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.

 Soladrin wrote:
No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.

Well they won't stay sharp for long but can and do get incredibly sharp. I have a $10 pocket knife that I get shaving sharp in no time, I'd put it's edge against a $150 pocket knife any day. The difference being my poopy steel won't stay that way for long.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, its a pretty good weapon for slicing flesh. But thats it, and its never going to get through to that flesh if it can't deal with armor.

A longsword has the mass to actually deal with armor. So yes, it is better than a katana as a weapon.

You're focusing so hard on its ability to cut when it is fatally flawed in so many other aspects.

and try to make your sentences coherent, it was tough to decipher that last post.

Sorry about my typing...

Actually the Katana is not a light weapon. It is as heavy as a long sword. So I never consider Katana superior or less superior to a long sword in combat. They are both swords and about as equal. Minor differences in pros and cons... but over all a average sword.

In a What IF situation, we give all English Katana instead of long Sword in 100 years war.. the result would still be the same.

So I said this again, it is as good as a long sword, but it has a scalpel ability.

People assume that Katana can't cut armor, the fact is it can cut just as effective as a long sword can vs. armor. Even better than a long sword vs. armor. This is why this part fail... Katana has better armor penetration...vs. long sword.

 KingCracker wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.

Well they won't stay sharp for long but can and do get incredibly sharp. I have a $10 pocket knife that I get shaving sharp in no time, I'd put it's edge against a $150 pocket knife any day. The difference being my poopy steel won't stay that way for long.

Okay, I may shortened that sentence a bit too much. What I meant with that is it's sharpness in any kind of battle. A couple of scrapes on armour would dull the blade quickly.

 Soladrin wrote:
No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.

Way wrong. You can try to express your opinion about speed or control... but sharpest is easy to test. Yes, Katana is razor sharp. Sharper than all double edge european blade.

Read my last post.

 Soladrin wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.

Well they won't stay sharp for long but can and do get incredibly sharp. I have a $10 pocket knife that I get shaving sharp in no time, I'd put it's edge against a $150 pocket knife any day. The difference being my poopy steel won't stay that way for long.

Okay, I may shortened that sentence a bit too much. What I meant with that is it's sharpness in any kind of battle. A couple of scrapes on armour would dull the blade quickly.

Well, it was never tested in battle like that in real life because Japan didn't have heavy armor.

However, you need to understand that a Katana is a razor sharp and very very strong blade. It won't get dull during a battle that it would be useless. At worst, it will be as dull as a long sword... and long sword can kill in battle.

Katana blade don't chip or bend like most european blade... it stays the same.. however.. it can break in half. But the factor of dull or breakage is very very rare at best... and I wouldn't consider as part of the negative of the weapon.

Look, I'm not trying to say a Katana is a bad weapon. It wasn't. Especially in the area it was used it was the sword of choice for a reason. I just get annoyed by how over hyped people have gotten about them. They were great weapons, yes. They are not the end of all of sword technology.

david choe wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.

Way wrong. You can try to express your opinion about speed or control... but sharpest is easy to test. Yes, Katana is razor sharp. Sharper than all double edge european blade.

I don't think you understand how edge sharpness works. Many European blades were designed to be razor sharp too, you're acting like only the Katana was able to achieve such an edge. But Soladrin is correct, again, with a couple of slashes over armor that sword will be dull, and then pretty useless in a fight, where as most European swords were designed to STILL get the job done after getting dull and dinged up

 KingCracker wrote:

david choe wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.

Way wrong. You can try to express your opinion about speed or control... but sharpest is easy to test. Yes, Katana is razor sharp. Sharper than all double edge european blade.

I don't think you understand how edge sharpness works. Many European blades were designed to be razor sharp too, you're acting like only the Katana was able to achieve such an edge. But Soladrin is correct, again, with a couple of slashes over armor that sword will be dull, and then pretty useless in a fight, where as most European swords were designed to STILL get the job done after getting dull and dinged up

Well, it's also just the factor that Katana's aren't great stabbing weapons. Most european blades had a good thrust to them. The tip of a sword will stay effective far longer then the edge.

