A straight blade or a curved one?

[fearn]

Hi Andrew,

I think you're right about cutting, but here's Burton's idea, for what it's worth. It would be easier to illustrate, but I'll try it with words:

Basically, a slash means that the blade is sawed on one point, rather than coming straight down on it (a chop). The curved blade has two advantages.

Let's assume that we're going to slash with a one foot (30 cm long) straight sword that is 2 in (5 cm) thick, and with a saber that curves up so that its blade length is about 20 inches (50 cm) over that same foot. Its blade is also 2 inches thick.

Basically, with the saber, you slash with ~180% more blade than with the straight sword. Since length matters for the depth of the slash, a saber is definitely a better slashing weapon.

For chopping, Burton's idea about the saber's advantage depends on trigonometry. Basically, the saber cuts at an angle, rather than straight on. So the sword cuts with 2 inches of steel about the point of the cut, where the saber cuts with something like 3.3 inches of steel above the point of the cut (basically, it's 20 in curved blade/12 in straight length*2 in thick). There's more metal above the cut, and *all other things being equal*, this additional metal weighs that part of the blade down and drives it deeper.

Now, I think it would be pretty difficult to make everything else equal in order to do the experiment, but that's the idea. It's also worth noting that axes seldom have straight edges.

We haven't even talked about down-curved points (a la those nice African sickle swords), and they have a different advantage.

The point about stabbing with a curved blade is right on.

My 0.02 cents,

F

[MABAGANI]

In a recent documentary I helped with on the Filipino martial arts, there was a segment about Moro blades in which Cecil Quirino makes a statement from a study about the depth of penetration in a vertical cut from collar bone down through the chest, the order of cutting ability was the kris, kampilan, then the barung which could cut the deepest.
The kris is an example of a forward leaning sword, the kampilan a backward lean, and the barung a curved short sword. Its not conclusive for every type but it gives an idea of what each can do. Each design had their advantages and disadvantages but in order to compensate for fighting in close quarters and against multiple opponents, there was the wavy kris which could rebound or cut depending on circumstance, its thrust could enter and retract easier, the kampilan with spike could limit thrust penetration to a few inches enough to do internal damage but not get trapped and the hilt alignment allowed pulling the blade back for multiple vertical cuts and drawing.
btw The one on one duel dealing with straight and curved blades lead into a whole different subject.

[fearn]

Hmmmmm.

I agree with N2S about the center of percussion being the "sweet spot" where the most force can be applied, but it's not the center of mass. The center of mass is where the sword balances. The center of percussion is somewhere forward of that. The way I heard of finding it is to hang the sword pommel up and swing it like a pendulum, timing the sword's period (how long it takes to make one swing). You then take a string and weight (i.e. a real pendulum), and vary the length of the string until you get a pendulum that has the same period. The length of the pendulum is roughly the location of the sweet spot on the blade. Hopefully one of the physics boffins on this list will correct me if I'm wrong.

Another issue in hand shock is where the sword is gripped. This is more important on long-handled swords, like dhas. Basically, a sword is a rod, and as such, it vibrates when it hits something. The vibrations are similar to those on a guitar string, meaning they're the least at the ends, the middle, and the quarters (nodes), and strongest on the eighths between them (antinodes). The best way to experience is to get a stick (broom handle, dowel, whatever), and strike the end against the ground fairly hard while you grip it at various points. You can find the nodes pretty easily that way, and it sure teaches a proper grip. You can also do the same thing with a blade, although I advocate using the blunt and being a little more gentle

If you're holding the sword at the wrong point, or if the sword is designed badly, you'll grip near an antinode and get shocked each time the blade hits.

Hope this is useful,

F

[Battara]

Originally Posted by MABAGANI

In a recent documentary I helped with on the Filipino martial arts, there was a segment about Moro blades in which Cecil Quirino makes a statement from a study about the depth of penetration in a vertical cut from collar bone down through the chest, the order of cutting ability was the kris, kampilan, then the barung which could cut the deepest.
The kris is an example of a forward leaning sword, the kampilan a backward lean, and the barung a curved short sword.

Mabagani, would you please site (or email me) the reference from which Cecil quoted?

[Jim McDougall]

While I cannot claim any particular martial expertise, it seems to me that in using the straight sword for cutting rather than thrusting, in many cases the point would be the focus of the cut in a slashing effect. In fencing resources this was noted as a tearing cut with the point of the sword known as the 'stramazone'. While such 17th c. Italian swordplay technique would clearly not be applicable here in discussion of later combat with heavier swords, it simply seemed worthy of note.

While studying regulation military swords years ago, I found that the key debate in military technology concerning military swords was of course,cut vs. thrust as far as the mortality of the wounds. These debates continued from the 18th century into the 20th! and ironically it was not until the sword was entirely obsolete that the 'ideal sword' was developed. The British M1908 cavalry sabre, followed by the American M1913 Patton sabre of the same basic form apparantly provided the ideal blade for both cut and thrust. These cumbersome, huge swords were actually worn on the saddle, and while the British version saw use in WWI and even as late as the 1930's in India...the American version was not at all popular and never saw combat of any kind.

In use of the sword in battle it was found that unless the sabre wound was an obviously fatal one such as decapitation or massive blood loss and shock from dismemberment, recovery was possible. In the case of the thrust, with the well established lack of proper medical care, sepsis and death were typically mortal in most wounds involving any organs, massive hemorrhaging not withstanding. One of the key problems in many cavalry situations was the poor maintainance of sabres and thier inability to deliver substantial wounds. In many cases the dulled sabres simply delivered bruises and did not cut through heavy uniforms etc. However, during the Napoleonic wars, the British light cavalry M1796 was extremely effective with ghastly effect, and Napoleon declared thier use 'barbaric'. He had ordered his troops to 'give point', and even many of the light cavalry thrusted with thier sabres, again with deadly effect. The heavy cavalry of course carried huge straight swords, whose method of use was clearly established.

The backswords used by troops in the 17th and 18th centuries were intended to both slash and thrust and used by most mounted troops in these times. The cavalry in those times were 'dragoons' and typically dismounted in combat. The blades were heavy and long, for long reach off the huge horses, but as described, could deliver chopping blows quite effectively, but it does not seem rapid movement was involved. The wedge shape of the blade gave extra weight to the back of the blade and gave impetus to the chopping cut, driving the sharpened edge into the application. The false edge or sharpened segment of the back of the blade near the point gave the necessary dynamics for the thrust as well as slashing cuts with the point.

While the argument that thrusting with a sword in a cavalry engagement would clearly cause the rider to become dismounted, it seems to me that in combat the opponents would be essentially immobile at the time of the thrust, as in a melee. The Oriental style of sabre use relied on the fast moving draw cut, with the slashing cut allowing the continuing motion of the rider.

As has been observed, I think most of this depends on the situation. When one considers, in a dramatic situation, virtually anything can become a weapon, and the intensity of its use will determine its effectiveness.

Best regards,
Jim