>The force of a longsword is much less focused as well.
Depends how you're using it. That said longswords are over-rated in media anyways. Arming and side swords were much more commonly used blades and if you needed a bigger weapon that needed both hands to wield there were much better choices.
>Not using superior pole arms
Have fun never getting close.
>Katana is about precision and skill to cut the unprotected areas
Not really. It was more of a side arm to use against opponents with little to no armor and were also more of a status symbol due to how expensive they were. And if your implying what I think your implying, you did not "Bash people" with swords like broadswords like they were some sort of club either.
>Arming and side swords were much more commonly used blades
We've found plenty of historical longswords on battlefields and seen a lot of them in depictions. Whether arming and side swords were more "common" is rather questionable, as it heavily depends on the time period and the type of troops. When it comes to infantry side-arms it is definitely more comfortable to carry a shorter weapon like an arming sword or side-sword, but when it comes to cavalry side-arms, longswords were fairly common.
I don't see how I could
Just admit your wrong, idiot.
>Katana is about precision and skill to cut the unprotected areas, it isn't a sword to bash people with like mindless barbarians
I wounder how it and Samurai would contest against a fully Equipped Centurion?
Before we spurge off into 500 post land, lets clear up some things that are just hollywood nonsense.
"Folding" is not some super special blade smithing technique that Japan invented. Its a fairly low tier technique for working carbon into iron to produce steel, and pretty much everyone who figured out how to make steel figured out folding or something very similar, many of them before Japan. Some countries actually moved onto superior methods with things like crucible steel.
No steel sword is made by pouring molten metal into a big mold. That just results in a shitty unbalanced blade that's going to break fairly easily. Steel Swords of all kinds in every country typically took about 1-3 weeks to make.
Katana and most broadswords typically weigh about the same. The Katana is not the super light and fast thing you see in hollywood and is actually surprisingly thick and heavy.
Katanas are not super fragile things that break apart instantly either (If you are using them correctly and not like they're a fucking club or axe at least).
Both Katana and broadswords were side arms, not primary weapons.
Medieval armor was heavy, but only by about as much as what the average modern soldier has to carry with them now. They were also surprisingly flexible and easy to move around in (Fully armored knights could climb ladders, do cartwheels and jumping jacks, and even dance in their armor).
Crossbows > Polearms > Swords.
I'm a sucker for Halberds myself, though honestly there isn't any shit-tier melee weaponry in my book.
>Crossbows > Polearms > Swords
I always figured that whenever we discuss pre-gunpowder weaponry we shuffle range to the side since it's obviously going to be superior. Fuck, a good English Longbow and half these are invalidated even in good armor.
>He doesn't shitpost in a designated shitpost thread
sage of course
Am I completely wrong or are "katanas" only useful for the fight against unarmored or very very lightly armored opponents?
>No Pommel or Guard to strike
>No Halfswording possible
>Only one sharp side
I should really jot down somewhere to watch Thunderbolt, I spent that whole season from like episode 3 that I'd catch up and hop on the bandwagon and never did, and immediately forgot about it as soon as it finished.
Most Japanese iron came from iron sand found in mountains and on beaches rather than iron ore like in Europe and India. It had a lot of impurities mixed in and was difficult to refine into usable iron and steel.
> katanas today
but nobody uses them in battle when fucking guns exist.
this image bothers me. I know that a katana would deteriorate faster when used against a longsword or a broadsword but if you hit them into each other like that they would all bend and chip fairly fast. You aren't trying to hit the other sword with your sword you are trying to hit their body. Swords are not shields.
>It's also a great hobby to do training fights
Good luck getting past my shield. It's a shame you don't have one.
>exposed hands, arms, face
>They get slashed and he dies.
Your knowledge of Roman Armor astounds me.
>contest against a fully Equipped Centurion
Here what should happen if your sword is well made.
No nip is ready for the half-sword technique
Quick question, we always see katana cutting bullet in Manga and Anime.
Assume someone can cut it perfectly, where on the bullet and the minimum distance that person need to cut to not have 2 holes on his face?
Katanas were superior because the thin blade meant that the much thinner japanese steel atoms could slide right between the atomic bonds of the opponents armor. not like fat european steel atoms which had to call a cab and eat cheeseburger every time they wanted to return to their scabbard
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
>Assume someone can cut it perfectly, where on the bullet and the minimum distance that person need to cut to not have 2 holes on his face?
no safe distance, because the bullet becomes a cloud of lead particles instead of two equidistant chunks.
