|
Post by howler on Oct 7, 2016 21:01:06 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. Tactical condom...the possibilities "stretch" ones...uh...imagination. At various times, tactical either meant something (say a knife) that is mainly (even exclusively) used for fighting (Sykes Fairbairn dagger)...to, in recent times, something that can be used for fighting and utilitarian tasks (Kabar knife), as military/police realized there really wasn't a lot of hand to hand knife fights going on. Since swords are almost exclusively used for fighting (not counting domestic tools used as weapons like kukri, barong, parang, bolo, billhook, pitchfork, Latin machete, etc...) defining what is more or less tactical is an interesting question...I suppose it would be "what makes a sword more effective in its application".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 21:12:23 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. Tactical condom...the possibilities "stretch" ones...uh...imagination. At various times, tactical either meant something (say a knife) that is mainly (even exclusively) used for fighting (Sykes Fairbairn dagger)...to, in recent times, something that can be used for fighting and utilitarian tasks (Kabar knife), as military/police realized there really wasn't a lot of hand to hand knife fights going on. Since swords are almost exclusively used for fighting (not counting domestic tools used as weapons like kukri, barong, parang, bolo, billhook, pitchfork, Latin machete, etc...) defining what is more or less tactical is an interesting question...I suppose it would be "what makes a sword more effective in its application". Reading through this made me giggle hysterically and roll on the floor while clutching my chest as I could not force my self to breathe while laughing. No offense but the ending does give a very (unintentional?) pun to the start of your post.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 7, 2016 21:22:39 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. ) Speaking of which, I just got off the Horse Forage forum...interesting stuff. My opinion, the ultimate expression of the portable fighting knife/short sword/utility blade...the Bowie knife. Look up Bagwell, James Keating, and the historical intersection of cultures (English, French, Spanish, native American, etc...) and styles in the area of New Orleans in the early 19th century when there was still a dueling culture.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 7, 2016 21:24:16 GMT
Tactical condom...the possibilities "stretch" ones...uh...imagination. At various times, tactical either meant something (say a knife) that is mainly (even exclusively) used for fighting (Sykes Fairbairn dagger)...to, in recent times, something that can be used for fighting and utilitarian tasks (Kabar knife), as military/police realized there really wasn't a lot of hand to hand knife fights going on. Since swords are almost exclusively used for fighting (not counting domestic tools used as weapons like kukri, barong, parang, bolo, billhook, pitchfork, Latin machete, etc...) defining what is more or less tactical is an interesting question...I suppose it would be "what makes a sword more effective in its application". Reading through this made me giggle hysterically and roll on the floor while clutching my chest as I could not force my self to breathe while laughing. No offense but the ending does give a very (unintentional?) pun to the start of your post. Tactical condom meets tactical sword...what could go wrong, or right, or...
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 7, 2016 21:32:53 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. Hey, leave "two knives alone in a drawer" under the right conditions, say, soft music, a little wine, anti-rust conditioning oil...I see shiny, bouncing Stockman slip joint folders in a matter of months.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,814
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 7, 2016 21:45:55 GMT
swords evolved until guns revolved!
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by LeMal on Oct 7, 2016 22:10:23 GMT
swords evolved until guns revolved! That's not a bad way to put it. :) Though to be particular, they never truly stopped evolving. That's why we have knives. We could do hair-splitting over various terms--and miss the point. My students do this all the time, parsing whether it's "true" to say something like "dinosaurs are still with us--they evolved to become birds" or not. But very analogous case. Birds evolved to stay small because flight trumps--well, a lot of things! Sometimes size being reduced is what fits the overall picture better. When blades are more often tools, and still used as weapons but rarely and only under pretty extreme situations, ease-of-carry and multi-purpose trumps reach and overall lethality. Of course, dinosaurs or birds--or us--bacteria and cockroaches will probably last longer. Not only is "smaller" often better-- "simple" is pretty robust! (Which probably explains much of my soft spot for "tactical" swords.)
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,814
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 7, 2016 22:24:27 GMT
I learned evolution is the "survival of the fittest" . Who survived is right. If you can sell tactical sword, they fit their niche. I like"em black.
