|
|
Post by howler on Oct 7, 2016 23:32:18 GMT
I'm not sure that a katana's design makes optimal use of the amount of metal in the blade. I accept that this design conceit may be attributed to limitations in materials and/or processing, but the blade design doesn't actually seem to be optimized for armored or unarmored combat. There are many examples of cut/thrust swords that cut as well (or better), and certainly ones with a better thrusting profile (especially against armor). A katana tends to be heavy for its length, and the thick wedge-like cross section lends it a rigidity which doesn't seem necessary for practical use. Japan has a long history of being insular (by definition it kind of has to be), and self-aggrandizing. Is cultural wankery the reason the Japanese sword changed so little over the ages? Did they just find a style that worked well-enough and then doggedly resist outside influence? I am of course speaking in generalities, and while the katana doesn't seem to be optimized for function, it has also certainly played other important roles in Japanese history and culture. It's optimised as a compromise sword. To be good at cutting, to be good at thrusting, to be good against armour, to be good against no armour. To be a conveniently wearable sidearm, while being long. To be usable in one hand or two. So no surprise to find sword that are more specialised do any single one of those tasks better. Not sure how one could determine "optimal use of the amount of metal.". A typical katana weighs less per inch of blade than a typical longsword, less than a typical Viking, a little more (but close) to the typical arming sword (using 1.1kg, 30" as typical), more than a typical Moro kris, much more than a typical shashka, much more than a typical yataghan, much less than a typical late Qing dao. It appeared to work well enough in the Sengoku Jidai. What motivations are there for swords that are in theory intended for the battlefield to evolve when battles aren't evolving? If the Tokugawa government collapsed in civil war, and Japanese warfare continued to evolve in the late 1600s and 1700s, then the swords might have changed a lot as armour disappeared. Tokugawa laws prescribing a lot of the details of the official government wear katana did their part at preventing/slowing innovation. A samurai wanting to evolve the katana into a rapier for better duelling wasn't allowed to, at least as far as being able to wear it officially. (Besides, if he wanted that kind of advantage, he could bring some friends, or bring a yari.) A typical katana (roughly 3ft. overall and 2 1/2lbs.) weighs less than a typical longsword (roughly 4ft. overall and 2 3/4lbs), but not "per inch of blade". Of course, what is average/typical weight, as you clearly get variation. A light Katana faced off against a heavy longsword, but one of the myths is that longsword was a hulking Conan Great sword. You can get Longswords that can be very close to Katana weight, and lets not forget that the POB is much closer to the hilt on a Longsword, so even if it is heavier, it is MUCH easier to wield one handed. |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 0:50:52 GMT
The typical antique katana is 900g-1kg. Call it 1kg, 26". A longsword is 36", 1.5kg (later ones average about 1.6kg, maybe 37"). 1kg/26" = 38.5g/inch 1.5kg/36" = 41.7g/inch Modern katanas tend to be somewhat heavier per inch, about the same as a longsword. Longsword weights: www.encasedinsteel.co.uk/2015/01/23/a-statistical-analysis-on-longsword-lengths/These give weights/inch of 41.6g/inch (14th century), 44.4g/inch (15th), and 46.9g/inch (16th). For the modern katana data at www.toyamaryu.org/SwordMeasurements.htm the average weight is 1145g, and average length 28.33", for 40.4g/inch, less than longswords, but close to the 14th century longsword average. Don't know about longswords being easier to wield one-handed, let alone MUCH easier. While the POB is typically closer (3-5") than a katana (4-6"), you have a lot more steel further out from the grip (because you have a much long blade), and the moment of inertia matters more than POB for how easy it is to swing, and this will be higher for the average longsword than the average katana. Typical katana weight and balance is similar to that of one-handed sabres designed to be used one-handed, so it isn't surprising to find the typical katana works easily one-handed. While it's all well and good to provide information to counter old myths (supersword, clunky crowbar etc.), I don't think misinformation and new myths are the way to go. Stick to data, and avoid myths. |
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659 
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 8, 2016 1:20:04 GMT
I'm wasn't necessarily comparing katana to longsword. I was speaking more of swords like sabres, shashkas, and the other swords Timo Nieminen listed. A shashka seems to be a much more efficient cut and thrust sword than most katana. It's lighter, faster and still dominant at cutting and stabbinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 1:43:32 GMT
A shashka is better for cutting, but a katana is better for thrusting. A shashka has a quite thin tip - thrust it hard into something resistant, and it might not survive. My military shashka has lost an inch and a bit of tip, quite possibly from that kind of thing (the last 2" is under 2mm thick; might have gone to close to 1mm at the original tip).
