Sébastien
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,967
|
Post by Sébastien on Jan 25, 2013 6:25:01 GMT
Thread unlocked !
|
|
|
Post by oolong dao on Feb 2, 2013 10:23:35 GMT
Okay i think it would help if we went to sword style over company or picked features which would be best.
going by that my vote is for a ultralight curved saber like the mamluke swords marines are given. my reasoning is that the lack of armor in the modern era makes curved swords better, its light weight means you can carry more tools and use a gun in your other hand.
|
|
|
Post by demonskull on Feb 2, 2013 14:51:31 GMT
I know I'm probably wasting my time but, why do you feel a curved sword is better ?
Lack of armor? Not sure of where you're located but here, it's very easy to make or alter existing types of armor or body protection. Almost all sports have some type of padding/armor which will provide a basis on which to build. Motorcycle and biking helmets provide some protection against blunt force. Heavy leather jackets will impede knife slashes.
In a aftermath situation, firearms would be the first weapon of chose. When ammo starts to become depleted is when more traditional weapons would become used. This would take monthes, more than enough time to formulate armor. Trashcan lids will make a onetime shield.
A light weapon like the marine saber (strictly dress only) would not provide a suitable offense.
|
|
|
Post by KentsOkay on Feb 2, 2013 17:02:19 GMT
I'm pretty sure about everything I have will go through a trashcan lid, sorry Captain America.
I would like to hear thoughts on modern materials/armor as PAW armor.
|
|
|
Post by johnapsega on Feb 2, 2013 18:57:55 GMT
Going off of the lack of armor idea, what about a fifteenth century longsword designed for civilian dueling. They would be stout enough to handle any armor that was thrown together, but would still be optimized for the unarmored duel. I know that the length is a little much for stelth, but if stelth was really needed than there it could always be left at the camp.
As for a machete than I would carry one, I carry a Cold Steel Kukri Machete when I am in the woods for its use as a tool, and it could be used as a weapon. Just as a hatchet.
|
|
|
Post by gbayes on Feb 2, 2013 19:03:40 GMT
it's not just lack of armor, a thrust is inherently much more likely to kill a person then a cut. Curved swords are generally used from horseback where a thrust is not really practical. I think a short cut and thrust sword, if you want somethnig that can double as a tool, maybe a zombietools D'Capitan viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15000
|
|
|
Post by oolong dao on Feb 2, 2013 20:55:36 GMT
The sabre in general is the best weapon imho because of its weight. a curved sword causes more slashing damage. the "armor" you speak of was never ment to stop a sabre and doesn't provide any stomach or leg protection. windlass and a few others make battle ready military sabres that seem to preform similar to the old patton swords.
this is not about firearms.
|
|
|
Post by oolong dao on Feb 2, 2013 21:00:38 GMT
most of those swords can thrust aswell as slice furthermore ZT makes heavy blades so heavy they take up tool space.
|
|
|
Post by gbayes on Feb 2, 2013 21:39:09 GMT
Yeah the weight of the ZT stuff is the downside still you get sme sturdiness with that I imagine. Everything is a trade off
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Feb 2, 2013 23:59:19 GMT
How do you figure? Unless you hit the heart or the brain, a person's not likely to drop dead just because you stuck a bit of metal in them. Just look at the number of reports of people being shot multiple times and living; and bullets do greater damage at higher speed than a sword thrust. And even if they die from their wounds later, it doesn't really matter a whit if he's already killed you and walked off, now does it?
A cut, on the other hand, can take off limbs, though they don't even have to do that to be effective. Cut halfway through a man's neck or all the way through, he's still dead either way; hell, you don't even need to go halfway, through, just cut through the jugular. Cut halfway through the thigh or all the way through, he's not going to be standing on it and fighting. Cut halfway or all the way through the arm and he's not going to be holding a sword anytime soon, if ever. Halfway through the stomach and he's just as dead as if you'd bisected him; cut just enough into the back to sever the spine and he's not even standing, let alone trying to kill you.
That may be true with the Western cavalry saber, but that's hardly true with the rest of the world, or even in Europe, really. The Chinese dao, has been a foot soldier's sword since about the Han dynasty; admittedly, it was straight back then, but it stayed in that position even after gaining a curve. The katana as we know it came about because the tachi was too curved for use on foot. The messers of Germany were more of a foot soldier's weapon than a knightly one; they could also get up to longsword sizes with curved blades and were commoner's weapons. The cutlass is generally a curved sword and was, as far as I know, never used on horseback, but instead on the deck of ships.
The thrust is only impractical during a full charge, where the momentum could drive the full length of the blade through an enemy soldier and then carry you past, yanking the weapon from your hand; I think there's an anecdote about a soldier breaking his wrist because of that, but I can't remember. However, once the charge's momentum is spent and it comes to infighting, the thrust is just as practical as a cut.
