close up of steel being cut
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
125 comments displayed.
#8 to #5
-
shadowgandalf (05/08/2015) [-]
You could probably break a katana by hitting a tree with it.
#13 to #8
-
ygdosst (05/08/2015) [-] 
Not really. They cut bamboo with it for practice. which is denser than your typicall bark or wood.
However you're much more likely to get it stuck and bend it backwards trying to pull it out.
Authentic Japanese Katana are really easy to bend forwards since the front of the blade is a thin piece of rigid iron and the back half meant to be more flexible to take impacts.
However the entire reason this practice was done was because of the fact that the japanese had so poor quality steel that their best option was to get it from SAND. They could minimize the amount of high quality metal used in a blade by only putting it on the cutting edge.
While the blade geometry of a katana is for the most part better, The last thing you would want is an "Authentic Japanese Steel Katana from the _ Era." Partially because the Japanese didn't have actual steel for the longest time so you're probably being fleeced. (The Japanese built entire wooden buildings without using nails just with math and knowlege of tension) And Japanese steel is absolute **** , because the ore quality is miserable. Japan imports iron from other countries for their bloomeries for a reason.
So what you should take from this is: A Katana's blade geometry and math put into it's slicing capabilities are better than most western swords, however Japanese iron ore quality was so **** that you could sneeze it apart (it's sand remember?), the only reason the aforementioned practices were ever made was out if necessity to make a weapon even fuctional out of that poor of material.
However you're much more likely to get it stuck and bend it backwards trying to pull it out.
Authentic Japanese Katana are really easy to bend forwards since the front of the blade is a thin piece of rigid iron and the back half meant to be more flexible to take impacts.
However the entire reason this practice was done was because of the fact that the japanese had so poor quality steel that their best option was to get it from SAND. They could minimize the amount of high quality metal used in a blade by only putting it on the cutting edge.
While the blade geometry of a katana is for the most part better, The last thing you would want is an "Authentic Japanese Steel Katana from the _ Era." Partially because the Japanese didn't have actual steel for the longest time so you're probably being fleeced. (The Japanese built entire wooden buildings without using nails just with math and knowlege of tension) And Japanese steel is absolute **** , because the ore quality is miserable. Japan imports iron from other countries for their bloomeries for a reason.
So what you should take from this is: A Katana's blade geometry and math put into it's slicing capabilities are better than most western swords, however Japanese iron ore quality was so **** that you could sneeze it apart (it's sand remember?), the only reason the aforementioned practices were ever made was out if necessity to make a weapon even fuctional out of that poor of material.
#23 to #13
-
anon (05/08/2015) [-]
Actually, if memory serves, there is a single river in japan that deposits iron suitable for sword making, a huge chunk of it is sold annually to swordsmiths for a few grand. It's considered "THE" authentic material for swordsmithing, so the genuine folded steel blades, from authentic smiths in japan tend to be hugely expensive.
#83 to #13
-
zuflux ONLINE (05/09/2015) [-] The keyword here isn't density, but hardness. The bamboo is still easy to bend, and does not have the same integrity as a tree of normal girth would. Slapping a katana up against a tree, either flatly or as if you were trying to chop it down, would blunt and bend that sword out of shape.
#89 to #56
-
shadownigga (05/09/2015) [-] Cardboard boxes? That's going to ruin that blade. ***** spent over $200 on that sword. He can afford a tatami mat to cut in place of cardboard.
#101 to #11
-
clavatninenine (05/09/2015) [-] if you folded the steel 1000 times it would be so brittle it would shatter the moment you hit anything with it.
#104 to #101
-
rollfourexplain (05/09/2015) [-]
**rollfourexplain used "*roll 1, 0000-9999*"**
**rollfourexplain rolls 8,852**
I don't know if that's true. Regardless, it's meant as a complete joke.
**rollfourexplain rolls 8,852**
I don't know if that's true. Regardless, it's meant as a complete joke.
#4
-
CaptainKill (05/08/2015) [-] At first I thought it was a shaving razor cutting off the top layer of skin.
#88 to #16
-
anon (05/09/2015) [-] The straghtsword seems to be held over what looks like a metal plate/concrete block, which may help with the absorption of the force of the impact while also distributing it more evenly than it would if it just were held by it's extremes. That or the actual mechanical properties help it withstand the impact of the katana, regardless of the material supporting it.
