Long sword VS Katana

Yeah, whenever Hollywood feeds us another katana on katana battle where the two combatants are cutting and parrying constantly, edge on edge, one thought crosses my mind.: "damn, they are destroying those weapons", because katanas were so sharp that edge on edge contact would notch the blade horribly.

T

who remembers the awesomeness that was Bushido Blade, the only weapon combat video game that got it right

Just a quick side about "hollywood" and stage-combat. As disturbing as it is they feel that edge-on-edge is the ... *cringes* ''PROPER'' way to block. Whoever taught them this should be killed with fire! I am currently in the process of practicing for a movie called "The Otherworld" where I am a...you guessed it...fighter. And even during the sword training sessions they are teaching the combatants to block with the edge of their blade. Hell I look over towards my lady and she's just looking at mewide-eyed like are you f'ing seriouse? So that is not just "katanas in hollywood" that's every sword. We were using a German LongSword to be exact.

i would aboloutly yes argue that japanese style armor allows for more dexterity and agility if one were to ignore the fact that it protected less of the body however moving past that. you are correct one would not block another sword with the edge of the blade of a katana.. it would RUIN the blade if not fracture it into more than one piece. a european sword one COULD block with the edge of the blade because of the metal being softer yet denser it could absorb the impact better and IF damaged was easier to repair/reforge which is disallowed by the very technique by which katanas are made. moreover. a katana could not get through plate with a slashing attack. nore could it get through chain. also somethnig ppl seem to have forgotten about.. a knight would have a shield.. effectively giving him a 2nd weapon against the samurai.. plus an excelent defense.. it is HIGHLY probable that the katanas edge would fracture against the shield and if the katana did bite into the shield the knight would be able to either disarm the samurai by moving the shield and if not disarming the samurai the katana blade would snap from the torsion.

also if the knight blocked the katana with his sword.. the katanas blade would be damaged if not destroyed from the impact with the broad sword.

of the videos shown it seemed that the knight sword was harder and slowed to draw.. maybe.. maybe not. and harder/slower to swing.. irrelivant because of the techniques used with each weapon.

in a duel.. id put my money on the knight

yes the videos are silly.. very silly

the sca video... omgroflmao rediculous.
why is the sca vid rediculous.. because they have to worry about safety.. knights and samurai.. not so much.

for anyone who quoted the show deadliest warrior.. and the samurai V viking episode... SHENANIGANS is all i have to say SHENANIGANS and humbug

also by the very methodology of which a knights sword would be used makes it capable and easily able to pierce and rend the armor of a samurai.. where as a samurai could not easily pierce the armor of a knight if at all

Screw the swords though.  The knight would never have the opportunity to close, which kind of makes the whole concept irrelevant, unless the Samurai was willing to engage in "honor" combat.  Earlier someone posted it is the warrior holding the sword that will determine victory.  Give Mushashi either and I predict he would emerge victorious.

Well we DID say it was a fight and not a footrace 

T

You misunderstood, Terry.  As the primary battlefield weapon of the Samurai was the bow, the knight would look like a pincushion long before he reached the man holding it.

What period Knight are we talking?

I'm easy, Jeff.  You can go from Tours to Agincourt and I will stand by my statement.  You can throw in extraneous fighters like the Northmen, Scotts, etc if you like.

He would look like a pin cusion., but depending on the period, he would still keep coming All depends on the period of the bow, the type of arrow, but even so. Once the archers were able to penetrate the armors, it didn't matter, just as with the proliferation of the musket and early guns. We mine as well be argueing about M-16's vs AK-47's then. LS (a rather vague term, as it covers a huge variety of euro swords) vs Katana, which somehow morphed into Knight vs Samurai (guilty in helping that happen heh).

The bow of the Samurai was always the equal or better of the English longbow in penetrating power.

Mitch - do you and some friends want me to run a naval scenario?  If so, pick a period and PM me how many.  Will arrange a date

japanese arrow would not penetrate european armor because of the design of the arrow heads used in japan. they were designed to be like knives to cut the cord used to tie the samurai armor together. not pierce like late middle ages early rennesaice european arrows were

Archery is not my forte, bows being hte weapon of the coward  ;D , but a little research has revealed that the draw weight of the historical English longbow, such as the ones used in Agincourt, was between 100-185 pounds, while the Japanese daikyu, the samurai warbow, was between 35-90 pounds.

