>it was only effective against the musket >but as soon as the revolver was invented this was no longer possible. >the gun was always better
its just like in my animies
Most old blackpowder anything was about as reliable as the average alcoholic >It might kill someone its pointed at >It might do absolutely nothing and piss itself in a noisy mess >It might kill you because about half a dozen reasons, like you looked at it funny
I still think its cool as shit with big bore muskets, cap and ball, pre-smokeless cartridges but there's no way you'd ever 100% trust your life on the damn things. That's why people carried some kind of dagger, sword or big old knife because at least that was (mostly) good enough or better than nothing after your gun decided 'nah frick it' at that particular moment you needed it
People then were scared of getting cut by swordsmen during the period they were being phased out. For good reason because this was also the time where stuff like smog was a daily thing in England so the doctor wouldn't be able to help you if you get an infection.
not really though. Black powder was kind of ass. If youve ever handled black powder weapons, even revolvers they take an incredible amount of time to reload. Theres a reason swords were a common sidearm globally up through the 1800s and why some armies still carried them even in ww1 as backups.
The real answer is that they were effective up until the point we moved away from back powder to cartridges and primers. Reloading was just non-viable in chaotic settings at that time and guns were only good for an opening volley or artillery, but a lot of fighting still ended up taking place fairly close up.
Before reliable mechanical ignition you couldn't really carry a gun to defend yourself and would lose to an attacker armed with a sword. So the wheellock of the early 16th century is what BTFO swords as it made pistols a practical option. A prepared gun user would also have won with earlier firearms but you can't EDC a matchlock.
1 on 1 gun shrekt sword as early as 1520 when you could Indiana Jones a homie on the street for the first time. People continued to carry swords but you would only beat a man with a gun via cheapshot or misfire.
there is a reason Napoleonic era line infantry carried muskets and not swords anon
the reason is that swords were no longer viable infantry weapons by that point, just like pikes
Going hand to hand is just the first and ultimately final form of "close with and destroy the enemy." Fixed cartridge-firing firearms becoming the norm is a good indicator that purpose-built, large-profile hand weapons started to become less and less useful except in very specific situations. But I'd argue that hand weapons in general did not become totally obsolete until submachine guns became practical. Likewise anyone still carrying a bolt action rifle and nothing else in the 40s had no real recourse for getting up close and personal except bladed weapons and hand grenades.
They did tho. They weren't super useful (nobody bothered to git gud with a hanger any more than they bothered to git gud at shooting well; standards were low af for the enlistedman) but they were part of the uniform in most armies.
The bowie knife (and others like it) was widely carried in the american west because even in the era of percussion cap pistols a blade was more reliable than betting your single shot would end the conflict.
A bowie knife is also a practical tool that you would need to have even if you had a time travelling glock. People still carry knives but without a gun you won't beat a gun.
There's written accounts that many people chose to carry only bowie knives for self defense even when/where flintlock or percussion cap pistols were easily available
It makes sense, tho. Muzzle loaders are slow to reload so it's possible to charge a man down before they get a second shot in. A lot of musket era battles ended with bayonet charges rather than gunfire.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's easier to just shoot someone who is reloading than charge at them with a knife. >they might also have a knife
Matchlocks and wheellocks are unreliable as frick and were around for most of the 17th century, so the sword would be viable at least until the late 17th c. With true flintlocks the sword gets a lot less viable
The bowie knife (and others like it) was widely carried in the american west because even in the era of percussion cap pistols a blade was more reliable than betting your single shot would end the conflict.
Matchlocks and wheellocks are unreliable as frick and were around for most of the 17th century, so the sword would be viable at least until the late 17th c. With true flintlocks the sword gets a lot less viable
>looking at the gun only and not the cartridge system as well
Paper/linen cartridges could get wet from the morning dew and the black powder wouldn't fire.
Sealed, metallic cartridges and smokeless powder and a reliable primer along with a good breechloading system made firearms reliable for EDC.
When Clint Eastwood would wiener his revolvers (for some of his westerns) only when his barrels were pointed up wasn't for show, but to ensure the primer for the next round wouldn't fall when the name was wienered and the cylinder rotated.
It still is a viable weapon to use against guns, It's just that its just that it takes way more training to use a sword to slice bullets out of the air than it does to train someone to shoot a gun. So modern militaries rarely bother teaching this skill anymore, except to certain elite special forces units. If a swordsman was willing to put in the time and effort to master this technique however, guns would be basically useless against them.
World war 1 imo. You could make a case for carrying a sword along with your rifle, in cramped CQC in a trench it might be better than a rifle with bayonet, its a lot easier to drop your rifle and pull a sword out than fix a bayonet.