Sorry if someone alredy pointed that out, I'm too much of a lazy bum to read all the comments.
Sorry if someone alredy pointed that out, I'm too much of a lazy bum to read all the comments.
#109 to #88
-
farokhmanesh (05/09/2015) [-] It was suspended in a lose hold. Not laying on a block. You can see the sword bounce when the katana hits it.
#19 to #16
-
KEpToK (05/08/2015) [-] 1. If that was Nippon Steel, the katana would have shattered instead of warping.
2. Katanas are designed to cut through light cloth armor etc, whereas English straight swords are designed to bludgeon men in heavy steel armor. Straight swords are heavier and are also built to last longer due to the long crusades that ye olden kings are so fond of.
tldr: Testing katanas this way is like testing a vehicles structural strength by running it into a tank.
2. Katanas are designed to cut through light cloth armor etc, whereas English straight swords are designed to bludgeon men in heavy steel armor. Straight swords are heavier and are also built to last longer due to the long crusades that ye olden kings are so fond of.
tldr: Testing katanas this way is like testing a vehicles structural strength by running it into a tank.
#22 to #19
-
demandsgayversion (05/08/2015) [-] Well it shows that if a samurai attacked a knight, that's how their swords would interact
#27 to #22
-
sherlockbatman (05/08/2015) [-] can you even read?
Nippon Steel doesn't warp, it shatters
that is not how a real samurai katana would react.
also, crossing steel is reserved for anime only. in real life, you block with a shield not a sword. using your sword to defend requires parrying not blocking
Nippon Steel doesn't warp, it shatters
that is not how a real samurai katana would react.
also, crossing steel is reserved for anime only. in real life, you block with a shield not a sword. using your sword to defend requires parrying not blocking
#51 to #27
-
xgeneration (05/08/2015) [-] Confused
What's the difference between blocking and parrying with a sword
All I know is to stop the enemy's sword with the blunt end/side of your sword so you won't get cut
What's the difference between blocking and parrying with a sword
All I know is to stop the enemy's sword with the blunt end/side of your sword so you won't get cut
#54 to #51
-
sherlockbatman (05/08/2015) [-] blocking is absorbing the blow, parrying is redirecting it
#55 to #54
-
xgeneration (05/08/2015) [-] **xgeneration used "*roll picture*"**
**xgeneration rolled image**
I just always pictured blocking and parrying to be the same in my mind
Stopping the other guy's sword and shoving it somewhere else, same thing when using a shield
Sorry no good englando
**xgeneration rolled image**
I just always pictured blocking and parrying to be the same in my mind
Stopping the other guy's sword and shoving it somewhere else, same thing when using a shield
Sorry no good englando
#102 to #55
-
kerfufflemachtwo (05/09/2015) [-] Blocking is stopping the sword completely. Parrying is simply changing its direction of travel.
#73 to #55
-
iqequalzero (05/09/2015) [-] Blocking stops the attack, parrying redirects the force (and weapon) away from you.
You block, your weapon / shield takes the hit.
You parry, that table next to you takes the hit.
You block, your weapon / shield takes the hit.
You parry, that table next to you takes the hit.
#29 to #27
-
demandsgayversion (05/08/2015) [-] "Testing katanas this way is like..." We're talking about the test, not about the example.
"it shatters" yes so much better
"that's how their swords would interact " I never pretentiously presumed to know sword fighting etiquette - I'm a normal civilian with no knowledge of such things. How their swords interact has nothing to do with shields.
"it shatters" yes so much better
"that's how their swords would interact " I never pretentiously presumed to know sword fighting etiquette - I'm a normal civilian with no knowledge of such things. How their swords interact has nothing to do with shields.
#33 to #29
-
sherlockbatman (05/08/2015) [-] that's all fine. I was referring to how it was stated that katanas don't warp like in the gif, they shatter, so this does not show how a samurai and knight's swords would interact. it shows how different swords of quality western steel would interact.
the rest was just some interesting trivia
the rest was just some interesting trivia
#34 to #33
-
demandsgayversion (05/08/2015) [-] The test itself shows how the swords would interact.
#36 to #34
-
sherlockbatman (05/08/2015) [-] I get what you're saying now. I thought you meant the test in the gif, but you meant just a test between katana and straight sword in general
#26 to #25
-
demandsgayversion (05/08/2015) [-] Well if you place either in the other's area, that's a bit unfair. It would have to be a neutral battlefield.