Could an archer elaborate on this, what exactly would that mean comparatively?

T

Draw weight is the basically how "heavy" the pull of the bow is at maximum draw when shooting (Usually 28", but could be more or less depending on the size of the bow and the archer).  A higher weight means the archer puts more effort into pulling the bow, which translates into more effort when it is released being transferred to the arrow.

As a rough comparison - the bows at KR are usually around 25 lbs, as are most of the bows used at camp archery ranges.  I should note that boffer arrows are significantly heavier, and less aerodynamic, than target or weapon arrows, and don't fly nearly as fast or far.  Upping from 25 to 30 is noticeable enough that said bow is unsafe for use at KR - that should give you a rough idea on what happens when you get to the higher ranges.

If the English Longbows were 100#, I'd be impressed that someone can pull and fire that all day.  185#, sounds like the Ulysses bow that you need 18/00 Strength to even string.

A 60-65# bow will send an arrow clean through the abdomen of a full grown deer.  A bow of 100# -125# will place an arrow at least 24-28 inches into the belly of an elephant all the way to the feathers  I am certain there are scientists and bow hunters out there that could cite the physics in Pounds per sq inch of that teeny little point striking the average armor plate at about 500fps

I agree the type of arrow head would have an effect on the depth of penetration since, most are designed to slice blood vesels and organs as they enter and exit leaving a badly bleeding mortally wounded knight who will still run a few more yards or until the archer puts one right in the eye slit

End of story

Call an Archer a chicken or not, the purpose was to Kill the enemy the fastest way possible

And whoever said the fight would be Fair??

And the real Katana experts are taught to block with the back of the blade, not the edge Because they would have to grind out the nicks and repolish the blade in order to shave the next day

Dont forget the lever thingy.....PSI which had more PSI

I am watching and looking for facts.....not seeing many boys and girls

Alex and Dave gets a star!!!!!  Also Dave is 100% right about Katana blocks.....I see who studies vs studies.

Penetration facts will be coming I consulted with a friend of mine at "RudderBow" He makes phenomenal bows of many different woods, styles, types, as recreations of European and Far East as well as Native American bowsbesides

Wasn't the purpose of a "Targe" to be able to penetrate armor maille leather  much the same way as an arrow but from more brute strenght , Still makes for huge PSI

With Archery, one of the other main factors was also the angles on which the arrow landed.  It's been a few years, but I watched trials with an English longbow against a sheet of steel - if the arrow hit the steel straight on (i.e. - a flat breastplate), it would penetrate.  If it hit at an angle, the majority of the force of the shot would send the arrow ricocheting, and not go into penetrating.  As armor evolved, it developed more angular structures to help ward off arrows long enough to close.

- it may look like it's holding up, but watch the whole thing.

Wasn't the purpose of a "Targe" to be able to penetrate armor maille leather  much the same way as an arrow but from more brute strenght , Still makes for huge PSI

I don't know about the Targe part, but basic physics - the same amount of force, applied across a smaller area, will exert more pressure per square inch.  So a point (as opposed to a blunt surface) will have more penetrating force behind it, even if it still has the same amount of kinetic energy overall.  If you want to stun something without penetrating it, you use a blunt or large area surface when striking, or even something soft that will shape itself on impact to spread out the energy (like a sap, filled with sand or shot).  This assumes, of course, you're not just going for pure blunt trauma like a mace.

Archery is my weak spot as well, but I've studies it insofar as it applies to penetrating thru various armors and how it was applied in combat in various parts of the ancient world. One thing that I learned is that much of the equivilant draw strength was what was measured based on distance and elevation. Meaning, distance to target had an impact (naturally) on the power, and a common tactic was the high angled volley. Now this may all seem rather remedial, but consider that gravity enters into the equation. At great distance it takes greater bow strength to achieve x penetration. However you can gain a far large equivilant strength factor when you allow gravity to take over. The loss in velocity to achieve height and distance is more than overcome wth the drop from that height and achieves a comparative equivilance in the bow strength that would be needed to get that penetration. You don't need an achilles bow with 18/00 str, but the end result gets you there. Where armor is a factor, and this is paramount, is that the impact occurs at the top most portion of the target, where vitals (head, shoulder, penetration into the torso) are far harder to protect and injury of any kind is more extreme.

