b8de57 No.586514
Could the military find some form of modern martial arts to be used with combat swords made for the modern era? When I play it out in my head it certainly looks pretty good. I imagine it could be a modernized rendition of a cross-guarded long sword or maybe some type of made up unit. would you suppose that would be quite nice to have?
d3e2ea No.586517
I'd like to see a return of sword bayonets, and a drill based fight style optimised to use them (martial art just sounds too faggy). That way you don't lose the use of the firearm, and a large number of the attacks and defensive moves in the fighting style should involve firing a round if you have one in the mag.
2a8c7c No.586518
Swords gonna come back when power armor becomes a thing.
b8de57 No.586519
>>586517
we could have both.
d3e2ea No.586521
>>586519
Why use a sword when you can carry a bayonet that turns your rifle into a sword that can also shoot people?
>>586518
Swords are less likely there, if you're looking to defeat big, chunky, powered armour with melee weapons then you'd be better off with a something closer to a sledgehammer. Even that sledgehammer is going to be pretty useless compared to explosive based anti armour/materiel rounds.
b8de57 No.586522
swords would look sexy and aesthetic on soldiers, also the reason for the sword on it's own is the wild swinging that happens when they try to take out multiple or a single enemy.
b8de57 No.586523
the gun with it is too much weight, with the sword by itself there is a LOT what a soldier can do.
d3e2ea No.586524
>>586523
>swords would look sexy and aesthetic on soldiers
Yes, they'd be much more aesthetic corpses too.
>the wild swinging that happens when they try to take out multiple or a single enemy
Wild swinging doesn't do much more than make you look retarded as you give your opponent a perfect opening
>>586523
>the gun with it is too much weight
Manlet detected
>with the sword by itself there is a LOT what a soldier can do.
and it is surprisingly less than what a soldier can do when he has a rifle. Did you never wonder why swords fell out of use as a practical weapon?
b8de57 No.586525
Also, using the modern techniques and science we have today, we would be able to make the swords far better.
2a8c7c No.586526
>>586521
>Swords are less likely there, if you're looking to defeat big, chunky, powered armour with melee weapons then you'd be better off with a something closer to a sledgehammer. Even that sledgehammer is going to be pretty useless compared to explosive based anti armour/materiel rounds.
Nah, it's going to be some sort of power sword that is anti-armor i.e. War40K.
b8de57 No.586527
>>586524
>Wild swinging doesn't do much more than make you look retarded as you give your opponent a perfect opening
I know? What I meant was they would be using skill to take them out but they'd be really quick, and I'm not a manlet simply for wanting more freedom to do certain things with a sword, let's forget the weight for a moment, it might get in the way with mass when handling with CQC or something, it saves a lot on streangth anyways…
d3e2ea No.586528
>>586525
Are you suggesting that we could just 'do science at' a sword to 'make it far bettererererer!'? How, precisely? What sort of improvements are you picturing?
>>586526
Is this another LARP thread?
f2dd5d No.586530
>>586517
>martial art just sounds too faggy
Kill yourself. Filtered for shit opinions.
>>586523
>>586522
>>586519
Why didn't you just put this into one post?
I do see a use for swords, but they're short and light. As that britfag said, sword bayonets, which can be used without the gun.
Speaking of the filtered :^) britfag, "manlet detected" is not an argument. Weight is important. Even if a weapon might not feel heavy, every ounce counts.
>>586527
>statement with a question mark?
>>>/tumblr/
2a8c7c No.586537
>>586528
I didn't know sword and chainmail = LARP now.
b8de57 No.586540
>>586528
>Are you suggesting that we could just 'do science at' a sword to 'make it far bettererererer!'? How, precisely? What sort of improvements are you picturing? Something like a synthetic nanofiber perhaps instead of metal for one thing, another would to be to improve on the guard and the handle to better fit the job, and also the sheath could have a draw corde to pull it back farther so the sword can be drawn far more quickly combined that with the training.
835102 No.586541
>>586525
Maybe we should ditch the medkits, that should give soldiers both guns AND swords.
b8de57 No.586542
>>586541
ditch med kits? why would we have to do that?
b8de57 No.586543
with a sword it would make CQC far more deadlier, with out the gun attached, maneuverability, reach and strong angles and cuts are better.
b8de57 No.586545
also the sword wouldn't be THAT light-weight nor that short, it would be tactical as well.
b56a03 No.586546
I think point-focused shorter swords, with a blade length from 50cm to 80cm long, would be the best for modern combat situations. I would personally use a design based on the venerable General Patton's own Model 1913 cavalry sword.
b8de57 No.586547
>>586546
but you need all your weight on the sword and better handling on it, there would be powerful strikes and stabbing motions with the swords with guys with muscle using them.
b8de57 No.586548
I would recommend the sword being two-handed, not too heavy or light weight tho,
2e8cbd No.586550
>>586514
>>586519
>>586522
>>586523
>>586525
>>586527
>>586542
>>586543
>>586545
>>586547
>>586548
You don't have to post your brainlet thoughts sentence-by-sentence. Look here:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, ne nihil saepe inciderint mel, his an laoreet impedit theophrastus. Sanctus corrumpit ne mea. Ex has luptatum vulputate, augue blandit senserit eam ad. Delenit voluptua interesset ne mei. Cu mea probo veniam. Eu per laudem aeterno vituperata.
Insolens persecuti his id, tota phaedrum ius ei, vim hinc esse ut. Te vim singulis reformidans. Nisl quas vix id, eu per vidit legere graeci. Ex sint indoctum mea, est id euismod labores voluptaria, ei pri omnium complectitur.
Vis te aperiam erroribus, eu mea modus justo. Saepe maluisset eum ad, cum nisl dicunt abhorreant at, no has prodesset mediocritatem concludaturque. Nusquam oporteat lobortis ad quo, at laudem facilisi has. Est denique mnesarchum ut. Qui mutat nonumy ut, vis tempor recteque te.
Populo primis ea mel, suavitate principes molestiae ut vim. Quo nominati elaboraret id. Mel semper omnium ex, sit no utamur aliquid. At nam omnis primis admodum. Mei no meliore intellegam, liber suscipiantur mei ex, prompta diceret omittam ad vim. Quo scripta honestatis complectitur et, pro exerci suscipit sadipscing te.
Mollis intellegam scriptorem ei vis, ius affert definitiones no. No assum aeque facilisi vis, te iudicabit adversarium pri. Dico sint platonem te nam, ut qui similique gloriatur inciderint, dicta iudico cu mel. Mel ad minimum omittam cotidieque, qui error recusabo nominati no, ne vix invenire ocurreret.
b8de57 No.586551
>>586548
The reason I picked the picture for this post is because, I think this one would be better fitting for lethal combat, not only is it great for stabs, but also great for hacking at someone, not to mention the cross guard would have more than one use and the pommel with bring concussion/shatter bones/bruising.
d3e2ea No.586552
>>586542
He's telling you that you're Spergooking.
b8de57 No.586553
>>586552
alright, I'll keep it to one reply instead of sperging from now on.
000000 No.586557
d3e2ea No.586585
>>586553
It's not the number or length of replies that are the issue (although you should definitely do that too). Spergook is the Gook who Spergs because he makes retarded suggestions, about things he knows very little about, and then acts like you're the retard when you try to explain why his suggestion is stupid.
b8de57 No.586586
>>586585
How is any of the shit I said retarded? You're vague, please explain. I think I explained myself quite well.
a55406 No.586589
>>586525
No we couldn't. Name one material better than steel in every way.
