/tg/ - Traditional Games

better materials mostly add up to the sword being more durable. a harder edge maintains a sharpness longer, a springy blade is less likely to conform to a bend, and higher carbon and chromium will improve a sword's resistance to oxidization.

The only time technology went backwards, as far as I know, was when +VLFBERHT+ stopped being made. The average of metal working caught up pretty quick, but it is still notable.

Could argue when Damascus steel stopped being produced. They didn't know what was making it though, so I don't think that counts.

If we produced a top notch sword today for the purposes a sword would serve, it would likely be a carbon nanotube center in a titanium shell, coated and edged in tungsten. Embedded near the edge would be some vents for some pure oxygen flames to make cuts as clean as possible. I'd call it Lightbringer.

Funny thing, bend-ability was a benefit in swords of old. Less chance of it breaking, and easier to remove from shields/bone. That is why Ulfberht swords were the shit, their kind of steel was bendier than the piggu disgusting iron that was common at the time.

Not OP, but I was curious about different metals in swords as well. I know a lot of people get pissed about how weebs assume katanas are basically light sabers compared to other swords. My understanding is that katanas are not all that special, and the iron available to Japan was shitty pig iron (not that I know much about pig iron or anything except from second hand stuff I've heard from others). So, if I had a country that was very much like feudal Japan, would it be safe to assume (if they only had access to subpar metals) their swords would not last long in a fight with my standard D&D weapon list of long swords and such? And if they did later import better metals from the main land, their katanas would then be roughly the same as the European style swords on the normal list?

I mean, that's the idea I have for future stuff anyway, so it doesn't REALLY matter if it's accurate to real life in the least, but I'm curious. I guess I'm also curious what your chances of finding a decently sturdy sword in any place these days is. I assume most stuff I'd find in mall stores are just expensive decorations, but am I wrong? If I dropped $500 on a mall sword, might it stand up in a fight? I've long wanted to run City Beyond the Gate, so if the players ever need replacement weapons while in 1985, I was curious if they'd actually find anything.

>>223142

the iron used for katanas wasn`t second hand, but it was hard to come by, as it wasn`t abundant in the country, and grorious nippon has always been rather isolationist, so trading for it wouldn't have been that common. IIRC forging steel wastes more iron than a pure iron sword, so only the edge of most blades was made from steel, and the blunt side was left as iron in order to save on material. It was a sword that got the job done, but was less advanced than many euro swords because they could make blades both hard and springy, which allowed for longer swords and thinner blades. You'll notice that, if you look at a sword along the edge, a european sword typically gets thinner to the point, gradually from the shoulder, near the hilt, whilst katanas maintain a surprising thickness until near the tip. That's called the distal taper.

>>223146

oh yeah, and as much as I enjoy watching katana autists throw a fit when their magical swords are shown to be quite mundane, I equally enjoy watching hemafags lose their own shit when someone mentions katanas being better cutters, truthfully or not.

>>223147

The only game I saw that actually handled the awesome power of the noble, epic, and mystic katanazor well was World of Darkness (I can't remember if it was the base book or the new version of Hunter) where a genuine katana was significantly more expensive than a comparable longsword, did exactly the same damage, and had one extra point of durability (I'd query that, brittle blades are not good news even if it is just a single layer along the edge).

But yeah, it's impressive that the japs managed to forge an even vaguely functional weapon from the iron they had access to, but the fact that it needed to be folded "one mirrion times" should tell you all you need to know - it was an impressive feat of engineering, but the fact that the sammies were much more fond of their pole-arms and switched to guns as quickly and enthusiastically as possible once they were available shows up how retarded the claims about it have gotten.

Besides, once you get out of the Sengoku Jidai the katana generally became a little wooden replica used as a symbol of office more than anything else.

>>223140

>>223137

And armor?

I want to do a post-apocalyptic game (set on a terraformed colony world so there's easily accessible resource deposits beyond scavenging ruins) where there's a wide range of technological regression (and sophistication of infrastructure) within the different societies.

For example, one city may have managed to use their scifi pre-war infrastructure before it broke down to create late 19th -> mid-20th century technology. That town can now build assault rifles with an emphasis on simplicty, automobiles, prop planes and maybe even the equivalent of 1940s-1950s jets if that city-state is big enough. They managed to preserve their technical knowledge and now they're just building the tools to build the tools to make progressively more advanced technology, knowing all the technical dead ends to avoid in advance.

Another may have had nearly all of their educated workforce die, and ended up only able to salvage, scavenge and jury rig things together after all the pre-war tech broke down. Like make makeshift spears. Maybe after a few generations they managed to rediscover more primitive methods of things like steel forging.

