Worst sword ever issued.
It forces the wrist into an awkward position and makes dismounted fighting effectively impossible.
It's only good for "giving point" while mounted, which many swords that are more versatile can do just as well.
Also, Patton had literal moron-tier understanding of swords and swordsmanship.
Not a copy of the British Pattern. The hilt was inspired by British, but the blade was based on. The British blade is single edged with a point of balance about 4-6 inches from the guard. The Patton sword is double edged with a point of balance about 2-3 inches from the guard.
https://i.imgur.com/mmNjhop.png
Worst sword ever issued.
It forces the wrist into an awkward position and makes dismounted fighting effectively impossible.
It's only good for "giving point" while mounted, which many swords that are more versatile can do just as well.
Also, Patton had literal moron-tier understanding of swords and swordsmanship.
Back in 1916, when the Olympics were kind of a hobbyist's thing.
Also, he didn't compete in fencing. He was a pentathlete, which had a saber fencing component, but let's just say that pentathletes aren't the best fencers and leave it at that.
It was the 1912 Olympics, and pentathlon fencing is with the epee. I had an epee coach that was on the Bulgarian Olympic pentathlon team and also competed internationally as an epee fencer, so it's not fair to generalize.
Also, "Patton then returned to Saumur to learn advanced techniques before bringing his skills to the Mounted Service School at Fort Riley, Kansas, where he would be both a student and a fencing instructor. He was the first Army officer to be designated "Master of the Sword", a title denoting the school's top instructor in swordsmanship."
All that said, Olympic fencing has very little application to the battlefield, it grew out of training for individual duels with the rapier.
>The British blade is single edged with a point of balance about 4-6 inches from the guard
I agree with the PoB but it should be double edged at least on the last six inches. The top of the forte will nestle nicely on your shoulder at parade rest. I get having the PoB forward helps with chopping motions, but it makes the blade less agile. Power tradeoff I guess.
Like other cavalry swords of the era, it's literally only good for holding out in front of you, and letting the power of the horse plow it through the rear line supply clerk or cook you're running down. M1913s were known to snap if you actually tried to parry another blade with them, it's just not what they were made to do.
For a thrust-centric sword actually designed to engage in melee on foot, the British 1897 pattern would be an infinitely better choice. Thicc forte and deep forte give you a rock solid parrying surface as well as a light but rigid blade for supreme p e n e t r a t i o n
Edge? Yes. But the entire blade is a giant point so it's not conducive for it. It'll cut as well as a rapier does, but it's made to stick people with the pointy end.
Were swedes the first to mass produce swords? This is a m/1685 rapier. They were proofed by sticking the blade in gap on top of a door, putting their entire weight on it, make sure it returned to straight, and then cut a falling feather in two with it.
"Värja" is a far wider term than rapier (with no direct English translation, it might correspond to the German "degen"), I'd say infantry sword or sidesword fits the m/1685 better in English. As for mass production that started way earlier, we have swords by the bucket back in the middle ages. I haven't seen anyone else go with proper army-wide regulation patterns for swords earlier than us Swedes though, with the first one I know of here being the quite substantial värja m/1653 for infantry soldiers.
To throw out some random trivia about the m/1685, it was in production a bit into the 18th century and the total amount produced were around 350 000. Despite this finding them in original configuration today isn't terribly common, partially because a lot were lost in war but also because most of the rather substantial stockpile that remained into the 19th century were handed over to the navy which shortened them down a bit and called them cutlass m/1832 (pic related).
In either length they're quite nice swords in the hand. Hefty things (though not the perhaps rather excessive "hulk smash" heft of the m/1653), they feel reliable, something to hold on to when the ultraviolence gets intimate.