1a5f2c No.586590
>>586589
Steel forgings have gotten just a little bit better in the past few hundred years, anon.
8e2082 No.586591
>>586585
No use explaining it to him, mate, I'm 90% sure it's Spergook himself hiding behind a VPN.
a55406 No.586592
>>586590
When someone says "we would" be able to make swords far better, I assume they mean "better than the reproduction swords we already make". But yes, you are right.
000000 No.586599
Swords are for fighting other swords. Because of the length, you get a range advantage allowing you to stab without being stabbed. They won't make a comeback except in some extremely contrived scenario like Dune-style shields. Even for CQC or stealth the advantage of a sword can be obtained with a bayonet, without giving up the important advantage of a gun.
000000 No.586603
>>586557
I'm not the one who posted that, but I still have to ask if you're me because I'm the one who wants to build a gun spear into a full-featured melee weapon that does much more than just a rifle with a bayonet. I think I've managed to come up with a decent design for one, with sadly very little help from the posters here. Further research is still ongoing, but I have to say that a standard-sized sword usually loses to the spear if both fighters are of equal skill. For those who want a sword to counter a suit of power armor, you'd have to make a greatsword. Maces, axes and war hammers will defeat hard armor better, but they're slower and less able to react to quick strikes. If you don't want to go the greatsword route, you could use something somebody came up with in the retarded weapons thread and make a shield covered with explosives to bash people with.
b8de57 No.586605
>>586591
lol stfu you cuntwaffle, you think you can make me look like a tool like you with something so miniscule? Okay fine, suppose there doesn't have to be such ways to better the sword itself the way I thought up it, yes, there are plenty of ways to make HQ steel and you wouldn't even need to fuckin do much to the thing, y'all still humpin on the bayonet thing like it's you're only waifu and trying to drive the conversation away. Why can't there be any swords in combat? You guys are still giving me boring ass vague shit instead of how we can take this joke farther.
d3e2ea No.586606
>>586603
>gun spear
You mean a spear that's too heavy at the head end to be of much use, and a gun that's mounted on the end of a long pole that magnifies every imperceptible movement of your hands, whilst also making it impossible to get a good sight picture, making accurate fire all but impossible?
>>586605
SPERGOOK INTENSIFIES!!!!
Out of interest m8, is English not your first language?
b8de57 No.586607
>>586603
Between you and me tho, that gunblade thing or what not that you got goin on sounds very interesting, I might even use something like that in a story or something, if there's anything I can do to help just ask me.
b8de57 No.586608
>>586606
Ohhhh shiieeettt guys we got ourselves a fucking "edgy" guy over here. lol
b8de57 No.586612
>>586610
cuz you fuckin are, idk how else to put it. Explain why u sound mad bro. I'm mentally fit, are you???
b8de57 No.586613
>>586610
BTW YOU'RE STILL VAGUE AS EVER.
d3e2ea No.586614
>>586612
>I'm mentally fit
That sounds credible.
b8de57 No.586615
Okay nvm m8, I'm just gonna move on. So basically, I could go into further detail on all the possibilities being missed out on the CQC aspect of the sword fighting because "current year", and obviously it don't work nice on armor, there are enemies however that might be taken off guard though with some shit off or at least have exposed regions. Taking a bayonet into an already clunky air-tight situation would be risky as hell btw.
d3e2ea No.586617
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>586615
>You spend about ten years 'mastering the sword'
>All day, every day, you train with the blade
>Train for every possible sword based combat scenario
>Become world renowned swordsman, a name known wherever men train with blades
>You are one with the blade
>It is not just an extension of your body, it's a part of your soul
<Get shot by some retarded conscript/insurgent who's only just figured out what the sights on his rifle are for
Is that clear enough for you? In case it isn't have a handy video presentation to explain it for you. If it's not too much trouble, see if you can figure out why military forces all over the world ditched purpose built melee weapons for firearms a few centuries ago.
d1db81 No.586619
It takes decades to learn how to use a sword efficiently, and I can't think of any situations where having a sword would be in any way better than having a pistol or a knife.
That being said, I like the idea of giving soldiers a big-ass knife to use as a side-arm in last ditch situations or extreme close quarters, but not as a replacement for a pistol.
>bayonets
Good for aesthetics, parades, and intimidation, but if the enemy's close enough to use them you're better off just reaching for your pistol or aforementioned big ass knife.
>>586540
>synthetic nanofiber instead of metal
>using high tech cloth as a stabbing weapon
Anon, how old are you?
b8de57 No.586621
>>586617 >forgets about senseis/teachers that already know the ropes and can teach in simple ways. >forgets that a soldier can simply learn how to put away a sword at the appropriate time. >forgets that a soldier knows when to pull out a sword or a gun and thinks a sword is replacement for a firearm. <fails to realise that soldiers are above average intelligent most of the time. Are you high? >>586619
bayonets can still be useful man, I'm not saying they aren't, and obviously the soldier will reach for the appropriate weapon for the right job instead of spamming one weapon thinking it'll solve all of life's problems.
b8de57 No.586622
Btw you know what type of synthetic fiber type I was reffering to? did you forget about Kevlar? or maybe some scientist might figure out something better?
d3e2ea No.586623
>>586621
Nigger, you're either in possession of a single digit IQ, high posting, or the least imaginative troll to stalk this board.
03341e No.586625
>>586621
By chance are you a nigger?
b8de57 No.586626
>>586625
No but you know how to show off how much of an uncultured tool you are.
d3e2ea No.586628
>>586626
Congratulations on your first grammatically correct post in this thread. Well, mostly, it's missing at least one comma.
b8de57 No.586629
d3e2ea No.586632
>>586629
So, now that you know you can do it maybe try to put that same effort into your other posts.
2a8c7c No.586633
>>586617
I hate this because Indie fought mainly with his fists and a stupid fucking whip.
d3e2ea No.586634
>>586633
Yeah, and they added that scene because Harrison Ford was feeling like shit on the day they had to shoot the original 'epic whip fight' scene they had planned. It still demonstrates the point though.
2a8c7c No.586639
>>586634
Does not demonstrate shit, a sword wielder would not fight a gun wielder at range, that is stupid.
d1db81 No.586640
>>586621 (nice formatting)
<forgets about senseis/teachers that already know the ropes and can teach in simple ways
>implying this somehow negates the sheer amount of time and energy it takes for anyone to learn to use a sword, even with a good teacher
<forgets that a soldier can simply learn how to put away a sword at the appropriate time
>implying a soldier would ever use a sword over a rifle, a pistol, or a knife if given the chance
A sword is, for obvious reasons, is unusable unless you're within a few feet of your target, so most of the time an infantryman going to be using his rifle. However, even if a soldier was close enough to strike with a sword, he'd pull out his pistol instead since it's smaller, easier to use, and probably more lethal. Finally, even if he did need to use a melee weapon, a knife's a much better option than a sword because again, it's smaller, easier to use, and (if used correctly) just as lethal
tl;dr: Swords don't have a niche in the battlefield and are too hard for soldiers to use
<soldiers are above average intelligent most of the time
>mfw
>>586622
Kevlar isn't a fucking wonder material, it's a cloth that's good for not getting your organs full of lead, but nevertheless you can't stab people with fucking cloth
>maybe some scientist might figure out something better
Maybe some scientist will make anime real and we'll all be turned into characters in a happy romance comedy and everybody finds themselves falling in love with some *dere qt2t3.14 who they eventually marry and have 2.5 beautiful children with and die knowing that they lived a happy and fulling life. My point is that hoping some scientist out of the blue will just conjure up some magical meme material that's cheaper, sharper, easier to maintain, and more aesthetically pleasing than metal without any facts or even theories to back it up is a stupid idea.
