^ No cylinder? You can turn it into gunblade!
More seriously...I'm a bit interested in why poleaxe is still around in 16th century...didn't pike and shot systems started to be developed by then? Or is it for dismounted knights only?
edited 20th Oct '13 1:01:26 AM by onyhow
Give me cute or give me...something?On that topic, sword guns actually
◊ existed
.
Also, this line from the article gives some insight:
edited 20th Oct '13 5:11:40 AM by IraTheSquire
so Japanese swords are banned, but good old fashioned European swords are ok?
Which way to the nearest Gladius emporium?
edited 20th Oct '13 12:33:42 PM by joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackI wanted to add a few things:
From the literature I've read (and I am not a medieval expert) the use of polearms was due to the rise of the peasant class soldiers. They have little resources and little time to be trained (like only months of training). The only realistic weapon they can use that is both cheap and quick to train with are polearms. Even with middle-class soldiers, equipping them with swords would be prohibitively expensive. We can see with doppelsoldats that just knowing how to use a sword earned you double salary!
Teufel touched one thing that I would agree with and that is technological improvement. The problem with swords is that they didn't improve with technology like guns did. If you look at history it is more like club vs bow, then bow vs shield then sword vs peasantry. In fact if you look at history carefully we actually did go through a time period where ranged weapons dominated and then fell off of use because lack of effectiveness. What we see today is that we're talking about "swords", a centuries old technology versus guns, something improving even this year.
So really what I think is the issue with swords is that they reached their technological pinnacle a while ago. Any new melee weapon has to be new technology. We may have to wait until we have things like practical power suits and smart-aim melee weapons and perhaps increased reflex times (perhaps due to cybernetics or biological engineering of some sort). If guns were to top out in technology for a period of time, just like the bow did, while melee weapons suddenly got new technology we might see a return.
For swords though, that's a tough sell. I can see how you might have them, or use them, but I'm not sure if they'd be more than "let's give that to elite soldiers because they spend their whole life in the military and have time to spare".
@ Teufel
I wanted to point that I've been told by several soldiers that thirty feet is when melee combat is an option. Hopefully you are not construing my statement as meaning that melee combat is a necessity at that distance. Ranged combat with rifles is not just typically at 300-500 metres but as I've been told, you KEEP it at that distance specifically because that's the perfect kill range for rifles.
My main point is that we aren't impervious to melee damage. We're as susceptible to it as before. The issue has to do with the technological challenges that need to be overcome for a sword.
In a discussion of sword vs gun, I think it rather pointless to state "gee this 800 year old technology sucks in comparison to this 5 year old technology". Good god I hope so.
It's usually more interesting to tackle the issues with swords
- High Cost
- Long Training Time
- Low lethality per unit cost versus current technology
Let me put it to you in another way; instead of discussing Swords vs Guns, let's think about Inferior Guns vs Guns. Why do some people use inferior weapons in general compared to others?
Actually, the salary also has to do with the higher risk for doppelsoldner as they were supposed to break pikemen ranks with zweihanders- heavy-two-handed-swords-that-are-more-like-polearms.
edited 20th Oct '13 5:39:25 PM by IraTheSquire
I don't have much to say because the major points have been covered by everyone else. If you want a good modern, real-life example of how melee weapons coexist with firearms, you can observe the gang violence in places like Indonesia and the Philippines. Particularly in the case of Indonesia, civilians are mostly not allowed to possess firearms. As a result, many street gangs use knives, clubs, bats, crow bars, machetes and other non-projectile weapons. Indonesian and Filipino military forces and paramilitary law enforcement officers extensively train in the use of these weapons to counteract potential melee exchanges with criminals. Of special note is the fact that fighting styles such as Pencak Silat and Eskrima are practiced by a large number of people in those countries, and both countries have a rich and lengthy tradition of stick fighting and knife fighting. Melee exchanges are still fairly rare, but it's prudent for military and law enforcement personnel to have at least a passing knowledge of melee weapons training.
To reiterate, Southeast Asia is a peculiar case, so I'd caution anyone not to presume that this same melee-firearm coexistence would occur in, say, the United States, which has very relaxed laws on gun ownership, a large population of gun owners, and a relatively feeble tradition of melee-based fighting.
edited 20th Oct '13 7:35:21 PM by Aprilla
"let's think about Inferior Guns vs Guns. Why do some people use inferior weapons in general compared to others?"
Cost-effectiveness. That's why the AK-47 is still so popular. Sure the M-16 is a superior weapon, but it also costs about 3 times as much. So for a given amount of money, is an army better off with 1/3 as many M-16's, or 3 times as many AK's? That's the kind of analysis that procurement systems (and even individuals buying cool stuff) have to deal with.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.First you have to realize that the difference between a M-16 and AK-47 in terms of reliability is a single bullet out of a thousand. Someone with an M-16 can carry roughly twice as many magazines and has about 30% more accuracy designed into the Gun. The practical effect of this is that a Marine can take headshots at 300 meters while for a Ak-47 hitting a male torso at that range is 'good enough.'
