|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 7, 2016 14:40:50 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. One ole fart to another ole fart: Yeah darlin, I was there. Police cordons and weapons back then didn't equate to what's there now. Shag nasty back then was the National Guard joining the party, gettin scared "shirtless" n blowing up people. I even remember Eisenhower sending the 82d Airborbne to Detroit. They did enough scary damage that it's never been done again. (Until they gave 50 cals to police departments. ) Anyway all this new hollywood tough stuff in an abberation of the new market trends. Paramilitarism gone commercial.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Oct 7, 2016 14:58:33 GMT
I agree with what was said above about "tactical", functional with very little maintenance problems, and it is a PR gimmick in my opinion - making you to feel special. I wouldn't buy a tool for the "tactical" publicity part, but I will take any day something functional with very little maintenance problems. PS Most of the time, "tactical" is linked to objects that are supposed to be used more than "from time to time". "tactical" axe, "tactical" knife, "tactical" sword, "tactical" condom ... Oops, the last one is not yet on the market.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 7, 2016 15:10:22 GMT
Tactical handkerchief are.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 7, 2016 15:29:14 GMT
Tactical handkerchief are. "Don't let the sniper blow your nose"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 16:24:28 GMT
Very interesting question Zen_Hydra. I have wondered the same thing. What makes a pistol better than a knife? What makes a fighter jet better than a commercial air plane? Suitability. That's the answer. Anything that allows a more modernistic approach with respect to actions and reactions to situations that may need sudden responses. What is the difference between Marial Arts if the military of old and of today? Difference of Martial arts & self defense of old and new? Evolution. Everything evolves, it goes through the test of time and comes out better and more refined.(Serious) Martial artists today would probably kick some serious a** in old times. Why? Refinements through progression in every filial generation. It's true, wether we like it or not. But, what is the difference between the nail of your middle finger to that of your corresponding toe? Nothing much, except maybe physiological differences. Similarly, Tactical does in no way imply 'black' 'modern' or 'better'. Older martial artists who refined syllabuses are still remembered in reverence for their far sightedness. We follow them, and will keep on doing so for a very long time with a slight tweak here or there due to individual personas. A sword of old could hold up to a modern sword. Why are knives and swords still popular in ceremonies and armies? Why not the duck foot pistols? Why not the older projectile weaponry? Somethings evolve but others revolve. They don't need to be revised, just tweaked. They don't need evolution, they stand the test of time and come out on top. So what does 'tactical' mean? Nothing, it is just a label that will come and go, while the actual thing stays here forever.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,619
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 7, 2016 16:43:30 GMT
Asad Javeed , for some reason your comment made me think of opening lines from the Chinese classical novel, Romance of the Three Kingdoms. "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." It speaks to the cyclical, and often futile, nature of human conflict.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 7, 2016 17:37:52 GMT
This is an interesting question. The word "tactical" represents one or more concepts, and the interpretation of said concepts probably depends on who you ask.
In my mind, a "tactical" ___ (sword, machete, kerchief, condom, &tc) is something that is designed and optimized for modern warfare and as such represents a continuation of the evolution of the sword.
(By that definition, every sword was at one point a "tactical" sword at the time it was used. It's just that the conditions for which it was designed for are now obsolete)
Modern warfare today involves guns. A lot of guns. And probably some drones for good measure. And with guns comes skirmish tactics and a lot of ducking, crouching, crawling, and hiding. To facilitate that a tactical sword should be small enough and of low profile so you can duck, scurry and weave unencumbered. Being able to quickly mount/dismount vehicles (cars, bicycles, ATVs) is also a plus. On the other hand, it should also be long enough to give you an advantage over someone with a knife. My solution would be something like a P-guard artillery sword with a 28in blade.
Sure, a P-guard is not THE best guard for one-on-one swordplay. The guy with the basket hilt will probably have your fingers off in no time. And a 30in blade leaves you at a handicap if you happen to stumble upon a guy with a 43in rapier. BUT bullets are more lethal than swords these days so I'll gladly take those sacrifices if it means being able to move around and make effective use of cover unhindered.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 7, 2016 17:38:33 GMT
Why are knives and swords still popular in ceremonies and armies? Why not the duck foot pistols? Why not the older projectile weaponry? Somethings evolve but others revolve. They don't need to be revised, just tweaked. They don't need evolution, they stand the test of time and come out on top. So what does 'tactical' mean? Nothing, it is just a label that will come and go, while the actual thing stays here forever. We should start issuing ceremonial crossbows and ballistae. That'll make an impression at the next state visit!