>>586626
Welcome to h8chan newfag
d3e2ea No.586641
>>586639
the swordsman doesn't control the range of the engagement.
b8de57 No.586642
>>586640
At least someone has common sense around here, thank you. You proved to me that you know what the hell you're talking about. I hate it when people half ass themselves, obviously Kevlar is not used for cutting shit up, obviously no soldier would pick a sword over a gun if they had the chance or even a knife/machete/some shit.
b8de57 No.586647
btw you'd obviously think I was trolling if I was being creative about it, the lack of effort makes it sound normal. Don't you think that's something a troll would do?((((which btw I'm not trolling))))
d1db81 No.586654
>>586642
>>586647
>this was all a ruse
For what purpose?
11ef62 No.586668
>>586521
>what is a lightsaber
76b957 No.586695
4ce4b7 No.586723
b8de57, are you also >>586211 ?
01d8e5 No.586737
>>586521
>Why use a sword when you can carry a bayonet that turns your rifle into a sword that can also shoot people?
Because that would make a very shitty sword.
2a697f No.586751
>>586605
You know, on second thought, you don't sound like Spergook at all. You sound like Karl. Do you happen to be from Arizona?
fabfd9 No.586754
>>586642
Machetes are swords. A sword doesn't have to be forged a certain way or have a certain kind of hilt to be a sword. A sword is just a long knife, like a machete.
2fe12d No.586759
>>586619
>It takes decades to learn how to use a sword efficiently, and I can't think of any situations where having a sword would be in any way better than having a pistol or a knife.
Even if by "use the sword efficiently" you are trying to say "duelist fencing", you would be wrong.
>>586640
>However, even if a soldier was close enough to strike with a sword, he'd pull out his pistol instead since it's smaller, easier to use, and probably more lethal.
Which means you have never heard of stand-off distance.
A short sword, like the falcata or gladius, beats a knife in melee.
>>586617
<hey look, here's a choreographed bullshit scenario where the antagonist tries to start a swordfight from the other end of the street and politely waits for the protagonist to remember his lines and then gets shot haha i'm smart and you are so stupid
Why haven't this toxic queer been banned yet?
60f549 No.586768
>>586521
Armour usually optimized to stop blunt projectiles and is vulnerable to piercing damage for example from stabbing with a knife or a sword. So I can imagine usage of some kind of ultra-sharp swords that could penetrate armor against which projectiles are not effective.
6e31a4 No.586773
2a8c7c No.586782
>>586641
He can, under cover.
2a8c7c No.586784
>>586773
Well, but you never run out with a sword, and it would be lighter than whatever weapon that fires AP boolits.
2a8c7c No.586785
>>586599
>Swords are for fighting other swords.
Swords were meant to be versatile weapons/sidearms that are effective against anyone unarmored, that you can keep whenever you go.
2a8c7c No.586786
>>586785
Also, muh bayonet.
Daily reminder that a bayonet is a bad melee weapon and soldiers who actually engage in CQC actually rather use a knife or even their folding tool as weapon rather than bayonet.
2fe12d No.586788
>>586786
This. They bayonet is a leftover from ye olde pike and shot formation days, that was meant to protect the fusiliers from being charged. Sword bayonets are more versatile though.
d3679c No.586790
>>586668
>power armour
Probably leaving the drawing board in about 10, 15, maybe 20 years.
>lightsabers
Hahahaha. No. Children aren't supposed to use this site. Go enjoy your "Mickey Mouse & the Diversity Wars (tm)" elsewhere.
>>586737
Think of it as more of a lightweight glaive/bardiche then.
>>586782
So he's some kind of ninja as well now?
>>586784
>you never run out with a sword
This meme needs to die. Swords require huge amounts of maintenance if you don't want them to turn into blunt and notched metal sticks.
>>586788
What do you think the Spergs ITT would think of a trench spike?
2a8c7c No.586792
>>586790
Yeah, because taking cover is such a ninja concept.
And nah, while a sword needs maintenance, it's easier than the maintenance of a gun.
All you need is a some surface and water to sharpen it.
This does not mention power sword, which is a bit more complex, but still less complex than energy gun.
2cd177 No.586794
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>586788
the bolo bayonet was apparently amazing.
d3679c No.586795
>>586792
>This does not mention power sword, which is a bit more complex, but still less complex than energy gun.
<This does not mention [bullshit sci fi nonsense from a game where everything literally runs on magic], which is a bit more complex, but still less complex than [something that has existed in RL since the 22nd of March 1960 and is only held back by the weight of batteries you'd need to make it useful as a weapon]
2940bd No.586798
>>586795
>not having a power sword for when your underbarrel shotgun runs out of ammo
2fe12d No.586799
>>586518
Bladed weapons were only used in armoured combat to stab though the gaps one the opponent is pinned. Because there is no way they can cut through steel. Soft ballistic armour is vulnerable though.
d3679c No.586801
>>586798
A power sword is overkill and underranged for that scenario though. For the kind of money you would spend on R&D, fuel, and maintenance for it you could easily give every man his own cybernetic Drop Bear to throw at the enemy when he runs out of ammo. Besides, why did he run out of ammo for his underbarrel shotgun? Was he carrying something useless like food or water instead? Why isn't his dedicated resupply helicopter just dropping him more 4 bore dragonsbreath shells?
2b85be No.586802
>>586801
Maybe his FAK took up his extra ammo slots.
d3679c No.586803
>>586802
That's what happens when an idiot squaddie takes 'stopping power' over the 'deep pockets' perk when he's promoted to lance corporal.
2b85be No.586805
>>586803
Poor perk placement kills many builds early, my great-great uncle forgot to take the "iron legs" perk and lost both at Cambrai
d3679c No.586806
>>586805
Shit, I'd heard that the army got loose with their build restrictions by 1917. I guess that's one of the problems with conscription though. My great grandfather bought it at Dunkirk, he thought that the crit boost he got from lighter ammunition was a good replacement for the decent AP value you get baseline with a PIAT - tried to take out a panzer with his lee-enfield.
000000 No.586808
>>586606
You don't have to put the gun at the end. You can put it in the middle or at the back because it's a gun.
2a8c7c No.586809
>>586799
We are talking about power source i.e. a hunk of metal placed upon a force field.
Without the force field, it's gonna against unarmored without costing energy.
With the force field, it slices and dices armor.
The perfect CQC weapon.
a55406 No.586812
>>586792
>And nah, while a sword needs maintenance, it's easier than the maintenance of a gun. All you need is a some surface and water to sharpen it.