Razor sharp and hard steel are drawbacks, not features. If you rely on a sharp edge, you lose effectiveness immediately after any contact with reasonably hard surfaces because your blade begins to chip(yes, all swords do this. The katana is not immune to it like you claim) and then you've lost your only advantage.

Hard steel is inflexible and makes a blade prone to snapping. A bent sword can be repaired easily, a snapped blade basically needs to be melted down and reforged completely.

Exactly right

david choe wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.

Well they won't stay sharp for long but can and do get incredibly sharp. I have a $10 pocket knife that I get shaving sharp in no time, I'd put it's edge against a $150 pocket knife any day. The difference being my poopy steel won't stay that way for long.

Okay, I may shortened that sentence a bit too much. What I meant with that is it's sharpness in any kind of battle. A couple of scrapes on armour would dull the blade quickly.

Well, it was never tested in battle like that in real life because Japan didn't have heavy armor.

Yes, yes they did. The armor was even bulletproof to firearms of the period.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/asia/s/set_of_armour.aspx

Date Masamune, an intensely, and violently paranoid lord, outfitted most of his samurai in this fashion.

The accounts of combats in the campaigns involving Date show samurai favoring spears and arquebuses.

david choe wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However modern minds have thought of this and the only sword to last long in to the gunpowder era was the field rapier. I can find you at least three categories where it is "better" than the katana.

1. Reach - its technique allows a rapier to he held at arms length plus its own, this gives reach similar to a spear in optimum circumstances.
2. Penetration - as a thrusting weapon it can find holes in good armour, or strike eyes or armpits.
3. Protection - the basket hilt of a field rapier offers superior protection in a sliding parry
4. Ruggedness - the quillon reduced weight but the much wider rear edge is good for blocking on the parry. The cross section of a katana has no quillon and the rear of the blade is quite narrow and relatively fragile.
5. Parrying in general - Katanas were designed for the quick kill, and not parrying combat, as the rapier has superior reach and superior parry then assuming the combatants are equal has the advantage over the katana armed opponent.

If I wanted to make the best sword I could possibly use I would go with the modern left handed field rapier as the optimised tradeoff, add a swordbreaker at the rear of the blade at the crossguard, make the main shaft out of erodeproofed titanium steel for extra strength. I would prefer a coarse screwed headpiece fitted to the tang and use modern materials for the grip.
I would still likely lose, as the wielder is the most important component

Thus why I said Katana has its' niche and superior at its' niche.
Why are you arguing with me by breaking my rule 1 or saying that other weapons are just as good as Katana. Didn't I already explain that?

The Katana doesn't have its niche, the sabre has a niche, its a cavalry sword.

The field rapier has advantages in battle against the katana, allowing equal skill a rapier is a better choice of weapon both in and out of armour. The katana is only superior in the cut, but the rapier user doesnt care abnout that, as a thrust is better than a cut in terms of damage dealt and the field rapier can parry better and has longer reach yet is similarly weighted.
Katanas are not niche weapons, they are generalist weapons, but the field rapier is a better generalist weapon, hence its continued use in the later 19th century as opposed to other blades which were closely equivalent to the Katana in form and function.

david choe wrote:


A Katana is better than most sword and is still at worst a sword.

Are you, after 4 pages, ever going to back that statement up by actul arguments that have not been re-butted a long time ago or are you just going to say the same thing over and over again?

Repeating an argument that has zero base isn't quite a good way of making a point.

The katana was a good weapon back then in the region it was used in. That's its niche - the region. If we're talking from a nowadays point of view and are going to actually compare weapons based on what they're meant to be used for (read: fighting), then the katana is absolutely useless and loses out vs. most if not all comparable weapons by a vast margin. You cannot even parry with it.

Quick explanation about Sharpness and hardness of Katana (K) vs. European sword(ES). I have it right, and you guys have it wrong.

The term razor get thrown a lot, but Katana is really true razor edge. ES edge need more force to slice, this is why you can grab ES blade and won't cut your hands if you don't slice it. A K blade is true razor and a small movement will slice your skin. So no, ES is not razor edge... but is just an average sharp sword, not razor edge like K.