My name is Katana, and I hate every single one of you. All of you are pale, dishonorable, devils who spend every second of their day looking at stupid ass longswords. You are everything bad in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever bisected any European Knights? I mean, I guess it's fun making me underpowered in d20 because of your own insecurities, but you all take it to a whole new level. This is even worse than being too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai.
Don't be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I'm pretty much perfect. I can cut slabs of solid steel, and I'm thrice as sharp as European swords. What can you brag about, other than "targeting the men with the katanas first in World War II"? I also scared medieval Europe into leaving Japan alone, and have a banging honorable wielder (He just cleaned me; Shit was SO cash). You are all ignorant devils who should just commit seppuku. Thanks for listening.
Pic related: It's me and my Samurai.
we're almost halfway to OP's prophecy, let's keep it going
I remember watching a documentary talking about how vikings discovered the folding technique for forging weapons before the japanese, but since the vikings actually had decent metal to work with, folding like the japanese did was more or less unnecessary.
I guess it all comes down to how shitty the metal in your country is.
What if the katana was made with high quality metal or gold?
Folding is just a method to produce usable steel from steel blooms while removing impurities from the metal. It is not a technique for forging weapons specifically and has nothing to really do with the quality of the iron used. European steel didn't make for good weapons just because they had better iron, it's because they moved on from things like folding and figured out how to make things like crucible steel.
And I think the technique you're talking about is pattern welding.
>OP makes a thread
>fags take de b8
>its a proof that /a/ is full of katanautism
+1 internet for you kind scholar.
>Dominating as crusaders in an entire fucking game that has KATANA SUPERIOR SAMURAI SHAMEFUR DISPRAY ELITE WARRIORS N SHEEET meme
ONLY IF THE GAME WAS FUCKING STABLE
can Katanas even harm full plate armors?
Why not Jians, Daos, Scimitars or something else?
or chainmails, aren't they actually very effective against blades?
war axe/maces/hammer>western swords>katana
prove me wrong protip:
>tons of swing
gets crippled with just one blow
>not posting the real versions
I would prefer a flail over almost anything other than perhaps certain polearms.
Mainly because no matter how armored an opponent, or how large their shield, your flail will still hit it's mark whether direct strike or working around the opponent's shield.
There was one manga I read where the main character used half-sword techniques all the time. Though in traditional japanese form, it was treated like something of a special move where he'd shout a technique name every time he did it.
It was also the only manga I can think of where the main character was straight up a black guy.
For anyone intersted, it was called Knights.
It was actually pretty decent aside from being pretty rushed. Most arcs felt a lot shorter than they should have been and its clear he rushed near the end to get an actual ending before maybe it got canceled?
It was still pretty neat IMO.
Ok, make that two mangas, though I guess the anime is more important to Afro Samurai, tho the manga wasn't bad
>modern katana vs modern claymore
I don't think I'd want to be the guy with the katana.
How can japs even compare?
the "folded 1000 times" thing is just a misinterpretation that impresses people who don't understand exponents
if you fold it in half 10 times you have 1024 layers, which is what that is actually supposed to be talking about
Yup and it was more in the sense that Russians jobbed so fucking hard the Japanese started to believe that it was because they were some sort of tremendous strategists which fucked them hard in the ass during ww2.
the mordhau was for killing people in plate armor, aka the rich upper-class knights leading the armies
you're only supposed to kill the unwashed masses while you ransom the nobles back to their families or something
They unscrewed their pommels in the middle of fights and threw it at each other.
Spears and bows won wars.
Actually this is a very good comparison. Both weapons were mainly used against unarmored oponents with the difference that the rapier actually gives you a range advantage over the katana.
Superior design and superior looks.
The mordhau was a technique for Germanaic judicial duels, where you were only allowed to take a specific set of weapons and as much armor as you wanted. It has no real application in battle.
A real katana is made of several layers of steel, so not bend or break like that fake chinese toy.
>using primitive technology
HIDE BAIT THREADS
IGNORE BAIT THREADS
I don't know about fighting styles in medieval Japan, but in Europe if you hit on the enemy's armor or sword with your own, you were just a dumbass. No reason to think otherwise for Japan.
So yeah, good thing cutting weapons cut flesh, because they're not made for cutting steel, so obviously a katana would dent or break on a european longsword. Because it was never meant for the katana to cut/hit steel.
For a moment I thought I was in a For honor thre...
>japanese sword don't have this sort of battle style, right?
I don't see a reason why not, its just taking the sword by the blade and hit the other with the handle. Why wouldn0t you able to do it with a Katana?