Stop lying spergook. Sharpening a blunt sword with only a whetstone takes hours and if the edges are rolled over or severely deformed you will never get them back into shape that way. The only way maintaining a sword would be as easy as maintaining a gun is if you had a grinding wheel available. Swords weren't meant to last multiple battles anyway. The damage inflicted by a single swordfight would be enough to warrant replacing the sword when you got the chance. You wouldn't bet your life on a blade with a deep notch in the edge knowing that the strength is compromised in that spot.
2a8c7c No.586815
>>586812
Well, you can always get a new sword, which is frankly very easy to make with modern technology.
17ebf8 No.586816
>>586815
So every man should be issued and resupplied constantly with a whole bunch of (power) swords. Ignoring the logistics and economics of that, how do we make room for more swords? Certainly ditching the medkit, food, and the water canteen can only make room for one or two extra swords, but no more. I'm afraid we'd have to ditch the underbarrel shotgun and its ammo to make room for more.
2e8cbd No.586819
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
The First World War was the last time mêlée was actually somehow important, and they didn't bother with swords, instead they preferred shovels, improvised maces, punching daggers or just sharpened metal sticks. All of them are simple weapons to manufacture and use. You just repeadetly hit the enemy until they die. Now, a sword is simply not suited for that kind of work, it's simply a waste of time and effort. You simply don't have the means to have a proper duel with the enemy that involves taking up stances, parrying, and doing all that theatrical stuff.
Maybe you want something fancier than a simple sharp stick made of steel. In that case you should want a fighting knife. I readily admit that I don't know what makes a fighting knife, and I don't understand why would you bother with it. Still, you can take any kind of knife and turn it into a bayonet without having any impact on the knife itself. You don't even need a muzzle ring, if it's that important for you then copy the Gewehr 98's bayonet mounting system (vid related). Actually, you could put the mounting point on the gas block of the rifle, and then mounting the bayonet wouldn't impact accuracy that much. Of course all that extra weight still has an effect.
2e8cbd No.586820
>>586819
I simply don't know why I repeat these kind of words so much when I use English. It doesn't even register in my mind until I reread my sentences a few times.
d3679c No.586828
>>586808
>put it in the middle or at the back because it's a gun.
How U N A E S T H E T I C
b8de57 No.586841
>>586754 Stop making my other posts sound smart maybe?
b8de57 No.586843
>>586759
You seem to be smarter than the rest of these autists.
b8de57 No.586847
>>586754
I already know that… What type of idiot do you take me for…? Oh my God, yes, those are swords, no I never said that they weren't, I'm just going by my preferred type of sword.
d3679c No.586878
>>586759
>hey look, here's a choreographed bullshit scenario where the antagonist tries to start a swordfight from the other end of the street and politely waits for the protagonist to remember his lines and then gets shot haha i'm smart and you are so stupid
In any scenario where swordguy starts more than a meter away from gunguy swordguy will lose unless you give him superpowers or make gunguy a malcoordinated blind man who's running out of ammo. Were your parents blood relatives?
76b957 No.586934
>>586809
> force field.
Which may or may not be possible in real life.
2fe12d No.587005
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>586878
filtered
>hurr i'm ignorant and proud of it
The absolute state of the Anglo mind.
d3679c No.587007
>>587005
HURRRRRRR
DURRRRRRR
>Police investimagatorating disturbances is a 1:1 analogue for combat!
>Every engagement in military history has one half of the combatants approaching the other with their weapons out of their hands and not expecting an attack!
>Imma just filter your posts because I'm a retarded coward who can't stand people not agreeing with my cowardly retardation!
I suppose we can't expect too much from the continental 'mind'.
b8de57 No.587012
It's not that far off… All's a soldier would need to is step by step learn some of the basics and work there way up from there and combined with training.
2a8c7c No.587013
>>586816
They should have stock, and in case of broken swords, be replaced with a new sword, just like gun.
60996f No.587015
>>586759
>(((toxic)))
Kill yourself kike-puppet aids vector.
22b092 No.587017
>>586759
>le toxic
Reddit's this way, champ: >>>/reddit/
241f49 No.588101
>>586514
Red team used tomahakws and got shat on by command and public oppinion
2a8c7c No.588106
>>588101
Fuck command and public opinion.
4a6890 No.588111
>>586798
>not having the minions you summoned via magic do the killing for you
normalfags lmao
d3679c No.588114
>>588106
and this is how you lose wars. Just ask America from the period when they were bombing you.
4a6890 No.588116
>>588114
>giving a shit for others' opinions
>killing your enemies less important than public enemy
Anglos truly are a race of shabbos goy.
2a8c7c No.588121
>>588114
lol we Viet didn't give no shit about public opinion.
War is about will, the one with weak will loses.
5e3331 No.588135
>>588121
>we Viet didn't give a shit about public opinion
With that opinion it is a very good thing for you there were soviet tardwranglers in Vietnam and here in the US to constantly try to make you idiots look like good guys.
2a8c7c No.588138
>>588135
If only people realize there aren't good guys or bad guys in war, only winner.
The US has been totally inefficient in waging wars for decades. Instead of scorch earth and resource denial, it embraces Heart and Mind.
Then again, bombing shit, then rebuilding it again makes money for the jews so I guess it works for the top guys.
c3c418 No.588320
Swords didn't make much sense even in the ancient, classical and medieval world. Only Rome and the Landsknechte used swords in great quantities on the battlefield. Why have an edged weapon, only good for hacking at unarmoured foes when you can have a pointy one which can poke through gaps, a heavy one which can crush bones or a shooty one which can be used to kill from safety? Swords other than the Zweihander or the Gladius were for duelist faggots, not actual soldiers.
000000 No.588340
>>588320
>only landsknechte used swords
>sword not good at poking
>gladius is for duels
the absolute state of leafposting, everybody
6a4ca1 No.588585
>>588320
Basically everyone have a sword when money allows it. Sidearms are super important back in the day due to the unreliability of main arm.
d3679c No.588645
>>588121
>>588116
and the reason that America pulled out of Vietnam was ….. because they lost public support after the press crews filmed the Tet Offensive and broadcast it to Fag & Fagette back home over their morning coffee
>>588138
Spergook, we told you why this was retarded the last time you posted it. RL is not a game of Warhammer: Total War. If you want to discuss this sort of retardation then maybe half/k/ would be more your speed.
f1bfbb No.588652
>>588645
>retardation
Remind me which modern war was won out of compassion again?
730a68 No.588655
>>588320
>Swords didn't make much sense even in the ancient, classical and medieval world.
That's like saying that handguns don't make sense. They won't be your primary combat weapon, but that doesn't mean that they don't make sense.
2a8c7c No.588664
>>588655
Swords also serve as main weapons for some, not all were used as sidearms, in particular longsword/greatsword, or sword to be used with sword.
d3679c No.588668
>>588652
Did your mother bathe you in Agent Orange when you were little or something?
2a8c7c No.588671
>>588668
I ask a question, Anglo, or has muslim cum rotten your brain?
5a68ae No.588673
Something I forgot to mention: if you want to see swords on the battlefield that much, then the best solution for an army is to have a standardized model that officers and NCOs can purchase, and authorize them to bring it to battle, but only at their own risk. Most of them won't want to deal with that dead weight, but some of them will be willing to.
97146d No.588674
>>586759
that sword is sexy though and i think that /k/ of all places should be more appreciative of that
ef5fc6 No.588677
>>588668
Spergook's right, Perfidious Albion. Wars aren't fought for compassionate reasons; but those reasons are used to make it easier for the populace to swallow it.
