True Combat Value of Wootz

S.Al-Anizi · 18th October 2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsubame1

If harden = to make an hard cutting edge and temper = relief the stresses with a subsequent (softer) heating, well japaneses where well aware and able to make both, even in older times. It's a matter of Schools. Somes applied tempering, some not. TOGETHER with differential hardening.

Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Well thats what most people who practice JSA (i dont) say, that even a botched cut might cause a bent blade.

katana · 18th October 2006, 11:35 PM

An excellent informative thread.........keep up the good work

As has been already mentioned, it is the 'artist's' forging technique and heat treatment that ultimately determines the quality and characteristics of a blade......obviously the quality of the raw material is extremely important. But the best quality steel or wootz badly forged/heat treated would be still be a poor blade.

ariel · 18th October 2006, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by tsubame 1
Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

Lew · 18th October 2006, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Originally posted by tsubame 1
Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

Well gentlemen

In battle a bent blade is better than a broken one and if you survived and the blade only had a slight bend it could be straightened back out by the smith. Said blade was than retired but was held in great reverence.

Lew

Chris Evans · 19th October 2006, 08:07 AM

Hi,

Ann, many thanks for that very informative essay on wootz swords and Gt Obach your observations on the subject are most instructive.

Ariel: I also wondered about those chisel cuts. If any rubbish got into them, or the weld was incomplete, then am sure that they would have not helped.

Re swords breaking in cold weather: Steels exhibit, what is known in the trade as the "brittle transition temperature"; This is a temperature range below which it ceases being ductile. Apart from impurities such as Phosphorus, a number of other factors also determine this temperature. To make things more complicated, whether a sword, or implement, breaks or not is again determined by a number of other factors that are dealt with in the discipline of "fracture mechanics" - In short, the presence of micro cracks, however acquired, and their ability to propagate through the steel are of paramount significance. Brittle fracture is primarily determined by the interaction of the said cracks, ductility/brittleness of the steel and the geometry of the implement as well as other mitigating factors such as the presence of crack arrestors (say, slag in wrought iron). Structures of quite ductile steel can and do fail in a brittle manner if the right factors are present. So it is not just about embrittlement, though it is certainly one very important factor. This probably explains why some Japanese swordsmen are said to be able to break the swords of their opponents with a cut, a feat often mistakenly attributed to the superiority of their swords. Another observation in this respect is that based on anecdotal reports, a good many of those Japanese swords that broke during winter, in fact failed under extremely cold told temperatures, conditions under which other steel implements also failed.

Reading through this threads confirms, at least to me, that there is much more to swords than what mere metallurgical considerations would suggest; It also reinforces my long held belief that they were rather poor weapons of war, except in very select applications, such as cavalry cutting down fleeing infantry. This on account of their vulnerability to the inevitable abuses encountered on the battlefield, not to mention tactical disadvantages, when compared to other weapons.

I also would like to make the following observations:

a) The amount of blade to blade clashing that a sword is expected to undergo is indicated by the comprehensiveness of its handguard. Eastern swords, with the exception of the Indian gauntlet sword, offer minimalist hand protection and thus it is a safe bet that they were not used much for parrying, if at all (except as acts of desperation) - Japanese swords, for one, are incredibly fragile if clashed against another similar blade, and most swords are very quickly reduced to saw/junk status if abused in such a manner, even rapiers. I still obstinately hold to the view that parrying with a sword blade is a post small-sword development and whilst it can be done to some extent with heavier swords, in practice it was infrequently resorted to.

b) Cutting through iron rods with a sword may not be such a big deal as when fully annealed, the rod can be made incredibly soft.

c) Any edged sword can be bent or terminally damaged by a badly executed cut - Not just Japanese. Cutting requires considerable proficiency.

d) Japanese blades are quite thick at the shoulder, with little taper along their length and have a greater sweet spot around their COP, thus minimizing the tendency to bend under a badly executed cut. In fact this thickness has often been cited as a deficiency of Japanese blades, as it inhibits penetration - The Japanese highly polished their blades to mitigate this drawback and to enable them to slide through the medium being cut into. Also, it is reported that when European sabres were introduced into the Japanese cavalry, those officers skilled in traditional swordsmanship fund them much harder to cut with because of their springy blades and thinner foibles.