By the time of the Hundreds Year War, the backbone of Medieval armies consisted of contracted professional men at arm in plate and mail and archers/crossbowmen.
This is particularly true for states like England and Burgundy, while states like France relied more on seasonal Levies.
>but in Europe if you hit on the enemy's armor or sword with your own, you were just a dumbass.
Nigger that pommel and the guard were fucking designed to make your life miserable if you were in armor.
I'm not denying it existed, but the only evidence for it comes from a chapter in Talhoffer detailing techniques for judicial duels. The same chapter that has all kinds of wierd shit that oddly, nobody seems to care about. Accepting Mordhau as a legitimate battlefield technique means accepting thrown pommels, duel wielding a spear and sword at the same time, using a brick in a sock while stuck inside a pit and actual unmodified scythes as legitimate battlefield techniques too.
If you had those, fine. If you could actually manage to reach them quick enough, fine.
Using your pommel or your guard was more of an improvised way of dealing with armored oponents.
>Why would you try and use your pommel when you could just get a sidearm mace or hammer to bash them in?
Maybe because you don't have access to a mace?
Do you just tell everyone to stop fighting so that you can go buy a mace or do you make do with what you have?
Not really surprised, Kingdom is anachronistic as fuck. It's still fun though, my only problem is that because I read up to volume 37 like three or four years ago I've completely forgotten everything, and I can't really follow current releases.
>slashing instead of thrusting
>complain about the sword
and Mechs beat them all. how can westerners even compete
pretty sure the point is if someone swung a katana and an individual parried or blocked with a broadsword....at all
the katana itself would chip at the very least and at worst bend
katanas are not special swords they just look cool with little practicality
I still don't get why people compare swords used in different military settings. They are both specialized to their region and worked quite well for their time.
What do you think happens to the blade when it's struck hard against another blade so that the hardened edge chips away? I can tell you: it loses its structural integrity and bends, just like what happens in >>153601261.
>the only evidence for it comes from a chapter in Talhoffer detailing techniques for judicial duels
This is factually wrong. You can find similar techniques by Fiore de'i Liberi as well, not to mention the Codex Wallerstein, which has nothing to do with Talhoffer. The work with scythes you're referring to is De Arte Athletica, compiled by Paulus Hector Mair (which contains sections of the earlier Codex Wallerstein, but is otherwise an independent work) and the section makes no reference towards battlefield techniques in their usage. It is well possible that these were merely intended for self-defence.
Not all cases is a straight up 1vs1. A weapon getting stuck in someone's armor sucks. Besides, they wear padding underneath because chain mail isn't the best against blunt hits.
The point is that an "expert" on Japanese swords from a BBC documentary claimed that katana could effortlessly cut through other swords and they wanted to put that to the test.
No, various hammers have had a back (assuming the hammer part counts as a front) which can be used against armored people. The problem, it might get wedged in there.
If you're infighting against a dude in full plate in confined quarters your best bet is getting him on the ground and employing your bollock knife. Hammers and maces do rely on swinging, but are certainly more wieldy in close quarters than a longsword would be.
No, due to half swording techniques you can effectively vary the effective length of the blade. The centre of gravity of maces/hammers also mean that once you swing you are very much committed, whilst a sword can far more easily be redirected or jinx.
Also swords can be used far more effectively to parry attacks and open up your opponent. Maces/Warhammers will require you to use a buckler/shield techniques as well to protect yourself.
The Katana itself has an elegant design and is a decent enough blade. The metals that they used were shit though. When the Japs first made contact with European Iberians they were amazed by the quality of their steel. A lot of wealthy Nips would ship their Blacksmiths to Toledo, Spain to make the swords there using Toledo Steel.
>decent enough blade
It couldn't cut through hardened leather with reliability. The blade was way too thick which made it very good against bare skin which it could just wrentch open but near worthless against any and all armor.
I said it was 'decent,' it was a weapon made for people used to fighting a certain way. It was garbage against armor, I wasn't arguing that. Most Samurai wore very little armor, most couldn't afford it.
Weren't Samurai at least decently armored considering they were analogus to Knights (i.e. land owning nobles)? The Ashigaru which were the backbone of Japanese infantry and had varying levels of protection.
ITT: Intelligent people who think that a Katana was used to cut trough armor.
If you ever get a chance to speak to someone who practices Kenjutsu, ask about that. He will tell you that it was meant to go for the joints, the weak spots and so on.
Nowadays, everybody does understand why snipers don't aim for the ballistic vest but the head. But of course a katana is meant to cut through armor.