2a8c7c No.588680
>>588673
Under modern tech, there is no reason you cannot make some sort of new sword/machete/bayonet, I already see machete being standard issue for jungle troop, that just make it more useful.
Ideally, it would be something like a smatchet that is made as lightweight as possible.
2a8c7c No.588682
>>588680
And can anybody knowledgeable about smatchet tells me why the smatchet design is quickly forgotten after WW2?
It seems to be a pretty one size fit all, can stab, can slash which is better than bowie style.
d3679c No.588686
>>588677
I have never claimed that wars are fought for compassionate reasons. I disagreed with Spergooks claim that it would be an optimal strategy for a nation to go 'full scorched earth' when battling another nation. That view fails to take into account the actions of the aggressive nations own citizens, and the actions of other countries when news gets out that your guys have been working children to death in their strip mining forced labour camps. Even a global superpower can't expect to hold out long if it becomes an international pariah.
2a8c7c No.588687
>>588686
The world works by strength, the US has done its fair share of inhumane shit, yet scorched earth is too far out?
5a68ae No.588689
>>588680
A machete-bayonet would be excellent, that is true, but only in an actual jungle. Do you have the capital and connections to make one for the Vietnamese armed forces? You could even sell it to other countries in the region. But outside of that it's still a waste of material that takes up space and weight from more ammo. So far I came to the conclusion that a moder bayonet should be a combat knife and a tool rolled into one that you can affix to a rifle if you have to. For a combat knife you want something that can stab through all the clothets and vests a modern soldier wears, and so an American tanto blade could work for that. It's supposedly good for prying open things too, and with a full tang you can use it as a hammer, so it has at least some utility. Add sawtooth and now the soldier can use it as a tool.
If you want to overdesign it then copy the Gewehr 98's bayonet mounting system, and affix the bayonet lug to the free-floated handguard of the service rifle. That way the bayonet wouldn't interact with the barrel at all. The problem here is that even if you were to make such a memeknife, I feel like even a blade lenght of 20cm would be pushing it beyond what is reasonable. And even a gladius is between 45cm and 70cm.
Pic related is kind of an illustration, but don't take it too seriously. I also admit that I'm not an outdoorsman and I've never been in a knifefight either.
2a8c7c No.588693
>>588689
Vietnamese armed force just uses regular machete because we are poor as shit.
Anyway, the bayonet itself should be an afterthought and the handle should be made for comfort first and foremost. Too many times I have handled mil-surp bayonet that feels like fucking crap, in fact this is a problem with mil-surp in general, you need to customized it in order to make softer and nicer to hold.
d3679c No.588696
>>588687
>The world works by strength
No shit, it also runs on (at least the appearance of) restraint and control. America has done some absolutely horrific shit (that it has done its level best to keep out of the spotlight), but yes, scorched earth is too far out. There's no way you can hide it, to have a hope of carrying it out you'd need to convince the overwhelming majority of the world that the people on the receiving end were basically subhuman, and even that wouldn't be a guarantee.
>>588693
Always remember that military contracts are given to the lowest bidder.
2a8c7c No.588699
>>588696
Scorched earth at its core is about making the land unhabitable/denying resources from enemies, which is achievable by destroying any sources of food, water, or living habitats in the region.
This can achieve by bombing, which is something the US is already doing and the media reports full blast about muh precious children.
To be frank, the US shouldn't bomb the cities, what they should bomb is the road that leads to the cities, and the various fields that feed the cities, and poison the river as well.
d3679c No.588775
d2324b No.588778
>>588775
It's only a war crime if you lose :^)
d3679c No.588784
>>588778
Hey, Dresden was a valid logistical target, and the level of destruction was only caused by the technical limits of 1940's era bombsights. [insert name of random Vietnamese village from the list of thousands that you burgers burned to the ground] not so much.
d3679c No.588789
>>588786
So you have nothing of value to add to the conversation? :^)
d28390 No.588800
>>588680
The machetes currently used by the U.S. military are made Ontario Knife Company. They're pretty good, but come with these square handles that make them a little awkward to hold. Ontario also used to make pretty good katanas, but they're no longer in production. Definitely the best of those autistic "tactical" katanas.
>>588689
Machetes are actually a pretty useful tool even outside of jungles. They're a good jack-of-all-trades tool.
2a8c7c No.588801
>>588775
What the fuck does that have to do with anything I said?
And faggot, is it ok to bomb Dresden, a major civie area yet not okay to bomb road and field i.e. logistics and resources?
129e69 No.588806
>>588784
> [insert name of random Vietnamese village from the list of thousands that you burgers burned to the ground] not so much.
You realize Americans introduced PGM precisely during that war?
d3679c No.588903
>>588801
>is it ok to bomb Dresden, a major civie area yet not okay to bomb road and field i.e. logistics and resources?
the goal wasn't to starve Dresden, but to make it harder for the Wehrmacht to get supplies to their men on the front line. This was achieved by destroying the railway intersections and junctions in Dresden. How do you not know this already?
>>588806
Because that was definitely what we were talking about here.
2a8c7c No.588999
>>588903
So exactly the scorched Earth tactics right there, except the Dresden bombing actually destroys civie facility and such.
2cd177 No.589001
d3679c No.589010
>>588999
>So exactly the scorched Earth tactics right there
No. Scorched Earth is used defensively, it's when you burn everything that an attacker might need or make use of as you withdraw in front of him. Destroying a railway hub deep inside enemy territory does not fit that profile.
2a8c7c No.589020
>>589010
Well, OK, it's just infrastructure/resource denial then, which is a-ok?
d3679c No.589033
>>589020
Just strategic bombing. It was pretty standard in the doctrine of the '40s. With PGMs etc today you could do the same job with a lot less collateral damage, which is probably a good thing with the greater degree of information gathered and spread around the world these days.
b8de57 No.589047
The weight and the impact would be devastating to someone with a sword, plus the freedom and tactfulness of the slimness of the weapon should allow more areas to slip through. Try to look for ways how this thing can be useful as well.
d4ca01 No.590326
>>586514
>swords
>in the 21st century
>Bayonets were obsolete by 1850
>when they had single shot, muzzle loading rifles
Sure, op, we could figure out a modern use for swords. Penal battalions. You just send them out in front of the actual troops and hope the enemy wastes enough ammo to make a minor difference.
This is your brain on anime, folks. Remember, always say "No".
e7dc5e No.590330
>>590326
What's even funnier is that all those swords were completely obsolete at a time swords were still in use.
Rapiers buried all the other swords for a fucking reason…
d2324b No.590332
>>590330
>Rapiers buried all the other swords for a fucking reason…
Wasn't it because swordplay had become more or less irrelevant on the battlefield, and rapiers were optimized as a personal defense weapon meant for dueling?
c033f6 No.590336
>>590326
>not just blocking bullets with your sword
>not using swords for stealth-killing enemy patrols
>reddit spacing
d4ca01 No.590337
>>590330
>rapiers buried all the other swords
>rapiers
Anon….are….are you retarded? Rapiers not only didn't do that, rapiers were never even military swords. In their day the standard issue military sword was the Back Sword, after that you had Sabres(primarily) and Broadswords(mostly Scotland).