But that kind of sword is perhaps what a katana would have evolved into if they'd kept having major wars, and armour disappeared from the battlefield.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 8, 2016 1:50:06 GMT
In my experience, the relatively thick cross section of the katana very much limits it's thrusting ability through anything rigid. Against cloth and flesh I think both a shashka and katana will easily penetrate.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 8, 2016 1:51:03 GMT
This is interesting, I appreciate the input.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 2:02:45 GMT
In my experience, the relatively thick cross section of the katana very much limits it's thrusting ability through anything rigid. Against cloth and flesh I think both a shashka and katana will easily penetrate. I don't think the plan was to try to punch a katana tip through rigid armour - the rigid parts of the armours were generally katana-proof (the goal was arrow-proof). Gaps and mail. But you won't always hit gaps when you try, and will hit armour. A stout tip will be more likely to survive the experience than a thin tip. (A needle-pointed longsword is specialised for that kind of thing - gaps and mail - and is better for that. The thickness is about the same as a katana, but the katana tip is wider (so it retains better cutting).) Against light clothing and flesh, a thin shashka tip is good enough. Thick wool winter coats might cause a problem (as they did for the British in the Crimean War). |
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,332
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 8, 2016 2:04:57 GMT
Katana have different tips, some more pointy for thrusting, some more "broad" for slicing.
The same with euros.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 8, 2016 2:23:19 GMT
They only vary to a certain degree, and the pointiness of a kissaki is quickly subverted by the relative thickness of the blade. Plunging through cloth and flesh this doesn't really matter, but against metal scales, hardened leather, and lacquered wood/bamboo it really struggles to penetrate. A tip oriented more for cutting honestly makes more sense to me as relates to the katana.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,332
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 8, 2016 2:42:32 GMT
My thoughts:
You don't aim on the hardest part of an armor.
Armorbreaking arrows had a triangle tip.
A pointy tip is not good for cutting.
You have to find the right balance for your opponent's equipment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 2:50:17 GMT
There's a surprising range, if you're going by something like the sketches on Usagiya, then yeah they don't look that far off from each other. Get up close to say ikubi and o-kissaki and you'll see right away there can be huge differences.
If the blade thickness is getting in the way, doesn't that kind of imply that the kissaki already did it's job? How deep did you need to get in there? The heart is what, generally less than two and a half inches? Penetrate too deep and there's also a greater likelihood for the guy to take your sword with him when he falls over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 3:01:37 GMT
The bigger problem is that the rigid armour is generally swordproof. Against rawhide lamellar, the sword would be facing over 1cm of rawhide (4 layers, 3-6mm of rawhide in each layer). Against steel plate (helmets, late breastplates), 2-4mm of steel/iron laminate. Basically, armour that stops 100J arrows stops swords.
(Yari tips tend to be stout enough to survive hitting that kind of armour. Especially lance heads.)
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 8, 2016 3:03:21 GMT
If you are stabbing the soft spots you aren't benefitted by the katana's thickness. It isn't great against armour, and it isn't any more effective against an unarmoured opponent than lighter, faster swords, then it isn't the great all-round weapon it is being touted as.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 3:19:41 GMT
The benefit of the thick tip is so that it doesn't break when you are trying to stab a soft spot, and hit the armour instead. It doesn't hurt penetration when you do hit the soft spot.