>>223160

Metal armor began on ancient greece and then evolved towards steel plate with the romans. Then it kind of took a turn into chainmail until Rome fell.

Plate armor re appeared only after the normans and it evolved differently trough different cultures (this can be most easily seen on helmets)

With the invention of guns metal armor eventually fell in disuse until it was just used on ceremonial ocations by the time of WWI.

Only to re-appear as the kettle pot helmet when english soldiers fighting in WWI realized that cloth hats didn't stopped shrapnel from hitting their heads (a lot of people believe it was the prussians with their skullcaps but they were actually made out of leather).

Then we got body armor plating and eventually kevlar.

>>223165

this is, of course, without mentioning Poland.

Poland did a cavalry strike on Hitler's tanks

>>223165

That's basic shit everyone knows. You don't mention how steel plate would differ from say, the 13th, 16th, 18th, 19th and then 20th century.

>Plate armor re appeared only after the normans and it evolved differently trough different cultures (this can be most easily seen on helmets)

I can't comment on that. But I know plate overtook chain because a plague (forgot which one) made chain too labor intensive to be really worth it and then a new process made steel (plate) a lot cheaper/easier to produce, besides being less labor intensive than chain in general.

>>223166

No they didn't. It was German propaganda.

For the last time.

No.

The cavalrymen got shot at by tanks while still on their horses and so they found dead horses and men next to blown up tanks and they made a myth out of that that Poland was so backwards it sent cavalry lancers at panzers.

>>223196

Please educate us then

>>223142

You can buy a good sword if you look to the right place, but most the stuff you'll find in a proper store are likely to be chunks of cheap wallhanger junk.

>>223129

mechanical engineer here.

material science is a very serious subject anon. people spend their entire lives learning and applying steel alloys.

the short of it is that steel quality has changed DRAMATICALLY over time with different manufacturing and alloying processes.

>>223129

Cold Steel swords any good? I mean, beyond being a wallhanger.

IIRC spring steels were the best, but Cold Steel makes some Sabre models I really like.

>>223727

They're okay. Not exactly great, but they function.

I've heard they don't hold an edge well, though.

>>223727

That Matt Easton guy said they're… Okay. Heavy, though.

Have you looked into Marco Danelli?

Or into buying antiques?

Also, Kult of Athena?

>>223751

>Kult of Athena

Hmmm, actually looking through their armor stuff makes me think their selections are kind of bunk.

>>223319

The word 'Bulletproof' comes from plate armour in that era; they'd fire bullets at it to test it.

About when did firearms get powerful enough that metal armour was no longer viable? And the change of doctrine would be another thing; I kinda presume armies got bigger and bigger, as city-states and fiefdoms became nations and guns became easier to use and train for.

>>223779

>About when did firearms get powerful enough that metal armour was no longer viable?

It wasn't so much a matter of firepower as it was that human lives got cheaper as leaders decided it wasn't worth armouring so many troops.

Sure, armour was bullet proof, but it wasn't IMMUNE to bullets and each hit it took would distort it somewhat until it was unusable or outright broken.

So it became a matter of "hmm, for the price of this big set of armour I could just use X more conscripts with guns…" and the use of armour declined, at least for rank and file troops.

>>223142

Early on, the primary source of iron for the japanese was iron sand that weathered from various mountains. It was much easier to gather than classic mining, but had poor quality and yield as they had little ability to refine it.

>>223781

>1. they're very bendy.

Depends on the design. The point of pipe/quill was extra reinforcement. It's basically a bayonet in cross section. These heavy sabres more for cavalry to survive usage from horseback while still technically being swords.

>2. …you'll start encountering huge amounts of resistance in the cut.

It's basically a bayonet with a cutting edge. I know this. Partly why I'm interested in them specifically. I'm not actually interested in traditional sabres. There's zero chance of me winding up in a duel where both of us are trained in swordplay.

My 2nd choice is a standard Arming Sword for sheer versatility and durability. The Pipe Sabre by comparison is a compromise between a dexterous bladed weapon, and from my perspective a short spear. In fact, I'd considered getting the cold steel spear-head knife thing as well.

Also, nobody wears real armor anymore, and those that do would fare too well against cutting weapons. I don't need to cut people in half. I may need to make deep penetrations against stiff materials and do some lacerations though.

Something more like a reinforced estoc is next on my considerations, but the pipe sabre is more the master-of-none solution I wanted.