If you are fighting a guy with a bayonet and you have a sword its a pretty fair fight
>If you are fighting a guy with a bayonet and you have a sword its a pretty fair fight
Usually went quite handily in the sword guy's favor if you look back to 19th century bouts. Rifle-mounted bayonets have reach but not that much more and they're quite heavy and awkward. They get called spears but in practice they really don't handle like one except for having a pointy bit on the end.
Basically when cartridges showed up in the 1800s. At that point you had fast and reliable reloadingso you couldn't count on your enemy having limited shots.
In the flintlock era you just carried multiple flintlocks. You could do that earlier with wheellocks but they were expensive and unreliable, and it was only in the true flintlock era that the handgun really came into its own
>resolutely anti-American
Based. America is the worst country that ever has or ever will exist. The sooner Russia rules everything, the sooner the world can be set right.
Any time there is less than 21 feet between the two. The recent video of the cop getting killed by the crackhead with a knife is proof of this. The weeb that got killed for brandishing a sword recently obviously had obviously not trained enough and swore to his master that he would never go all out.
Cavalry sabers were still widely used during the US Civil War and Indian Wars, despite pretty good revolver technology and repeating rifles by that time. But it's use dwindled as we approached the 20th century.
Not to swing the pistol vs sabre argument in any particular direction but cavalry from the ACW are not a good example of what well-trained and well-supplied cavalry from the period could accomplish.
Depends on too many factors to give a one size fits all answer, but as a general rule the sword is still viable against the gun as of this day today, given specific circumstances of engagement.
Are you just two individuals in an enclosed space when the fight breaks out, say, in the same room of a house? Sword is still absolutely viable against a gun. Two hostile combatants are simultaneously coming around the same corner of a building during MOUT? The sword is still viable. Basically any time that opponents are capable of closing to within about 20 feet of each other without awareness of the other, or the ability to bring fire on one another until those last few terminal feet, the sword is still viable. It may not be *optimal*, but on an individual scale the sword is still *viable*.
Now, are we talking about which option should be the primary infantry arm of a military intended for use in an open field engagement with functionally unlimited - or even a few hundred yards of - visibility? *Obviously* the sword isn't viable (and wasn't really ever the primary infantry arm since the Romans anyway). Is the sword still viable enough that carrying it or issuing it en masse is a good idea? Obviously not.
>Are you just two individuals in an enclosed space when the fight breaks out, say, in the same room of a house?
I was literally crawling around in a castle dungeon with two below ground levels yesterday and a hip-fired revolver would be a practical weapon on that staircase, a sword would be nearly useless.
Battle of Balaclava. Absolute cavalry kino, all in the same battle. Thin Red Line first, then the Charge of the Heavy Brigade. And then the hilarity of the Charge of the Light Brigade.
How is there not a movie about that battle is beyond me.
American Civil War when Johnny Reb ran down conscripts here and there and then set up shop to blast the flank. Forrest’s actions still dictate cavalry tactics today.
Revolvers. From the Commanche wars in the US to the Samurai in Japan, the value and effectiveness of the semi-automatic firearm has never been dismissed by those who kill for a living
Never against a loaded gun. The sword was never viable versus a loaded gun.
If the gun is unloaded, the delta of viability exists between how fast the gun can be reloaded and how long before the swordsman can hit you with his weapon.
Schoolboy maths
The last historical examples where massed swords saw success against forces armed with firearms were the 1745 Jacobite Uprising or, if you want something more decisive and prolific, the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592.
The difference between these two is that the Japanese pretty much always saw success in close quarters fighting while the Scots saw success with massed sword charges only in specific scenarios and for the most part got BTFO.
Koreans still had firearms in that war. They just sucked and they didn't have very many during the initial invasion. During the second invasion, they had way more but they still sucked. You're just making shit up or are a coping worst Korean or chink
truth?
it was only effective against the musket
but as soon as the revolver was invented this was no longer possible.
the gun was always better
>it was only effective against the musket
>but as soon as the revolver was invented this was no longer possible.
>the gun was always better
its just like in my animies
weren't even single shot pistols superior?
sword was just a backup due to reloading time
Single shot pistols have an obvious problem right in the name. Also most of the time the guy with a sword has one too. Or a brace of them.
Most old blackpowder anything was about as reliable as the average alcoholic
>It might kill someone its pointed at
>It might do absolutely nothing and piss itself in a noisy mess
>It might kill you because about half a dozen reasons, like you looked at it funny
I still think its cool as shit with big bore muskets, cap and ball, pre-smokeless cartridges but there's no way you'd ever 100% trust your life on the damn things. That's why people carried some kind of dagger, sword or big old knife because at least that was (mostly) good enough or better than nothing after your gun decided 'nah frick it' at that particular moment you needed it
People then were scared of getting cut by swordsmen during the period they were being phased out. For good reason because this was also the time where stuff like smog was a daily thing in England so the doctor wouldn't be able to help you if you get an infection.
not really though. Black powder was kind of ass. If youve ever handled black powder weapons, even revolvers they take an incredible amount of time to reload. Theres a reason swords were a common sidearm globally up through the 1800s and why some armies still carried them even in ww1 as backups.
The real answer is that they were effective up until the point we moved away from back powder to cartridges and primers. Reloading was just non-viable in chaotic settings at that time and guns were only good for an opening volley or artillery, but a lot of fighting still ended up taking place fairly close up.
Early cartridges were black powder
Before reliable mechanical ignition you couldn't really carry a gun to defend yourself and would lose to an attacker armed with a sword. So the wheellock of the early 16th century is what BTFO swords as it made pistols a practical option. A prepared gun user would also have won with earlier firearms but you can't EDC a matchlock.
But that's wrong and the entirety of the napoleonic wars disagrees with you
When muzzle loaders stopped being the standard
1 on 1 gun shrekt sword as early as 1520 when you could Indiana Jones a homie on the street for the first time. People continued to carry swords but you would only beat a man with a gun via cheapshot or misfire.
there is a reason Napoleonic era line infantry carried muskets and not swords anon
the reason is that swords were no longer viable infantry weapons by that point, just like pikes
Going hand to hand is just the first and ultimately final form of "close with and destroy the enemy." Fixed cartridge-firing firearms becoming the norm is a good indicator that purpose-built, large-profile hand weapons started to become less and less useful except in very specific situations. But I'd argue that hand weapons in general did not become totally obsolete until submachine guns became practical. Likewise anyone still carrying a bolt action rifle and nothing else in the 40s had no real recourse for getting up close and personal except bladed weapons and hand grenades.
They did tho. They weren't super useful (nobody bothered to git gud with a hanger any more than they bothered to git gud at shooting well; standards were low af for the enlistedman) but they were part of the uniform in most armies.
The bowie knife (and others like it) was widely carried in the american west because even in the era of percussion cap pistols a blade was more reliable than betting your single shot would end the conflict.
A bowie knife is also a practical tool that you would need to have even if you had a time travelling glock. People still carry knives but without a gun you won't beat a gun.
There's written accounts that many people chose to carry only bowie knives for self defense even when/where flintlock or percussion cap pistols were easily available
There's written accounts from numerous people that chose to carry 1911s because Glocks were unreliable.
they may have been poorgays coping.
>There are written accounts of idiots also existing in the past
Ya don't fricking say?
It makes sense, tho. Muzzle loaders are slow to reload so it's possible to charge a man down before they get a second shot in. A lot of musket era battles ended with bayonet charges rather than gunfire.
It's easier to just shoot someone who is reloading than charge at them with a knife.
>they might also have a knife
>there are written accounts of morons
Ok
I'm pretty sure most military types still carry knives, but that doesn't mean they consider it a superior weapon.
Matchlocks and wheellocks are unreliable as frick and were around for most of the 17th century, so the sword would be viable at least until the late 17th c. With true flintlocks the sword gets a lot less viable
>looking at the gun only and not the cartridge system as well
Paper/linen cartridges could get wet from the morning dew and the black powder wouldn't fire.
Sealed, metallic cartridges and smokeless powder and a reliable primer along with a good breechloading system made firearms reliable for EDC.
When Clint Eastwood would wiener his revolvers (for some of his westerns) only when his barrels were pointed up wasn't for show, but to ensure the primer for the next round wouldn't fall when the name was wienered and the cylinder rotated.
>Paper/linen cartridges could get wet from the morning dew and the black powder wouldn't fire.
wasn't animal fat/wax used to remedy that?
WW1 on the Alpine front https://youtu.be/eydU9_jhj7I?feature=shared
WW2 if you were a mad c**t
2021
Negative, that's stave vs club. No guns present.
why don't they try adopting pike phalanxes for these skirmishes? would be kino and effective
It's mountainous and rocky. Maybe a shield wall or testudo is more suited.
It still is a viable weapon to use against guns, It's just that its just that it takes way more training to use a sword to slice bullets out of the air than it does to train someone to shoot a gun. So modern militaries rarely bother teaching this skill anymore, except to certain elite special forces units. If a swordsman was willing to put in the time and effort to master this technique however, guns would be basically useless against them.
