Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As a rule quick draw are for curved or short weapons only.

The Romans had a quick draw technique, legionnaries wore their sword in the right and drew them vertically rather than across the bosty as is usual for sword drawing. This was due to the tower sshield they wore, but also due to pila. A legionnary would carrty two or three pila of different weights the last throw just before lines were closed and it appears the quick draw technique was part of the arm movement for the throw of the heavy pilum which due to its weight would need the whole body to move to be effective from a standing position.

Japanese quick draw technique is actually an attack, there are two forms, one for a standard draw and attack, the seciond is for when the samuria is seated and it intended as an initiation or a response to a treacherous attack. This latter attack is very difficult to parry and often resulted in the death of both parties. The formal quick draw is a battlefield technique, in formal duelling samurai would have sword drawn. This is because contrary to opinion the katana was not a battlefield weapon of any choice, Samurai would fight with either Yari or bow, though some other weapons were also used. The seated positional combat became important in the tokugawa era, because Samurai bereft or war sought honour in single combat or small unit actions. To partly limit this the Tokugawa shugunate modified the dress code for samurai making maneuver in clothing difficult. Samurai would have to adjust their dress before they were combat effective, which would be instantly noticable. So a measn of a fast draw attack, especially from a seated position was valuable knowledge.

Western quick draw techniques are limited to the sabre or scimitar mostly, as a cavalry weapon its a secondary arm to be used after the primary is discharged. Though the sabre because a weapon of choice of itself in the 18-19th centuries. A curved blade has some advantages on the swing narrowing point of contact for a deeper cut and making it easier to extract the blade while mounted. With exception of a few trick artists there are no sabre quick draw attacks per se, and none whatsoever while mounted due to positioning. though in all cases a good swordsman could draw and quickly make an attack, its actually two moves not one.

One of the big controversies of 18th/19th century sword design was the point vs edge debate.

Japanese steel used for the Katana was, to put not too fine a point on it, crap.
That's what all the folding was about, it was getting the impurities out.
They are not a magic wand, and they are absolutely not armour piercing.

Any blade can be drawn quickly, curved blades are just more mechanically suited for it, an Italian rapier can be drawn very fast due to its flexibility, and quite frankly, would have the reach of a samurai anyway.

Marv has the way of it. Despite the at times ludicrously legendary status applied to Japanese sword makers, all that folding and craftsmenship was really about turning utterly terrible quality iron into something useable. Iron on the Japanese Isles is really low quality, and getting the impurities out practically impossible. Japanese weapons were actually quite brittle. It's partly why the blades were so thick on the back end. Any thinner and they'd risk being snapped on impact.

Orlanth I think is right about the quick draw bit. It's not that the technique is impractical. It's just overstated by modern culture. It's was a very practical skill in Japan at the time it was invented. But it ain't that time anymore.

 marv335 wrote:

Japanese steel used for the Katana was, to put not too fine a point on it, crap.
That's what all the folding was about, it was getting the impurities out.
They are not a magic wand, and they are absolutely not armour piercing.

This is similar in nature to "Viking swords".... If you came across a sword that was made of Nordic iron, it came from the peat bogs. The process used to "mine" it from the peat was kind of cool... You'd make your fire with a "bowl" or hollow spot well beneath it, put a bunch of peat on it, and keep feeding the peat for a day or two (or however long you wanted/needed). Once you were done feeding the fires, and it had died down, the craftsman would sift through the ashes for the rocky lump of iron that had literally melted out of the peat and take it to his forge or to the smith if he wasn't the local smithy.... The smith would then begin the process of heating it, hammering it into a square shape, cooling it, then heating and hammering some more, etc.... This process was literally cooking the impurities out of the iron, and he knew he was done with the process when he no longer had flakes coming out of, or off of the surface of his "rock" (having seen this done, in the beginning stages it's like cracking the thin ice layer off a puddle or small pond, that's how big the chunks are relative to the piece). Once the Iron was cleaned up, he'd continue in the forging process by beating it into a rectangular or square shape before letting it sit for a couple days.

This process led to actually having higher quality metal than what was found on the European Continent (German/Italian, etc craftsmen), BUT, most of the viking sword makers had to make due with less metal, so what they'd do is take 2 pieces of their long iron bars to make the sword. The first piece they'd fold in half, then twist it like a braid. This formed the "blood groove", while the second piece would be wrapped around that twist to form the blade.