Even in terms of dueling Rapiers didn't bury shit. They were nice and fashionable in the 17th century but for most of history after dueling was done with small-swords, foils, spadroons, epees etc. etc.
The rapier was a nice sword, but it was - for the most part - used for a relatively short period of time and even then largely for civilian use.
>>590332
Sabres were issued all the way through to WW1 and they were fairly useful in the colonial wars. Otherwise, in terms of conflicts between Western militaries they had plenty of use for cavalry until…say about the 1880s(being liberal here).
Swords were extremely useful in all wars between 1600 and 1880 for everything from cavalry and infantry to the navy.
d4ca01 No.590339
>>590336
>anime bullshit
I do apologize for the reddit spacing(granted I've never used reddit nor ever will). I'm used to Word style Shift+Enter to do spacing so it's automatic.
e7dc5e No.590493
>>590332
>>590337
>Wasn't it because swordplay had become more or less irrelevant on the battlefield
Swordplay was never relevant on the battlefield past antiquity. Swords were at best a backup weapon.
Rapiers + Bucklers were the last mass issue to formations (coseletes) by Spain (back when Spain ruled half the planet, including the whole Holy Roman Empire) as it was a multifunction weapon that would be used to reinforce any main formations (horse or pikes) to fill gaps and quickly maneuver. And the spanish army of that time dominated completely the battlefields (until the french mass issued reliable flintlocks).
> They were nice and fashionable in the 17th century but for most of history after dueling was done with small-swords, foils, spadroons, epees etc. etc.
Rapiers were never nice and never fashionable outsides of Spain a rapier is longer and heavier than a medieval arming sword, spanish soldiers (and nobles) were taught how to duel with them because Spain had a professional army and thus dedicated a lot of time to teach swordplay.
But dueling was never a real thing outside of France and Italy and always done with épée ("épee de cour" mistranslated as "short sword" when it mean "sword for court", court meaning short in french, as opposed to "épée de bataille" which would be a broadsword).
Foils were a practice weapon and spadroon a short saber (mostly used to cut rigging rather than fight, most navies replaced them with boarding axes because of how shit those were for melee fighting).
c364fc No.590496
>>590493
Maybe for the damn french but the usage of swords were well-known in every battlefields.
And I don't know how many times I'm gonna repeat that the sabre outlived the goddamn spear/pike.
c364fc No.590497
>>590493
>(mostly used to cut rigging rather than fight, most navies replaced them with boarding axes because of how shit those were for melee fighting).
And come on the navies used sabers and cutlasses, boarding axes exist but were not standard issues.
e7dc5e No.590506
>>590497
No they weren't. OFFICERS were carrying naval (shorter) sabers. Pirates were carrying machetes (as they spend more times in the jungles/looting plantations than at sea).
Weapons for crews were axes (and pikes… and guns obviously), and when boarding actions started to be more common (as it largely didn't exist except once in a blue moon, before the 18th century) France and UK issued axes in great quantity.
Ever seen the medals for boarding actions?
On a ship you had maybe 20 sabers and 300 axes.
Of course only the sabers are represented becasue it was noble weapons, same as only swords are over represented in the medieval era when polearms were the most common weapon and swordfight never occurred in battle (well they might occur but about as often as a pistol fight today).
c364fc No.590508
>>590506
Proofs of these surviving axes?
Because you have a shitload of navy sabers still remaining.
>Of course only the sabers are represented becasue it was noble weapons,
Swords are available for basically any soldier post the 1100s i.e. where smithing method allows for mass production.
And boarding pikes are a rare weapon, the most common CQC weapons as depicted in historical paintings were swords, sabers in specifically.
e7dc5e No.590513
>>590508
>Because you have a shitload of navy sabers still remaining.
Of course since they were precious and nearly all the time personal possession (officers were allowed to keep them when they retired or ordered custom ones). The navy melted or sold them for scrap ages ago. Most example comes from sunken ships. Drawings of various models and multiple inventory rolls list them as weapons/equipment issues to ship/posting on a ship (unlike sabers that were issued to personal).
Shit that is uncommon get preserved. Shit that is common disappear.
We still have Charlemagne sword.
We have about 0 weapons from it's soldiers.
c364fc No.590534
>>590513
Except we still have a shitton of polearm and swords in various armories around the world.
As well as treaties on how to fight with saber and sword, not so much with axe.
>Drawings of various models and multiple inventory rolls list them as weapons/equipment issues to ship/posting on a ship (unlike sabers that were issued to personal).
Very hard to believe considering drawings become more accurate as it goes on.
This is basically you saying we didn't use assault rifles but only used battle rifles because for some reasons, the pictures/drawings follow what were popular i.e. revisionism.
1a63f3 No.590538
>>590534
The frog is telling the truth (if not the whole truth). Boarding axes were a common sidearm and they served specific use during boarding operations. They weren't a primary weapon but they were effectively the "flat head screwdriver" of the day in that you could use them for a million different purposes on deck.
863b45 No.590539
>>590330
When swords were still viable weapons (in the cavalry) it was mostly cut and thrust type of the swords like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MY5Sdwp5cU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3DlfKrD0w
There were some essentially rapiers in the military sue too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5yytO3MmIs
But such faggotry was rare
Last used swords in combat were cut and thrust designs
https://youtu.be/Ls5lqUMvh-8?t=3107
863b45 No.590540
e7dc5e No.590599
>>590539
>When swords were still viable weapons (in the cavalry)
Swords were not viable in the cavalry since the antiquity. Cavalry had guns or lances.
They had swords as a backup weapon (and again the rapier was the last sword really used as a main weapon on horseback) than basically all sabers, cavalry sabers got lighter and smaller in each iteration exactly the same as bayonets did.
Because they were never used and were just extra weight to carry.
Light cavalry made some use of sabers but light cavalry main job was to kill stragglers and loot local peasants, it doesn't really count as battle now does it (they all used guns in battle as their primary weapon).
It's like saying that pistol fights are common today because nearly all grunts get some AND it's all the POG are issued. So it must be a pretty important part of warfare, right?
Pistol fights in modern warfare do happen once in a while but it's the exception not the rule.
Sword fights were the same, if you had to use a sword you were deep in shit already (which is why it totally disappeared and became a sport for the wealthy), because a sword is unwieldy as fuck and hard to use and pretty much useless the minute anyone has any form of armor on (unless it's a sword specialized in piercing… Do I have to say it again?)
You want to know a secret?
Even in Japan katanas were hardly ever used in battle.
You want to know another secret?
Only Odachi were actually the one used (same way actual great swords, read not Scottish inbreeding warfare, were used in battle in the west: to secure the corners of a polearms formation).
c364fc No.590604
>>590599
Another revisionism, saber was the primary weapon of hussar as well as cuirasser, not lance.
Why do you pretend to know history and distort it?
76b957 No.590605
>>588101
>>588114
>Stabbing people with bayonets is okay but splitting their heads open with a tomahawk is bad
Normies are absolutely retarded.
c364fc No.590606
>>590599
Also katana were used in boarding action against mongol and portugese, in fact the interaction with the mongol improves the katana design.
Just stop with the whole revisionism that one of the most common weapons in the battlefields are never used.
c364fc No.590607
>>590538
And I ask for evidences because this frog is telling me everyone used axes when every depiction of soldiers have them used sabers and cutlasses.
