Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Swimming in Armour: A Test Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
David E. Farrell




Location: Evanston, IL
Joined: 25 Jun 2007

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 9:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A very well thought out and performed test and video. Not really 'scientific' but a good start, and definitely a big step above many I see on youtube and the like.
AKA: 'Sparky' (so I don't need to explain later Wink )

For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother
-- King Henry, Henry V, William Shakespeare

Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused... but on a higher level.
-- Enrico Fermi
View user's profile Send private message
Mihai Ionita




Location: Romania
Joined: 17 Dec 2008

Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 10:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would say it is quite scientific. Why is not scientific in your eyes, exactly? Is it not applied experimentation the way science goes?

And sorry if I sound aggressive when I say this. I mean no such thing. I am merely curious as to what would constitute a scientific test in the eyes of our fellow forum colleague.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Marko Susimetsa




Location: Finland
Joined: 24 Nov 2006
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 11:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It seemed pretty scientific to me as well - to the extent that Michael also stated the possible weaknesses of his test and various factors that might affect the phenomena (strength and practice of the knights etc.).

Of course, it was a "case study", rather than a large scale experiment with tens or hundreds of subjects, but still scientific.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David E. Farrell




Location: Evanston, IL
Joined: 25 Jun 2007

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 11:53 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

IMO, it is not really scientific because it can only draw conclusions on what the person performing the test could do with the harness he has (which he addressed in the introduction as another poster said and I had to watch the video again to recall... so this whole thing is somewhat moot) and therefore is limited in applicability. If he did it with more subjects and more types/conditions of harness, as well as looking at some varying conditions (longer swims, flowing water, etc) it would become more than anecdotal. Perhaps a theoretical investigation based on some basic ideas of buoyancy, human anatomy and information from the armour to help extrapolate the data he did get. Also, it was unclear what a negative result would have been, or how the swimming distance was measured (the test I would have liked to see would have been to start from a stand still in the shallow end and swim until he began to sink despite the use of his hands and feet, indicating his motion and breathing could not counteract negative buoyancy).


That said, I mean what I said originally: it was a very well done test and he drew some very reasonable conclusions, but I wouldn't hold it up as 'proof' (but neither would the guy who made it). I would hold it up as an example of what someone today can do in a modern approximation to period harness (actually sent it to a mailing list already) and use it to refute some myths. Kind of like the videos showing how someone can do somersaults and cartwheels in a properly fit harness... not exactly science, but certainly still useful.

AKA: 'Sparky' (so I don't need to explain later Wink )

For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother
-- King Henry, Henry V, William Shakespeare

Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused... but on a higher level.
-- Enrico Fermi
View user's profile Send private message
Marko Susimetsa




Location: Finland
Joined: 24 Nov 2006
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 11:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Depends on how you define science, of course, but in qualitative research even a single subject is enough. On the other hand, a real scientific study would need the theoretical groundwork to support it, which is naturally lacking here, but makes the experiment no less interesting.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David E. Farrell




Location: Evanston, IL
Joined: 25 Jun 2007

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 12:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Marko Susimetsa wrote:
Depends on how you define science, of course, but in qualitative research even a single subject is enough. On the other hand, a real scientific study would need the theoretical groundwork to support it, which is naturally lacking here, but makes the experiment no less interesting.


I guess I follow the usual definition of explaining observed phenomena. But agreed, this was a nice experiment that yielded interesting results.

AKA: 'Sparky' (so I don't need to explain later Wink )

For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother
-- King Henry, Henry V, William Shakespeare

Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused... but on a higher level.
-- Enrico Fermi
View user's profile Send private message
Michael B.
Industry Professional



Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: 18 Oct 2007

Posts: 367

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 12:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David E. Farrell wrote:

That said, I mean what I said originally: it was a very well done test and he drew some very reasonable conclusions, but I wouldn't hold it up as 'proof' (but neither would the guy who made it). I would hold it up as an example of what someone today can do in a modern approximation to period harness (actually sent it to a mailing list already) and use it to refute some myths. Kind of like the videos showing how someone can do somersaults and cartwheels in a properly fit harness... not exactly science, but certainly still useful.


I do not hold it as proof, I address it as an example of whether it was even feasible or not. As I mentioned in the video, it is only one scenario, and one style of armour.
Flowing water or a strong current would be interesting. Going WITH the current may be beneficial if it wasn't that strong.