Cheers
Chris

Ann Feuerbach · 19th October 2006, 02:31 PM

Thanks all for such an informative discussion, I am learning quite alot about Japanese swords. I just wanted to add a few cents on fractures and cracks. Of course, cracks follow grain boundaries (back to microstructures again). That said, one of the benefits of crucible steel is the spheroidal cementite. On a microstructual scale a crack would hit the roundish cementite and the stress would dissapate (sorry can't spell, just woke up and still on first cup of coffee), thus stoping the cracking. This all shows how much more work really needs to be done. I too have wondered about the "benefits" of hardness testing to answer archeological/anthropological questions. I think we need some "battles" with high quality authentically replicated swords, but it would be indeed a pity to work such masterpieces until they break!

Gt Obach · 19th October 2006, 03:19 PM

Hi

there are some good articles out there on brittle fracture..
http://www.key-to-steel.com/default....Article&NM=136

and some of the elements that affect it

just my opinion... but i think that swords were rather effective close combat sidearms.... ( spear being no. 1 ) ....
- there has to be some value to it..... or why would so many cultures value such a costly item... ( you can make many spears out of one sword ) ... besides, iron production back then was very small scale compared to today... so your limited interms of materials to which you can use for war..
-- even the northlands valued the sword.. as is evidenced by the viking blades... and the complex patternwelds
- are there any Rc tests done on viking blades...
- from the few museum curators that i emailed ... (Longtime ago) they mentioned that the northern swords had a lower Rc ....somewhere round 40
- but i've never seen those stat's anywhere

steel is such a complicated thing.... uggh
Greg

ariel · 19th October 2006, 05:04 PM

Ann,
Even after a single cup of coffee you are still better than all of us together !
What coffee do you drink? I want the same brand.

ariel · 19th October 2006, 05:07 PM

I agree with Greg: of course, spear is very effective, but swords utilise an additional element of motion, ie, circular arm movement as opposed to the linear one of the spear. An example is Chaka's transformation of the throwing/stabbing Zulu spear with a smallish head into a massive sword-like weapon.

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.
It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true.....
Ironically, of course, the great European blades became widely available when they were no longer needed..... But then, the same technology gave Europe another edge:

"Whatever happens
we have got,
the Gatling gun
and they have not."
- Hillaire Belloc

tsubame1 · 19th October 2006, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Originally posted by tsubame 1
Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

Sorry, forgot to put a smiley there. yes I was facetious.
Obviously Samurai didn't find NihonTo so prone to bending.
But yes, some modern JSA quotes that a bad cut can bend a bad sword.
Bend doesn't mean to have a L shped blade, simply have a slightly out of shape blade, still recoverable and effecive in battlefield.