76b957 No.590610
>>590506
>>590493
Boarding axes were tools, not weapons. Cutlasses were the main melee weapon of sailors.
863b45 No.590621
>>590599
Sword viability went back in forth in the cavalry. Pre gunpowder era lance/spear was main but lances are close to one use weapons so even sword was "just" back up it still ended in wide use.
Latter came gunpowder and pistols and cavalry changed lance for pistol or/and carbine and were mounted shooters for some time. Then after proliferation of musket among infantry it was ended. Cavalry could not out-shoot infantry anymore and mainstream tactic through 18-19th century was use to cavalry in deliberate charge with white weapons (swords) to minimize amount of salvos infantry can do against cavalry. Use of the guns by cavalry was frowned upon by commandeers as it reduced speed and ferocity of such charge. For cavalry guns were weapons of small skirmishes not battlefield weapon (though small skirmishes were equally important use of cavalry). Battlefield weapons were swords. Sometimes lances and thrust only swords but they were vastly outnumbered by cut and thrust swords (most common type) and cut oriented sabres.
> (and again the rapier was the last sword really used as a main weapon on horseback)
Last sword really used on horseback was Russian Shashka, cut and thrust sword (actually big knife just kike Messer)
>cavalry sabers got lighter and smaller in each iteration exactly the same as bayonets did.
Complete bollocks. Above videos has examples of actual period sabres and swords. They stayed the same in range one handed swords always were.
>Light cavalry
Fun fact: British light cavalry sabres were slightly heavier than heavy Calvary swords.
8beecc No.590632
>>590621
>Last sword really used on horseback was Russian Shashka, cut and thrust sword (actually big knife just kike Messer)
No there weren't.
Cossacks were using lances for charges.
And when they weren't they were using guns.
Like EVERY other unit of light cavalry since carbines were invented.
And light cavalry were always outfited the same way everywhere (a fucking lance, a fucking carbine, two fucking pistols and then a sabre… which ones do you think they were using most???)
Hell a fucking Shaska is literally worst than ALL it's predecessors in the history of sword fighting.
But nobody cared.
Because the only time they were using them were not to waste ammo (so either on civilians or on fleeing enemies).
>>590607
> when every depiction of soldiers have them used sabers and cutlasses
And nearly every depiction of WWI depicts close quarter bayonet fights despite the fact it's dubious even one happened during the whole fucking worst war ever fought by mankind.
Saber charges on horse back is an ART CONVENTION, of the noble and brave cavalry officer.
When in reality any light cavalry unit that would act like what they did 99% of the time back in the day would immediately be court martialled and executed for war crimes.
Make the test, just look up representation of dragoons.
Look at all those pretty pictures sabers charges.
Then realize that dragoons are A RIFLEMAN INFANTRY UNIT that just use horses to move from place to place quickly AND NEVER FOUGHT ON HORSEBACK.
Art is propaganda.
Propaganda is bullshit.
fef4af No.590634
>>590632
Prove they are bullshit first, frog boy.
I am waiting.
As said, this is like kids in 2050 looking back and said everyone used rocket launcher, assault rifle is propaganda.
fef4af No.590637
>>590632
Also, not all light cavalries are oufitted with lance, you fucking retard.
Lancers are a specific corp.
d2324b No.590638
>>590634
>As said, this is like kids in 2050 looking back and said everyone used rocket launcher, assault rifle is propaganda.
You're closer to the mark than you realize there; salt raifus aren't generally used to actually kill the enemy, the soldiers holding them just call the Chair Force to do that while the MGs suppress.
fef4af No.590639
>>590638
Yeah I would bet faggots in 2050 would say that and deny the fact everyone and their mother used assault rifles while launchers are dedicated anti-armor weapons.
fef4af No.590643
>>590639
Hurr you see back in 2001 everyone carried a rocket launcher, see weapon blueprint here, those videos with troops carrying assault rifles? Those are propaganda videos of the officer corps.
Do not trust me? Well there are millions of assault rifles lying around, if they were used, they should have perished, nyeh nyeh nyeh.
d2324b No.590644
>>590639
>>590643
>missing the point this hard
863b45 No.590650
>>590632
>Cossacks were using lances for charges.
Cossacks were long dead when Shashka was used by soviets last time (WWII).
Pic Shashka was produced in 1927-1946.
>>590632
>Then realize that dragoons are A RIFLEMAN INFANTRY UNIT
This was initial use and intent but latter since around middle 17th century Dragoons became regular cavalry.
8beecc No.590656
Also if you think swords were used that much tell me why:
THE ENTIRETY OF INFANTRY STOPPED WEARING ARMORS AND HELMETS.
>Because they couldn't stop bullets.
Ok sure but still making your troops cavalry proof seems like a sound investment. I mean even basic riveted chainmail has no problem stopping edge attacks and is cheap as fuck (and steel armor wasn't the only big ass knight steel plates, most men at arms wear chain mail + armor).
Hell half-cuirrass and helmets were still issued to heavy cavalry up to WWI, so why wouldn't they…
Because there is no point in protecting the infantry against an imaginary threat.
3b7a47 No.590665
>>590650
>cossacks long dead
Damn son, why do they live upstairs then or in Russia where they still angry at jew-masons.
6adf8a No.590699
>>590656
Infantry armor started to disappear when soldiers began to rely more on the state for their equipment. Another reason is that they thought infantry could move faster without armor, which is partially true. Even in the late middle ages arquebusers wore less armor so they could move faster.
>making your troops cavalry proof seems like a sound investment
You greatly underestimate how far a military will go to save money.
863b45 No.590703
>>590656
Mail hauberk alone would be 10-15 kg or so, plus helmet and braces and you get +15-20 kg to the infantry kit, more than doubling its weight. This is huge impact to the infantry marching mobility and 17-19th century wars are full of maneuvering warfare. To have same mobility such infantry needs to became dragoons and this cuts deployed numbers of muskets by many times. All against threat that is less than 1/3 of dangers, between muskets and artillery.
In the 16th century armor, guns, sword and lance all coexisted together and infantry had armor but development of warfare and states shifted balance from the infantry been relatively high quality to the previously impossible cheapest musketeers spam.
76b957 No.590721
>>590699 Infantry armor became obsolete because even early muskets made it dead weight. The only armor that had a chance at stopping a musket ball was so heavy that only dudes on horseback could wear it. I could see the cuirass making a comeback with graphene layered with nano-crystalline steel alloys
171a70 No.590769
>>590721
>I could see the cuirass making a comeback with graphene layered with nano-crystalline steel alloys
t. Games Workshop
76b957 No.590772
>>590769
I said with real materials, not fantasy shit like ceramite, or adamantanium
fef4af No.590776
>>590656
Infantry stop wearing armor because musket regular penetrates plates. Nowadays infantries start to wear mucho armor again because armor tech is getting better.
Cavalries do engage in melee combat so they always wear armor.
This trend continue nowadays with cavalry truly become armored tank.
171a70 No.590779
>>590772
It was a joke anon.
fef4af No.590782
>>590772
Space age alloy we haven't discovered yet.
863b45 No.590813
>>590776
Funny thing. Old heavy (6-8mm thick) breastplates could stop musket ball and they weighted in the same range as modern body armors. But like modern body armor breastplate only cover small part of the body. So overall survivability didn't go up much.
