm. i may just have very dense bones of course. but most guys i know do not wear vambraces and havent suffered broken arms. but thats a different topic.

my guess would be that we have our minimum standards because someone thought they made sense. i think that since those minimums change occasionally its clear that we dont use any kind of hard scientific methods to determine what those standards are. i would also guess that our injury rate from impact would be greater if our standards were lower. i would also opine that given how very rare real injuries are in the sca our standard is fine.

regards
logan

Diglach mac Cein wrote:erloas -

You're talking micro-fractures. And it is a real thing, and there are school that train it.


.

[quote="Vladimir"]The recent discussion on 2 inch spear tips got me wondering.

It seems that different people have different expectations of what the minimum SCA armour is supposed to accomplish.

Since I don’t know how to create a survey, I’ll do it this way.

Keep in mind, this is for SCA minimums, not your personal kit.

An SCA legal suit of minimum armour should be able to protect a fighter from at least… (choose one)

1. feeling pain or discomfort from a good shot.
2. getting a bruise from a good shot.
3. suffering an injury that would cause them to skip the next round.
4. suffering an injury that would cause them to skip the rest of the day.
5. suffering an injury that would cause them to skip the next several days of fighting (if at “warâ€

dukelogan wrote:yep. muay thai guys create a ton of scar tissue on their shins (usually by rubbing them with wooden rolling pin like tools until they bleed) but rely on micro-fracture healing to allow them to throw shin strikes. hours and hours on heavy bags. buakaw por. pramuk has a training dvd which has him shin kicking, and breaking, 3" x 3" wooden posts and of course ernesto hoost has broken a few femurs with his shins.

i mentioned not being too big nor muscular as both are factors that can protect underlying bone. prior to sca sport combat i dont think i did anything that would have strengthed the bones in my forearm. i may just have very dense bones of course. but most guys i know do not wear vambraces and havent suffered broken arms. but thats a different topic.

my guess would be that we have our minimum standards because someone thought they made sense. i think that since those minimums change occasionally its clear that we dont use any kind of hard scientific methods to determine what those standards are. i would also guess that our injury rate from impact would be greater if our standards were lower. i would also opine that given how very rare real injuries are in the sca our standard is fine.

regards
logan

Diglach mac Cein wrote:erloas -

You're talking micro-fractures. And it is a real thing, and there are school that train it.


.

Exactly

For what it's worth, a friend of mine had her lung bruised when someone hit her sort of in the back while she was half bent over engaged with someone else. The shot creased the Icefalcon stainless placart she was wearing and gave her an internal organ injury. It was probably a freak occurrance but you can hardly wave off that kind of injury with the excuse that her armor was inadequate. Even wearing more than the minimums there is some risk of injury due to one in a million failures or plain excessive force. The human body can be incredibly resilient but I think that it's a pointless argument to make because the point of our standards should be to mitigate a certain amount of risk and make it more likely that you'll be able to go to work the next day than not. I've seen people survive horrific accidents that I didn't think they would, but certainly not without a long period of recovery and some with permanent injury. Comparing those cases to what we do is kind of apples to potatoes in my opinion.

SCA minimums protect against 8.1 g (125 gr) .357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets at a velocity of 448 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1470 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 15.6 g (240 gr) .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets at a velocity of 436 m/s (1430 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). Conditioned armor protects against 8.1 g (125 gr) .357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets at a velocity of 430 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1410 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 15.6 g (240 gr) .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets at a velocity of 408 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1340 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against most handgun threats, as well as the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, and II].

Another factor in arm injuries vs/ others is that A) Arms don't seem to get hit as much, and B) they are more "free floating" as a target, which does chenge the impact results as opposed to a stationary, planted leg.

Fourtunately, the part of the leg we target is the meaty part.


.

From what I've been reading here, it's a #10 all the way...Reality dictates that NO ONE wants to get sued..especially the BOD!

If the "injury wasn't reported" it didn't happen! Regardless of any standards.

yes, but in context this came up when discussing little light face jabs. the toughness of the human body part that is.

regards
logan

Isabella E wrote:For what it's worth, a friend of mine had her lung bruised when someone hit her sort of in the back while she was half bent over engaged with someone else. The shot creased the Icefalcon stainless placart she was wearing and gave her an internal organ injury. It was probably a freak occurrance but you can hardly wave off that kind of injury with the excuse that her armor was inadequate. Even wearing more than the minimums there is some risk of injury due to one in a million failures or plain excessive force. The human body can be incredibly resilient but I think that it's a pointless argument to make because the point of our standards should be to mitigate a certain amount of risk and make it more likely that you'll be able to go to work the next day than not. I've seen people survive horrific accidents that I didn't think they would, but certainly not without a long period of recovery and some with permanent injury. Comparing those cases to what we do is kind of apples to potatoes in my opinion.

Well, I still think it's relevant in the overall discussion per the original topic.

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:

dukelogan wrote:im not sure i can pick a number on the list. i do not think there really is a worry of life threatening injury from any of our weapons. so, my guess, is to lessen the level of pain from shots. so i guess #1

regards
logan

I knew an Ansteorran knight who was hit near the edge of his kidney belt with a bastard sword (by the kingdom chiurgeon) and his spleen was ruptured. I think that qualifies as a "life threatening injury".

Who was the knight? I had not heard of this. The most serious I'm aware (I'm sure there are others) was in Duke Sigmunds first Crown, when he hit his opponent in the abdomen and I know that a nurse at the event was concerned that the person might have had a splenic rupture but he never went to the hospital. The other was at one of Duke Sigmunds "backyard" fighter practices, when Duke Patrick hit a guy and that person was hospitalized but was released after 24 hours observation. IIRC, bruised kidney was the diagnosis.

spearweasel wrote:SCA minimums protect against 8.1 g (125 gr) .357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets at a velocity of 448 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1470 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 15.6 g (240 gr) .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets at a velocity of 436 m/s (1430 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). Conditioned armor protects against 8.1 g (125 gr) .357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets at a velocity of 430 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1410 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 15.6 g (240 gr) .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets at a velocity of 408 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1340 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against most handgun threats, as well as the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, and II].