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,083
|
Post by LeMal on Oct 7, 2016 17:43:18 GMT
As with anything regarding terminology and definitions--outside of *actual* science or mathematics--this seems to me another case of "much ado about nothing."
When a sword is constructed using exclusively or near-exclusively historical materials and techniques, or a reasonable facsimile (e.g. not splitting hairs over whether you did stock removal with aid of a computer, or used a modern stock steel) it is a standard reproduction type.
When it is not, it fits one of two categories. That which fits pseudo-historical, pace-opera, science fantasy etc. themes is a "fantasy" piece.
And a sword that is as fully functional as any historically used piece, but is neither modeled on history or fantasy (and is usually "simple") is... "tactical."
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,083
|
Post by LeMal on Oct 7, 2016 17:44:49 GMT
(As the Bard said, "A rose by any other name...")
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 7, 2016 17:52:55 GMT
Well, swords don't necessarily always evolve. And the pre-Civil War foot artillery sword is probably the best example. It was, I believe, adopted at a time when classical things were most popular. People were building houses that tried to look like Greek temples. Women were wearing vaguely Greek style clothing. So soldiers got to carry a Greek or Roman sword.
There might be some question as to whether "modern" swords are better than old swords. Some would quickly say that the old stuff was better than the new stuff, no matter what it is. But I think that attitude only appears when you no longer actually use any of it. The M1903 was better than the M1, the M1 was better than the M14, and the M14 was better than the M16 and the M16 is better than the M4. But the M4 will be better than whatever the next thing that get issued.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Oct 7, 2016 18:00:46 GMT
I agree that something like a later period P guard sword would fit actual modern sword fighting well. And it comes with a series of actual *tactics* you can learn and perfect. Infantry saber, or indeed any number of saber schools. I've fought people skilled in saber tactics using my medieval methods, and gotten my backside handed to me in short order. The stuff is danged effective. And there's ample documentation for it. So yeah if actual soldiers want to carry swords and use them in real combat, there are indeed blades and techniques that remain perfectly viable. They were dispensed with because they were no good against snipers or maxims in WWI. But in today's world most of the combat happens unexpectedly and can be at very close range. Swords will still work extremely well in those circumstances.
But the "tactical" blades that are offered up for sale are usually more akin to post-apocalyptic fantasy weapons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 18:29:49 GMT
Asad Javeed , for some reason your comment made me think of opening lines from the Chinese classical novel, Romance of the Three Kingdoms. "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." It speaks to the cyclical, and often futile, nature of human conflict. A brilliant novel!
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,083
|
Post by LeMal on Oct 7, 2016 18:41:39 GMT
Well, swords don't necessarily always evolve. I think you might be caught up in a common misconception about how "evolution" actually works. (If you're not, no mtter, most of the people on this forum--and everywhere--are.) As someone who spends a great deal of his time teaching that subject--not only biological but how the same principles apply to technological and cultural evolution, that is a constant issue.) There is no "better" in evolution. There is no Great Chain of Being with a higher mark toward which anything is progressing. We are not any "better" than cockroaches or bacteria--in fact that's why they're still around. (The answer to the constantly frustrating Creationists' snarky question, "if we evolved from monkeys" (itself mistakenly put) "why are there still monkeys?" What's more--even more obscure and subtle--this doesn't even apply to a particular environment. Even people who get the point above still often unwittingly engage in the second, thinking that something that has evolved in a given environment is somehow "optimised" for that environment. This is where we get also-frustrating questions that focus only or mostly on functional factors for why we get, say, rapiers in one time and place or curved swords in another. And can't handle the idea that the never-to-be-truly-known-without-a-time-machine tipping point is not something about how it worked, but that someone at a particular time and place saw it and thought it was cool, and a critical mass of people made it catch on, so long as it wasn't egregiously worse than what else was available. What Stephen J. Gould and others have described well with the term "frozen accident." Yes, evolution is usually as multi-factorial--and sloppy--as this. The reality, however, doesn't jive well with our fantasies about "warriors" who were "only concerned with what worked" better" and weren't somehow caught up--like everyone else--in rather mundane or weird cultural aspects of their day. Ruminating over whether wars were won or lost over the price of wheat or whether the climate allowed good horse forage catches peoples' fancy a lot less than... well, minutiae about the swords they carried. (Which we all prove, by the time we spend here. ;) )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 19:06:38 GMT
