how do i weld them together?

[nwaite]

Just wondering what's the best way to weld to things together with out a welder. Should I just heat both pieces up nice an hot an bang the xxxx out of them? I'm going to try an make an X out of two leaf springs.

[ThomasPowers]

The best way is to take them to somebody who knows how to weld and has a welder!

If you want to learn how to forge weld then that is not the starter piece I would suggest and you are likely to spend more time and fuel and mess up more metal than just *paying* someone to weld it would cost.

Don't forget that after welding spring steel will need to be completely re-heat treated to act like spring steel again!

So what are you trying to accomplish---getting two pieces of spring steel welded in a cross or learning to forge weld?

[MattBower]

If you were going to try to forge weld them, "heat both pieces up nice an hot an bang the xxxx out of them," is not a good description of the process. It's a fair bit more complicated than that. Like Thomas says, this is not the project on which to learn forge welding. If you can't find someone who's capable of doing it for you, you might consider finding another method to join the two pieces.

[Mainely,Bob]

I`d like to invite you to bring a little more focus to what it really is that you want to do by telling us what it is you want to make or accomplish.
Once we have a clear idea what you really want we can better help you.

[Timothy Miller]

This is not a beginners project. I have found springs to be a bit prone to crumbling when brought up to forge welding temperatures. You could hot punch two holes and rivet them together.

[nwaite]

ya this is what i was going to do but thought it would be cool to forgweld them together. Im going to try an make a round shield. I wanted to weld the to leaf springs together and have the ends rap around the edges... holding it together. Or at least making it look like it was.

I dont mean this in a xxxxxx way but if i wanted to just do it the easy way an use i welder i would. But i would think that would defeat the hole purpose of me learning blacksmithing . IF leaf springs dont work well i will use something elts. i just want to no how to do it in a general way.

thank you guys .

[ThomasPowers]

People often over estimate the weight of arms and armour in those times---sometimes by as much as a factor of 10!)

I'd suggest making the cross out of at most 14 gauge mild steel sheet and riveting it together and then trying to weld the riveted section. That's what I have done making a spangen helm before.

Remember too that most armour was made from low carbon wrought iron. If you really want the low down "The Knight and the Blast Furnace", Alan Williams, is the current top standard work on the metallurgy of medieval/renaissance armour. Your local library probably can ILL it for you if you live in the USA; (don't look up the price of buying your own copy if you have a bad heart!)

[Mainely,Bob]

What you want for a shield is not leaf springs.They are both too hard(literally) to deal with and too heavy.
I would look for either something like lightweight weight flat bar or something you could easily make flat on the ends so you could wrap them over.
If this is one of your first projects I would concentrate on mechanical means of attachment at the cross such as rivets or wrap the cross. if you use round or square stock then punch/drift to let one pass thru the other.

If you`ve never forge welded before then try just forge welding as a technique with mild steel scrap till you get it down before trying it on a project or more problematic steels.
If you need to make this project right away then forge brazing is a less troublesome and historically correct technique which will allow you to make the project with a better chance of success.

See how much easier that was with the proper info provided?

BTW-From what I have read,most shields were made to be as light as would be practical so were made out of wood or other light materials such as reed,bamboo or heavy rawhide and had leather loops as a means of holding them to the arm or gripping them.What metal there was was usually thin material(think sheet metal) placed on the outside to keep edged weapons from cutting thru the wood/reed/bamboo.
Metal was a costly material back then and most of it was used as armor strapped to body parts rather than used in a shield which could be more easily swept or knocked to the side to make an opening or stripped away all together.

[nwaite]

HOOOOLLLLLYYYYY MOOOLLLYYY!!!! That is a lot of cash for a book. But im shore its worth it.

[ThomasPowers]

If you were in NM you could come look at my copy---under armed guard of course!

It's a LARGE book, very scholarly and of interest to a very narrow selection of people. Cost a ton to publish and I hope they break even on it.

Inter Library Loan, ILL, should let you look it over for a nominal fee---last time I used it here in NM it was US$1 per book!
I suggest folks ILL any smithing book before buying it---saves a lot of $$ on stuff that doesn't really help you and nothing worse than to blow your book budget only to find out it wasn't what you needed and now you can't afford to get the one you do need!

