Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
Member is Online
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Aug 3, 2016 15:43:35 GMT
What is a tactical sword?
What separates as tactical blade from a practical or military one?
Is a tactical sword defined by aesthetics alone, or are there specific application requirements which need to be met?
I recognize there is probably no consensus on the answers to these questions, but I am curious about what your answers might be.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Aug 3, 2016 16:30:13 GMT
Tactical for me, as the word implies, is used specifically for something military-ish, or at least a pre-planned weapon used for a specific martial goal. Now you could say all swords are like that, and in their time, they were. But contextually, swords aren't used very often if at all. So in my view, it has to be something befitting the modern sensibility of feasibility: short, light, moderately concealable, and usable within the confines of a modern environment. For me, any current military sword or large knife that's not a dress or parade sword quaifies (think Gurkha Khukri). Something like this one on the right (that's on my way to me this week):
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 3, 2016 17:31:39 GMT
My take would be that a "tactical sword" is any that was actually designed after WWI and does not otherwise qualify as a machete. Nor does it include anything you might call a knife. Virtually all swords in ceremonial use in any army today, and that's about all they are used for, pre-date WWI in design, even if a few details differ in ornamentation or markings.
|
|
|
Post by wazikan on Aug 3, 2016 17:57:10 GMT
its funny Im not really sure there is a definition for this. in my mind I see -longer than a knife but shorter than a sword 14-24 inches -modern fittings. -a modern set up that will attach to your gear load (kydex fasteners or loops) -colored for environment.(black,tan,grey,ect)
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Aug 3, 2016 18:45:50 GMT
I don’t think there is an official definition. And to me, somewhat meaningless, like being redundant and using two words together expressing the same thing, i.e. fine and dandy. The dictionary defines them as the same. Or take vim and vigour, both words mean the same. The only exception, and it is strictly personal as no official definition exists that I know of, is a modern sword based on a classic but made in a modern concept such as a katana w/scales.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Aug 4, 2016 1:50:21 GMT
My take would be that a "tactical sword" is any that was actually designed after WWI and does not otherwise qualify as a machete. Nor does it include anything you might call a knife. Virtually all swords in ceremonial use in any army today, and that's about all they are used for, pre-date WWI in design, even if a few details differ in ornamentation or markings. You'll be surprised that there are still military units using swords nowadays. From my country alone, you have the marine force recon ginuntings, the cafgu units armed with bolos, and terrorist rebel organizations armed with barongs. I know some vietnamese units have swords, and chinese ones too.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 4, 2016 4:22:33 GMT
My take is that the tactical sword is a blade, longer than a knife, designed primarily for use as a modern sidearm for actual combat (however slim the likelihood) but also capable of utility function like a machete. Designed for maximum efficiency and economy (like using modern plastics, etc., instead of more volatile organic components).
|
|
Paul
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,771
|
Post by Paul on Aug 4, 2016 10:09:40 GMT
I have a pretty simple take on it, "function over form". It's not about the looks it's just about its ability and its simplicity to maintain.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 4, 2016 11:28:17 GMT
A rather novel oversized knife called a smatchet was issued to some British commandos during WWII. But it wasn't a sword and neither is a bolo, one version of which was issued in the U.S. Army a long time ago. But the intended use of the bolo was as a tool rather than as a weapon. I expect the name and basic concept originated in the Philippines where the army had built up a lot of experiences. So the question is, how long is a sword and how short is a knife?
I don't see how a modern design could be any more efficient than any older design and as far as economy goes, given what it costs to operate an infantry battalion, even when they're just sitting in the barracks, the cost of a blade is negligible. But seeing as how a lot of complaints listed in various places on this board about how some sword is too heavy or too long (or too light or too short), using more modern materials would be worth investigating. But given the way we tend to hang more and more things on something that started out as a lightweight carbine that now weighs ten pounds as used, you wonder how it would end up.
It is interesting that in WWI, when officers started the war carrying their swords into battle in 1914 (not "over the top," that came later), the war ended with soldiers arming themselves with clubs, maces and homemade knives for use in battle. Maybe a tactical mace is a better idea. Naturally, you'd want to have it fitted with a Pachmayr grips, hard coated stainless steel metal parts and a flashlight on one end and a compass on the other. Having a fitting for a socket wrench there somewhere might come in handy, too, and the weight would always be appreciated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 18:13:12 GMT
Seems like the answer is "black and synthetic". If you look at the difference between a shotgun and a tactical shotgun, a flashlight and a tactical flashlight, or a pocket knife and a tactical pocket knife, you will most of the time see black furniture, and usually black finishing where applicable.
I guess if you add pockets to the sheath, that could work as well since extra pockets in addition to black fabric make clothing tactical.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 4, 2016 18:57:58 GMT
If you took a pre-Civil War foot artillery sword, Duracoted or otherwise give the blade a non-rust surface, let the brass tarnish, substitute a nylon sheath with a pocket for sharpening things and suitable arrangements for attaching to a web belt, that would be a good enough tactical sword for me. It is sufficiently heavy at about 2 1/2 pounds for a good slashing weapons, not too long at about two feet total, so it would be handy inside a confined space. I guess we could forgo the flashlight and compass for once. Ames, the original manufacturer, could probably be persuaded to make them again. Or maybe Ruger would be interested. They're always doing something new.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 4, 2016 19:12:59 GMT
If you took a pre-Civil War foot artillery sword, Duracoted or otherwise give the blade a non-rust surface, let the brass tarnish, substitute a nylon sheath with a pocket for sharpening things and suitable arrangements for attaching to a web belt, that would be a good enough tactical sword for me. It is sufficiently heavy at about 2 1/2 pounds for a good slashing weapons, not too long at about two feet total, so it would be handy inside a confined space. I guess we could forgo the flashlight and compass for once. Ames, the original manufacturer, could probably be persuaded to make them again. Or maybe Ruger would be interested. They're always doing something new. Pretty much. An infantry hanger or artillery sword is as good a design now as it was. Add modern kydex, plastics or materials like micarta. Tang will likely be full instead of hidden, since the sword is likely ground from a blank instead of forged.