Now Secarious, you hit it on the head in terms of the asian arrows. Even euro arrows glanced off, or didn't penetrate deeply enough through heavy breast plates, supported by gamibison and chain, in most cases, at least till tactics and arrow points evolved in the later years. Even then, it took many arrows to fell a well armored foe (though when you consider hundreds of archers, you often got enough hits over numerous volleys to achieve this). The impacts were not often straight on at the breast plate, the kill shots or the equivilant were across the upper 45 degree angle of the torso, meaning volley shots. A single archer, with lesser arrow technology, was simply not the answer. It is for this reason that the armsmen's polearm was created. Archers would not actually kill the riders, they would kill the mounts, then footmen would swarm the field and use these massive weapons to overwhelm the outnumbered (and likley bespeckled) remaining horseman and finish them off. This was actually what happened in Agincourt too (common misconception was that the French knights were massacred by arrows. In a way they were, but it wasn't the full story).

Wow how this thread has evolved! I didn't even comment on your obviously extensive training Otagiri. I know some pretty prominant practioners that study under Hatsumi-San, I wonder if you've trained with them. We should talk. I wonder if you have any updates on tensions revolving around succession. Would love your take on that. Better I should elaborate in person on that though.

Charlie, my old school strategy gamers all live way too many hours from here to gather, and its been ages, but I'd love to arrange to join you if you are setting something like this up. I'd need to learn the rules (relearn some, but I think this might be a system I've not tried before). I'd be thrilled. I've already gotten the warning from the Mrs not to even consider purchasing stuff though! lol She knows how I get with my hobbies (can't you all tell?). I'll pm you though.

Mitch, I'm not sure about your analysis vis a vis arrows and gravity. Arrows don't have much mass, and that means that the terminal velocity of an arrow is likely to be much lower than the velocity that you could achieve with a good bow.

Regarding the longbow, one of its key attributes was the rate at which a trained archer could shoot it. As a modern analogy, you'd be much better off comparing the longbow with a machine gun or a mortar than a sniper rifle.

I think that for the most part the trend to talk about Asian weapons and armor being superior to Western European armaments is just an offshoot of revisionist history, which is basically a sport wherein people take just about any presumption of 19th century Europeans and invert it. The reality is always far more complex than the 19th century presumption or its inversion.

The best comments in this thread, in my opinion, have been the ones that have pointed out that you cannot actually compare the two weapons because they were tools intended for different purposes. The people of Asia and Europe were innovating within their particular contexts and were seeking ways to make better weapons and armor to defeat their specific enemies, not any enemy that ever might come along.

Earlier, someone mentioned that Japanese arrows were designed to cut armor ties, not to pierce it.  I did a bit of research online (gods help me) and found an illustration accompanying this <<In general the standard point style looking like a small Yari (spear) were used for war and armor piercing.>>

Mitch, I'm not sure about your analysis vis a vis arrows and gravity. Arrows don't have much mass, and that means that the terminal velocity of an arrow is likely to be much lower than the velocity that you could achieve with a good bow.

Its a matter of physics. But since I'm not a physics pro, and I don't know the formula off the top of my head, I'll explain it as simply as I myself understand it. Despite the small mass, the speed and gravitational elements are huge contributors to the effect on impact. Consider a Trebuche. The high volley of stones from great hieght enourmously maginfied the impact of the hit. The same is with an arrow, even though the arrow is smaller, the decent per second per second  acceleration greatly magnifies the impact. Using a small stone, take it and hold it in your hand, drop it. It will leave a small impact in the dirt. Take the same stone and huck it with a device that sends it farther up that you can toss it, on impact it wil leave a far better stone. Just because an arrow has a small mass, doesn't mean the physics don't apply. Even more so, as the small object with great velocity is just as deadly. Its actually one of the principles behind futuristic weapons like rail guns and the 'rod from god', the former of which many have heard of, but the latter is simply dropping a pointy metal shaft from orbit and allowing gravity to accelerate a non-warhead small metal spear to such speeds that the impact is like a mini nuke detonation. Google it, smarter peeps than me will explain it, but the same principle applies to hurled rocks, and yes, arrows :) Ok, now I've done it. I've now tossed in Buck Rogers into the conversation I'll bow out here on it heh.