[son_of_bluegrass]

Given the scholarly nature of the work, the size of the tome and that is would be of interest to a limited group of people, the price I saw of $325 isn't bad. Back in college a buddy (math major) spent about that much for a sub-50 page paper back.
ron

[Rich Hale]

Forge welding is obviously something anyone can do. I can do it and offer that as proof. So fire up your forge and have at it. There is a lot of information here on forge welding and many books around that explain the process. I have written the how to's on it alot of times and so have a lot of other folks,,will be easier for at least me to have you look it up and give it a go. Just keep in mind that some folks learn different things in many ways, some can do new things really well with minimal training and others cannot. But for sure no one that struggles and quits will learn it. Start with small pieces and work up to wot you want to weld. Let us know and take pics,,,

[bigfootnampa]

Sadly if I were to meet you on a medieval field of battle I would just reach over your 52 pound shield and stab you to death while you were trying to heave it upward! Else I might simply batter it aside with a powerful and swift thrust of my own lightweight shield and stab you before you could tug it back into position! (:-)

[Mick C]

Found this e version on google books.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GpVbnsqAzxIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22The+Knight+and+the+Blast+Furnace%22,+Alan+Williams&source=bl&ots=EGQecS4g3y&sig=ke_PWC9xxVW_6sLjzfRyO5PLx54&hl=en&ei=rdjdTLTgHMi0hAf-5OzNDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


I've just popped in my library of books to read.

Mick

[nwaite]

thank you rich.. i will try an will post pics. An for you Bigfoot the shield will not be all steel just a bit an my skills are ill my friend i would Frisbee toss that shield at your head before you were even near me.... ooohhh yaaaa!!!!

[MattBower]

His point is just that leaf spring is way too thick and heavy for what you want to do.

[forgemaster]

I just love it when someone asks, "so you just get it hot and bash it". Yeh i say "just like flying a plane is sitting in the seat and fiddling with that handle type of thing" Or "well he really looks like a blacksmith he has one of those leather aprons", just like I own a scalpel so I must be a brain surgeon.

Phil

[ThomasPowers]

Being involved in the SCA for over 30 years now and as a smith for almost 30 years I run into the "Heavy" weapons and armour mistakes a lot.

I try to tell folks that "Heavy is slow and slow is DEAD on the battlefield". And when they tell me that the armour was so heavy that people couldn't move in it I mention how a set of battle armour weighed *LESS* than what a friend of mine was required to carry and fight with in Vietnam---and not nearly as well distributed as a good suit of armour!

As for throwing your shield: There is a scene in either the 3 or the 4 musketeers---the *good version*, 1973, with Heston, Welch, York, Reed, Chamberlain, Lee, Dunaway, etc; where Porthos demonstrates a new maneuver he has perfected involving throwing his sword so it skewers his opponent. When Aramis takes the place of the target dummy and tells him to repeat the demonstration, he parries the thrown blade and then replies "Only you Porthos would invent a new way to disarm himself" and proceeds to chase him around the Sallee with his sword. Its so much better than the new Disney version you would think the Disney version would be banned!

The application of this to your case is left as an exercise for the student...

[Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver]

Which beggars the question "why do the "Musketeers" fight with swords, have you ever seen them with muskets"?

[MattBower]

Which beggars the question "why do the "Musketeers" fight with swords, have you ever seen them with muskets"?

The musketeers were issued matchlock muskets for combat. Big, heavy, slow to load, unreliable, and can you imagine strolling around Paris with a burning match at the ready? Yes, there were some beautiful pistols available by that period, but it's unlikely you could've afforded them on a musketeer's salary. The sword was practical to carry, relatively affordable, ready at a moment's notice, impervious to weather, and a gentleman's weapon.

[maddog]

Toss your shield away in the middle of a battle field? Why not make a job of it and strip down to your boxers at the same time?

In almost any kind of fight speed and mobility are everything. With a heavy shield or weapon, not only cant you manouver fast, but it takes so much effort to get it moving that your opponent will see it coming. You might as well tie a ball and chain to your arm. Even if they couldn't afford the steel, they could have used enough wood to make their shields impenetrable. They didn't. They opted for mobility.

[bajajoaquin]

In almost any kind of fight speed and mobility are everything.

Sounds like you've been drinking the same kool-ade as the Royal Navy. They thought it was a good idea to trade armor for speed, and found out how well that worked at Jutland. They were left sweeping the battlefield mostly due to their long tradition of naval aggressiveness, but the German battleships were clearly superior and more battle-worthy. The HMS Hood didn't do so hot being faster than the Bismark, either. (Although I know I'm cheating a bit there, because the Hood was a battle cruiser, and not a battle ship. But since it sank in a direct exchange with the Bismark, the point still holds true.)

Sherman tanks were much more mobile and faster than German armor, but fared poorly against them. The advantage the Soviet T-34 had was in it's sloped armor and 85 mm high-velocity gun. And volume. Quantity had a quality all its own.

That's just two that come to mind. Speed and mobility are only decisive in some circumstances.

edited to add:
I just re-read, and this came off as incredibly smug and superior. Sorry. That wasn't my intent.