The problem with that process is that the twist left some "air pockets" in it, making the blades more susceptible to breaking than mainland blades were. This, combined with how difficult it was to get suitable amounts of iron, is one of the prime reasons why only the best warriors, or the Chief's favored warriors had swords, and most Vikings had axes.

 marv335 wrote:


Any blade can be drawn quickly, curved blades are just more mechanically suited for it, an Italian rapier can be drawn very fast due to its flexibility, and quite frankly, would have the reach of a samurai anyway.

If you mean a floppy epee then yes, but an epee is both flexible and small. Flexibility on the draw is actually a dramatisation of swashbuckler movies. To bend a sword while drawing it risks damaging the edge or the scabbard.
Reasonably fast drawing of a field rapier is due to the lanyard, not the rapier itself and not a quick draw to match that of a knife, or a curved sword.

As for any blade being drawn quickly, actually no, not all. If you want to go into battle with a zwerch, or longsword you need to be holding it or have it passed to you. a Standard viking or knightly broadsword needs a bit of room for the draw and is not quick to draw either. All these add up to the reasons why carrying a fighting knife or small sword was a good idea and most contemporary cultures had them. The only exception to the rule concerns the Japanese again, the sword pair was important for reasons other than having a quick to draw backup weapon and had more to do with cultural roots.

Thats also what led to the mythic status of weapons made of Meteoric iron. They were much purer and thus stronger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 marv335 wrote:


Any blade can be drawn quickly, curved blades are just more mechanically suited for it, an Italian rapier can be drawn very fast due to its flexibility, and quite frankly, would have the reach of a samurai anyway.

If you mean a floppy epee then yes, but an epee is both flexible and small. Flexibility on the draw is actually a dramatisation of swashbuckler movies. To bend a sword while drawing it risks damaging the edge or the scabbard.
Reasonably fast drawing of a field rapier is due to the lanyard, not the rapier itself and not a quick draw to match that of a knife, or a curved sword.

As for any blade being drawn quickly, actually no, not all. If you want to go into battle with a zwerch, or longsword you need to be holding it or have it passed to you. a Standard viking or knightly broadsword needs a bit of room for the draw and is not quick to draw either. All these add up to the reasons why carrying a fighting knife or small sword was a good idea and most contemporary cultures had them. The only exception to the rule concerns the Japanese again, the sword pair was important for reasons other than having a quick to draw backup weapon and had more to do with cultural roots.

Very large swords were often not kept in a scabbard at all and simply wrapped in oilcloth, or the scabbard was never attached to your body. You carried the sword in its scabbard and would just drop it when you needed to fight. You could never draw most two handed swords if their scabbard was attached to your body.

 marv335 wrote:
One of the big controversies of 18th/19th century sword design was the point vs edge debate.

Japanese steel used for the Katana was, to put not too fine a point on it, crap.
That's what all the folding was about, it was getting the impurities out.
They are not a magic wand, and they are absolutely not armour piercing.

Any blade can be drawn quickly, curved blades are just more mechanically suited for it, an Italian rapier can be drawn very fast due to its flexibility, and quite frankly, would have the reach of a samurai anyway.

Thus why Katana was a great weapon and excellent craftsmanship. Japanese figure out how to make great sword from their gakky raw material.

Quick draw is not a timing to see who can draw quickest. It is a method of attacking. Rapier can be unshed really quick, but it takes another motion to strike. AS far as I know, Katana is the only sword that has the quick draw and slash attack all in one that is effective and killy. You can train just about any weapon for a quick draw... but why waste time and energy when Katana is the best at quick drawing? It is like trying to learn how to shoot M16 from the hip. If you want to shoot from the hip, use pistol quick draw.. that has practical use.

Again, if people do not know the practical use of a quick draw Katana... it has the same usage/practical usage as wild west quick draw 6 shooters. Cowboys only use quick draw for dueling and quick attack. If they are combat ready, of course they pistol is drawn and aim with arm straight... quick draw is firing from the hip to save the second of who kill first. Again, same with Katana quick draw... same usage in 1 to 5 yard range.



Oh famous quick draw katana attack that fail was in Kill bill, when Bill tried to quick draw on Uma when they were sitting down.

david choe wrote:

Thus why Katana was a great weapon and excellent craftsmanship. Japanese figure out how to make great sword from their gakky raw material.