Alright, the point wasn't to devolve into your favourite gun :P
My point is exactly what Soban said. It's always about cost effectiveness. Not everyone is always able to use the best thing possible, it's why we have a wide array of weapons. You want to see a return to sword-like melee weapons, make them more cost-effective. That's the only thing that matters.
edited 21st Oct '13 6:41:08 PM by breadloaf
Breadloaf: Its 21 feet my bad off by one foot. All the studies and drills designed for a ready melee armed opponent charge on an UNREADY gun armed indvidual point out 21 feet is the danger distance.
30 feet is extra space to work with and more time to react. The further you engage a melee armed opponent the better but murphy is a bastard and you don't always get the luxury of distance. 30 feet is a luxury distance 21 feet is a measurable danger.
All of this info is based on human reaction times recorded from incidents and experiments with trained shooters against a melee armed opponent. It is called the Tuller drill. Wolf explained it earlier. This technique is also combat tested and combat proven. 21 feet and under is the danger zone. The closer the attacker is obviously the worse off it is for the shooter.
I made sure to point out both the unready shooter and ready melee assailant. On a battlefield with active fighting or action damn near no one is going to have their weapon at the unready position. Especially trained and experienced shooters. It doesn't exist just because of the threat of melee fighters vs a gun armed cop but it also exists inside a specific legal framework as to when a melee weapon armed person is considered a credible threat permitting the use of lethal force (as in shooting them)on them.
If in a short distance of 21 feet over a very short time you can go from sling or holstered to ready, moving and firing and defeat the melee armed opponent, care to guess how much quicker an already alert shooter is going to be reacting? At 21 or 30 feet that rushing fool is very very likely going to be another cooling coprse on the ground and won't get to any of the shooters.
No you don't keep at 300-500yds distance. Again urban combat with guns is nothing new but the various assault rifles are just as lethal from pointblank out to their assorted max effective ranges. With assault rifles semi-auto, burst, and automatic fire greatly improve close in combat. Some weapons are designed for it. You get as close or as far as you reasonably can and engage the target. If my position puts me at 100 yds from my target big whoop. I am in range so are they. What matters more is the nature of your position, situational setting at the time, and quality of your shooting under combat situations.
The 300yds-500yds has nothing to do with guns lethality or effectiveness. It has everything to do with a series of studies conducted on various fire fights by various countries during assortec onflicts. That data has been constantly updated. The net result was between 300yds-500yds is where most fire fights occur under average battle field conditions. Other results and information vary by nation as their armamentes, training, and warfighting techniques vary.
The big key factor with the 300yds-500yds had more to do the limits of unaided human visual accuity and ability to hit a target with the weapon on hand. With the large increase of combat optics the effective range of a weapon is adjusted upward depending on the optic.
I never said swords suck that is all on you buddy. I said they are no longer effective primary weapons and that has been true for a long time. That is a factual statement and one directly relevant to this discussion.
That people can be injured by melee has been long acknowledged as has the extreme if not near impossibility of overcoming the clear cut advantage any sufficiently advanced fire arm coupled with training and fighting techniques for that weapon provides. There really is not a realistic way to overcome this situation short of something quite very extraordinary or drastic.
Longer training time is ultimately moot as is the cost factor. If swords were reliably effective then sword fighting would be added to training. Overall effectiveness often outweighs increased training time and costs.
Training is also something you do constantly in the military. You don't just hang out at the barracks you are doing training. If your support you are laregly doing your job.
If your combat arms you spend a lot of time doing training. Your in the field practicing maneuvers, your at the various ranges practicing shooting, your doing combat exercises against other humans, your doing your unarmed combat training (useful outside a battlefield as well as on),your learning new techniques, you learn about new threats and how to counter them etc etc etc. The military in the vast majority of countries isn't hourly its salary you also don't spend the entire time focussed on just one thing you are doing multiple things in training.
Also the barebones basics of sword fighting can be taught in a week or two for the bare most profeciency which is what boot camps is for. Combat school adds layers of refinement to that. Ultimately the additional time you spend constantly training in the first place just further sharpens your skills. Swords are not used because their actual battlefield effectiveness regardless of other factors ultimately doesn't justify their use.
Aprilla presented a vary unique but contextual situation with criminals in a particular country. However that isn't a battle field those are thugs and cops. Getting ahold of a melee weapon is a lot easier then getting your hands on a gun. You can make a melee weapon from junk you find on the ground very easily. Not so much for a gun.
Other regions that have similar criminal armaments are certain regions in Africa. I posted an article earlier that had two Kenyan tribes killing each other poisoned arrows shot from home made bows rather then other forms of combat including the readily available gun supply in Africa.
Gun vs gun is beyond the perview of this thread which is Swords vs guns and any reasonable/realistic way to make a sword effective again on a battlefield with guns. The short answer is no. The long answer which we have already covered is also no. The answer for the reasonably forseeable future is also very likely to be no again.