#28 to #26
-
stifflimb (05/08/2015) [-] True, but even then the samurai or Japanese warrior could just run around tiring out the knight, or shoot him from a distance, on a full battlefield I'd say a knight is both more imposing and dangerous, but 1 vs 1 without distractions around you I'd say the Japanese warrior would win saying he had the same combat experience and equipment of equal value in his style compared to the knight.
#30 to #28
-
demandsgayversion (05/08/2015) [-] Everyone seems to think a knight was a slow and lumbering warrior - but they trained in their armor. They're no slower than a military guy now, who carries about as much weight as a knight would have.
#86 to #32
-
strictlycommenting (05/09/2015) [-] >implying samurais didn't also wear armour
>implying a kabuto, okegawa dou and a full set didn't weight 55 ******* lbs
>implying that's way lighter than a ******* full plate armour which only weighed 60 lbs at average
>implying 5lbs of difference would make the samurai a lightning bolt and nullify the fact his **** tier armour wouldn't defend him against a glorious claymore or somehow make his ****** katana be able to cut through full plate armour
I'm a huge Feudal Japanese Culture junkie, but holy **** dude, the knight wins every time if it's a Katana vs Longsword debate.
Now, bring spears, bows, horses and general strategy into the fight and the result is different.
>implying a kabuto, okegawa dou and a full set didn't weight 55 ******* lbs
>implying that's way lighter than a ******* full plate armour which only weighed 60 lbs at average
>implying 5lbs of difference would make the samurai a lightning bolt and nullify the fact his **** tier armour wouldn't defend him against a glorious claymore or somehow make his ****** katana be able to cut through full plate armour
I'm a huge Feudal Japanese Culture junkie, but holy **** dude, the knight wins every time if it's a Katana vs Longsword debate.
Now, bring spears, bows, horses and general strategy into the fight and the result is different.
#31 to #30
-
stifflimb (05/08/2015) [-] They were still slower than most other warriors with the same training and nowhere as agile, every move they made took more effort than it did for anyone else. It's not like they moved 3ft then had to rest but they it did impact on them.
Also compared to nowdays military guys they dont carry around that much weight when in the actual combat they lay it to the side to be quicker and they are still not wearing plate armor that restricts and hinder their every movement, they carry it in a backpack, that's an huge difference.
Also compared to nowdays military guys they dont carry around that much weight when in the actual combat they lay it to the side to be quicker and they are still not wearing plate armor that restricts and hinder their every movement, they carry it in a backpack, that's an huge difference.
#49 to #46
-
policexplain (05/08/2015) [-] That *is* plate armor. And it's way more advanced than armor from the middle ages. It's considerably thicker and it can stop rifle rounds traveling at 3110 feet per second. It also will stop a knife, club, spear or a sword.
But make no mistake, it is heavy, uncomfortable and drastically limits your movement.
But make no mistake, it is heavy, uncomfortable and drastically limits your movement.
#52 to #49
-
stifflimb (05/08/2015) [-] "plate armor
noun
Definition of PLATE ARMOR
1
: body armor of plates of metal — compare mail 1b
2
: strong metal plate used especially for protecting naval vessels or forts"
Taken from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plate%20armor
So what you are showing is not PLATE ARMOR, it might be plates they insert into the clothing but it's not plate armor.
What you are showing is ballistic plate carrier suits.
noun
Definition of PLATE ARMOR
1
: body armor of plates of metal — compare mail 1b
2
: strong metal plate used especially for protecting naval vessels or forts"
Taken from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plate%20armor
So what you are showing is not PLATE ARMOR, it might be plates they insert into the clothing but it's not plate armor.
What you are showing is ballistic plate carrier suits.
#57 to #52
-
policexplain (05/08/2015) [-] Ballistic plates are frequently made of steel and they're definitely armor. But regardless of whether they are steel plates with spall frag coating, fiber-based laminate or ceramic, they are still plates. They're also cumbersome, heavy, and they limit your mobility.
You can try to argue semantics all day, but the bottom line is that a modern day warrior doesn't carry everything in a backpack. Most of what you carry during a fight you *need* with you in a fight and it's ******* heavy. That includes body armor, a ballistic helmet, a rifle, sidearm and ~200 rounds of ammunition.