"Värja" is a far wider term than rapier (with no direct English translation, it might correspond to the German "degen"), I'd say infantry sword or sidesword fits the m/1685 better in English. As for mass production that started way earlier, we have swords by the bucket back in the middle ages. I haven't seen anyone else go with proper army-wide regulation patterns for swords earlier than us Swedes though, with the first one I know of here being the quite substantial värja m/1653 for infantry soldiers.
https://i.imgur.com/wWHiehr.jpg
Were swedes the first to mass produce swords? This is a m/1685 rapier. They were proofed by sticking the blade in gap on top of a door, putting their entire weight on it, make sure it returned to straight, and then cut a falling feather in two with it.
Are the antiques affordable? If not, are there any good usable reproductions?
An m/1685 in ok condition (pic) sold recently on auction here in Sweden for 22 000 SEK (for quick and dirty currency conversion knock off a zero to make EUR or USD out of that), an over-cleaned one with the wire grip wrap remaining went for 25000 SEK half a year ago.
An m/1832 ins similar or slightly better condition would perhaps go for around 4000 SEK.
m/1653 is a very rare find, and if one shows up in decent shape I'd say you're probably looking at 60000 SEK or up.
Finally add 20%-25% on top of it for VAT and auction house fees for all of these. Add even more if you buy from an antique dealer, I think these auctions is where they get most of their stock.
I've seen reproductions of the Karolean cavalry sword and IIRC the m/1685, but sadly these were pretty poor copies of the originals (to the point where I can't really say which cavalry sword exactly they had been trying to copy) and I'm not sure if they are even available any more.
https://i.imgur.com/WxyaLU9.jpg
what would you prefer, the virgin patton or the custom made non-regulation Préval of a true chad?
For peculiar 19th century out of regulation/allowed models, here's a pretty neat one. Note the edge geometry, and the screw-on "bayonet" at the end.
I actually own one. Been to Patton's house, too. It's a small museum now. M1913 is heavy with a stiff blade and a large basket hilt with a thick steel pommel. They never saw combat but I don't think they were supposed to be sharpened. Mine certainly isn't. It's too heavy and too bulky to be used for swordy stuff. Just for skewering people on horseback.
Interesting bit of trivia is that a ton of them were chopped up at the beginning of WW2 and made into fighting knives/daggers by knife companies in the US. I used to have one of those. It had about 8" of M1913 blade.
>If he had lived just a little longer patton could have instructed the driver of his patton to drive closer so he could hit the enemy with his patton
we are in the worst timeline
>Cavalry sword that can only thrust
Why not just use a lance? If length is the issue, go with a very short lance. Even a tiny 6' lance is going to be vastly better than a dinky sword on horseback, and it's short enough that you can actually fight effectively on foot with it.
With an arm extended this sword has about the same range as a short-ish lance and you can more easily point it in different directions around you one handed. It's also less prone to being broken and lost than a lance so you only need to issue one of them.
These swords became popular at a time when lance was fading from use to begin with.
Neither of those are a cavalry charge. Some militaries had a reasonable desire to retain the capability (for colonial troops, basically) but the US Army was purely LARPing.
Fair enough on the budget dragoon/rough rider small unit super mobile stuff, that's all good, but it's not like there's any history of cuirassiers and mass charges etc. By the time the US army was relevant to anything but local animal control all that stuff had gone the way of muzzle loading. If Patton was infantry he'd have been pretending to be a grenadier.
11 months ago
Anonymous
True, America only just mossed the boat on that one. Though didn't T.E. Lawrence and his Bedouin bois make occasional use of the mounted fusillade? >ywn shoot at turkroaches from a charging camel >why even live
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's more a case of working with what you've got than good doctrine. Same reason the Brits have an excuse for the 1908 sabre, who knows when somebody who knows how to use a bunch of guys who are only interested in waving swords about might come in handy.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I mean...