I'm too Euro-centric to know anything about shit that the Huns might have had, but I know English Longbows blew everything out of the water for several centuries, and there wasn't anything quite like them until crossbows.
No pre-Sengoku samurai used lammellar iron plates.
In Sengoku period Samurai armor transitioned to steel/iron plate.
This is true definitely for the cuirrass, armor protection for arms and legs, I am not sure.
English longbows were very good, but had logistical issues associated with 'em. In terms of horse archery, the Mongols and the Japanese were both pretty fantastic. That's a different role to the foot archer though.
>Too bad they used a sword made in China.
They didn't. The guy who made a sword (who happens to be NBTHK certified) imported tamahagane from Japan and made it in a traditional fashion. The fact that the weapon bends rather than breaking indicates that we're dealing with a differentially hardened weapon. If it had been made in China it would possibly perform better than a historical weapon because it would have been made of modern steel.
>Yes they were, but I don't think it was metal armor.
Wrong. They used mail armour reinforced with metal plates and padded clothing / silk underneath. Pretty similar to what Europe used during the 13 - 14th century.
>Yes they were, but I don't think it was metal armor.
No, even when they were still just archers they wore metal armor.
This guy covers the major armor types used in amongst the topic itself, he has pictures of the appropriate ones.
Looks like I have brain problems, sorry about that. I should really take a class or do some actually in-depth research for weaponry and tactics instead of making do with what I've picked up along the way.
bows aren't a sense of weaker vs stronger
they're pretty simple mechanically and anything short of a modern compound bow (pic related) will have the same relationship between work in -> power out
the mongol bows were a lot more powerful for their LENGTH, so they could be made shorter and more easily used on horseback.
English longbows were stronger in general, not because of some magical property of their design, but because the King mandated that peasants all practice archery from a young age and so they all developed enough strength in the right muscles to use really high draw-strength bows
They were pretty fucking powerful, dude. They had over a hundred pound draw. There are skeletons of archers from back then that we know are definitely the skeletons of archers, because using a bow that ridiculous for most of your life fucked with your skeletal structure.
The downside being you HAD to practice using them for most of your life in order to use them at all.
yeah i'm sure there ARE differences like that
but the main reason the English were so famous for archery was because the monarchy forced all the peasants to spend way too much time in /fit/
Can Katana cut through tungsten carbide?
I don't think the even English Longbow could penetrate the torso plate except at close ranges. Maybe the thinner plate on the arms/legs.
But yeah there are multiple layers to protect from archers on a Knight, plate, mail and finally gambeson.
Platemail is both significantly superior protection to mail and significantly less encumbering. I'm not sure why you're under the impression that they were used together on a regular basis. You MIGHT have mail segments at joints in plate, depending on the era, but generally under plate would just be wool and leather padding.
Both mail and plate works wonders vs arrows, I've been shoot at by bodkins from cheap crossbows in plate and that just bounces off, in mail however it kicks like a bitch when directly hit.
Well the occasions where knights walked through the shower was without cavalry, and I doubt any not-stupid commander would not lead a direct charge against army with idle archers.
I was convinced that mail was designed to 'grab' the arrowhead while plate would simply be punched through due to the extremely small surface of impact.
I might not remember my history lessons and AoE technologies well enough.
it's an ubishit game so it has annoying features where they try to jew you out of more money
that was enough for me to instantly decide i wasnt going to buy it regardless of the gameplay
Dex fags shitting up this board. Katanas are for fags
No, Knights were mail hauberk underneath the plate even in the late Medieval era Gothic armor.
E.g. 14th Century Knight
No, that's not wholly inaccurate. It's why warpicks and whatnot happened. Small point does deal with plate better than a large impact surface. But an arrow doesn't really have the mass to reliably punch through plate steel. Heavy crossbows could, but those relied on mechanical winches to cock them, compared to having to pull the string back with unaided as you would with a bow.
Bear in mind that it was an ongoing arms race over multiple centuries. There are points during which heavy bows could deal with the heaviest armour of the time, there are points where plate was basically immortality mode.
Yeah like those, plate on the outside covering all larger areas that's pinned/bolted/fused ontop chain mail
chainmail in layers on parts that plate doesn't coverwith padding underneath everything to avoid chaffing.
I think you've put an extra negative there anon, otherwise that a really stupid thing to say.