Ben Condon wrote:
I wonder if someone who was fairly strong&fit and was used to wearing armour for long periods would have been able to handle the water more easily. Also if they also used partial harnesses (i.e. no leg or rear protection) and the total armour weight was only 20~30 pounds then perhaps they would have had a better chance both getting out of their armour quickly and/or swimming to a nearby boat or shore.


I wonder this as well. I only clock about a 100 hours a year in harness, and as I mentioned in the video, I'm probably no where near the strength of a medieval warrior. However, I'm a strong swimmer, having been a certified life guard, swimming 5 times a week for 6 years, and growing up in an area Minnesota that you learned to swim as soon as you could walk. I think the biggest factor wasn't really the legs, but the arms. It was pretty much impossible to do a breaststroke, or sidestroke, and I quickly fatigued doing a front crawl, the only one I got any distance with.

Marko Susimetsa wrote:
Depends on how you define science, of course, but in qualitative research even a single subject is enough. On the other hand, a real scientific study would need the theoretical groundwork to support it, which is naturally lacking here, but makes the experiment no less interesting.


From the original thread that sparked my interest, and the math that REALLY sparked my interest in doing a test.

Xan Stepp wrote:
Quote:

Well, when I used to dive, we required 1lb of weight per 10lbs of body weight to achieve neutral buoyance - depending on your equipment, give or take a couple lbs. I used to use about 15lbs of weight and it was very difficult to stay surfaced with out the BCA on.


While this is true, that calculation is for a diver in full gear, including a wetsuit and in salt water. The situation is drastically different in fresh water or without gear, so SCUBA guidelines cannot be an accurate measure of the ability to sink or float in armor.

Quote:
Probably a pretty good reason why so many collectible swords are river finds.


Possibly. It would make the sword harder to recover, but the main reason that good finds are often river finds is because the conditions in river mud help to preserve the sword.

As for the issue in itself, I decided that I would sit down and do some math to figure out some of the details. However, first I had to do a bit of research and make some educated guesses. First of all according to http://www.annecollins.com/healthy-weight-information.htm, a healthy human has 15% Bone, 15% fat, 45% muscle, and 25% internal and external organs (all by mass). I found several internet sources which listed the densities of bone, fat, and muscle as around 1.9 g/cm^3, 0.9 g/cm^3, and 1.05 g/cm^3. I couldn't find a good average value for the organs, so I estimated it at about 1; less than muscle, more than fat, and about the same as water. So while some organs will be heavier (heart) others will be lighter (hair) and there are some air spaces in the body, so I hope it will even out. I also assumed an average height of 5'9" (175 cm), and a healthy BMI of 70 kg. I also assumed an average lung capacity of 6 L.

I also had to make certain assumptions about what it means to swim. The most exacting condition would be that to "swim" a person's density (with their load) must be higher than the density of the fluid. In this case, they will float no matter what. A slightly more realistic definition would be that a person can "swim" if their density is less than 0.08 g/cm^3 above the fluid in which they are swimming. I picked this number because the density of this ideal person with no air in their lungs is 1.082 g/cm^3. I also know that I frequently empty my lungs while swimming and have no problem getting around. Finally, I just sort of guessed what the "maximum" would be based on this data, since the only way to get accurate measurements would be to drown someone. I'll just guess and say that the threshold is .16 g/cm^3 above the density of the water, or twice the empty lung definition. So basically, if you are carrying more than this load, you are going to drown, no matter how hard you struggle. It's just a guess, but if anyone has a better way to get this figure, let me know.

I then made up an excell spreadsheet to calculate volumes, densities, body fat, etc. and used it to calculate the loads that an ideal person, and then the % body fat needed to keep a person float in under the "swimming" conditions, and for 10, 20, and 30 lb loads. (all with a lungful of air)

Ideal person
No load - density = .99 g/cm^3 (floats)
Swimming 1 ~ .7 kg (fresh)
2.5 kg (salt)
Swimming 2 ~ 6.5 kg (fresh)
8.5 kg (salt)
Swimming 3 ~ 12 kg (fresh)
14 kg (salt)

Carrying 10 lbs. (4.5 kg)
swimming 1 - 42% fat (fresh)
30% fat (salt)
swimming 2 and 3 - NA (the ideal person can "swim" afloat with this load)