That said, I agree that a short cut and thrust sword would be king in this application... Assuming you absolutely had to have a sword that is. One of our members recently designed a sword that I think would work quite nicely: a tactical-style gladius with a leaf blade, handle scales, and a sturdy ring pommel that could serve as an impact tool. Or perhaps the new Cold Steel Cutlass Machete. It's not technically a sword, but it has a steel d-guard (which is covered by an injection molded polypropylene cover to protect against rust), a 24" blade, and would serve the purpose of both sword and machete.
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Feb 3, 2013 0:05:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnapsega on Feb 3, 2013 0:29:41 GMT
I thought about that. The reason that I said a two handed sword would be for distance. Distance control is major in any fight. If you can make them fight at your desired range than you control the fight. For this reason I would say a spear, which could be used for many diffrent tasks. However as this is a sword topic... www.kultofathena.com/product.asp ... +Longsword this was what I was talking about in case my meaning did not come through clear enough. Or if you still want a saber, something like this, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11981
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Feb 3, 2013 4:15:24 GMT
This is true, but for a ''survivalist sword for doomsday'' that Wallwad asked, a Long sword isn't the best choice.(unless that is all you have)
The main reason is movbility.
To me a doomsday, tac, bugout, and/or apocalypse sword, shouldn't have a blade longer than 27'' and is the blade is longer than 25'' the handle should be long enough for two hands. And a single handed sword should have some kind of hand protection. I came up with this because you will have to run, hide, climb, jump, crawl, squeeze through what ever you have to etc etc etc... Wearing and walking around with a sword is a great hindrance, even with a blade of 24'' can get in your way when walking around in tight places. Now add all this when people could be shooting at you and you have to run. A longer bladed sword can even trip you as your running and even slow you down when your holding the sword in place as you are running(or what ever you half to do).
|
|
|
Post by oolong dao on Feb 3, 2013 7:51:31 GMT
im starting to feel like this is a snipe hunt. we've all come up with good ideas that dont work because a true sword cant do all of those things.
the closest i could think of is a khyber knife, machete, or a straight edged partially serrated gladius.
|
|
|
Post by GUEST on Feb 3, 2013 9:10:04 GMT
Got that right about longer weapons tripping you. Back in the old days of police works I tripped or almost tripped because of a 24inch baton. Only about 20in of it was hanging down. When you fell it would hit you right in the nuts. Also made it hard to get in a car fast. Asp batons were one of the best things to come along. to bad we can't have a expandable sword, Star Trek any one.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Feb 3, 2013 10:01:07 GMT
Well, you could, it just probably wouldn't be any good. :lol:
|
|
|
Post by demonskull on Feb 3, 2013 17:17:42 GMT
Hopefully it would or you've got some major sharpening to do ! :lol: I'm not talking about a stationary target, I'm saying a trashcan lid will provide a decent amount of deflection. Which gives you the advantage over your opponent if you are both similarly armed. Certainly not my first choice, but then again, I have about 20 shields I've made and 1 I acquired in a trade. Yeah, I know, just a little obsessive/compulsive. My main point was, basic body armor is not difficult to make. It can be made from many common household things and the stuff you've got laying around the attic. Look at the SCA, many would be stick jockies start with carpet armor. It resist slashes and provides decent blunt force protection. Too bad most smell like cat pee! :lol:
|
|
|
Post by gbayes on Feb 3, 2013 17:48:49 GMT
i think that everything has pros and cons and you need to decide what to optimize for whenever you buy any kind of weapon. I would not put a sword in a bugout bag at all, personally, I'm not in a aprt of the world where i need to clear brush, and guns > swords for any kind of combat really.
As far as thrust vs cut/slash weapons, thrusting in generally superior, at least in controlled dueling kinds of circumstances, because it takes a lot less energy to thrust into someone then chop off limbs. This is because the force is concentrated on a small point, the tip rather then across a wider area and you don't have to deal with bone. Also because it is easier to get the weight of your body behind it without overextending yourself if you miss. Penetrating the body cavity and puncturing a major organ is not going to make someone drop dead on the spot, true, but it will take the fight out of them pretty well and they will die soon enough.
Less energy means that you can also get away with a lighter blade that moves faster, and that you are less likely to overcommit on strong strokes and leave yourself vulnerable during the recovery.
in western traditions at least, as the steel got better and more able to build long slim swords that don't snap, the emphasis gradually moved from almost entirely cutting to almost entirely thrusting, to the point where some of the modern fencing weapons don't even use the blade.
There are exceptions, cutlasses as you pointed out. Thrusting normally requires footwork, possibly didn't work well on the decks of ships. The cut didn't leave most traditions entirely, remains useful especially in targeting hands, head and neck.
just my two cents
|
|
|
Post by KentsOkay on Feb 3, 2013 18:29:24 GMT
gbayes, you are forgetting that the rapier/smallsword/point weapons where mostly used by civilians. Professional fighters are usually seen carrying cut and trust/side sword type weapons. More battle field utility.
|
|
|
Post by gbayes on Feb 3, 2013 18:34:50 GMT
once plate armor came into play, you mostly saw military polearms, swords were usually backup weapons on a battlefield. But yes I'm not saying point weapons dominated, just cut and thrust weapons dominated, and those were probably more thrust then cut
|
|