The composition served its purpose. During the 13th century it first became common to reinforce the mail armour, worn on top of padded clothes, with a "coat of plates" to protect the chest area from the couched lance. The knight Ulrich von Liechtenstein describes how he is struck in the chest by the lance of the knight Konrad von Streitwiesen so hard that it "breaks through his plates"in his 13th century literary work "Frouwendienst". During the 14th century, when it became technologically possible to forge single pieces of armour from large metal plates, it was initially worn on top of the regular mail armour. During the 15th century, when further advancements in metallurgy and heat treatment were made it was not uncommon to abandon the complete suit of mail underneath the armour and rely only on padded clothes onto which patches of mail were sewn in order to protect the exposed areas, e.g. on the inner side of joints.
On some 16th century suits intended for tournament foot combat we find the thighs completely enclosed in plate but most field armour did not completely enclose the thighs. This is likely because they were also meant to be used from horseback and it was possibly uncomfortable. Not to mention that the thighs are also protected by the horse and saddle.
The reason katana are folded is because Japanese steel is incredibly shitty, and even then it would go brittle and lose all sharpness after a few uses.
A modern katana made with steel stock pressed into shape would blow out of the water anything made by Japanese "swordsmiths"
if i say "no homo" can i stare at that codpiece without turning gay
Name me any, ANY gay animu sword of yours that can hope to defeat the phalanx formation. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Katanas weren't made for warfare, to hit armored opponents in unprotected areas, samurai used bows and spears for warfare. Katana were side arms and mostly used against farmers or in between campaigns against un armored opponents.
Not that samurai where armored per Western standard, mostly cloth, deer leather and wood, but Katanas sucked at hitting even that rudimentary armor.
>run circles around his blind ass then thrust right in the gap in the neck
Nothin personnel kid.
Some samurai did use small iron pieces or scales, but by far, the rank and file used leather nerigawa, and only a few of the richest used any iron in their armor.
Source: some jap dude in the Japanese exhibit in the museo de antropología e historia.
Thats conflating what samurai wore with ashigaru.
warriors in Japan were divided into subcasses just like sergeants/knights in europe. If you were a samurai with a horse and a decent estate you had lammelar with iron/steel in it
of course there were less/more expensive options depending on what you could afford
>My katana beats your longsword
>No it doesn!!!
Psst Kiddo,nothing personal
You are talking super late period, close to meiji restoration chain armor, classical ashirahu jingasa y do made of lacquered leather.
I see the same shit with western armies, most people think it was armored armies vs armored armies, but most rank and file used what they could,with knights needing large land states to be able to afford their armor and small numbers or retainers.
why are nips so shit at making weapons?
>see takeda? when filthy gaijin approaches, just spin blade, and bling tornado of destluction while eating rice
Does this thing even have an use in battlefield? Why would anyone come up with an idea like that? Seems impractical as fuck.
seems pretty retarded compared to just making spears though
all you need is a big stick and a teeny bit of metal to make a speartip with
they're cheap as shit and great for warfare
> gaijin says that
>gets hit by kami-no-kaze directly coming from the tornado of dlestuction coming for my spinning
>and i raugh
it is impractical as a fuck
in theory, you spin the blade and use the ball/weight of steel in the other side as a blunt weapon, or the other way around, spin the weight and use the blade to cut. retarded af
*Runs in front of you*
*Opens physics textbook*
*With time slowed down this much any move would kill him*
I can wait all day for your magic to run out, Magic fags never learn, magic isn't OP and doesn't need a nerf because physics is just better
Yeah, Katanas are more fragile than european swords(not like they're glass-tier fragile, but still), but not even the beefiest bastard swords in history were ever meant to be bashed into the opponent's weapon like that, much less a firmly supported one like that. Even when swords clash, you never want the sharp sides of the blades hitting into each other like that. This is literally taking the katana and using it under its worst possible conditions, and then going "haha, folded over a thousand times amirite? XD".
Personally I think the longsword is superior to the katana, but using misleading shit like this is not going to intelligently prove anything to anyone.
It looks cringey until you know anything about sword or try something like that yourself. That's pretty impressive; there's a reason they all start triumphantly cheering at the end.
>tfw you will never make one of those hilt-tail things out of the hair/fur/pubes of your enemies
>tfw you will never dye it red with blood
>tfw you will never force captured enemies to smell & lick it
Actually swords were used in WW2, mostly industrially produced Guntos of low quality, but some soldiers also had old katanas.
Heck, in WW1 they mass produced spiked clubs for their assault troops.
It would have to be a very heavy blade and it's edge would end up damaged in the process.
That's why mordehau was developed where you would grab the blade and use the pommel or the crossguard as an hammer/mace against armor
There's not a single anti-katana fag in this entire thread who could face my self-taught odachi style. Rate.
Easy, too easy. Nice try though, kiddo.