Carrying 20 lbs (9 kg)
Swimming 1 - 59% fat (fresh)
49% fat (salt)
Swimming 2 - 28% fat (fresh)
21% fat (salt)
Swimming 3 - NA

Carrying 30 lbs (13.5 kg)
Swimming 1 - 69% fat (fresh)
60% fat (salt)
Swimming 2 - 43% fat (fresh)
35% fat (salt)
Swimming 3 - 20% fat (fresh)
NA (salt)

I think that my calculations are pretty good (if anyone actually bothered to read them all), but how a person swims (floats, treads water, swims on back or front) makes it easier or harder, as well as the distribution of the load. So after some mathematical analysis, I would say that generally people can swim in armor, and that for lighter armors it may not be all that hard. However, while they may be able to swim, how long they can swim is a different issue...


Thanks.

www.facebook.com/bearmountainforge2
Michael Bergstrom
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David E. Farrell




Location: Evanston, IL
Joined: 25 Jun 2007

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 12:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

ah, excellent ... I had been thinking about crunching those numbers myself (I was curious what kind of fat and lung capacity would be needed to counterbalance the harness beyond a nude swimmer) Big Grin
AKA: 'Sparky' (so I don't need to explain later Wink )

For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother
-- King Henry, Henry V, William Shakespeare

Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused... but on a higher level.
-- Enrico Fermi
View user's profile Send private message
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional



Location: upstate NY
Joined: 10 Nov 2005

Posts: 587

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 12:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The entire 'Sigismund German gothic' harness c. 1485 weighed about 48 pounds (it was made for someone about 5' 7" and of very athletic build), and if one ditched the sallet and the bevor (the gauntlets would be hard to shake off, being very tight fitting), would have weighed about 37 pounds. If one did not wear leg armour, and if memory serves the biography of Don Pero Nino, for example, talks about not wearing legharness at sea (the gunwales of the ships would have helped with missile fire, ,methinks), that would have knocked it down to about 24 pounds. Tassets would have been normal, however, for most armour, so that would bump it up a couple pounds. Of course, armour weight is heavily determined by surface area, so the larger the man the weightier the armour (a cube 2" across has a surface area four times that of a 1" cube).

Another big factor would be the fact that limb armour simply was not 16 gauge in thickness, and was more like 19 or 20 gauge. This would, of course, make moving one's arms and legs far less fatiguing. Most of the weight of armour was in the helm(et), cuirass, and pauldrons (spaudlers are only about 18 gauge or so, in my experience, and pauldrons maybe a bit thicker, but much bigger).

jamesarlen.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
P. Cha




PostPosted: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 12:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'm not sure if it's the weight that's causing so much trouble and the not the lack of mobility. I don't mean the ability to move to full range but armor does slows down at what speed that full range can be reached. Yeah it's not that much slower I know...but it doesn't have to be to be drastically effect your swimming abilities. One of the training that the water polo team at my high school did was to swim around with some fairly heavy weights in the wrist, ankle and waist...and they didn't have nearly as much issues as what I'm seeing from the armor. Just a theory anyways.
View user's profile Send private message
Mark T




PostPosted: Fri 30 Jul, 2010 5:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael,

As others have said, thanks for taking one for the team. I think this is part of why I love myArmoury: it's not that so many of us here are fanatics (er, sorry, 'enthusiasts'), or widely-read, but are also willing to get out there and 'do stuff'.

My guess is that this video will come to hold the iconic status of Michael Edelson's test-cutting on mail, and the 'cartwheeling in plate' video ... and, hopefully, some of the 'but what about this', and 'I wonder if that' comments will lead to even more tests.
View user's profile Send private message
Alex Bourdas





Joined: 02 Sep 2010

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Mon 06 Sep, 2010 3:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

If I can take a slightly different track, Michael, it seems in the video that the only swimming stroke viable for swimming in armour is the front crawl. You say that the armour didn't give you the range of mobility required for the breast-stroke, and the backcrawl seems to lead to an instant sinking. Does this mean you would say that any knights who were forced to swim in armour would most likely use a front crawl, or something similar?
I ask because I was under the impression that the front crawl isn't native to Europe. According to Wikipedia, it was introduced to Europe in 1844 by Native Americans.
Amazing video by the way. I've only joined myArmoury recently, and already I'm finding really interesting information.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Swimming in Armour: A Test
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum