|
|
| Author |
Message |
Boyd
Location: London
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:25 am Some cutting tests from SwordForum |
 |
|
Hi All
Found a link to this on the livinghistory.co.uk website.
The gent from the NY fencing club does a number of cutting tests against Maille and a Light gambeson and then against a Padded Jacks in various thicknesses
Enjoy!
The Cutting tests:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=83020
With feedback from swordforumites
Living history website:
http://livinghistory.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10861&highlight=
With feedback on the construction of padded jacks
_________________
Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with what happens to him.
Aldous Huxley in "Texts and Pretexts", 1932 |
|
|
 |
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:56 pm |
|
|
What a fantastic read! Love the pictures. That was rather enlightening, especially the maille experiments.
What I took from that is that archers, who are not melee targets, could get away with a padded jack and not need maille. If this were the case, surely expensive maille would have been given to melee soldiers and not defensive archers in preference.
Nigel |
|
|
|
Grayson
Location: Croydon,Victoria Australia/ Wellington,NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:08 pm |
|
|
Would be interesting doing a similar experiment at Naama, maybe with haunches of meat (with bone in)
_________________
Do not scorn a weak cub. He may become a brutal tiger |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:42 pm |
|
|
It was a devastatingly good read. I particularly liked this comment:
"When considering the effect of various swords on the jack, it is important to understand that the person wielding the sword has to be experienced. Some member of NYHFA with limited cutting experience also attempted to cut the jack, but they did not succeed. It’s not easy to penetrate a jack, not even with a good sword."
This backs up my earlier argument about the need to train to cut  I know it upset some people here.
Personally I don't find the cotton gambeson that Chivalry Bookshelf used to provide that great a garment. It's a lot better than what a lot of people consider to be one, but IMO still falls short from the descriptions of such by Ffoulkes (sp?). I believe there's a video of a Royal Armouries' experiment with mail plus gambeson versus arrows which shows better promise than what was posted on Swordforum. I think their gambeson was better quality though.
From the descriptions of the Battle of Crecy (1346) the archers mainly herded the French knights onto the English pike blocks. I suspect they managed that cause they hurt (not killed) the French with their bows (and arrows).
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
stephan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am |
|
|
that was really good
and clearly showes the effect of a square on thrust or edge attack to various armours types to a still target with no ristance
would you agree that anything less than this would not pentrate the armours shown i think it would not as why would knigts invest in armour and wear it if it was so easily defeated and why would special armour defeating weapons appear as armour improved to cover the whole body
but this clearly shows a direct attack that clean lands and a bit of force behind it will pentrate armour ,,i would like to have seen te swing the guy took it could change the way we veiw the result as for all we know he took a huge run up
regards stephan |
|
|
|
Scott
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:05 pm |
|
|
It's pretty safe to say he won't have done a run up. I'm confident his strikes will have been accurate, true timed strikes delivered from first distance.
You could always ask him, or one of the people here with much more WMA knowledge and experience than me. Colin or Callum will be able to offer their own insights. |
|
|
|
stephan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:06 pm |
|
|
upon reading a bit closer
te guy tells us what type of blow and ow e made it that he uses against the chain and it stood up just how it thought it would exectpt it does not take into account the conssusive damage
can a sword break bones through chain and a gambeson as it is so rummored to do? {with a edge attack obvisouly}
regards stephan |
|
|
|
stephan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:07 pm |
|
|
[quote="Scott"]It's pretty safe to say he won't have done a run up. I'm confident his strikes will have been accurate, true timed strikes delivered from first distance.
yeah i know he did not take a run up i 4got to put a  |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:17 pm |
|
|
| stephan wrote: | | i think it would not as why would knigts invest in armour and wear it if it was so easily defeated and why would special armour defeating weapons appear as armour improved to cover the whole body |
Back then they were taught how to use their armour. These days people think they can experiment with blunts and all sorts of rules and come up with some bizarre beliefs about how armour (and shields) work.