No, the Japanese made an ok sword from crap material. The Katana was not a great sword by any standard except ability to cut unarmored flesh. And thats not a good indicator of a good weapon, a good weapon can deal with armor as well as flesh. Cutting all the way through a target is wasted energy when a simple 6" deep wound will suffice.

The best sword making areas based on both technique and material is probably a tie between Damascus and Toledo.

The katana at best was a fairly average sword, especially when compared against the rest of the world in both other swords and against armor.

But its got one hell of a PR department

 Grey Templar wrote:
But its got one hell of a PR department

Oh for sure. It totally wins on stylistic appeal and modern marketing. But really, I'll take an estoc any day.

david choe wrote:

it has the same usage/practical usage as wild west quick draw 6 shooters. Cowboys only use quick draw for dueling and quick attack.

You do know that the whole quick draw duel thing is pure hollywood, don't you?

 Grey Templar wrote:

david choe wrote:

Thus why Katana was a great weapon and excellent craftsmanship. Japanese figure out how to make great sword from their gakky raw material.

No, the Japanese made an ok sword from crap material. The Katana was not a great sword by any standard except ability to cut unarmored flesh. And thats not a good indicator of a good weapon, a good weapon can deal with armor as well as flesh. Cutting all the way through a target is wasted energy when a simple 6" deep wound will suffice.

The best sword making areas based on both technique and material is probably a tie between Damascus and Toledo.

I disagree because I'm a purest. I like my tools to be specialize. When I want armor opener, I choose a warhammer. When I want a medium sharpest cutting sword, I choose Katana. When I want to have an all around combat sword, I choose long sword. But when I want a all around cutting sword, I choose Katana over long sword.

I really get tire of Katana fan boys and also Katana haters just the same.

Katana is the best medium cutting sword. It is the sharpest because of single curve blade and folded steel.

Yes, Katana has it draw back by being so sharp and strong/hard. Yes Katana blade is very strong / harder than most long sword. Katana has better chance of armor penetration vs. Long sword and most european sword because it is harder and bend less during a thrust. However, because it is harder metal... it can break easier vs. bending of european blade.

So you can't just say crap like Katana is crap if you do not know how to compare or what you are looking for in a blade.

I understand it and appreciate it for what it is. One of the (if not the best) best medium, sharpest and hardest blade for cutting and armor penetration sword.

Lastly, because I (and most, if not all of us) are not going to go out and fight with swords, I enjoy the purest ideas of what "the sharpest sword is"... which usually have to be single edge and curve blade, again... Katana.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 marv335 wrote:

david choe wrote:

it has the same usage/practical usage as wild west quick draw 6 shooters. Cowboys only use quick draw for dueling and quick attack.

You do know that the whole quick draw duel thing is pure hollywood, don't you?

it's not. hollywood over do it as if it was that common for people to know how to do quick draw and shoot from the hip. In reality, it is a very rare skill and those who master it... did a lot of killing and not dying.

Sure, the Katana can cut through a body easily. But it fails against armor, which really makes it nothing more than a flashy showboat piece.

You need to cut through armor to be a decent melee weapon, and the Katana fails that check.

How can a Katana be the "best" weapon in any category when it's essentially useless against most opponents compared to a regular sword? It cannot even cut through a CHAINMAIL, pretty much the basic piece of armor. This already disqualifies it at being effective on any sort of battlefield.

It's better at playing fruit ninja, though.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, the Katana can cut through a body easily. But it fails against armor, which really makes it nothing more than a flashy showboat piece.

You need to cut through armor to be a decent melee weapon, and the Katana fails that check.

Like I said before, I am a purest.

Give you an example. Base ball sport. There are may bats type (wood, metal, long or short) but all have the same kind of shape. The bat is a perfected design for hitting the base ball and it is that shape. You can't make a bat the size of a ping pong racket or too big like a 4 foot long bat. This is because of science, the right length of the bat and shape of the bat is a perfect design for hitting that ball.

Now for a cutting sword that can swing the fastest and has the sharpest cut. The science of this is... single blade, curve blade, and about 2.5 foot length and two handed. This is about the size of a baseball bat. You can swing it fast and has powerful hitting power. The only weapon that has this science is Katana, at least that I know. You can make another sword that has this science property and it will end up looking like a Katana.

Katana has the best cutting edge, control, and speed over most other sword.

Like I stated many times, I am a purest. This is why I consider Katana as the sharpest, fastest, and control to make the hardest and deepest cuts out of any other swords.