19th October 2006, 08:07 AM	#5
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi, Ann, many thanks for that very informative essay on wootz swords and Gt Obach your observations on the subject are most instructive. Ariel: I also wondered about those chisel cuts. If any rubbish got into them, or the weld was incomplete, then am sure that they would have not helped. Re swords breaking in cold weather: Steels exhibit, what is known in the trade as the "brittle transition temperature"; This is a temperature range below which it ceases being ductile. Apart from impurities such as Phosphorus, a number of other factors also determine this temperature. To make things more complicated, whether a sword, or implement, breaks or not is again determined by a number of other factors that are dealt with in the discipline of "fracture mechanics" - In short, the presence of micro cracks, however acquired, and their ability to propagate through the steel are of paramount significance. Brittle fracture is primarily determined by the interaction of the said cracks, ductility/brittleness of the steel and the geometry of the implement as well as other mitigating factors such as the presence of crack arrestors (say, slag in wrought iron). Structures of quite ductile steel can and do fail in a brittle manner if the right factors are present. So it is not just about embrittlement, though it is certainly one very important factor. This probably explains why some Japanese swordsmen are said to be able to break the swords of their opponents with a cut, a feat often mistakenly attributed to the superiority of their swords. Another observation in this respect is that based on anecdotal reports, a good many of those Japanese swords that broke during winter, in fact failed under extremely cold told temperatures, conditions under which other steel implements also failed. Reading through this threads confirms, at least to me, that there is much more to swords than what mere metallurgical considerations would suggest; It also reinforces my long held belief that they were rather poor weapons of war, except in very select applications, such as cavalry cutting down fleeing infantry. This on account of their vulnerability to the inevitable abuses encountered on the battlefield, not to mention tactical disadvantages, when compared to other weapons. I also would like to make the following observations: a) The amount of blade to blade clashing that a sword is expected to undergo is indicated by the comprehensiveness of its handguard. Eastern swords, with the exception of the Indian gauntlet sword, offer minimalist hand protection and thus it is a safe bet that they were not used much for parrying, if at all (except as acts of desperation) - Japanese swords, for one, are incredibly fragile if clashed against another similar blade, and most swords are very quickly reduced to saw/junk status if abused in such a manner, even rapiers. I still obstinately hold to the view that parrying with a sword blade is a post small-sword development and whilst it can be done to some extent with heavier swords, in practice it was infrequently resorted to. b) Cutting through iron rods with a sword may not be such a big deal as when fully annealed, the rod can be made incredibly soft. c) Any edged sword can be bent or terminally damaged by a badly executed cut - Not just Japanese. Cutting requires considerable proficiency. d) Japanese blades are quite thick at the shoulder, with little taper along their length and have a greater sweet spot around their COP, thus minimizing the tendency to bend under a badly executed cut. In fact this thickness has often been cited as a deficiency of Japanese blades, as it inhibits penetration - The Japanese highly polished their blades to mitigate this drawback and to enable them to slide through the medium being cut into. Also, it is reported that when European sabres were introduced into the Japanese cavalry, those officers skilled in traditional swordsmanship fund them much harder to cut with because of their springy blades and thinner foibles. Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 19th October 2006 at 10:16 AM.

18th October 2006, 11:35 PM	#2
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	An excellent informative thread.........keep up the good work As has been already mentioned, it is the 'artist's' forging technique and heat treatment that ultimately determines the quality and characteristics of a blade......obviously the quality of the raw material is extremely important. But the best quality steel or wootz badly forged/heat treated would be still be a poor blade.

18th October 2006, 11:37 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Originally posted by tsubame 1 Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending... Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

19th October 2006, 02:31 PM	#6
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Thanks all for such an informative discussion, I am learning quite alot about Japanese swords. I just wanted to add a few cents on fractures and cracks. Of course, cracks follow grain boundaries (back to microstructures again). That said, one of the benefits of crucible steel is the spheroidal cementite. On a microstructual scale a crack would hit the roundish cementite and the stress would dissapate (sorry can't spell, just woke up and still on first cup of coffee), thus stoping the cracking. This all shows how much more work really needs to be done. I too have wondered about the "benefits" of hardness testing to answer archeological/anthropological questions. I think we need some "battles" with high quality authentically replicated swords, but it would be indeed a pity to work such masterpieces until they break!

19th October 2006, 03:19 PM	#7
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	Hi there are some good articles out there on brittle fracture.. http://www.key-to-steel.com/default....Article&NM=136 and some of the elements that affect it just my opinion... but i think that swords were rather effective close combat sidearms.... ( spear being no. 1 ) .... - there has to be some value to it..... or why would so many cultures value such a costly item... ( you can make many spears out of one sword ) ... besides, iron production back then was very small scale compared to today... so your limited interms of materials to which you can use for war.. -- even the northlands valued the sword.. as is evidenced by the viking blades... and the complex patternwelds - are there any Rc tests done on viking blades... - from the few museum curators that i emailed ... (Longtime ago) they mentioned that the northern swords had a lower Rc ....somewhere round 40 - but i've never seen those stat's anywhere steel is such a complicated thing.... uggh Greg

19th October 2006, 05:04 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Ann, Even after a single cup of coffee you are still better than all of us together ! What coffee do you drink? I want the same brand.

19th October 2006, 05:07 PM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I agree with Greg: of course, spear is very effective, but swords utilise an additional element of motion, ie, circular arm movement as opposed to the linear one of the spear. An example is Chaka's transformation of the throwing/stabbing Zulu spear with a smallish head into a massive sword-like weapon. This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian. It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true..... Ironically, of course, the great European blades became widely available when they were no longer needed..... But then, the same technology gave Europe another edge: "Whatever happens we have got, the Gatling gun and they have not." - Hillaire Belloc