A really good sword

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Anders

Cut through armor?

Armour was designed to stop the most common threat on the battlefield - arrows and spears. Any material that can stop weapon points can easily withstand any kind of sword cut. Making the blade sharper won't help.

[Willy]

Cutting through armor sounds nice, but wouldn´t work. The typical japanese and medieval european blades where formed different for a reason. Japanese armor was seldom made complete of metall, at least no full plate, so the curve allowed a cut like a saber doing more damage like a saber to weakly protected flesh. The medieaval blade was the better form to go against armor, but with a drawback against flesh.
If you look at the evolution of military blades through the centuries, it shows that from the moment the armor was reduced the blades tended to get a curved blade. The US cavalerie used sabers, no swords for a reason.

[Anders]

Ok. Any day you learn something new is a good day.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Willy

Cutting through armor sounds nice, but wouldn´t work. The typical japanese and medieval european blades where formed different for a reason. Japanese armor was seldom made complete of metall, at least no full plate, so the curve allowed a cut like a saber doing more damage like a saber to weakly protected flesh. The medieaval blade was the better form to go against armor, but with a drawback against flesh.

Japanese armour had no trouble stopping sword cuts. They had to develop techniques for striking chinks and unarmoured parts of the body (called omote) just like everyone else. Cavalry swords tend to be curved because they are easier to manoeuver from horseback, not because of some magical cutting ability.

If you look at the evolution of military blades through the centuries, it shows that from the moment the armor was reduced the blades tended to get a curved blade. The US cavalerie used sabers, no swords for a reason.

Curved swords were used by cavalry centuries before body armour started to be phased out. Culture and tradition influenced sword choices more than functionality ever did.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Anders

According to Anglo-Saxon myth, the way you tested if a sword was sharp was by placing it in a river and see if it could cut through a strand of wool carried by the current.

What kind of quality is this? It seems way way beyond anything realistic. Extra damage? Armor divisor? Something else?

I test pocketknives by doing a cut along the edge. If it crumples it it is dull, if it slices it is sharp.

What you are describing seems quite a bit more tedious but skipping the river and using the wool is feasible.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Willy

Cutting through armor sounds nice, but wouldn´t work. The typical japanese and medieval european blades where formed different for a reason. Japanese armor was seldom made complete of metall, at least no full plate, so the curve allowed a cut like a saber doing more damage like a saber to weakly protected flesh. The medieaval blade was the better form to go against armor, but with a drawback against flesh.
If you look at the evolution of military blades through the centuries, it shows that from the moment the armor was reduced the blades tended to get a curved blade. The US cavalerie used sabers, no swords for a reason.

Technically the US had more of a dragoon tradition than a cavalry tradition: not like Hungarians, say. Sabers existed but did not stand out until the revolver came along by which time it was preferred anyway.

But there is a reason for the curved saber. In a cavalry to cavalry fight it is better to get multiple dismounts than one kill and removing a blade jammed in a victim takes time. In a pursuit of routed troops you need to make a kill and get on to the next.

[Plane]

Sharpness seems related to armor divisors, and maybe perhaps to how that cutting>crushing optional rule in Low Tech works (happens unless you exceed 2xDR)

"Sharpens weapons at every opportunity." in PU6 quirks mentions "avoid -1 to damage from blunting" : this small benefit comes with increased odds of breakage which is why it's a disad, because that's worse I guess.

Does anyone recall which book introduced the -1 damage from blunting? Not sure where to look for it.

This which brings up an interesting consideration since "damage" influences knockback and blunt trauma.

Instead of -1 damage (because you'd expect blunted edged weapons to do the same knockback and blunt trauma) I'm thinking maybe instead it should just gradually replacing cutting damage rolled with crushing damage, until with a "fully blunted" sword you're basically just hitting with a Training Weapon per LTC2p13

Another thing which comes to mind re Hilts... pg 15 of LTC2 mentions this makes a difference of +1 or -1 to parries

This makes sense when you are defending yourself where intercepting an attack with the base (handle) of your weapon is feasible because the attack is directed within arm's length.

In terms of sacrificial parries though (where you can parry any ally within your weapon's Reach) it seems like hilts should not be of any help if neither your ally, their attacker, or their attacker's weapon, passes through your hex, since a hilt is probably just able to extend to C-reach (like pummeling: part of the handle)

Meaning that reach 1+ sacrificial parries w/ hilted weapons should probably get a -1 to sacrificial parry?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Plane

Sharpness seems related to armor divisors

In general, for an armor divisor you want the thinnest edge or point that doesn't fail on hitting armor. Against hard armor, however, that's not very thin.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Technically the US had more of a dragoon tradition than a cavalry tradition: not like Hungarians, say. Sabers existed but did not stand out until the revolver came along by which time it was preferred anyway.

But there is a reason for the curved saber. In a cavalry to cavalry fight it is better to get multiple dismounts than one kill and removing a blade jammed in a victim takes time. In a pursuit of routed troops you need to make a kill and get on to the next.

I learn here every day a new nice pice of info, thank´s for this.
Of course using blade weapons instead of revolvers make only sense, when charging a morally weakened emeny, a attack against prepared toops is more like a death wish, or hunting routed troops, the reloading time of a revolver is quite high at least at this times.
What I wanted to say is that against unarmored opponents, a curved blade is better, because it was more unlikely to stuck into your target, and the drawing cut did more damage. This means a slash with a saber is bringing a bigger part of the blade in contact with the same point and rips across it, therefore you do more damage.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

What exactly would a really sharp sword do in a fight that a regular sword wouldn't do?

What about so-called "slices" against flesh?

Since everyone uses different terminology when discussing this stuff, I'll explain what I mean. I don't mean a full-on blow with the edge of the sword. I mean a pulling or pushing motion, carried out when the blade is already in contact with the opponent's body (a situation which arises more than one might expect, I think) A bit like a "sawing" action, but only one way, rather than back and forth.

A lot of the old German longsword manuals that people study nowadays make much of the importance of this kind of action, usually translated as "slice." (They often say that there are three ways to damage the opponent with the sword: the cut, the stab, and the slice. Putting it that way makes the 'slice' seem more important than one might assume it is, since it's one of only three options).

Anyway, I would have thought that an exceptionally sharp blade would be more effective in the slice. Though yes, in normal cases that benefit might not be at all worth the price you pay for over-sharpening.