www.ditl.org

What would you say was/is the greatest weapon of it's time?

Lighthawk wrote:What would you say was/is the greatest weapon of it's time?

Which time? Pick an age and I'll pick a weapon.

It also depends on context. A katana was a great weapon for its region, but if someone were to use it on a European battlefield of that same age they'd very swiftly get killed.

Mikey wrote:

Lighthawk wrote:What would you say was/is the greatest weapon of it's time?

Which time? Pick an age and I'll pick a weapon.

Alright...

A) Stone age
B) Bronze age
C) Iron Age
D) Black powder age
E) World War age
F) Cold war age
G) Modern age

Sionnach Glic wrote:It also depends on context. A katana was a great weapon for its region, but if someone were to use it on a European battlefield of that same age they'd very swiftly get killed.

Really? What makes you say that?

Japanese steel was apparently quite brittle and the Katana prone to shatter. It's kind of like Indian swords of the Napoleonic era, total crap that often had to be bent back into shape after striking someone.

In Japan itself, it wasn't that big a deal because a Samurai's primary weapon was the bow and spear.

Edit: The Katana is also a slashing weapon, where as Euro swords where designed to crush and stab. A Katana would not be particularly useful against an armoured European.

There are many proponents of "the Katana is the ultimate sword" group, I'm thinking that 'The Mod That Was Formerly Roachey' falls into the opposite camp. I can see a katana as effective against any cloth or leather armor and such things as brigandines. Against riveted chainmail or plate defenses.....not so much. The reason being that the edge does not have a cole chisle's geometry but more of a cleaver type edge, very usefull for flesh and bone though.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Japanese steel was apparently quite brittle and the Katana prone to shatter.

Odd, you mostly hear people going on about how advanced Japanese sword forging technique were suppose to be.

It's kind of like Indian swords of the Napoleonic era, total crap that often had to be bent back into shape after striking someone.

That...seems like a serious design flaw.

In Japan itself, it wasn't that big a deal because a Samurai's primary weapon was the bow and spear.

...well, that's news to me.

Edit: The Katana is also a slashing weapon, where as Euro swords where designed to crush and stab. A Katana would not be particularly useful against an armoured European.

I thought that samurai wore full steel armor as well, not as heavy as european plate, but still good armor. You'd think they'd have designed their weapons to deal with that.

Vic wrote:There are many proponents of "the Katana is the ultimate sword" group, I'm thinking that 'The Mod That Was Formerly Roachey' falls into the opposite camp. I can see a katana as effective against any cloth or leather armor and such things as brigandines. Against riveted chainmail or plate defenses.....not so much. The reason being that the edge does not have a cole chisle's geometry but more of a cleaver type edge, very usefull for flesh and bone though.

So a katana seems to be more of a weapon of status used to frighten the peasants than an actual weapon of war.

Lighthawk wrote:
Odd, you mostly hear people going on about how advanced Japanese sword forging technique were suppose to be.

They were, to an extent. The problem is, the harder a metal is, the more brittle it can be. Depending on the forging.

That...seems like a serious design flaw.

Well India was pretty much a backwater when the British showed up.

I thought that samurai wore full steel armor as well, not as heavy as european plate, but still good armor. You'd think they'd have designed their weapons to deal with that.

Iron and leather IIRC. The Samurai and the associated high class mooks were the only highly trained and well armed men in Japan. So the Katana is fine for dueling amongst themselves and killing pheasant rabble raised for an army.

Vic wrote: So a katana seems to be more of a weapon of status used to frighten the peasants than an actual weapon of war.

It's part status symbol, part honour thingy. It was supposed to be an extension and symbol of their personal honour.

In Japan itself, it wasn't that big a deal because a Samurai's primary weapon was the bow and spear.

...well, that's news to me.

Well think about it a bit. A sword has a relatively short reach, where as a spear might extend your reach out to 16 feet depending on the design and a bow could do you to a 100 yards.

Cpl Kendall wrote:They were, to an extent. The problem is, the harder a metal is, the more brittle it can be. Depending on the forging.

Right, you want flexibility in your sword or it'll just shatter. I could have sworn hearing that the katana was a great mix of strength and flexibility, but not being able to pin down where that info got into my head from, I certainly can't credit it's reliability.

Well India was pretty much a backwater when the British showed up.

Granted, but still...

Iron and leather IIRC. The Samurai and the associated high class mooks were the only highly trained and well armed men in Japan. So the Katana is fine for dueling amongst themselves and killing pheasant rabble raised for an army.

Sounds like the weapon has gone through a good bit of romantization over the years as to just how formidable it was

It's part status symbol, part honour thingy. It was supposed to be an extension and symbol of their personal honour.

Ah honor, what would war have been without thee

Well think about it a bit. A sword has a relatively short reach, where as a spear might extend your reach out to 16 feet depending on the design and a bow could do you to a 100 yards.

Well certainly, range makes a difference. And yet you always seem to hear about how all yee olde battles were settled by the sword.

I think you'll find that a great deal of romance has gone into pretty much every weapon. As for battles decided by the sword, well when the majority of your army consists of guys you conscripted from the fields, it'll be decided by a blade of some form.

It depends. Having owned a replica katana, I can say they are reletevely light and well balanced. You can get alot of force behind a katana swing. But the Katana proponents aren't taking into account the sheer bulk of euro armor. Knights weren't so much slashed or stabbed, as beated to death by the force of the swings.

Could a Katana cut steel? Sure. Could a human swing it with enough force to cut through a suit of plate armor and inflict a mortal injury? I say no.

The problem with Japanese blades is that they were designed for fighting light infantry and cavalry. Not armored heavy infantry.

Reference the Spike TV show "The Deadliest Warrior". Pirates VS Knights. They fired a flintlock pistol point blank into a suit of armor and it failed to penetrate. That's a decent amount of force.

Of course the multi shot and more powerful blunderbuss had a single pellet punch through.

Mark wrote:...Could a Katana cut steel? Sure. Could a human swing it with enough force to cut through a suit of plate armor and inflict a mortal injury? I say no.

Just kick them on their ass. How hard would that be?



Just saying.