True Combat Value of Wootz

[Jeff Pringle]

Also, wootz might have been much keener than regular steel, but it was of no advantage when dealing with real life objects.

Yes, it would just mean you would not have to sharpen it as often - that may have been the most obvious practical effect of wootz' superiority as a steel in it's era.
I've only seen analyses of early medaeval european mail, but those show iron, not steel for the link material.

[Gt Obach]

also...... chain was usually made of wrought iron.. ... and this is a soft metal.... i really doubt that steel was used for this at this time.. ( big difference )

with a decent blade... you can cut into mild iron without much problem... i've done it several times... actually..... in the forge i have a cold cut that i use weekly to cut 1/2 mild rounds..... and rarely have to dress the edge...

i realize that not everyone deals with this daily basis... but a properly heat treated piece of steel with good edge geometry should have no problem with mild iron or wrought iron..


on cutting....... theres also a big difference between a chopping cut and a draw cut...... with a draw cut......distal taper has a big effect when pulling the blade through the target... .... aswell as adding to a swords ability to resist bending in a local area

Greg

[Gt Obach]

actually... if you do a search you can find plenty on wrought iron chain... .... -wrought iron being iron made by a reduction process in a bloom furnance... ... - a spongy bloom of iron and silicate slag is produced..... this is then folded and forge welded many times... to squeeze out some of the silicate slags.... and evenly spread out the remaining stringers....

the low grade has lots of large stringers... and used for stuff like wagon wheels...
-- if you fold the lower grade many more times.....it becomes more homogenous .... and this is what you would use for chain..... still today... if you want some high grade wrought for knife fittings... you still can get this will large boat or anchor chains.....

-- and it is soft... very little carbon in it.... and not hardenable (unless altered) ..... corrosion resistant, and tough, fiberous, .... very desirable for its easy forge welding

both of my peter wright anvils have a wrought iron body and a steel plate for the face... and its only a 100 years old... .. so wrought was still used for a long time


Greg

[Chris Evans]

ariel,

I ask if you would be surprised if a chisel would cut through the said chain/armour. I think that the safe answer is no. Then why not?

Because a chisel's edge has a different geometry, more obtuse, AND because several hammer blows can impart the required energy - One just keeps on hammering until the cut is effected.

Of course, such edge geometry, except on a very specialized sword, would not do at all for an all purpose weapon. And then a single cut is unlikely to have sufficient energy to finish the job.

I have a utility knife that I made from a high speed alloy tools steel blade. Hard as hell and full of carbides (can barely sharpen it) . When a saw, it used to cut steel bars. Once, for an experiment I tried to cut a small, around 1mm dia, nail with it and the edge started to nick. Why? because its low angle edge could not support the load imposed on it. Cuts fine otherwise, but not nails. The steel is the same, but the edge geometry has changed.



GT Obach: A small comment on wrought iron chain

You are spot in your remarks. I just would like to add, that those slag inclusions in wrought iron chain are highly desirable because they act as crack arrestors. This and its superior corrosion resistance is why wrought iron is the preferred metal for ship's anchor chain - Very tough and shock absorbent, yet soft, malleable and easily hammer welded.

Cheers
Chris

[ariel]

So, Chris and Greg, as the most knowledgeable "metal" people around, here is the question to summarize all questions: is there a real practical, combat advantage of wootz over a good steel? I am not talking about super-duper modern steels , but want to compare apples to apples: take a 17-18th century wootz shamshir or khanda (made by the best masters of the time)and pit it against best contemporary European blades.

Assuming the task set for all of them is not a show-y handkercief cutting, but a real battle use by competent cavalry men, will there be an appreciable difference in performance? What advantages or disadvantages would you predict for each?

[Chris Evans]

ariel,

Originally Posted by ariel

So, Chris and Greg, as the most knowledgeable "metal" people around, here is the question to summarize all questions: is there a real practical, combat advantage of wootz over a good steel? I am not talking about super-duper modern steels , but want to compare apples to apples: take a 17-18th century wootz shamshir or khanda (made by the best masters of the time)and pit it against best contemporary European blades.

Assuming the task set for all of them is not a show-y handkercief cutting, but a real battle use by competent cavalry men, will there be an appreciable difference in performance? What advantages or disadvantages would you predict for each?

Like I said at the outset, I never had the opportunity to examine wootz. All I know about it is what has been published here and there and from learned reports from people like Ann, who is the real expert on this metal here.

Trying to extract a black and white judgement out of metallurgists on a subject like this, is like pulling the proverbial hen's teeth. As opposed to laymen, we are aware of too many variables that can have an effect and as such we are reluctant to commit ourselves. With that said, in my student days, almost half a century ago ( Blast - just gave the game away!), wootz was often mentioned as an early example of a superior steel that was held in extraordinarily high regard in Europe.

Disclaimer: I am writing this on the run, and could easily have left something out, so please don't shoot - OK?