It makes it less effective for cutting soft targets, but it is still demonstrably effective enough.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 8, 2016 3:25:43 GMT
Poniards and rondel daggers didn't have thick tips and they probably hit armor, en route to a softer target, far more often than a katana would. I have a difficult time accepting this justification.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 3:32:35 GMT
They are products of a different culture, may as well ask why they didn't look like a pugio or seax. I'm not sure what justification you would like? Here's a nice example of a yoroidoshi, dagger optimized for defeating armor yakiba.com/Tanto_Yoroidoshi.htm |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 8, 2016 3:58:57 GMT
The typical antique katana is 900g-1kg. Call it 1kg, 26". A longsword is 36", 1.5kg (later ones average about 1.6kg, maybe 37"). 1kg/26" = 38.5g/inch 1.5kg/36" = 41.7g/inch Modern katanas tend to be somewhat heavier per inch, about the same as a longsword. Longsword weights: www.encasedinsteel.co.uk/2015/01/23/a-statistical-analysis-on-longsword-lengths/These give weights/inch of 41.6g/inch (14th century), 44.4g/inch (15th), and 46.9g/inch (16th). For the modern katana data at www.toyamaryu.org/SwordMeasurements.htm the average weight is 1145g, and average length 28.33", for 40.4g/inch, less than longswords, but close to the 14th century longsword average. Don't know about longswords being easier to wield one-handed, let alone MUCH easier. While the POB is typically closer (3-5") than a katana (4-6"), you have a lot more steel further out from the grip (because you have a much long blade), and the moment of inertia matters more than POB for how easy it is to swing, and this will be higher for the average longsword than the average katana. Typical katana weight and balance is similar to that of one-handed sabres designed to be used one-handed, so it isn't surprising to find the typical katana works easily one-handed. While it's all well and good to provide information to counter old myths (supersword, clunky crowbar etc.), I don't think misinformation and new myths are the way to go. Stick to data, and avoid myths. I was pretty good on picking that 2 1/2lb. (1145g) weight for the modern Katana (all I was pointing out...as few would use an antique). Man, 900g is sub 2 lbs. (Japanese population sure was small back then). My Cold Steel (modern overweight Crowbar  ...based on comments on CS) Italian Longsword weighs 45.5 oz. (1290g)...not 53 oz. (1.5Kg). I should not have used the word MUCH (in cap, no less), but I think I would take 8" of blade length and a closer POB over the 5 1/2oz. (not 4oz...my error) weight penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 4:06:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 4:16:45 GMT
My Cold Steel (modern overweight Crowbar ;) ...based on comments on CS) Italian Longsword weighs 45.5 oz. (1290g)...not 53 oz. (1.5Kg). Which just goes to show that CS doesn't deserve its reputation for selling overweight clunky swords. That's a lightweight longsword. There were lighter ones, but the CS is easily in the bottom quartile (and it's long for its weight). IMO, it's better to compare typical swords, not a typical sword and a very light example of a type. |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 8, 2016 5:01:29 GMT
My Cold Steel (modern overweight Crowbar ...based on comments on CS) Italian Longsword weighs 45.5 oz. (1290g)...not 53 oz. (1.5Kg). Which just goes to show that CS doesn't deserve its reputation for selling overweight clunky swords. That's a lightweight longsword. There were lighter ones, but the CS is easily in the bottom quartile (and it's long for its weight). IMO, it's better to compare typical swords, not a typical sword and a very light example of a type. Your right, Timo, about that CS Italian longsword weight being lighter, partly due to the slightly longer and narrower design of the blade (for addressing armor gaps with tip emphasis over blade), as opposed to the slightly heavier but shorter hand and a half by CS. I don't know your feeling about Schola Gladiatoria, but I based some of my statements on things I heard him say. You seem EXTREMELY knowledgeable about certain historical minutia, so I was only going on modern products and laymen research on my own. The CS Italian has been favorably reviewed, in general (a reason I purchased it, along with its lightness). Longsword (I think) does have a large variance (as it was used for hundreds of years) and it changed (being flung into the maelstrom of evolving weaponry) in the battles of all the various nations of Europe and beyond. |
|
...based on comments on CS) Italian Longsword weighs 45.5 oz. (1290g)...not 53 oz. (1.5Kg). I should not have used the word MUCH (in cap, no less), but I think I would take 8" of blade length and a closer POB over the 5 1/2oz. (not 4oz...my error) weight penalty.