World war 1 imo. You could make a case for carrying a sword along with your rifle, in cramped CQC in a trench it might be better than a rifle with bayonet, its a lot easier to drop your rifle and pull a sword out than fix a bayonet.
If you are fighting a guy with a bayonet and you have a sword its a pretty fair fight
>If you are fighting a guy with a bayonet and you have a sword its a pretty fair fight
Usually went quite handily in the sword guy's favor if you look back to 19th century bouts. Rifle-mounted bayonets have reach but not that much more and they're quite heavy and awkward. They get called spears but in practice they really don't handle like one except for having a pointy bit on the end.
WW2 go look up jack churchill
>WW2 go look up jack churchill
Basically when cartridges showed up in the 1800s. At that point you had fast and reliable reloadingso you couldn't count on your enemy having limited shots.
Jack Churchill says "frick you" and you don't argue with Jack Churchill if you want to live.
Jack Churchill is the exception that proves the rule.
In the flintlock era you just carried multiple flintlocks. You could do that earlier with wheellocks but they were expensive and unreliable, and it was only in the true flintlock era that the handgun really came into its own
Not so much swords, but WW1 had plenty of knifey-spoony action in trench raids
I am resolutely anti-American in all things, but I cannot deny the M1 Trench Knife is cool as frick
>resolutely anti-American
Based. America is the worst country that ever has or ever will exist. The sooner Russia rules everything, the sooner the world can be set right.
You must really like living in poo
>French nail
Looks exactly like a treacherous frog weapon
I bet they'd coat it in poison
Any time there is less than 21 feet between the two. The recent video of the cop getting killed by the crackhead with a knife is proof of this. The weeb that got killed for brandishing a sword recently obviously had obviously not trained enough and swore to his master that he would never go all out.
Cavalry sabers were still widely used during the US Civil War and Indian Wars, despite pretty good revolver technology and repeating rifles by that time. But it's use dwindled as we approached the 20th century.
Not to swing the pistol vs sabre argument in any particular direction but cavalry from the ACW are not a good example of what well-trained and well-supplied cavalry from the period could accomplish.
Depends on too many factors to give a one size fits all answer, but as a general rule the sword is still viable against the gun as of this day today, given specific circumstances of engagement.
Are you just two individuals in an enclosed space when the fight breaks out, say, in the same room of a house? Sword is still absolutely viable against a gun. Two hostile combatants are simultaneously coming around the same corner of a building during MOUT? The sword is still viable. Basically any time that opponents are capable of closing to within about 20 feet of each other without awareness of the other, or the ability to bring fire on one another until those last few terminal feet, the sword is still viable. It may not be *optimal*, but on an individual scale the sword is still *viable*.
Now, are we talking about which option should be the primary infantry arm of a military intended for use in an open field engagement with functionally unlimited - or even a few hundred yards of - visibility? *Obviously* the sword isn't viable (and wasn't really ever the primary infantry arm since the Romans anyway). Is the sword still viable enough that carrying it or issuing it en masse is a good idea? Obviously not.
>Are you just two individuals in an enclosed space when the fight breaks out, say, in the same room of a house?
I was literally crawling around in a castle dungeon with two below ground levels yesterday and a hip-fired revolver would be a practical weapon on that staircase, a sword would be nearly useless.
Battle of Balaclava. Absolute cavalry kino, all in the same battle. Thin Red Line first, then the Charge of the Heavy Brigade. And then the hilarity of the Charge of the Light Brigade.
How is there not a movie about that battle is beyond me.
American Civil War when Johnny Reb ran down conscripts here and there and then set up shop to blast the flank. Forrest’s actions still dictate cavalry tactics today.
Revolvers. From the Commanche wars in the US to the Samurai in Japan, the value and effectiveness of the semi-automatic firearm has never been dismissed by those who kill for a living
Never against a loaded gun. The sword was never viable versus a loaded gun.
If the gun is unloaded, the delta of viability exists between how fast the gun can be reloaded and how long before the swordsman can hit you with his weapon.
Schoolboy maths
The last historical examples where massed swords saw success against forces armed with firearms were the 1745 Jacobite Uprising or, if you want something more decisive and prolific, the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592.
The difference between these two is that the Japanese pretty much always saw success in close quarters fighting while the Scots saw success with massed sword charges only in specific scenarios and for the most part got BTFO.
The japs were the ones with guns in Korea, not the other way around
Koreans still had firearms in that war. They just sucked and they didn't have very many during the initial invasion. During the second invasion, they had way more but they still sucked. You're just making shit up or are a coping worst Korean or chink
what's with all the gay porn on /k/ lately?
20 minutes ago, when I was practicing my draw cuts.