11 months ago
Anonymous
In 1908, that is. In 1913 Patton was freshly gearing up for something that had never been relevant to the US and somewhat obviously never would be relevant again, not maintaining a legacy option just in case.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Even a dedicated fencing sword wouldn't be the answer to an impromptu Somali machete-party >"thanks" ~~*diversity*~~
You'd probably want a good sturdy Montante, maybe a Kriegsmesser or a polearm
11 months ago
Anonymous
mmm I think >you're dead if you get closer than a clothyard from my elbow
vs >hack me up with your panga real close daddy
I'll take the Patton
11 months ago
Anonymous
You'd be dealing with a mob not fencing one on one. Exactly what polearms and zweihanders are intended for. >plus something really appeals about the idea of repelling a screaming diversity horde in full Beefeater kit
>reasonable desire to retain the capability (for colonial troops, basically) but the US army was purely LARPing
the m1913 was developed and issued while the last of the Indian Wars were winding down. A sharp killstick makes a lot of sense for cavalry at the time.
As a happy owner of a Patton saber, I'm biased. The balance is great. My only complaint is that a thin fuller would make the blade more agile.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Indian Wars
Yes that's what I meant by "local animal control". Not exactly the Charge of the Light Brigade going on there.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Mounted charges were certainly a thing in the Civil War and horseback skirmishing tactics were used to devastating effect in the Old West, though in terms of scale nothing the US ever fielded really approached "riders of Rohan" territory, true. >me, a cavalry-larping burger, actually wondering as to the logistics of a mounted charge against a Taliban ambush in the Khyber Pass
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Mounted charges were certainly a thing in the Civil War
Not enough of a thing, decisive actions would have probably kept the casualty rate lower. >horseback skirmishing
Yeah we're not talking about that, that's exactly what you want a curved blade to lay about yourself with. We're talking charging in ranks on an actual battlefield here.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>"riders of Rohan" territory
yeah, the Sioux and the Comacheria had that locked up. IIRC european commanders actually took trips to the US to witness the horse tactics of the redmen because they were so superior to the US cav at the time >aim, fire and hit a moving target? >from a moving horse? >in a flying squad? >egad!
With an arm extended this sword has about the same range as a short-ish lance and you can more easily point it in different directions around you one handed. It's also less prone to being broken and lost than a lance so you only need to issue one of them.
These swords became popular at a time when lance was fading from use to begin with.
I know /k/ hates Zombietools but if you're gonna be 'tistic why not go full moron?
I wonder why we don't see many examples of the sword staff in history.
Short sword blade + short spear staff. Even short swords which were meant o be used with two hands weren't build like the staff/spear in your image.
Because they benefit from longer shafts, and you end up with a glaive. Those things were all over China for centuries and centuries, and were also popular in Japan.
You still saw transitional stages with the Zhanmadao and Nagamaki
I wonder why we don't see many examples of the sword staff in history.
Short sword blade + short spear staff. Even short swords which were meant o be used with two hands weren't build like the staff/spear in your image.
They lack the agility of swords or the reach of spears, kind of making them suited for neither role. A proper two-handed sword as mentioned above benefits from the longer blade as well. About the only use for something like that would be massed in a shield formation and even then the extra reach over a simple Gladius would be a negligible benefit.
It is a meme, but being a late sword design it was built with 4000 years of lessons learned. So it is good sword. Patton is a goofy larper so that's why meme.
Its a good sword for it's purpose... "thrusting" while on horseback. As an on foot sword its not awful, but too short to out do a rapier, and too light in the blade to be a good cut/thrust sword. Would much rather something like a Wilkinson style blade/backsword for that.
It's a great sword for cut and thrust. Remember Patton was a fencer, but fencing in his day was not divorced from dueling; the last duels were fought by fencing masters as it happens. His saber form would be quite different than that of a modern sport fencer and he wanted his sabre to be good for swordplay. That's why he puts a huge bell on it and balances it so far back, well away from where a normal horse-chopper saber would put it. for horse work he just went whole hog of the French idea of the straight thrust, which was correct, but the weapon would be an excellent choice to fence with on the ground
> "not awful" > literally can't do anything well.
It might be the worst sword ever made.
Think of it as an xboxhueg colichmarde and it makes much more sense.
Apparently it's very nicely balanced.
It's a one handed lance, same as the other similar cavalry swords.
Sideswords are just sideswords.