>>223806

Hey, it's your money/interests, dude. I've just found the later/earlier designs (the design that's come to be generally called the "1845 Wilkinson pattern") to be overall better. They cut as well as most medieval swords I've seen (in fact, some of them do better), and they're just as viable for stabbing as any other sword.

>reinforced estoc

Have fun not being able to cut shit, man.

If thrusting is all you want to do, look into a 1908 pattern sword (it's not a sabre). It's basically an estoc.

>>223815

>1908 pattern sword

The one that preceded the "Patton"? Eh, both flimsy skinnier and uglier.

It's not like I'll ever use the thing anyway, being realistic. The pipe/quill just holds my attention for the sheer novelty of it as well. It's a neat little niche of a sword.

Like I said, when it comes down to it, I'd probably just grab an arming sword.

>>223823

>Flimsy

Eh, no. If you've ever held one, you'd know that they are not flimsy. They are chunky, robust, essentially one-handed pikes. Those things are sturdy as fuck.

Now, ugly? Yes, they are hideous things. The one advantage a pipeback has is that it's quite pretty.

>>223826

>Pike

Lance, I mean. I don't know why I always mix those two up.

>>223873

Well, as far as swordsmen go, they were disliked even in their own era by people who actually fenced. The Prince of Wales at the time was openly, unabashedly negative of it the first time he saw it.

If all you're doing is hit and run cavalry tactics, it works, but you wouldn't want to fence with it on foot, is my understanding.

>>223877

Actually? Yes. Looking that up, it's basically a Polish estoc on a sabre hilt. That's a perfect association. Gold star, anon!

>>224020

>not better weapons

You know if people don't sharpen their swords too much it's because it makes the edge weak.

If a sharp edge is also resilient many swords would be sharper.

>>223165

>With the invention of guns metal armor eventually fell in disuse until it was just used on ceremonial ocations by the time of WWI.

>Only to re-appear as the kettle pot helmet when english soldiers fighting in WWI realized that cloth hats didn't stopped shrapnel from hitting their heads (a lot of people believe it was the prussians with their skullcaps but they were actually made out of leather).

>Then we got body armor plating and eventually kevlar.

Enough people have corrected you on the WW1 stuff that I'll bother with that.

Only have an addition to add: My ex once linked me to an article claiming that medieval-style armor not only would have saved lives in the trenches (that part hardly surprises anyone) but that modern day protection made of kevlar isn't much heavier than medieval armor.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/could-body-armor-have-saved-millions-in-world-war-i/275417/

Just throwing this out here because it seems OP is building a setting.

Personally? While I don't question the fact that armor would save lives, good fucking luck convincing the governments to mass-produce it for the common Tommy, Poilu and Fritz. The above post is only good for speculative-fiction.

Also I hope this way of spoilering works too or I'll look even dumber than I'd otherwise do.

>>223197

They never do. Just "Hurr you're all wrong." and then dissipating in a cloud of… I don't even want to find out.

>>223873

That makes sense. Armour just bogged you down after a point.

But if Ned Kelly is any indication, even in that era metal armour wasn't necessarily useless or obsolete as it'd be considered today. But they don't make plate armour for riot police, special forces or bomb squads anymore; when did it become obsolete?

>>224129

Some time in the Early Modern period, likely in the 18th century.

>>224095

Just keep in mind that the plate armor a knight would have worn does jack shit against rifle and even many pistol rounds, and that metal body armors as opposed to ceramic, though much tougher, both dent instead of shatter (breaking ribs more readily), and weigh even more. Just mentioning it because, in every time frame, people wanted a balance of protection and mobility, and so we actually do have the logical development of classical plate armor in the current body armor. But, there was a time before modern ceramics and kevlar, in which only steel was available. Not only would the bullets risk ricocheting off of a steel based armor, but i'll repeat, in the amounts neccessary it was heavy.

>>224151

I think the argument that armor would prevent deaths in the First World War was more revolved around shrapnel, which could have been stopped by chain mail.

If I remember correct, more people died of artillery than bullets. Of course chain mail is useless against bullets too.

Personally if I was in charge maybe some very hard leather would be lighter than chain mail, but that would restrict the soldier's movement.

>>224129

>But they don't make plate armour for riot police, special forces or bomb squads anymore

Like, for example, AR500 plates? Sure they are metal and then some, but hey…

And riot police uses plastic polymers because they are lighter and good enough - else they would go metal, I guess.

>>224151

>>224231

So hence why even modern flak vests, riot shields and helmets are meant more to deal with lower calibers, glancing shots and other projectiles, I'm guessing? Of course, with asymmetrical warfare now the norm, those have plenty of uses.

