Usage of Swords after the 1860s by European, American, Canadian,

>>33960326
Because until WW1 (and to some delusionally old fashioned officers for some time afterwards), war was ceremony.

>>33960510
this is oversimplified

>>33960520
It's the kind of nonsense that only a teenager high on liberal "education" would spout, but we all appreciate your courteousness.

>>33960326
Lot of sword stabbing went on in places like India, Pakistan, China (Hong Kong) and to some degree Afghanistan when the locals got a bit rowdy through the whole of the 19th century.
Swords where a 'thing' in WW1, but mostly a Cavalry thing so unless you where running around in the Middle east kebabing Turks from the back of your horse through Libya and Palestine (mostly Anzacs), they generally didn't see much use after that.

>>33960510
only if you think every war was historically fought with men neatly standing in formation, except it was pretty fucking chaotic and bloody and swords just happened to be a more viable weapon in the past because of technological limitations, swords only became more of a traditional ceremonial thing among military ranks after they became obsolete

File: 7c92e03f8ad7d6ddf4ef09aebefd5981.jpg (280KB, 750x449px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 750x449px

WW1 had some neat cavalry charges in the Early War.

The poles managed to effectively use their Wz. 24 Sword in WW2.

>>33960836
So did the Italians (of all people) in WW2 when they charged a Siberian regiment and routed them with cavalry and sabre.

File: Springfield_Trapdoor_breech_open.jpg (327KB, 1920x1243px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1920x1243px

>>33960326
Because guns of that era had very real issues with jamming and QC with ammo supplies. See pic for a great example of both. If not for the times it fucked up in the field the US army would of phased out swords for any use past dress uniforms much earlier on.

>My question is, do we see major use of swords by European nations, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or any other "anglo" nation in a major war or colonial action?

Because colonial wars in the late 19th century were mostly fought in the ass end of nowhere. Supplies lines were thus long and infrastructure was bad most of time. So what happens if your ammo shipment is late, raided, or is just bad because of poor QC? You try and fight on till that next shipment of ammo comes in by any means you can.

>reliable mass produced revolvers were not available.

In some places like Vietnam even the best made 19th century revolvers had a very hard time of it. The french used single shot pistols in Indochina for a time because of that.

File: IMG_2367.jpg (242KB, 1024x757px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1024x757px

>>33961154
In addition, another problem with many of the revolvers was that the local tribesmen didn't understand that when they were shot they were supposed to stop rushing forwards with their spears/machetes/clubs.

Having a sword that could parry that rush was handy. Some of the later texts on fighting with the saber specifically discussed how to fight someone with a short spear and shield (Hutton). This was also the reason for the development of revolvers like this Holland and Holland in .577, as well as the Lancaster pistols.

>>33960836
funny, I don't think I would call anything the Poles did in WWII "effective"

>>33961360
Isn't this the whole reason why the bongs had all the dum-dum rounds for .303 and .455? Because it was fine to shoot africans but not normal people?

>>33961518
They were originally designed for that purpose, but they planned on using them in general. The Hague convention ended up forbidding it.

>"The civilized soldier when shot recognizes that he is wounded and knows that the sooner he is attended to the sooner he will recover. He lies down on his stretcher and is taken off the field to his ambulance, where he is dressed or bandaged. Your fanatical barbarian, similarly wounded, continues to rush on, spear or sword in hand; and before you have the time to represent to him that his conduct is in flagrant violation of the understanding relative to the proper course for the wounded man to follow—he may have cut off your head".

>>33961511
Polish 1st Armored

>>33961602
kek wasn't there a whole thing that in Europe they used .25 and .32 caliber in self defense because the attacker would get the idea and fuck off, but in America they had to use .38, .41, and .44/45?

>>33961641
.32 and .25 were immensely popular for years in the USA

>>33961641

Wounding calibers were popular everywhere America included until it became legally inadvisable. At that point rounds intended not only to stop but kill became prevalent.

>>33960326
After the American Civil war?
Yes, the americna civil war is significant militarily and politically only for America.


We (the British) used them extensively), just pre 1861 we had the 1857 indian mutiny, where they were used a lot.
Then we had the Afghan wars, Zulu Wars, Egypt and Sudan

not used much in the boer war though, but we got cavalry charges in WW1 on the western front and in the east

>>33961511
they put up a better fight than the french

>>33960858
Sabres were used a lot on the eastern front, including in the Russian civil war, cavalry was very much a big thing there, especially in siberia/mongolia

>>33961511
You'd be wrong. Poland actually fought very well for what they had to work with and what they were fighting against.

Remember, the German forces were 50% larger, with twice as much artillery, three times as many tanks (of Poland's ~900 tanks, all but 200 odd tanks were antiquated, the vast majority of them being tankettes armed only with machineguns from the start of the 1930s), and six times as many aircraft (most of Poland's was obsolete).

Despite this hopeless situation, Poland fought bravely, but it was too much.

And then the Soviets got involved, bringing another 50% of the Polish forces, but while having less manpower than the Germans, and a corresponding fewer amount of artillery, brought twice as many tanks as the Germans did and 50% more aircraft than the Germans.

Poland also drove off tanks with their lancers

>>33963433
That's a myth.

>>33963527
I said it to a polish girl on tinder and she unmatched me.

>>33960326
until ww1 many believed that the saber was the primary weapon of the Calvary

File: 1Sumatra1949.jpg (48KB, 625x353px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 625x353px

the dutch KNIL and marechausee used a klewang until well after ww2

>>33960836
The Russians and Waffen SS used Calvary on the eastern front all through the second world war.

>>33961360
On a real basic level, lot of the more 'warrior' oriented cultures know to respect someone running around with a big fucking sharp object, they know what it does and it will hurt.
Guns and stuff they don't always have the same regard for, despite it being more effective, being shanked is a lot more personal for them

>>33963823
He does appear to have a Sten, so something sharp when that stops working is never a bad idea!