The question "inferior" lacks a vast amount of needed context. There are many different types of fire arms that are used for a variety of things and in a variety of situations. You don't use a shotgun for long range snipikng and you don't use a bolt action sniper rifle for CQC fighting. Comparing two fire arms needs a fair amount of information and context.
Soban is also correct. Aimed fire is used all the time. Don't know where you get the impression troops are just firing blindly. Even covering/suppressing fire is aimed.
edited 21st Oct '13 8:43:02 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Also, I may point out that "danger distance", as far as I am aware, is defined here as "having more than half the chance of harming the opponent instead of the other way around". Even at 21 feet the unready gunman has a good chance of firing before the knife-man reaches him.
If the person with the firearm is "unready" (one would presume that a certain level of situational awareness and alertness is operating, even if the firearm is holstered) then at 21 feet, according to Tueller, (s)he's got about 1.5 seconds to draw and fire to neutralise the threat if the person armed with a melee weapon (baseball bat, golf club, machete, hastily-snatched chunk of timber) elects to run forward to engage.
Best argument I've heard for "Condition Two and safety off" carry
If the person with the firearm has already drawn the weapon and is progressing into a potentially hostile situation, then they've got more "wiggle room" (and a person with a melee weapon at 21 feet would be a real mug to charge them) since they don't have to worry about the time required to draw the weapon and point it in the right direction.
That means that they've still got a good chance of prevailing unscathed if the assailant is closer than 21 feet unless they're jumped from cover.
Most successful melee engagements I've heard of were with knives, not sword/bat/club-length weapons - weapons that were able to be concealed right up to the point where the assailant was within striking distance.
One knife victim said "I thought he'd just punched me". Had no idea the guy was armed until after being wounded.
If the attacker had been wandering around with a baseball bat, golf club, machete etc, he wouldn't have gotten as close without alerting the victim to his intentions.
It shows the importance of situational awareness and not letting someone who is showing signs that they might be/become belligerent get too close.
I'm not so much worried about a person with a machete, baseball bat etc - unless they're lurking in a doorway/alley out of sight, I figure that I'd spot them at enough of a distance to make an escape - it's knives (and screwdrivers etc) that worry me.
Ira: More or less yes.
Wolf: Any concealable weapon including hand guns are kinda nasty. More then a few handgun murders happen at really close range. Harder to miss and even if you are taking a hard shot like say the head or face at 2-5 feet you are very likely going to make your shot. Even better if you surprise or ambush your target.
Don't forget the Tuller drill you are not standing still if your doing a response to an attack drill. You are moving as carefully as you can to try and get out of the line of charge.
On the battlefield situation with something like a sword I have to agree on the ambush option. Two very likely ready opponents are not going to be surprised if one or the other comes around the corner at 21 feet and sees the other guy. The guy with reach the gun gives is very likely going to be the winner in that encounter. Sure there are "Murphy the bastard" situations like a jam or misfire but they are usually not a constant issue. The best chance for any melee armed guy is to get as close as possible to the target before striking or revealing their hostility. Like jumping out of a dark doorway or hallway that someone didn't check well enough or attacking from around a blind corner.
Before I forget this. There is something else to consider. Some of the insurgent/militant groups sometimes dope up their troops before sending them out meaning even being head shot and having part of their skull and brains flapping in the wind they guys are still running around like nothing happened. I have seen a few different reports about the drugged up fighters. One guy reported two upper torso hits, one low ab hit, and one head shot at 300yds with a M-16. Of the two shots to the chest one hit near the spine, the other hit to the left. The lower torso was something like on the left centerish.The head shot peeled off a large chunk of skull and brains.
Another account was some guy hopped up on some stolen medical grade adrenaline shot. Got both legs blown off by a .50 and kept trying to crawl up and attack them.
Now take a doped up guy give him a sword, machete, club etc and let him charge I would say short of blowing out the back part of the brain or cutting the spinal cord he is probably going to make it to take a swipe at the gunman.
edited 21st Oct '13 10:26:37 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Years ago I heard of a guy who was completely ramped up on Angel Dust and armed with a knife - was shot repeatedly in the chest but still killed the security guard who'd shot him.
Yeah, was aware that the Tueller drill teaches evasion as part of the manoeuvre - largely because even if you do kill the assailant you've got a fast moving mass with a lot of momentum and some sort of attached weapon coming straight for you if you don't move.
And if you fail to kill at first, at least you're out of the way of the charge and hopefully that buys you time to kill/incapacitate the threat.
For an unarmed victim, the evasion part of the equation is everything.
edited 22nd Oct '13 12:17:30 AM by Wolf1066
Not following this thread much but figured a video is worth a wall of text. Here's the Mythbusters demoing "knife to a gunfight" and the range you guys are talking about.
Also, it's ultimately just a demo of a specific situation in a controlled environment, real world results my vary, etc.
edited 22nd Oct '13 12:27:42 AM by Elle

^ Mo' like lack of proper knowledge...
Give me cute or give me...something?