[MattBower]

Don't see how you can claim Jutland for your side of the argument for your side when the Brits won.

There was almost no difference in top speed between Hood and Bismarck. Hood didn't have an appreciable speed advantage; it was just less capable all around. So again, poor evidence. But note that the end of the Bismarck started with a few Swordfish torpedo planes -- much faster and lighter armed that Bismarck, you might note.

I absolutely agree that speed isn't everything, but you're way overplaying your hand in the other direction. Tigers were extremely heavily armored and armed, but this was a serious drawback in many respects. The Leopard [lol!] Panther found the right combination of speed, armor and firepower, and was a far superior tank overall.

[bajajoaquin]

Don't see how you can claim Jutland for your side of the argument for your side when the Brits won.

There was almost no difference in top speed between Hood and Bismarck. Hood didn't have an appreciable speed advantage; it was just less capable all around. So again, poor evidence. But note that the end of the Bismarck started with a few Swordfish torpedo planes -- much faster and lighter armed that Bismarck, you might note.

I absolutely agree that speed isn't everything, but you're way overplaying your hand in the other direction. Tigers were extremely heavily armored and armed, but this was a serious drawback in many respects. The Leopard [lol!] Panther found the right combination of speed, armor and firepower, and was a far superior tank overall.

The British only "won" the engagement by virtue of audacity. The Germans, without a strong naval tradition, didn't have the confidence to press home the battle. In actual fact, the German ships were able to keep firing after taking direct hits from British ships, whereas the Royal Navy's ships had inadequate armor and exploded and sank much more easily. The Germans made the tradeoff of slower speed and smaller armament but greater armor. Perhaps, in theory, had the British stood off further, they could have exploited the advantages of speed, but they didn't. The Germans lost fewer ships than the British. See Robert Massie's excellent Castles of Steel for greater detail.

The Hood was designed as a battle cruiser, where speed was supposed to keep her out of the way of battleships. She was more lightly armored, and traded that reduced armor for speed. The problem was similar to the one with the British line-of-battle ships: unless you absolutely capitalized on the advantages of speed and maneuverability, you left yourself vulnerable to the enemy. The real issue may have been one of marketing: once you had "battle" in the name, and armed them with 15-in guns, you start thinking of it as a line-of-battle ship, and it just isn't. A tertiary issue is that technology advanced, and the next generation of battleships were as fast as the battle cruisers. But the initial trade-off is still there: speed for armor. She sank. The Bismark did not (at least not in that engagement).

Your point about the Fairey Swordfish is interesting, since it is neither smaller, nor lighter than its replacements. It served out the war, and newer, faster aircraft didn't. (It's also interesting because of the parallel with Mitchell's demonstrations of bombs vs. aircraft, and the British experince with the Repulse and Prince of Wales in Singapore: the emergence of a new offensive technology requires defensive adaptation.)

The Panther was also more heavily armored than the Sherman. Lighter, faster, more maneuverable than the Tiger, to be sure, but that just proves that heavier isn't always better. Same goes for the abomination of an armored gun that Porsche designed. It dwarfed the Tiger, and it was a useless piece of crap.

Is a Hummer superior to an armored vehicle against IEDs? No. Was the cheap, light-weight Northrup F-5 superior to the expensive, heavy McDonnel F-4 in Air Force mock combat? Yes.

So, in summary: The British won Jutland in spite of having inferior, faster ships, not because of it. Hood sank because of the initial compromise of armor/speed; superior ship design still gets sunk by airplanes. Sherman<Panther>Tiger. Speed and mobility aren't the defining characteristics, they are just one of the criteria that must be balanced against other needs in an overall determination of superiority.

Getting back (kinda) to the topic at hand, the shield will illustrate this: A really light, paper-mache shield would be very maneuverable, but useless. A hard-faced steel shield capable of withstanding any blow of an opponent would be very protective, but also immobile and useless.

[MattBower]

Getting back (kinda) to the topic at hand, the shield will illustrate this: A really light, paper-mache shield would be very maneuverable, but useless. A hard-faced steel shield capable of withstanding any blow of an opponent would be very protective, but also immobile and useless.

We have nothing to argue about. As I said in my first post, I simply thought that you were overstating your case by seeming to imply that heavier is always better, and speed is meaningless. Now you've given a much more balanced view, with which I don't have any problem. (But for another example of the speed vs. armor and firepower thing, I knew Marine light armored recon guys who killed T-55s in the first Gulf War with direct fire from LAV-25s, simply by being really fast and maneuverable. They literally ran circles around the T-55s, then shot 'em in the back. And I don't mean with TOWs; I mean with Bushmasters.)