|
|
|
Post by DigsFossils-n-Knives on Aug 4, 2016 19:38:31 GMT
I have a pretty simple take on it, "function over form". It's not about the looks it's just about its ability and its simplicity to maintain. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Aug 7, 2016 0:42:57 GMT
To me it's always implied compact size, low-visibility coloring (black on black with blackened black parts most common), and low-maintenance. A traditional katana, for instance, with its same and ito and sageo etc. would NOT qualify, however, any of the "tactical katana" one sees on the market might. Almost none of those seem to go for the "black everything" approach, but they use modern synthetic materials and coat the blade for corrosion resistance, and I think the scabbards are even MOLLE-compatible. Otherwise, a good stick works just as well.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 7, 2016 12:03:21 GMT
Having been struck with sticks and rocks many times, I'm certain a sword would be better. This is assuming the sword is as sharp as it should be. If the sword is not sharp, there are indeed better things to strike with but not a stick.
|
|
|
Post by Svadilfari on Aug 8, 2016 12:37:42 GMT
If it's black - it's tactical :} To me, calling something "tactical" is purely a marketing ploy , designed to appeal to a person's macho image of themselves. Apart from that, it has no real meaning - a sword is a sword is a sword. If someone was to produce an all black 1796, they'd probably market it as a "tactical 1796"
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 16, 2016 21:30:43 GMT
Yeah I think it's mostly an aesthetic sales pitch. It's part of the general "tactical" aesthetic you see in firearms and clothing. Really, a tactical blade would be a blade associated with a system of tactics.
That begs the question of what the function is. For tactical swords I'd posit that the function is mainly to look cool. So in that sense they have a lot in common with 19th century ornamental blades. But if you want a sword that's actually designed for a specific set of tactics, you'd want an arming sword, longsword, side sword, rapier, etc. All of which were designed around a set of moves and responses. Modern tactical blades seem to have some inspiration from Kali/Escrima but it seems pretty vague. And I don't think there's a clearly defined set of sword tactics for modern soldiers. Most of the serious non-firearm combat training I know of seems to be focused on grappling with some knife fighting. Swords remain pretty obscure.
If someone is seriously thinking about taking a sword into combat, it would make sense to draw on what was used in the past. A langes messer and associated tactics for example. Those things are abjectly terrifying. And every part has a function in combat.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 7, 2016 12:37:23 GMT
I was just reading over this thread, particularly what I had contributed myself. I have second thoughts.
I agree that the sword, or "the blade," has to fit into a defined tactical system. They generally always have and moreover, were always used in conjunction with other weapons and equipment. Sixteenth century rapier manuals may have shown naked men fighting with swords but obviously they weren't used like that. But are not all swords tactical?
Well, no, they aren't. Some swords in everyday use in the second half of the 19th century were no longer serious weapons. Swords as used in the military around the world today have only a ceremonial function, although they are still mostly serious weapons (some are, some aren't). The only real difference is they aren't sharpened. In fact, where they are still used in ceremonies, they are still in the same tactical niche that they were before. Horse mounted soldiers still carry sabers in ceremonies, not knightly longswords, for instance.
So, anyway, I had mentioned that a pre-Civil war foot artillery sword, which was basically a Roman legionnaire's sword, relatively short and relatively heavy, might make a good tactical sword if given a non-glare and non-rusting treatment and provided with a modern scabbard and a modern grip. I was serious and I even expect someone makes something that fits that description already, although it isn't Ames. As swords go, it would have it's appeal. But if we take a look back to the era in which such things were on issue, we might have second thoughts.
Somebody must have thought it was a Good Thing, because they, the foot artillery swords, were issued in several armies. They do show up in photos. But were they good weapons? Swords were still viable weapons at the time. The cavalry had nice, long sabers. Foot officers had what look like decent swords, which were usually sabers in American service. In comparison, the foot artillery sword comes up a little short. Handy, perhaps, but nothing like it ever appeared later, like in the trenches of WWI or WWII. The classic Bowie knife may have been more popular during the Civil War but you don't see much mention of it later on, although a lot of knives can be described as Bowies, I suppose.
So maybe our modern day tactical sword shouldn't be short after all. But it can still be black.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 7, 2016 13:15:12 GMT
"tactical" is 21 century gimmickish for any "stuff" that looks and dresses out military. "Let's get tactical" in current wordspeak.
Tactics was defined in military doctrine as the practice and application of force at the lowest command level engaged in actual combat. (companies and battalions fighting)
When police forces started building militarized reaction units (SWATS) to deal with overarmed, hostile elements the jargon about tactical was born. After 911, when the militarization of police forces became more general, it bled over into the whole culture. We don't get historical on TV and in the Movies no mo: everything be taktikal. (Doo Dah, Doo Dah... )
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 7, 2016 13:42:17 GMT
Oh, I think it goes back further than that. Has everyone forgotten the late 1960s, with major riots in cities. The year was 1968.
|
|