Funny you write this.

The thread about the tips prompted me to commission a little piece of armour from one of our own AA armourers, to be used with my maille and kidneybelt Norman kit:
Think the one in the middle in aluminum


Held in place by 550 cord like a large medallion in the chest between the maille and the gambeson, and covered in fabric of the same color as my gambeson so as to make it invisible. (or maybe I'll pad it thinly and put it inside)

I am not sure if micro breastplates were used in period, but in this context it makes sense. I was once blessed by Duke Andreas with a stout spear thrust (with an experimental 2" tip I believe!) to my plexus and I was wearing a rigid breastplate. It still left me breathless, though unharmed.

I guess I like to avoid getting hit hard without protection

Glaukos

I think we should all wear 200 pounds of armour so we don't have to sign waivers saying what we are doing could possibly cause any bodily harm.





Oh and don't forget the bubblewrap!

calgofo wrote:

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:

dukelogan wrote:im not sure i can pick a number on the list. i do not think there really is a worry of life threatening injury from any of our weapons. so, my guess, is to lessen the level of pain from shots. so i guess #1

regards
logan

I knew an Ansteorran knight who was hit near the edge of his kidney belt with a bastard sword (by the kingdom chiurgeon) and his spleen was ruptured. I think that qualifies as a "life threatening injury".

Who was the knight? I had not heard of this. The most serious I'm aware (I'm sure there are others) was in Duke Sigmunds first Crown, when he hit his opponent in the abdomen and I know that a nurse at the event was concerned that the person might have had a splenic rupture but he never went to the hospital. The other was at one of Duke Sigmunds "backyard" fighter practices, when Duke Patrick hit a guy and that person was hospitalized but was released after 24 hours observation. IIRC, bruised kidney was the diagnosis.

Not a knight or from Ansteorra, but had my spleen ruptured fighting in a kidney belt from a singe shot. How do I know? Because I was feeling like junk that day, and it is the only one that hit the left side of my body before I quit for the day. Hit about 1.5" above the kidney belt. And yes, the kidney belt was where it belonged, not riding on my hips or anything. In fact, HRH Christopher is in charge of the ER I went to, and later I double checked to confirm that yes, a kidney belt does abosolutely 0 for your spleen.

So where does leaving practice, but spending the next 6 days in ICU fall in?

Personally I give it a 9-ish. Spleen ruptures can easily be deadly, but broken forearms are not.

Thia is the reason I wear a full stainless steel back plate.

Basically any body part that I have ever caused an injury to other fighters I wear armor.

And I suggest that they do the same.

"8. suffering an injury that requires medical evacuation from the site.
9. suffering an injury that could result in death.
10. other (please explain).
_________________"

What Dayud said

Aaron wrote:Given no change in current calibration and weapon standards, what armour standard would get everyone (OK almost everyone...some people are born brittle) down to between #6 and # 7

I don't think the armor standards need to go to 6 or 7. The only change I would make to make the current standards safer and more consistent is to require shoulder protection also. The long bones heal pretty easily. Joints do not.

I was reading Oswyn's post and I wondered this. It is evident that while some of this injuries DO happen, they are exceedingly rare.

Armouring up beyond the minimum is sort of like getting insurance, it may work or not, and you hope you don't really need it.

I was wondering whether there is a discernible difference between minimal torso (i.e. Kidney belt and garb) Maille and kidney belt, and plate in the degree of traumatic injuries. In other words, given fighters of equal skill (that is quite important of course, as more skilled fighters get hit less, though they fight more often) is there a substantial difference in the statistical incidence of serious injury as correlated to the type of armour used?

Nissan, can this be asked with a straight face from the risk analysis perspective?

im not aware of a single incident in which injury was done to a shoulder joint from the impact of a weapon. are you?

regards
logan

Raeven wrote:

Aaron wrote:Given no change in current calibration and weapon standards, what armour standard would get everyone (OK almost everyone...some people are born brittle) down to between #6 and # 7

I don't think the armor standards need to go to 6 or 7. The only change I would make to make the current standards safer and more consistent is to require shoulder protection also. The long bones heal pretty easily. Joints do not.

Yes, as a matter of fact he is doing rehab right now and will be out of fighting until next year.
Now he was unaware of a shoulder issue he had regarding the tendons supporting his arm into the socket of his shoulder. For whatever reason the socket was too small to accept the ball portion of his arm. He had it dislocate a few times on him playing football, snowboarding etc. He attributed it to "doing stupid shit". The last time however which put him out of commission was a sword blow (single handed sword) that came down on him during a press in the field battle at Pennsic 38. It exascerbated (sp) the condition to developing a small tear in the tendons making his shoulder dislocate at the smallest blow to that area.
He had surgery early last year, but is doing the total rehab before he puts on armor again.
So yes, a blow did do injury. No it wasn't just the blow itself but it had help from a previously undiagnosed condition.

dukelogan wrote:im not aware of a single incident in which injury was done to a shoulder joint from the impact of a weapon. are you?

regards
logan

Raeven wrote:

Aaron wrote:Given no change in current calibration and weapon standards, what armour standard would get everyone (OK almost everyone...some people are born brittle) down to between #6 and # 7

I don't think the armor standards need to go to 6 or 7. The only change I would make to make the current standards safer and more consistent is to require shoulder protection also. The long bones heal pretty easily. Joints do not.