I rather guessed at this point in time, the only reliable personal armour against most bullets would have to be power armour. (and even than, armour-piercing and anti-materiel rifles are a thing)

>>224233

> flak vests

Are not at all modern. They are similar to the >>224162

>maybe some very hard leather would be lighter than chain mail

solution, if anything.

>modern armor

>lower caliber

You can get hit on your vest by a 7.62x54R (dragunov/nugget food) and it won't penetrate, considering it is not modern AP. Which also means it will stop your AK or AR rounds no prob.

The problem is that it knocks the air out of you, probably breaks a few ribs in higher caliber and well, it's just the plate. You get hit out of the plate, the plate does nothing. But the plate covers the biggest area of the body.

And the plate itself is heavy. You could do something more encompassing with it (for example, that Star Wars AR500 armor), but weight and mobility decrease a lot. You're not going to die if you get hit on your arm or legs anyway - and movement is literally the most important thing in modern warfare, so it's top priority. It's a compromise, but it works fine.

Riot shields (and armor) are less bulletproof because, well, rioters don't tend to shoot.

Entry shields tend to handle smaller calibers well and fail to higher calibers because weight and because it's not all that often someone is shooting AP .308 indoors. There are heavy shields with cute little wheels, though.

I would like to note that any anons looking for a good modern weapon should look up regenyei, Hungarian who pretty well held to produce quality stuff.

costly though.

Cold Steel i would stay away from in general as they tend to construct their stuff out of sub-par steel for continuous use, also heavy.

For absolute shit cunt poor this-might-snap but also might-last-forever depending on which one of their guys made it Hanwei makes entry-level stuff. I recommend their Hutton sabre (Though you have to wrap the handle or wear heavy gloves due to it being juuust little to small to comfortably hold for more than an hour)

There is also Darkwood an American group that makes decent mid-range stuff, they had some problems with the tangs in a run a year or so ago but apparently that's been sorted out. Their rapiers are pretty nice

>>223781

I like basket hilts as well anon, as a sabreur i find it hilarious to grab them with the off-hand then punch with with my guard

people do not expect this

usually

>>223147

i love shitting off weebs but yeah they were functional for what they were needed for

cutting down peasants

now to keep up appearances

crossection thickness Tataras are shit furnaces crappy mining practices

Katana a shit fucking fuckity fucking nigger

>>223140

>If we produced a top notch sword today for the purposes a sword would serve, it would likely be a carbon nanotube center in a titanium shell, coated and edged in tungsten. Embedded near the edge would be some vents for some pure oxygen flames to make cuts as clean as possible. I'd call it Lightbringer.

Thanks for the idea. Might add that to my sci-fi setting.

>>223160

This sounds interesting. A bit like Degenesis. Got more details to offer?

Anyone know how plate armor fares against kevlar? Could you possibly design a modern suit of metal armor that would have at least the performance?

>>224465

>at least the performance?

I accidentally.

I mean the performance of military-grade armor, like level III or IV body armor.

>>224465

>>224466

Actual knight's armor isn't bulletproof at all. Kevlar isn't overwhelmingly bulletproof though, it's combined with plates for anything beyond pistol rounds. You could use metal for those plates – i know the soviets did, but ceramics are lighter and don't risk a ricochet hitting your buddy or a civilian nearby.

You could totally make modern plate armor, as I've mentioned our current armor very much is plate armor. But I understand your point: metal full body plate armor. To understand why this isn't feasible, look at an EOD tech trying to move. His armor is light compared to a possible metal plate armor of similar capacity. So unless it's power armor, you could make one, but it would be impossible to move around in quickly. All it could take is being toppled over and you might no be able to right yourself, and a single molotov could ruin the tens of thousands (if not more) spent on said armor.

Took 3 posts to devolve into anti-katana hatewanking.

Good job.

>>224512

Something tells me you didnt actually read his post

>>224424

>sabreur

Mah nigga.

Later period sword master race.

>>224465

It's doable with modern technology, although the limb armor would have to be mostly level IIIA or II to keep the weight reasonable.

>>224506

Isn't medieval plate armor lighter than modern kulitary equipment?

>>224533

A suit of plate armor including chain understuff, padding and so on could be 30 to 50 pounds, spread all over the body. The heaviest suits were inteded for jousting and could weight twice that much, but those were intended to favor protection over maneuverability. In the regular suit you were surprisingly agile because of proper articulation, allowing you to move almost as normal. It didn't turn you into a Michelin Man like EOD armor does.