All swords are tactile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 19:27:45 GMT
Well, swords don't necessarily always evolve. I think you might be caught up in a common misconception about how "evolution" actually works. (If you're not, no mtter, most of the people on this forum--and everywhere--are.) As someone who spends a great deal of his time teaching that subject--not only biological but how the same principles apply to technological and cultural evolution, that is a constant issue.) There is no "better" in evolution. There is no Great Chain of Being with a higher mark toward which anything is progressing. We are not any "better" than cockroaches or bacteria--in fact that's why they're still around. (The answer to the constantly frustrating Creationists' snarky question, "if we evolved from monkeys" (itself mistakenly put) "why are there still monkeys?" What's more--even more obscure and subtle--this doesn't even apply to a particular environment. Even people who get the point above still often unwittingly engage in the second, thinking that something that has evolved in a given environment is somehow "optimised" for that environment. This is where we get also-frustrating questions that focus only or mostly on functional factors for why we get, say, rapiers in one time and place or curved swords in another. And can't handle the idea that the never-to-be-truly-known-without-a-time-machine tipping point is not something about how it worked, but that someone at a particular time and place saw it and thought it was cool, and a critical mass of people made it catch on, so long as it wasn't egregiously worse than what else was available. What Stephen J. Gould and others have described well with the term "frozen accident." Yes, evolution is usually as multi-factorial--and sloppy--as this. The reality, however, doesn't jive well with our fantasies about "warriors" who were "only concerned with what worked" better" and weren't somehow caught up--like everyone else--in rather mundane or weird cultural aspects of their day. Ruminating over whether wars were won or lost over the price of wheat or whether the climate allowed good horse forage catches peoples' fancy a lot less than... well, minutiae about the swords they carried. (Which we all prove, by the time we spend here. ) My point exactly! Tactical is not necessarily an advancement or even something that has been introduced due to "refinement". It is just something that became popular with the masses under what was previously known as the 'herd effect' (Many different terms can be applied). Similar to why we gag when we see someone puke, or yawn when someone yawns. When someone got a new weapon design that exploits some major disadvantage in the current design, it was quickly adapted rather than the defense that was always introduced. There is NO technique that can not be countered. You just need to find that counter out. So, since this is a digital age and we have become one as a globe, when something that is advertised as tougher, better and less maintenance demanding, the trend catches on.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 7, 2016 20:20:39 GMT
I generally agree but to say there is no better in evolution is close to the point I was making. My example of the foot artillery sword was to point out that it did not evolve or was not developed from any sword previously in use. Instead, it was a design that was plucked out of the past. But to use the term evolution is misleading because swords are not living creatures. They may be lively but they don't live. Strictly speaking, they cannot evolve. Someone creates a new design and that's it. They aren't designed in a vacuum, either, no more than cars are. When that happens, you have something like Buckminster Fuller's car, which was not a particularly useful car.
Comments about "tactical" swords aside, the evolution or development of swords may be said to have ceased by the beginning of WWII. The French cavalry were even still using their Model 1822 saber. Any new models are really little more than variations on an older model and typically of a traditional (what we had last year) design. That the French were continuing to use an old design like that is really remarkable, for what it's worth.
There are trends, to be sure, which is another way of pointing out the effect of fashion on design and that even applies to bladed weapons. True, sword design has stagnated but knives, axes, bayonets and kitchen knives all continue to evolve, meaning only that new designs continue to be introduced. It doesn't happen by leaving two knives alone in a drawer but by someone dreaming up something different. But it's hard to be original.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 20:30:11 GMT
Evolution also means the gradual change of something in terms of form or function (typically from simple to complex). E.g, a language? But I digress: we have gone a long way from the thread it seems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 20:32:27 GMT
"tactical" axe, "tactical" knife, "tactical" sword, "tactical" condom ... Oops, the last one is not yet on the market. You won't believe what you can find in the internet in terms of that tactical last thing.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 7, 2016 20:47:12 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. I suppose the joke answer would be "The one buried in your enemy" . Application towards certain contexts is the boring one. Offensive capabilities with some defense, again, depending on use. If mainly a sidearm, it was primarily a defensive tool. Great question, as you can go all over the place, theoretically, with design and environment.
|
|