If you truly were comparing apples with apples, then you would take the sword out of the mix and just compare a large number of test specimens, so as to be representative of what could be expected on average, made from wootz and Euro steel from a given time frame (worked/heat treated to the degree that it would be in the sword) and test it for:

a) Hardness (macro and micro);
b) Tensile strength;
c) Impact (Charpy/Izod);
d) Establish the brittle trans temp;
e) Hardenability
f) Chemical analysis:

These would give you the basic properties -Then, you would have to do additional tests to see which of the steels is easier to forge or shape, and which is more unforgiving of its heat treatment.

With all that out of the way, you would then have to relate all this information to the sword's design and intended application, and most importantly to the availability of a skilled workforce.

For example, a purely thrusting sword, such as a smallsword, is only expected to be a decent spring and not snap if flexed. The point does not require any out of the ordinary qualities. If however, the sword is of a lightish cut type, then the plot thickens, depending on what you intended to cut into: Military uniforms, semi naked tribal warriors in Africa or Asian armour.

My own gut feeling tells me that the variability of the steels of the olden days was so great, that on the whole, wootz was probably the better steel to start out with, though I hasten to add that it could be easily ruined during forging. So I'll stick my neck right out and take a chance: In all probability, the very best wootz swords were better than the very best Euro equivalents, though this did not necessarily translate into a military advantage. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the same applies to armies. The best cavalry sword is little use if you cannot secure large supplies at an affordable price, and if there is a shortage of horses, then you climbed the wrong tree.

To my mind, the whole secret of the unparalleled success of Europe in war, is attributable to a general disregard for excellence and instead a more pragmatic concern for the lowest common denominator, which was better than of her rivals.

I hope that I have not muddied the waters too much.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

...OMISSIS...which is more unforgiving of its heat treatment.

With all that out of the way, you would then have to relate all this information to the sword's design and intended application, and most importantly to the availability of a skilled workforce. ...OMISSIS..., though I hasten to add that it could be easily ruined during forging.

I agree, because these considerations bring up again that a steel is as good as the smith is able to make it so. Wootz and middle eastern smiths were a mix that together made extraordinary works. The best wootz in the hands of an unskilled (with THAT steel) smith gives for sure a bad result.

As discussing about cutting heavy chains, men in full armor and gun barrels or birds feathers I'm under the STRONG impression it is only a way to dismiss wootz. These are obviously exagaggerations, hypes that ALL and EVERY culture had in its heritage.
There is no way to say from armchair or on a gym-based fencing knowledge if wootz cuts better then eurosteel and/or if it was a merely eye-candy.
A deep comparative analysis of the contents of the steels can give us
an idea about the components and properties of the steel, but NOBODY can
talk about the smiths skillfullness without having cut with such weapons.
If you wantn't rely on historical (???) accounts you should make your own database.
Japaneses had made their own cutting experiments even destroying very
valuable weapons (see picture/captions below, a hundred thousand dollars today...) to test reliability of swords under every aspect (the picture refers to -60° C tests for brittleness in the '30, good for another topic elsewhere here, I believe).
Want to say if a great wootz blade cuts better then a great euro one ?
This forum has plentiful supply of antique dealers. Buy a bunch of swords
of both type, learn how to correctly use them and try on a historically correct target (the target topic only would request a lot of study). There is no other way to have definitive evidences. Everthing other are armchair speculations.

Test by Omura Kunitaro
Reference:
Nagoya Shinbun, Nagoya Shinbunsha, February, Showa 12
Shumi no Token Kenmasube, Omura Kunitaro, May, Showa 8
Nihonto no Kantei to Kenma, Omura Kunitaro and Fukunaga Suiken, June 1st, Showa 50.

1) Norimitsu katana, ni-ji mei, Sue Bizen kazu uchi mono, bent upon a single cut. (This blade was the first tested and it was at normal room temperature )
2) Norimitsu katana, (Blade from test 1) After it was conditioned to -60 ° C, it was broken when struck.
3) Tadamitsu katana, Bishu Osafune Tadamitsu, Meiou 3rd year 2 month day, a well made sword with horimono, conditioned under -60 ° C, broken when struck.
4) Masaiye tanto signed Mihara ju Masaiye, era Choroku , conditioned under -60 ° C, bent and large ha-gire when struck.
5) Yamato-mono katana, mumei, Oei period, conditioned under -60 ° C, bent and large ha-gire when struck.
6) Muramasa tanto, mumei, 2nd generation, conditioned under -60 ° C, bent when struck.
7) Mino-mono wakizashi, mumei, Oei period, conditioned under -60 ° C, bent when struck.
8) Morimasa wakizashi, Bishu Osafune Morimasa, Oei 21 year 2 month day, conditioned under -60 ° C, big and deep shinae occurred on the ji when struck.
9) Mihara-mono katana, mumei, Tenbun period, conditioned under -10 ° C bent with three large ha-gire when struck. One of these ha-gire caused the blade to break.
10) Sue Shimada-mono tanto, mumei, conditioned under -60 ° C broken when struck.
11) Shinto Seki mono, mumei, heavy and thick tanto, conditioned under -15 ° C broken, one big mune gire and three ha-gire when struck.
12) Signed and dated gendai tanto, by Toukoto in mid autumn of Showa 11, modern steel alloy of Tungsten and Molybdenum, conditioned under -60 ° C bent when struck.