As far as combat weapons, it all depends on the situation.

You keep saying that it fail against armor, well what armor was Katana facing? Do you see Samurai fighting heavy armor european knight? IF Japan were facing european knights, they will bring war club and maces to war. IT is just silly to keep comparing this. BTW - what european sword can cut armor knight better than a Katana?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
How can a Katana be the "best" weapon in any category when it's essentially useless against most opponents compared to a regular sword? It cannot even cut through a CHAINMAIL, pretty much the basic piece of armor. This already disqualifies it at being effective on any sort of battlefield.

It's better at playing fruit ninja, though.

Samurai didn't wear chain mail.

david choe wrote:


Now for a cutting sword that can swing the fastest and has the sharpest cut. The science of this is... single blade, curve blade, and about 2.5 foot length and two handed. This is about the size of a baseball bat. You can swing it fast and has powerful hitting power. The only weapon that has this science is Katana, at least that I know. You can make another sword that has this science property and it will end up looking like a Katana.

Eh...you...kinda lost me on this comparison...

...and pretty much every European sword is better at cutting through armor. As in being able to do so /at all/.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

david choe wrote:


Samurai didn't wear chain mail.

How can the katana then be the "best" at anything? It could only be the "best" feudal Asian weapon then.

 Sigvatr wrote:

david choe wrote:


Now for a cutting sword that can swing the fastest and has the sharpest cut. The science of this is... single blade, curve blade, and about 2.5 foot length and two handed. This is about the size of a baseball bat. You can swing it fast and has powerful hitting power. The only weapon that has this science is Katana, at least that I know. You can make another sword that has this science property and it will end up looking like a Katana.

Eh...you...kinda lost me on this comparison...

...and pretty much every European sword is better at cutting through armor. As in being able to do so /at all/.

European sword were design for fighting first and sharpest of cutting is 2nd. This is why it has longer blade and double edge. Longer and double edge blade won't cut as good as shorter and single edge. Do you understand this part?

Just focus on this, to make it easier to understand.

If you were to design 'THE BEST" sword with cutting in mind, control, and speed, NOT fighting or anything... what would it look like? (note: not fighting, because with training... any weapon can be deadly)

It would have a single edge and curve right?
It would be about 3 feet long right?
It would be two handed right?

What sword is that, that is a Katana.

This is what I mean by me being a purest, I know what I want and that sword is a perfect design for that (control, speed, and cut).

A weapon that is useless against armor is...useless. Full stop. You could literally keep striking at me and I'd stand there laughing. Due to its curved shape, you would not even be able to put enough striking force behind your blows to cause any non-cutting damage. At the same time, with a regular sword, even if I would not cut through your armor, I would still cause damage to you just by applying my physical force on your body.

A sword...ANY sword is a weapon. It's only designed for battle. What else would a weapon be worth then if not fighting? As I said, you're correct, the katana is the best at playing Fruit Ninja. As a weapon, however, it horribly fails.

In general, don't judge "speed" on a weapon. Speed is far too reliant on the wielder to be able to objectively measure. I could easily out-speed you and a katana with my regular longsword / axe and shield just because of my training.

So considering swords are for fighting, you're basically saying it's a gak sword?

At best a secondary weapon used when the samurai's primary armament was lost?

Everytime I mention anything about Katana, people start hating. I never said that it was the best weapon in the world. I was asking about quick draw.

I do have a high respect for Katana as a tool and I consider it the best of the following: the fastest, sharpest with control-precise cut from all the swords.

Again, I am a purest so I would love to knock the mantle of Katana over if somebody can make a claim that there are a better sword that can out perform the 3 things:
Speed
cutting power
precision

I really don't care about fighting style of long sword or claymore ... blah blah blah because that takes too much skills to compare. We are just comparing the tool usage.

The amount of back-pedaling is too damn high!

The Katana has zero cutting power. Can't get through armor? Useless. Precision? Has zero meaning. What's the use of "precision" (not even sure what that actually means...) when a thrust is about as deadly as a regular strike? Speed? See above.

Sure, the Katana can be a good tool. For cutting fruit. And stuff. It's a terrible weapon, though. That's the point people in here make. There's no "hating" involved, just people stating that the katana is one of the most overhyped weapons ever.