I'll bow out here on it heh.

Pun intended?  

I'll let Wikipedia explain terminal velocity:

A free-falling object achieves its terminal velocity when the downward force of gravity (Fg) equals the upward force of drag (Fd). This causes the net force on the object to be zero, resulting in an acceleration of zero.[1]

As the object accelerates (usually downwards due to gravity), the drag force acting on the object increases, causing the acceleration to decrease. At a particular speed, the drag force produced will equal the object's weight (mg). At this point the object ceases to accelerate altogether and continues falling at a constant speed called terminal velocity (also called settling velocity). Terminal velocity varies directly with the ratio of weight to drag. More drag means a lower terminal velocity, while increased weight means a higher terminal velocity. An object moving downward with greater than terminal velocity (for example because it was affected by a downward force or it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere or it changed shape) will slow until it reaches terminal velocity.

So my point about the arrow is that it doesn't weigh much and therefore has a low terminal velocity. I suspect that an arrow has a greater velocity when it is shot from a bow than its terminal velocity, which means that as the arrow descends it will actually decelerate from the shot velocity to the terminal velocity, since atmospheric drag will apply equally on its way up and down. So upon being shot, the arrow climbs up into the sky until it has expended all of its kinetic energy overcoming gravity and drag. The arrow then begins to fall back to earth, but reaches its terminal velocity at some point along the way and stops accelerating; drag consumes the leftover energy and your arrow hits the ground at its terminal velocity, which is slower than the velocity it had when it was shot out of the bow. All of this is assuming that the terminal velocity of an arrow is less than the velocity that a bow can put on it...

Both of the examples that you sited involve objects whose weights would afford them terminal velocities in excess of the velocities that humans or their machines could give them. So they are correct, but poor analogies for the spritely arrow, I think.

Actually, this is alot simpler than the above. Now that I've had some time to ponder it, what we're really dealing with here is the law of conservation of energy. If you shoot an arrow into the sky, you expend energy overcoming gravity. When the arrow begins to fall, the only accelerating force is gravity, which is necessarily less than the force that got the arrow up in the sky in the first place. There is no way that an arrow can come down with a greater force than it was shot.

Add to that drag, which both on the ascent and descent is transforming some of the arrow's kinetic energy into thermal energy, and there is no way that it can even come down equal to the shot force.

Matt you are 99% right. The only time that Terminal Velocity could exceed initial Velocity is if you were to shoot the arrow weakly off a cliff. then the intial would be less. But everything else is 100% right. I saw a show on discovery where they shot an arrow straight down at 2 different distances. The closer target was penetrated further than the one 100m further.

Only saying cause I passed the AP physics exam and loved kinematics

The rest of the stuff on the swords has been very informative! Thanks for the cool reading material guys.

Mike Smith - settle this please.

Matt has some great points

Well I saw a show on the HISTORY channel (humor!) and they say.....

Like I stated, I only have remedial physics, but I distinctly remember not only learning this in school (I was an undergrad for 8 years, 2 full majors, one history, 3 minors and if I told you how many credits I finally graduated with you would pass out from laughter). Taken plenty of classes since too, all now unrelated to the industry I work in, heh. I also watch way too much of these shows and I crack up at how inaccruate most are (but entertaining, its like pizza, even if its bad, its good).

I wouldn't put too much into wiki-fu, but I'm sure I know less here than you guys on this on the physics side, but I'm confident on my comments as far as its impact vs armors. Like I said in my disclaimer, archery is not my thang. So like Clint used to say, "A man has to know his limitations." lol - Bow'd out

Darn it - now I will have to go into the cave and do some research.  Unlike you, mitch, I only had enough credits to get out, but I have around 75 graduate credits.  No grad degree, but I know a b unch of useless stuff.

"Bodkin"  is the word for Armor piercing

Still it all comes down the the size of the heart in the Warrior.  That and some good luck

VG conversation Thanks a bunch

Nuff Said

So we've left longswords & katanas for bow & arrows, along with terminal velocity.  Next step is seeing whether or not a mass driver on the Moon or on an asteroid would be best for squashing armies and how would we have one in KR?  :)