[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wright's Proposals
I tend to agree with Wright. Being that I have been whacked in chainmail,
I agree that the force is more deflected than absorbed through momentum
transfer. There is also a considerable amount of redistribution of force
over area from the "surface tension" of the armor. If you truly believe
the "cushiness" on armor is what prevents impact damage, you wear pillow
mail and I'll wear chain mail and we'll go around with baseball bats.
As far as layering goes, just about everyone agrees that armor is stepped
up in layers, plate has chain in the joints etc. It would be stupid not
to have armor like that, and not even the "jearnian" scheme could account
for the loss of padded layers.
Jevan
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Benjamin Austin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Wright Frazier wrote:
>
> >
> > 2) Chainmail is not worn alone. There is padding underneath, and still
> > even when worn alone, the surface tension of the armor is enough
> > to deflect a considerable portion of the impact. Clothing would
> > help you considerably LESS than mail would..with or without
> > padding.
>
> I understand that it is highly undesireable to have cold metal raked
> across ones body. However, the heavy clothing that gives the appropriate
> DVs is not what is worn under chain mail (since when a person takes off
> their chain mail they have 0 DV bonus - not the 1/1/1 from clothing) and
> it is even called "padding" and not "heavy clothing".
>
> No, impact damage is not deflected - it is absorbed (momentum transfer) -
> unless we're talking ablative armor here (wouldn't that be cool). Hence,
> the strength of the metal merely means that it pushes into your skin that
> much better. In so far as chain mail, what surface tension (if it indeed
> moves as well as you claim)?
>
> B.J. Austin
> jedi@ecn.purdue.edu
>
>
> "This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session
> as when the baby gets hold of a hammer."
> - Will Rogers
>
>