You can try to argue semantics all day, but the bottom line is that a modern day warrior doesn't carry everything in a backpack. Most of what you carry during a fight you *need* with you in a fight and it's ******* heavy. That includes body armor, a ballistic helmet, a rifle, sidearm and ~200 rounds of ammunition.
#65 to #57
-
stifflimb (05/08/2015) [-] They are not made of steel cause steel is not strong enough, they are made of modern mixtures of metals and otherwise.
And that is still not PLATE ARMOR, what they are using is "ballistic plate carrier suits".
Just cause there is plate involved does not make it "plate armor".
And yes they are heavy and it somewhat limit the mobility, but not in the same way plate armor does.
And that is still not PLATE ARMOR, what they are using is "ballistic plate carrier suits".
Just cause there is plate involved does not make it "plate armor".
And yes they are heavy and it somewhat limit the mobility, but not in the same way plate armor does.
#68 to #65
-
policexplain (05/08/2015) [-] Why are you being so damned dense!?
Modern ballistic plates come in three varieties: ceramic, fiber-based laminate, and steel ******* plates that have a coating on them to limit ricochet and spalling.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_vest#Rifle_resistant_armor
Your argument about it being a "plate carrier" makes as much sense as saying medieval plate armor isn't plate armor because they used leather buckles and straps to hold it together. Yes, you put the plate in a carrier, yeah, the carrier isn't a plate. So what? The thing that is protecting you is a hard, formed plate of dense, rigid material. And it does hinder and restrict your movement.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz7naZ08Jd4
Modern ballistic plates come in three varieties: ceramic, fiber-based laminate, and steel ******* plates that have a coating on them to limit ricochet and spalling.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_vest#Rifle_resistant_armor
Your argument about it being a "plate carrier" makes as much sense as saying medieval plate armor isn't plate armor because they used leather buckles and straps to hold it together. Yes, you put the plate in a carrier, yeah, the carrier isn't a plate. So what? The thing that is protecting you is a hard, formed plate of dense, rigid material. And it does hinder and restrict your movement.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz7naZ08Jd4
#70 to #68
-
stifflimb (05/08/2015) [-] Not every single military guy is wearing full body "ballistic plate carrier suits".
And you are claiming this i01.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/32272589343_1/NewSpecial-troops-plate-font-b-carrier-b-font-ciras-bulletproof-Airsoft-paintball-font-b-vest-b.jpg is the same thing as this vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/zombie/images/c/c7/IMG_0192.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120708082230 is beyond ******* retarded.
I said yes it does hinder your movement, but not to the same extent or even the same way.
And just for fun, go to google pictures and type in "plate armor" tell me how long down do you have to scroll before seeing ballistic plate carrier vests/suits and that alone should show you that you are alone in thinking plate carrier vests/suits is viewed as plate armor.
And you are claiming this i01.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/32272589343_1/NewSpecial-troops-plate-font-b-carrier-b-font-ciras-bulletproof-Airsoft-paintball-font-b-vest-b.jpg is the same thing as this vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/zombie/images/c/c7/IMG_0192.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120708082230 is beyond ******* retarded.
I said yes it does hinder your movement, but not to the same extent or even the same way.
And just for fun, go to google pictures and type in "plate armor" tell me how long down do you have to scroll before seeing ballistic plate carrier vests/suits and that alone should show you that you are alone in thinking plate carrier vests/suits is viewed as plate armor.
#72 to #70
-
policexplain (05/09/2015) [-] You still want to argue semantics. The modern military does not wear full suits made of metal, we're beyond medieval technology. But we still wear armor that is made of rigid plates. It's still heavy and cumbersome.
Your post that I started responding to is still wrong:
"Also compared to nowdays military guys they dont carry around that much weight when in the actual combat they lay it to the side to be quicker and they are still not wearing plate armor that restricts and hinder their every movement, they carry it in a backpack, that's an huge difference."
Modern "military guys" carry a ******** of gear, a lot of which they can't lay to the side to be quicker. They do wear armor, armor that is made of plates that restricts and hinders their every movement.
Your post that I started responding to is still wrong:
"Also compared to nowdays military guys they dont carry around that much weight when in the actual combat they lay it to the side to be quicker and they are still not wearing plate armor that restricts and hinder their every movement, they carry it in a backpack, that's an huge difference."
Modern "military guys" carry a ******** of gear, a lot of which they can't lay to the side to be quicker. They do wear armor, armor that is made of plates that restricts and hinders their every movement.