Before I get to the hardness, I want to talk about how the K and ES are made. To make it easier to understand, Iron is soft and Steel is harder. It takes more iron to make steel. OK. European has more access to iron, so they can make steel and Japan has less iron, so they don't have a lot of steel.
ES are made from solid steel because of more access to iron.
K are made from Iron with steel edge and point tip because of less access to iron.
OK.
Steel is harder and can break if too brittle.
Iron is softer and can not break, but bend.

Because ES is made of steel, it is harder and almost impossible to bend a ES sword. It can bend and then bounced back to it's shape.... kind of like a spring.

K will bend if enough forced is used... but you need to be an ogre to do that.

Because ES is steel and can break, the edge can't be too sharp or it will cause the blade to brittle and break in combat. So the edge is sharp, but never razor sharp.

K blade is iron, with steel tip and edge... the edge can be razor sharp and it won't break because the blade is softer.

What that science means is that K blade can be design to be razor sharp and not worry about breakage.
ES blade must not be razor sharp or it will break.
Then why make ES steel and not iron with steel edge like Japanese or the Viking? Because when ES hit plate armor, it will not bend. K is sharper, but it might bend at multiple hit against hard object like plate armor.
Over a battle, a Katana will not bend... but in times vs. plate ... you bet.

So European sword were made to last longer against fighting other steel at the cost of less sharpness.

If a Rich knight or elite guard who prefer better blade, but expensive overtime because of needing to keep changing sword.. they would use the Japanese technique and have a sharper blade, but less durable.

So yes, Katana is a sharper sword. True Razor edge because it can.

I don't think you understand how steel works.

 Sigvatr wrote:

david choe wrote:


A Katana is better than most sword and is still at worst a sword.

Are you, after 4 pages, ever going to back that statement up by actul arguments that have not been re-butted a long time ago or are you just going to say the same thing over and over again?

Repeating an argument that has zero base isn't quite a good way of making a point.

The katana was a good weapon back then in the region it was used in. That's its niche - the region. If we're talking from a nowadays point of view and are going to actually compare weapons based on what they're meant to be used for (read: fighting), then the katana is absolutely useless and loses out vs. most if not all comparable weapons by a vast margin. You cannot even parry with it.

What are you talking about. I keep saying that Katana is the sharpest sword... but you are the one who keep disagreeing with me. I don't know what els you want me to say.

Katana is a sword and as good as any other sword, but it has a sharper edge. To me, that is a better weapon.

Also, I should mention that a good and successful design weapon must have a niche right? You keep saying that I am compare Katana as an end all weapon. I keep tell you that I am a purest and I search for a niche weapon that is the best at what it does. Katana is a weapon design for cutting armor less enemy with great speed, slicing damage, and control. To me it is one of the best tool for this niche. Then you keep bring Rapier or claymore which are beast of their own. I say for that niche of weapon in the Katana category... I can't seem to think there are other superior weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soladrin wrote:
I don't think you understand how steel works.

Explain? That is the fact dude.

Japan had less iron, so their steel had more carbon, more carbon = harder more brittle steel.

 Soladrin wrote:
Japan had less iron, so their steel had more carbon, more carbon = harder more brittle steel.

You got it backward dude. Carbon steel is what european did because they have lots of iron to make steel. It makes their sword more durable, but can't have too thin edges (sharpness) or the sword will break and chip.

When you have a soft core iron body of the Katana and steel edges... the sword will not break, but bend. Again, the technique of making sword like this is similar to what the viking did. The Japanese and Viking blades were some of the sharpest blade but not very durable vs. long usage... especially vs. steel armor.

Dude... remember history.
Iron age... Iron weapon in Europe...but the Viking did the steel edge first in history so their weapons were sharper than normal iron weapon.
Then Steel - and with chain mail and plate... iron weapon and iron weapon with steel edge were bending overtime and became expensive to maintain. A solid steel weapon were better, but less sharp. Still sharper than iron, but less sharp than iron w/ steel edge.