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by LeMal on Oct 7, 2016 22:41:59 GMT
I learned evolution is the "survival of the fittest" . Who survived is right. If you can sell tactical sword, they fit their niche. I like"em black. :) Pretty much. Though there are arguments that "survival of the fittest" is problematic because you end up with a tautology. ("How do you define fitness." "It survived." ;) ) The big thing though is "fitness " is really a sum over ALL the components that would help something survive. "Ability in primary function" is only one. Cost. Ease of carry. Popularity. Popularity itself being a tension between opposite pulls. One is traditionalism, and showing you belong in the group because of fealty to what worked in the past. The other is novelty in fashion and innovation. So in one century, for example, you might have Eastern Europeans in Poland preferring straight blades, because only "heathens" use the Central Asian style--and of course they "don't work as well anyway." Then a critical mass of them get caught up with Sarmartism and suddenly everybody "cool" has a szabla and only backwards Neanderthals stick with a pallasch. And--sometimes sadly!--functionality even gets disparaged by the "knowledgeable" who are always certain, in their own minds, that they're immune to these other influences. ("Does this sword work?" "Awesomely!" "Then why don't you buy or keep it?" "B-b-b-because the guys who but high-end swords don't think so and they'll laugh at me and tell me I don't know anything.") Even, paradoxcally, when millions of dollars and huge popularity boosts are hemselves at stake. Ah, if Shaq had only not been afraid to free-throw like Rick Barry... (Well, or just about anyone! Sheesh.)
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,814
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 7, 2016 22:47:36 GMT
Yup! (Jack D.?)
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Oct 8, 2016 2:26:29 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. Tactical condom...the possibilities "stretch" ones...uh...imagination. At various times, tactical either meant something (say a knife) that is mainly (even exclusively) used for fighting (Sykes Fairbairn dagger)...to, in recent times, something that can be used for fighting and utilitarian tasks (Kabar knife), as military/police realized there really wasn't a lot of hand to hand knife fights going on. Since swords are almost exclusively used for fighting (not counting domestic tools used as weapons like kukri, barong, parang, bolo, billhook, pitchfork, Latin machete, etc...) defining what is more or less tactical is an interesting question...I suppose it would be "what makes a sword more effective in its application". These days "tactical" is associated with dark green, black, camo. Colors that blend in the bush. You got the drift now?
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 8, 2016 4:06:07 GMT
Tactical condom...the possibilities "stretch" ones...uh...imagination. At various times, tactical either meant something (say a knife) that is mainly (even exclusively) used for fighting (Sykes Fairbairn dagger)...to, in recent times, something that can be used for fighting and utilitarian tasks (Kabar knife), as military/police realized there really wasn't a lot of hand to hand knife fights going on. Since swords are almost exclusively used for fighting (not counting domestic tools used as weapons like kukri, barong, parang, bolo, billhook, pitchfork, Latin machete, etc...) defining what is more or less tactical is an interesting question...I suppose it would be "what makes a sword more effective in its application". These days "tactical" is associated with dark green, black, camo. Colors that blend in the bush. You got the drift now? DAMMIT! Are you telling me I got to spray paint all my sharp pointy stuff?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 8, 2016 4:31:02 GMT
The definition of a tactical sword (or anything for military purposes for that matter, and some might even argue civilian purposes as well) is something that is designed with a tactic in mind. For instance, the P1908 Cavalry sword (not sabre) was made for the tactic of cavalry spearing enemies along the way and getting out again quick. Being coated in black, green, flektarn or other camp means nothing aside from the what it looks like.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 8, 2016 9:53:23 GMT
In one sense, something that is "tactical" doesn't have to actually be anything; it only has to look like it does. Spray paint your gilded smallsword and, voila: it's a tactical sword. Before, it was just an ordinary sword. I'm not sure that's necessary for an issue cavalry sword. In other words, how could a tactical bayonet be different from an ordinary bayonet?
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,814
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 8, 2016 10:00:09 GMT
Some kind of coating against rust and reflection? Modern durable grip material with more grip? Molle? Aaaand ... a LASER!
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Oct 8, 2016 11:47:00 GMT
Some kind of coating against rust and reflection? Modern durable grip material with more grip? Molle? Aaaand ... a LASER! That's very close to "tacticool": things you wouldn't buy if were "normal"
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,814
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 8, 2016 12:14:42 GMT
I see "tactical" used more in a sense to make a difference to "historical". You use modern materials and technics. A rust coating or a more rubber like grip aren't so bad. Some things of this are "tacticool", but I think that's ok.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 8, 2016 14:55:05 GMT
The word tactical has more or less a specific meaning in the military, although I doubt that it is the same for everyone everywhere. Essentially, it means dressed and to some extent, equipped for field duty, as opposed to garrison or barracks (everyday) dress. You leave the shiny and highly polished stuff in the barracks. You wear your second best boots. You wear subdued insignia instead of colored insignia. The idea is not new, having been something that has been done for over a hundred years. Only the term itself is new or relatively so in this context.
The problem with tactical swords is that swords have generally not been carried into battle except by horse cavalry during that time. That doesn't mean there can't be a tactical sword, only that the military doesn't use them as we are now using the term.