I wish sword evolution continued for the frick of it. Imagine a tactical cavalry sword.
Worst sword ever issued.
It forces the wrist into an awkward position and makes dismounted fighting effectively impossible.
It's only good for "giving point" while mounted, which many swords that are more versatile can do just as well.
Also, Patton had literal moron-tier understanding of swords and swordsmanship.
It's just a copy of the British Pattern 1908.
The scabbard was mounted to your saddle; if you dismounted you weren't taking it with you anyway.
Not a copy of the British Pattern. The hilt was inspired by British, but the blade was based on. The British blade is single edged with a point of balance about 4-6 inches from the guard. The Patton sword is double edged with a point of balance about 2-3 inches from the guard.
Patton was an Olympic athlete in fencing.
Back in 1916, when the Olympics were kind of a hobbyist's thing.
Also, he didn't compete in fencing. He was a pentathlete, which had a saber fencing component, but let's just say that pentathletes aren't the best fencers and leave it at that.
It was the 1912 Olympics, and pentathlon fencing is with the epee. I had an epee coach that was on the Bulgarian Olympic pentathlon team and also competed internationally as an epee fencer, so it's not fair to generalize.
Also, "Patton then returned to Saumur to learn advanced techniques before bringing his skills to the Mounted Service School at Fort Riley, Kansas, where he would be both a student and a fencing instructor. He was the first Army officer to be designated "Master of the Sword", a title denoting the school's top instructor in swordsmanship."
All that said, Olympic fencing has very little application to the battlefield, it grew out of training for individual duels with the rapier.
>The British blade is single edged with a point of balance about 4-6 inches from the guard
I agree with the PoB but it should be double edged at least on the last six inches. The top of the forte will nestle nicely on your shoulder at parade rest. I get having the PoB forward helps with chopping motions, but it makes the blade less agile. Power tradeoff I guess.
>Spadroon enters the chat
Only a portion of a specific model of a British spadroon sucked.
Oh no I'm SPADROOONIIIIING!!!
bump
What a soulless piece of junk. Is that handle bakelite?
Designed almost exclusively for stabbing while on horseback, heavy stiff blade, not ideal for on foot engagements.
Like other cavalry swords of the era, it's literally only good for holding out in front of you, and letting the power of the horse plow it through the rear line supply clerk or cook you're running down. M1913s were known to snap if you actually tried to parry another blade with them, it's just not what they were made to do.
For a thrust-centric sword actually designed to engage in melee on foot, the British 1897 pattern would be an infinitely better choice. Thicc forte and deep forte give you a rock solid parrying surface as well as a light but rigid blade for supreme p e n e t r a t i o n
*deep fuller
Sharp enough edges to cut?
Edge? Yes. But the entire blade is a giant point so it's not conducive for it. It'll cut as well as a rapier does, but it's made to stick people with the pointy end.
>the British 1897 pattern
Where is the point of balance on yours? Is it about 6 inches forward of the guard?
Fits down a urethra just fine.
We need a kodern tactical Messer, blade length ~28", kabar style handle for the lulz
>say no more senpai
For me it's the Gladius Hispaniensis
Were swedes the first to mass produce swords? This is a m/1685 rapier. They were proofed by sticking the blade in gap on top of a door, putting their entire weight on it, make sure it returned to straight, and then cut a falling feather in two with it.
Sweden used to be such a great country. I miss when I envied them.
It was such a short time ago, too.
Yeah as recent as 2006 if memory serves
"Värja" is a far wider term than rapier (with no direct English translation, it might correspond to the German "degen"), I'd say infantry sword or sidesword fits the m/1685 better in English. As for mass production that started way earlier, we have swords by the bucket back in the middle ages. I haven't seen anyone else go with proper army-wide regulation patterns for swords earlier than us Swedes though, with the first one I know of here being the quite substantial värja m/1653 for infantry soldiers.