>Cavalries do engage in melee combat so they always wear armor.
No, cavalry generally dropped armor too. And types of armor they retained were cuirasses/breastplates with requirement to stop bullets. No anti melee specialization armor. Maybe doing opposing, wearing relativity thin anti melee weapon armor could be better for cavalry as it indeed constantly engaged in melee and even more doctrine of cavalry put primary emphasis on it. But military not always choose optimal solution current tacticool fashion affect decision too. Like Russian Shashka that was literally equivalent of tacticool beard.
4ca20a No.590818
>>590813
>But like modern body armor breastplate only cover small part of the body.
And modern body armour is even worse if you consider that today soldiers usually kneel or lay during a firefight, and they rarely face the enemy when they are chaging cover.
>No anti melee specialization armor.
Wrong, hussars wore exactly that. The frogging of the dolman had metallic threads to stop cutting weapons, and the pelisse was used as kind of a cross between shield and light armour. They also didn't use lances or carbines, only sabres and pistols.
c364fc No.590827
>>590813
I mean, the cuirass is basically impervious to sword.
>But like modern body armor breastplate only cover small part of the body. So overall survivability didn't go up much.
Man, it covers the biggest and most vulnerable part i.e. centermass.
2940bd No.590849
>>590818
>And modern body armour is even worse if you consider that today soldiers usually kneel or lay during a firefight, and they rarely face the enemy when they are chaging cover.
Most casualties in major conflicts are the result of artillery anyway. Less protective armour, designed to prevent troops being torn up by shrapnel would save more lives overall imo. I think the recent trend with armour plates is a result of fighting shitty durkas. If NATO were to get into an open war with the Russian Federation, the trend would shift to modernizing flak jackets.
The fact troops carry so much shit on their chests anyway probably isn't good. The M16 was initially criticized for increasing a soldiers silhouette when prone. I know the Germans didn't like the long magazines on the STG44 for the same reason, and it is also why Spurdo Häyhä shunned scopes. Compare this to the modern day where rifles like the F88, G36 etc all have very high sight over bore height, straightline stocks and a bore which is already well off the ground due to the long magazines. The fact that minimizing your silhouette was emphasized so strongly by blokes that saw shitloads of combat suggests to me that some mistakes are going to be relearnt the hard way.
4db782 No.590919
>>590849
I think that a large part of modern us doctrine is that they expect troops entering buildings and that IED's are the biggest threat. If you have modern body armor as it is, it technically reduces "the fatal funal." At a door. I'm not 100% positive though. I also think they think they can take on any injury that is not lung, heart related and a few others. If the man is down but not dead with that body armor, his odds of survival are not bad, and protecting the heart and lungs is one of the best and easiest things.
I'm also drunk and hungry though.
0dbe7e No.591156
b65113 No.591365
>>586578
This is a good option
b8de57 No.591423
I would like a soldier to come in here to educate us on exactly how a sword would be applied to modern real life combat.
c364fc No.591428
>>591423
Soldiers nowadays cannot handle a knife, let alone a sword.
Maybe some brit commandos or royal marines.
6e31a4 No.591431
>>591423
What I want is someone who is both HEMA and a soldier.
b8de57 No.591432
>>591428
But why can't they handle it? Is it the time and courage to spend on training the soldiers or is it that they lack tough enough balls and skill?
c364fc No.591435
>>591432
Most soldiers view swords as obselete weapons or some are too pussy for CQC.
I think nowadays only the cossacks and the gurkha do view their swords/knives seriously.
b8de57 No.591437
I'm sure that if given the right type of peer pressure and social culture, the soldier will want to delve into that realm in their own way. Doesn't that idea intrigue you my good sir?
b8de57 No.591443
>>591437
creating education for this sort of thing and to be more viable is a really nice option also.
41c174 No.591469
No point. The only way to effectively use it would be if you could somehow get really close and attack somebody who was unprepared for it, but if you are doing that you may as well shoot him or use a bayonet.
>>590326
Bayonets were in widespread use up to the second world war, they are still issued now.
221ac9 No.591471
>>591469
Blinking and clairvoyance when
a55406 No.591509
>>591431
Jake Norwood was a soldier and is one of the most recognized HEMA practitioners and instructors. I'm sure there are many others, especially in Europe where HEMA isn't unheard of.
b70380 No.591823
>>586514
I can't really see it happening. With full kit, in a narrow corridor or alleyway, let's say my barrel gets grabbed or I get jumped out of nowhere, and rear man isn't there to blast him off me. I don't think I'll have time to pull even an 18" machete out, let alone a sword.
A short blade, on the other hand, deploys quick and easy, and allows me to cut my assailant off.
Weapons of convenience are one thing, but if we're talking strictly military usage, I can't see swords coming back. Have a khuk for your trouble.
b70380 No.591826
>>591823
One last point and then I'll leave it alone.
Let's say, in the same scenario above, I DO manage to pull out a machete or wakizashi sized blade, 20" blade max. I'm not considering any blade larger than that for realism. Are there arts out there that specialize in short sword usage in compact quarters? Most assuredly yes. That practically describes southeast Asia to a tee and it's why you see a million different H2H schools here in the west that have a grounding in Kali, Arnis, Silat, and so on.
>but if those exist then we should carry swords and teach those methods, case closed
Now hang on a second. That's the thing. The military is all about dumbing down training so that even Forrest Gump can do it. They apply K.I.S.S. to make techs teachable to the lowliest, most inept private. Your lucky guys out there who have proven that they're high speed and pick up quick? They get a solid two weeks to pick up an art from an islander who got paid as a contractor to teach what he knows. And then it's back to training. Probably going to forget what that short guy taught him about swords, knives, and body mechanics the next time he hits the bar.
Two weeks. You need five years, at a minimum, to produce a fighter worth a fuck who won't simply get killed drawing and swinging that sword you gave him. That's five years that same fighter is expected to know a thousand different facets of his job. It takes discipline, timing, footwork, repetition, and many other things to make a swordsman. No standing government would see that investment as anything other than a waste of money, and no soldier in combat arms would see it as anything other than a hobby.
We figured this out a long time ago, which is why the last time a field manual was written on sword technique was during WWI.
c364fc No.591840
>>591826
Not a problem if swordsmanship is trained in PE courses in primaryschool, as well as marksmanship.
Think about that.
c364fc No.591841
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
>>591823
>I don't think I'll have time to pull even an 18" machete out, let alone a sword.
There are techniques for that.
It's called iaido in the east and quickdraw in the West.
1f6c98 No.591844
>>590849
>>590919
We had a few threads here, and the conclusions seems to be that you are better off with a "flak greatcoat" (or you could describe it as a hauberk) and a "flak cowl". Also, gun shields would be nice in theory.
b8de57 No.593170
>>591826
You left out a lot of different topics that you could have brought up. >>591841
Please expand on this further, go into full depth of this that would help.
63605b No.593178
>>590605
>Normies are absolutely retarded.
Well … yeah. That's why they're normies.
>>590721
>Infantry armor became obsolete because even early muskets made it dead weight.
So do modern American infantrymen wear about 7 kilos of Kevlar vest and ballistic plate for aesthetic reasons?
fef4af No.593301
>>593170
I dunno how to say in depth of this, visit your local HEMA club or call them, ask them if they teach quickdraw techniques or not.
That's about it.