In Japan, it was almost the same as Iron age in Europe and Viking. There were not a lot of iron.. so iron with steel edge was the weapon of choice... no need to worry about expensive bending.

Thats funny, because viking swords got bent all the time because they were made of very soft iron.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats funny, because viking swords got bent all the time because they were made of very soft iron.

Are you being sarcastic?

Dude, the viking weapons were very effective but it was a bitch for their blacksmith to maintain. Most army just decide to make it cheaper to go pure steel because over all it was easier to make and cheaper to maintain.

There are three type of material / technique in weapons in this discussion.

Iron age (pure iron). They won't break, but can bend. The worst material and the lowest technology. WORST CATEGORY.

Pure Steel - They are very strong and won't bend, if bend will bounce back or too much bend will break and snap. This is the most durable material / technique... but CAN NOT have razor edge because it will cause the blade to chip and snap quickly.

Iron w/ steel edges. - This is the best technique and hardest(skill) to make. Viking did this first before Japanese. The blade will bend and no break. Because of the softer core iron body, the steel edges can be razor sharp and it will not break the blade. THIS IS THE BEST BLADE, but expensive to maintain and make. Not very practical vs. Steel chain mail and plate environment because it will be expensive to keep the weapon maintain for an army. However, a superior officer or King might have this kind of blade... but must be maintain more often. Again, no ideal for an army. UNLESS you are in Japan because you are not hack the Katana against chain mail and Plate armor. So it is a good blade for an army to have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_%28Japanese_mail_armour%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

So mail emerges sometime in the 13th century in Japan, about
100 years before the Katana comes into existence in its modern form.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_%28Japanese_mail_armour%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

So mail emerges sometime in the 13th century in Japan, about
100 years before the Katana comes into existence in its modern form.

That's what I said about how Katana is made. Soft body and hard edges. This allows the blade to have razor edge with out breakage.

This is why Katana is a work of art, it takes forever to make compare to normal standard european weapons.

So back to my point a superior sharper blade is the Katana because of this forging technique. Expensive to maintain, but so are Lexus vs. VW bug.

Viking swords had different composition to the Katana. Its not enough to just have steel edges and an iron core, you need to have the right kind of steel.

The high quality viking swords you are referring to were still made a different kind of steel than the japanese had, called crucible steel. Which was both flexible and strong and less brittle than normal steel.

The japanese steel edge is martensite, which is very hard but brittle steel. Its inflexible, negating the benefit of the soft iron core.

The viking methods were way different from the japanese, not comparable like you are trying to do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

david choe wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_%28Japanese_mail_armour%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

So mail emerges sometime in the 13th century in Japan, about
100 years before the Katana comes into existence in its modern form.

That's what I said about how Katana is made. Soft body and hard edges. This allows the blade to have razor edge with out breakage.

The razor edge itself will still chip if it hits anything hard.

david choe wrote:

Katana is a sword and as good as any other sword

Incorrect, as proven above. It's vastly inferior to most other swords.

Katana is a weapon design for cutting armor less enemy with great speed, slicing damage, and control. To me it is one of the best tool for this niche.

Uhm...its "niche" is armorless enemies? That's...a pretty broad niche. It basically puts a katana on the same level as a regular kitchen knife. One hit with a kitchen knife vs. an unarmored enemy is as deadly as the hit of a katana vs. an unarmored enemy. And no, that's not made up, I'm serious.

david choe wrote:
THIS IS THE BEST BLADE, but expensive to maintain and make. Not very practical vs. Steel chain mail and plate environment

...which makes it not THE BEST BLADE by a long shot.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Viking swords had different composition to the Katana. Its not enough to just have steel edges and an iron core, you need to have the right kind of steel.

The high quality viking swords you are referring to were still made a different kind of steel than the japanese had, called crucible steel. Which was both flexible and strong and less brittle than normal steel.

The japanese steel edge is martensite, which is very hard but brittle steel. Its inflexible, negating the benefit of the soft iron core.

The viking methods were way different from the japanese, not comparable like you are trying to do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

david choe wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_%28Japanese_mail_armour%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

So mail emerges sometime in the 13th century in Japan, about
100 years before the Katana comes into existence in its modern form.