To throw out some random trivia about the m/1685, it was in production a bit into the 18th century and the total amount produced were around 350 000. Despite this finding them in original configuration today isn't terribly common, partially because a lot were lost in war but also because most of the rather substantial stockpile that remained into the 19th century were handed over to the navy which shortened them down a bit and called them cutlass m/1832 (pic related).
In either length they're quite nice swords in the hand. Hefty things (though not the perhaps rather excessive "hulk smash" heft of the m/1653), they feel reliable, something to hold on to when the ultraviolence gets intimate.
Are the antiques affordable? If not, are there any good usable reproductions?
An m/1685 in ok condition (pic) sold recently on auction here in Sweden for 22 000 SEK (for quick and dirty currency conversion knock off a zero to make EUR or USD out of that), an over-cleaned one with the wire grip wrap remaining went for 25000 SEK half a year ago.
An m/1832 ins similar or slightly better condition would perhaps go for around 4000 SEK.
m/1653 is a very rare find, and if one shows up in decent shape I'd say you're probably looking at 60000 SEK or up.
Finally add 20%-25% on top of it for VAT and auction house fees for all of these. Add even more if you buy from an antique dealer, I think these auctions is where they get most of their stock.
I've seen reproductions of the Karolean cavalry sword and IIRC the m/1685, but sadly these were pretty poor copies of the originals (to the point where I can't really say which cavalry sword exactly they had been trying to copy) and I'm not sure if they are even available any more.
For peculiar 19th century out of regulation/allowed models, here's a pretty neat one. Note the edge geometry, and the screw-on "bayonet" at the end.
I actually own one. Been to Patton's house, too. It's a small museum now. M1913 is heavy with a stiff blade and a large basket hilt with a thick steel pommel. They never saw combat but I don't think they were supposed to be sharpened. Mine certainly isn't. It's too heavy and too bulky to be used for swordy stuff. Just for skewering people on horseback.
Interesting bit of trivia is that a ton of them were chopped up at the beginning of WW2 and made into fighting knives/daggers by knife companies in the US. I used to have one of those. It had about 8" of M1913 blade.
>If he had lived just a little longer patton could have instructed the driver of his patton to drive closer so he could hit the enemy with his patton
we are in the worst timeline
I could take my Patton to Patton Park nearby and hang out on a Sherman. Close enough?
Absolute meme.
Just a much later and much more boring iteration of the Preval concept
what would you prefer, the virgin patton or the custom made non-regulation Préval of a true chad?
>Cavalry sword that can only thrust
Why not just use a lance? If length is the issue, go with a very short lance. Even a tiny 6' lance is going to be vastly better than a dinky sword on horseback, and it's short enough that you can actually fight effectively on foot with it.
It's a larp tool, not something that was expected to be used in combat
Even if it's only semi sharp that edge will be nasty on your neck at 40mph from horseback
With an arm extended this sword has about the same range as a short-ish lance and you can more easily point it in different directions around you one handed. It's also less prone to being broken and lost than a lance so you only need to issue one of them.
These swords became popular at a time when lance was fading from use to begin with.
They never became popular, they were issued as LARP gear in a time when a cavalry charge was thoroughly obsolete.
Cavalry were still in use in WW1. Hell, transport horses and bayonet charges were being used as recently as 2011 in OEF.
Neither of those are a cavalry charge. Some militaries had a reasonable desire to retain the capability (for colonial troops, basically) but the US Army was purely LARPing.
Cavalry larping be our cultcha
Fair enough on the budget dragoon/rough rider small unit super mobile stuff, that's all good, but it's not like there's any history of cuirassiers and mass charges etc. By the time the US army was relevant to anything but local animal control all that stuff had gone the way of muzzle loading. If Patton was infantry he'd have been pretending to be a grenadier.
True, America only just mossed the boat on that one. Though didn't T.E. Lawrence and his Bedouin bois make occasional use of the mounted fusillade?
>ywn shoot at turkroaches from a charging camel
>why even live
That's more a case of working with what you've got than good doctrine. Same reason the Brits have an excuse for the 1908 sabre, who knows when somebody who knows how to use a bunch of guys who are only interested in waving swords about might come in handy.