Essentially armour requires deflection to work. Put enough force into a small area and the bones and flesh underneath still won't take the impact even if the steel does. Armour allows an easier time to deflect incoming attacks than a weapon alone. Various weapons (like firearms firing lead shot) would try to remove that deflection capability and thus force the armour and therefore the body and flesh underneath to absorb the blow.
| stephan wrote: | | ...for all we know he took a huge run up |
For cutting purposes that tactic would work against you. It is also not Michael Edelson's first attempt at (public) test cutting. I eventually hope to come up with my own test cutting activities and make them public.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Joel of Old
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:50 am |
|
|
| Colin wrote: |
Back then they were taught how to use their armour.
Essentially armour requires deflection to work. Put enough force into a small area and the bones and flesh underneath still won't take the impact even if the steel does.
|
Yeah. This is all true, try getting someone to punch you square in the chest, and then repeat but turn at time of impact.
A large part of learning to fight is moving with your attack, but a (IMO) relatively un-studied art is moving with the defence... has anyone studied this?
To translate something that we practice in full contact; a strike lands, say, on your left shoulder. Turning that shoulder away, whilst thrusting your lead arm forward to deliver a punch (or sword thrust).
Not only does this help deflect the attack but adds speed to your defence (by virtue of your lead arm turning the body slightly) and adds power AND speed to your attack. Also the time between their strike and your own is so much faster.
I suppose its all falls into 'counterattacks' - but moving your body offline to an attack has to be an effective part (and probably a major one too) of any good defence. The strike doesn't have to miss your body entirely it just has to be off angle enough to be ineffective. Quality of armour seems to increase the 'deflectiveness'.
I think I just invented a word.
_________________
When they hit you, just smile back with broken teeth and spit them in their face. |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:27 am |
|
|
| Joel of Old wrote: | | A large part of learning to fight is moving with your attack, but a (IMO) relatively un-studied art is moving with the defence... has anyone studied this? |
This forms an immensely large part of Western Martial Arts. It is well studied in WMA. The very first lessons I teach revolve around this concept.
| Quote: | | I suppose its all falls into 'counterattacks' - but moving your body offline to an attack has to be an effective part (and probably a major one too) of any good defence. The strike doesn't have to miss your body entirely it just has to be off angle enough to be ineffective. Quality of armour seems to increase the 'deflectiveness'. |
Shirt fighting is about not getting hit at all. Trading blows is dumb. It is isn't a case of my shot is better than yours nyah nyah nyah, but avoiding getting hit altogether. Painfully dying weeks later due to things like blood poisoning due to being hit by an "ineffective" attack isn't a sign of competence. Paraphrasing George Silver "It is good to sleep in one's whole skin".
Even the (documented) sport fighting system of bare knuckle boxing follows this rule. Hit him, don't get hit yourself.
Interestingly enough the friendly duel that Aldo Nadi, arguably the best sport fencer of the 20th century, did had doctors around to sterilise the epees and clean the wounds after every hit. Nadi was trained for first hit combat and so ended up with a few holes in him...
Harness fighting allows the wearer to do deflection shots with his armour, but still follows the adjunct of not getting hit (himself). He must turn the incoming offence harmless. He must still move with his defence (against blows that matter at any rate).
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Boyd
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:42 pm |
|
|
Hi All
"Blunt European longsword cutting a straw mat" on You-Tube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuEGzOizJ-o
Enjoy!
_________________
Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with what happens to him.
Aldous Huxley in "Texts and Pretexts", 1932 |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:38 pm |
|
|
I've been umming and urring about responding to the YouTube link. I don't really want to attack John Clements, but that is not how I'd recommend cutting, even with a blunt.
Apart from the obvious cutting in dui tempi it is possible to achieve a better cut with a lot less effort.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Phillip Shorter
Location: HSEMA, Hamilton
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:19 pm |
|
|
I still don't see what cutting with a blunt was supposed to prove. If it had been contrasted with a cut by a similar sharp I could see the point, but not as it is. Am I missing something?
_________________
"I worship the Prince of Peace ... not the Prince of Pre-emptive War.
- Former US President Jimmy Carter |
|
|
|
Tristan
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:03 pm |
|
|
I believe it is supposed to prove that correct technique is more important than sharpness of blade, aimed at the "katanas r cool n sharp, and so sharp they cut threw enthing!!11!!" crowd, who point at cutting tests as an indication of "sharpness" and quality of a weapon.
_________________
Et se vous la luy auez fait saillir de la main vous pouez faire ce que bon vous samblera de tour de bras ou aultrement |
|
|
|
|
Please read the terms of use