That's what I said about how Katana is made. Soft body and hard edges. This allows the blade to have razor edge with out breakage.

The razor edge itself will still chip if it hits anything hard.

You are nit picking now. I said Japanese were LIKE Viking. The main idea of why Viking and Japanese blade were superior to most european blade were the combination of soft core and hard edges. Give me a break... I didn't went and research like you did. You took what I stated and went to research about it. It was top of my head. I also said iron body.. and steel edges... it all means the same... soft body and hard edges to make a superior sharp edge.

Again, back to my point... this Japanese technique and Viking techniques makes them some of the best weapons in history.
The result is sharper edges.

Are you going to argue about the sharpness of Katana now? I told you the science of possibility why it can have a razor edge and a functional razor weapon vs. European more dull blade. To me that craftsmanship created a superior weapon.

A good comparable weapon would be Viking blade using it's technique to make a sharp viking broad sword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

david choe wrote:

Katana is a sword and as good as any other sword

Incorrect, as proven above. It's vastly inferior to most other swords.

Katana is a weapon design for cutting armor less enemy with great speed, slicing damage, and control. To me it is one of the best tool for this niche.

Uhm...its "niche" is armorless enemies? That's...a pretty broad niche. It basically puts a katana on the same level as a regular kitchen knife. One hit with a kitchen knife vs. an unarmored enemy is as deadly as the hit of a katana vs. an unarmored enemy. And no, that's not made up, I'm serious.

david choe wrote:
THIS IS THE BEST BLADE, but expensive to maintain and make. Not very practical vs. Steel chain mail and plate environment

...which makes it not THE BEST BLADE by a long shot.

seriously, your comment is pathetic and laughable. After I explain to you the science of the Katana and sharpness of the blade and how it was very difficult to make.. you still act like this.

You have a bias and a Katana hater. I told you that only Katana can have this sharpness and still functional as a weapon.

If a long sword were using this same technique to make or very close ... then it would be of Viking quality. I give Viking props for making good weapon. But Viking is not the whole Europe. So to jude this sword, you have to respect how it was made and how sharp it can get. Viking and Japanese swords are in the top 1st place. It is the closet to a magic blade we can have. You heard of legionary European sword... well it was made something like this techniques to get the sharpness.

Again, with great sharpness like those blade you would need to maintain it a lot vs. metal surface like plate mail. But if you are a King or Lord, those special blade is cool to have. Not ideal for Army, unless you are freaking Samurai...This is why Katana is legionary for an army wide to have.

You seems to have no concept of weapons and art of making weapon at a... you just want to smash and say... will I kill you. This is just stupid.

Even Vikings who are "barbarian" understand the concept and respect the power of iron steel sword and Axes.

Actually, a katana isnt really the best cutter. Its certainly got a sharp edge, but its back is quite broad, so it really depends on draw cuts. Compare a katana with, say, a sabre: The sabre generelly has a much thinner blade, which means theres much less resistance when trying to cut something.
(think of the katana as a sharp wedge: it needs to push lots of material away to penetrate, wasting energy that would otherwise go into actually going deeper)

In all fairness, I researched. I knew Japan had chain armor, I just wasn't sure when it existed in relation to the katana.

From what we've said, the katana is great against unarmored opponents.

The Samurai were not unarmored opponents.

The katana was a beautiful, intricately wrought status symbol, which even in its culture and time period was not anyone's first choice of weapon on the battlefield. As certain European swords were in fact well suited to their period, and able to defeat period armor, they would be better swords for the battlefield.

Katanas and foot sabres are directly comparable- both were civilian, slashing weapons. The katana just also happened to be a status symbol.

Besides, the infantry weapon of choice, regardless of location was always the spear or weapons with similar reach.

If it cannot cut through armour that makes it a bad sword.Hitting the armour more times then a longsword can IS NOT GOING TO HELP.having a sharper blade is no help if it becomes blunt after hitting the armour. Besides the b*sterd sword is simply the best sword.who can Argue with a name like that?