I mean...
In 1908, that is. In 1913 Patton was freshly gearing up for something that had never been relevant to the US and somewhat obviously never would be relevant again, not maintaining a legacy option just in case.
Even a dedicated fencing sword wouldn't be the answer to an impromptu Somali machete-party
>"thanks" ~~*diversity*~~
You'd probably want a good sturdy Montante, maybe a Kriegsmesser or a polearm
mmm I think
>you're dead if you get closer than a clothyard from my elbow
vs
>hack me up with your panga real close daddy
I'll take the Patton
You'd be dealing with a mob not fencing one on one. Exactly what polearms and zweihanders are intended for.
>plus something really appeals about the idea of repelling a screaming diversity horde in full Beefeater kit
>reasonable desire to retain the capability (for colonial troops, basically) but the US army was purely LARPing
the m1913 was developed and issued while the last of the Indian Wars were winding down. A sharp killstick makes a lot of sense for cavalry at the time.
As a happy owner of a Patton saber, I'm biased. The balance is great. My only complaint is that a thin fuller would make the blade more agile.
>Indian Wars
Yes that's what I meant by "local animal control". Not exactly the Charge of the Light Brigade going on there.
Mounted charges were certainly a thing in the Civil War and horseback skirmishing tactics were used to devastating effect in the Old West, though in terms of scale nothing the US ever fielded really approached "riders of Rohan" territory, true.
>me, a cavalry-larping burger, actually wondering as to the logistics of a mounted charge against a Taliban ambush in the Khyber Pass
>Mounted charges were certainly a thing in the Civil War
Not enough of a thing, decisive actions would have probably kept the casualty rate lower.
>horseback skirmishing
Yeah we're not talking about that, that's exactly what you want a curved blade to lay about yourself with. We're talking charging in ranks on an actual battlefield here.
>"riders of Rohan" territory
yeah, the Sioux and the Comacheria had that locked up. IIRC european commanders actually took trips to the US to witness the horse tactics of the redmen because they were so superior to the US cav at the time
>aim, fire and hit a moving target?
>from a moving horse?
>in a flying squad?
>egad!
I know /k/ hates Zombietools but if you're gonna be 'tistic why not go full moron?
I wonder why we don't see many examples of the sword staff in history.
Short sword blade + short spear staff. Even short swords which were meant o be used with two hands weren't build like the staff/spear in your image.
Because they benefit from longer shafts, and you end up with a glaive. Those things were all over China for centuries and centuries, and were also popular in Japan.
You still saw transitional stages with the Zhanmadao and Nagamaki
They lack the agility of swords or the reach of spears, kind of making them suited for neither role. A proper two-handed sword as mentioned above benefits from the longer blade as well. About the only use for something like that would be massed in a shield formation and even then the extra reach over a simple Gladius would be a negligible benefit.
It is a meme, but being a late sword design it was built with 4000 years of lessons learned. So it is good sword. Patton is a goofy larper so that's why meme.
Its a good sword for it's purpose... "thrusting" while on horseback. As an on foot sword its not awful, but too short to out do a rapier, and too light in the blade to be a good cut/thrust sword. Would much rather something like a Wilkinson style blade/backsword for that.
> "not awful"
> literally can't do anything well.
It might be the worst sword ever made.
It's a great sword for cut and thrust. Remember Patton was a fencer, but fencing in his day was not divorced from dueling; the last duels were fought by fencing masters as it happens. His saber form would be quite different than that of a modern sport fencer and he wanted his sabre to be good for swordplay. That's why he puts a huge bell on it and balances it so far back, well away from where a normal horse-chopper saber would put it. for horse work he just went whole hog of the French idea of the straight thrust, which was correct, but the weapon would be an excellent choice to fence with on the ground
Think of it as an xboxhueg colichmarde and it makes much more sense.
I was just considering it a more thrust-centric Schiavona
>more thrust-centric Schiavona
fair, but it is longer than the schiavona