So two of your things for fanboying the katana, speed and precision, are measures solely of the user and not the weapon. As for cutting, it's firmly average only really shining against an unarmored target which is a fantasy in any medical fight. What you're saying is that the katana is only best if a lot of conditions allow it to be best. You might as well be saying "the katana is great against tied up naked people, therefore it's the best!"

 Sigvatr wrote:
A weapon that is useless against armor is...useless. Full stop. You could literally keep striking at me and I'd stand there laughing. Due to its curved shape, you would not even be able to put enough striking force behind your blows to cause any non-cutting damage. At the same time, with a regular sword, even if I would not cut through your armor, I would still cause damage to you just by applying my physical force on your body.

A sword...ANY sword is a weapon. It's only designed for battle. What else would a weapon be worth then if not fighting? As I said, you're correct, the katana is the best at playing Fruit Ninja. As a weapon, however, it horribly fails.

In general, don't judge "speed" on a weapon. Speed is far too reliant on the wielder to be able to objectively measure. I could easily out-speed you and a katana with my regular longsword / axe and shield just because of my training.

Then you do agree "the fruit ninja" as it is the best.

OK, fighting....
Katana were invented to fight armor less or very little armor opponent in Asia. Checked.. good weapon.

What are you talking about that Katana won't hurt you and a long sword will hurt you. They are both swords! You think that long sword will break your rib in the armor, but a katana won't? Both weapons weight almost the same and, infact... Katana will have more of an impact hit because it is two-handed. Also, a Katana has a deeper armor penetration thrust vs. a long sword. Any damage a long sword can do, Katana can do better because of a sharper blade and two handed.

Basically all swords are not very good vs. heavy armor and a better weapons would be blunt weapon like maces and hammer.

But....... people have already given a few swords to fit that criteria. You're asking for opinions, you need to accept that others opinions will differ.




Also, a mace with trump a sword any day IMO. Armor? Who cares. Precision? Don't need it. Speed? Block with shield, bash with mace. Speed and skill go out the window when my mace crushes your shoulder to dust. Armor or not I win.

 KingCracker wrote:
But....... people have already given a few swords to fit that criteria. You're asking for opinions, you need to accept that others opinions will differ.


Also, a mace with trump a sword any day IMO. Armor? Who cares. Precision? Don't need it. Speed? Block with shield, bash with made. Speed and skill go out the window when my mace crushes your shoulder to dust. Armor or not I win.

And a Longbow trumps a mace. Why waste all that time training extensively to use a shield and mace when you can give peasants a couple of hours of practice a week then rank them up on a hill and rain enough arrows down to bring down a whole charge of elite cavalry.

Agreed with that completely, you lot proved that concept for centuries! But we are talking close combat, unless you're that danish Archer that boggles my mind, the bow is out of this discussion I think lol

 curran12 wrote:
So two of your things for fanboying the katana, speed and precision, are measures solely of the user and not the weapon. As for cutting, it's firmly average only really shining against an unarmored target which is a fantasy in any medical fight. What you're saying is that the katana is only best if a lot of conditions allow it to be best. You might as well be saying "the katana is great against tied up naked people, therefore it's the best!"

Fist, i hate comparing fighting style because it is subjective. We can only compare the tools that we have. If all fighters of the weapons were the same skills, then ok... lets move on to the next point.

What els can we measure a weapon other than it
speed
power (cutting and thrusting)
control

if all those three things got good marks... you bet this weapons is excellent for a skilled user.

The naked part... you know that a Katana is the best sword for beheading right? I would choose a Katana over other swords for execution. In fact, it is the only sword in the world that in the hand of an expert executioner (control) can behead a person and leave enough neck skin to hold the head from dropping to the ground. This is not a fantasy... but true event.

So yeah man.. it is good than human can invent a blade that has power and control to make cuts like this and it is nice to know and understand what that blade is and what it is call... a Katana.

ERM..... I'm pretty sure a claymore would best your beheading comment

 KingCracker wrote:
But....... people have already given a few swords to fit that criteria. You're asking for opinions, you need to accept that others opinions will differ.




Also, a mace with trump a sword any day IMO. Armor? Who cares. Precision? Don't need it. Speed? Block with shield, bash with mace. Speed and skill go out the window when my mace crushes your shoulder to dust. Armor or not I win.

NO they haven't giving me a sword that fit that criteria. Long Sword and such were good combat weapon, but do not have the superior speed or cutter power of a Katana, not to mention the control.