There is the curious thing about armies worth mentioning here in that what was tactical (in this sense) at one time is now "dress." Only rarely in the time there have been regular standing armies, something over 300 years, have soldiers go by with a single uniform. At a minimum, soldiers have usually had a dress uniform, a service uniform and a working or fatigue or stable dress. Usually there was no hot weather uniform. Soldiers went into battle in their dress uniforms (the better to impress the enemy). From the beginning, however, soldiers armed with rifles tended to wear more subdued uniforms, hence the term "rifle green." This was even done in the US Army before the Civil War. The tradition continues in the British Army, although all the rifle regiments have been consolidated in "Rifles." Their dress uniform is dark green but everything else is pretty much the same as any other soldier. They would say they have always been tactical.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 10, 2016 17:14:47 GMT
You know, I spent the last two days thinking about this. Now, this isn't anything especially revolutionary but you could probably "tactify" any sword or anything. In fact, that was actually done after my vague cutoff date of a hundred years ago. It wasn't done by everyone but it was done, to a certain degree. It could still be done by anyone with any sword; that is, any sword worth carrying. I'll leave that part to others since I don't like being (too) dogmatic.
In the beginning, the first think that was done to make a sword tactical was to cover the scabbard with leather, leaving the bright metal one at home. Aside from using a plain sword knot instead of one made of gold or silver braid or lace, nothing else seemed to have been done. The last US cavalry saber had a canvas covered scabbard and the British 1908 model was usually painted and the guards on both swords were generally painted as well. That was tactical. Japanese swords still used in WWII usually had either leather covers or were painted. What more would we do today?
Whatever model sword we might choose to have, long or short, we'd want to do the same thing with the scabbard. Today we might not use leather but probably nylon instead in some appropriate color or camouflage pattern. We'd probably want to do something with the hilt, too. A Japanese sword generally came with a thick brass handguard (don't know the technical term) that would soon tarnish to an acceptable shade of brown but any handguard could be painted, anodized, bronzed or even covered with cloth. The grip would also have to have to be inconspicuous, too, of course, although the Japanese sometimes wrapped the grips of their swords with decidedly attention getting cloth: white. We wouldn't want to do that. But provided the metal parts are suitably treated, the rest of the grip is probably subdued enough as it is. All of this assumes the old design is good enough. I hesitate to get into designing a new sword, there being so many designs out there already. All that would remain would be to modernize the design insofar as that might seem worth doing. All I can think of at the moment is perhaps an improved grip and more modern materials. But given the variety of sword grips for swords in use in the later 19th and early 20th century, all you need to do is to pick the one you like best.
Then there is the blade, the part of the sword that makes the whole thing worth having. You'd have to decide all over again which design you like best: curved, straight, back sword, broadsword and so on. Naturally the specification would be that it be delivered sharp, the way Cold Steel sells them. As long as we at it, we might have the blade treated so it won't rust. Anything from Parkerizing to whatever the latest space-age after market coating happens to be, although a flashy bright sword blade probably makes less difference than we think because it's only going to be whipped out at the last minute anyway. Right?
I can't think of any new and novel ways of actually carrying a sword, so that's open for suggestions. And it occurs to me that Cold Steel probably already makes something that fits these specifications and, moreover, offer it in a left-handed version! What more could you ask for?
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Oct 10, 2016 17:40:06 GMT
It's an interesting thought experiment. If we were commissioned to come up with a modern military sword, what would it be and what tactical school would it follow? I think to answer that we have to have some idea of how it would be used. Obviously the air cav isn't going to be riding people down with sabers. And massed troops aren't going to be pressing each other in a shield wall. But modern soldiers increasingly have a need to fight in tight urbanized spaces. Something that was pretty rare historically. Handguns are rightfully seen as pretty ineffective in combat and are rarely used. They can miss entirely even at close range. But a sword rarely misses. And you find accounts from soldiers in both world wars who improvised melee weapons.
So what would the sword need to be able to do? Given the intensity of asymmetric warfare, and the prospect of suicidal assailants, it would not be sufficient to rely on thrust-oriented blades. They do not stop the attacker quickly enough. Rather, massive tissue damage or removal of limbs is in order.
So we can put together some more concrete attributes of the modern blade with these things in mind:
--Simple protected hilt with a smooth surface that can double as a punching tool --Small or no crossguard since blade-on-blade combat is unlikely --Blade of about 30" length and 2" wide. --Wide thrusting tip to maximize wound channel on a thrust --Cut-oriented straight blade sharp on both sides --Weight of no more than 2.5 pounds
Which starts to sound a lot like a less ornate Scottish broadsword. Interestingly enough one of the last blades to go toe-to-toe against firearms and win in the 18th century.
|
|