#75 to #72
-
stifflimb (05/09/2015) [-] Semantics, either it's plate armor or it's not, and what is used today is not plate armor.
Yes they dont carry around 60-70+ pounds unless it's a ****** military that intends to ruin their soldiers cause that breaks their bodies long term.
A plate armor suit weighted about 40-55 punds alone, then adding weapons, shield, other clothing underneath and more they went up quite a bit in weight.
And still not every military is wearing full on ballistic plate suits, most often they use to protect the chest which is the most vital area next to the helmet.
Yes they dont carry around 60-70+ pounds unless it's a ****** military that intends to ruin their soldiers cause that breaks their bodies long term.
A plate armor suit weighted about 40-55 punds alone, then adding weapons, shield, other clothing underneath and more they went up quite a bit in weight.
And still not every military is wearing full on ballistic plate suits, most often they use to protect the chest which is the most vital area next to the helmet.
#123 to #78
-
stifflimb (05/09/2015) [-] Because most knights fought without any weapons, they just used their fist, and were totally naked underneath the armor.
As I said "Yes they dont carry around 60-70+ pounds unless it's a ****** military that intends to ruin their soldiers cause that breaks their bodies long term."
50 punds is around the limit they should not overexceed.
As I said "Yes they dont carry around 60-70+ pounds unless it's a ****** military that intends to ruin their soldiers cause that breaks their bodies long term."
50 punds is around the limit they should not overexceed.
#116 to #114
-
policexplain (05/09/2015) [-] Haha, yeah. Haters gonna hate.
Some people appreciate hearing the truth from somebody with inside knowledge, though.
Some people appreciate hearing the truth from somebody with inside knowledge, though.
#105 to #46
-
straitedge (05/09/2015) [-] Bruh. It's plate armor.
And when you have that, a Kevlar, your LBV with 300 rounds of ammunition, varied hand grenades, and a ruck with water and food in it along with you sleeping system, e-tool, toiletries, and other **** ; it gets heavy,
God help you if you have an M240.
Here's me with a lighter vest holding a fake RPG. I know you want it.
And when you have that, a Kevlar, your LBV with 300 rounds of ammunition, varied hand grenades, and a ruck with water and food in it along with you sleeping system, e-tool, toiletries, and other **** ; it gets heavy,
God help you if you have an M240.
Here's me with a lighter vest holding a fake RPG. I know you want it.
#125 to #121
-
straitedge (05/09/2015) [-] It can easily goes over 70 pounds, depending on combat load.
And I remember someone saying that the knight's armor was easier to use because it was spread out over the body, not all concentrated on the chest, back and arms.
And I remember someone saying that the knight's armor was easier to use because it was spread out over the body, not all concentrated on the chest, back and arms.
#126 to #125
-
stifflimb (05/09/2015) [-] For shorter period of times perhaps, thats not used long termed except in ****** military cause that breaks your body.
Think it was easier on the body for the knight for as you said it was spread out over the whole body, but at the same time that makes every movement take more energy aswell.
A knight could spend a whole day carrying that around since an armor is not so easily taken on and off in.
Think it was easier on the body for the knight for as you said it was spread out over the whole body, but at the same time that makes every movement take more energy aswell.
A knight could spend a whole day carrying that around since an armor is not so easily taken on and off in.
#91 to #31
-
strictlycommenting (05/09/2015) [-] >They were still slower than most other warriors with the same training and nowhere as agile
You mean using a flail requires less agility than just unsheathing your sword? That's what Samurais were known for iirc. They were armour just as heavy as knights and their strategy was **** since they only ever fought each other. Compare that to a knight who had to train to use a halberd, a flail, a morningstar, a long and short sword, hand to hand combat, bows (yes, they trained with bows, believe it or not).
I really don't know what kind of ******** you've been eating lately that you've been taught knights were slow. They were trained since they were young with the armour on so they could be fast with them. The plate armour still had weak spots, so they had to learn to cover them, and let me tell you that raising your shield to hide your neckline faster than someone can swing their sword is pretty goddamn fast.
>Also compared to nowdays military guys they dont carry around that much weight when in the actual combat they lay it to the side to be quicker and they are still not wearing plate armor that restricts and hinder their every movement, they carry it in a backpack, that's an huge difference.
You are so, so wrong.
That bitch on my left is an IOTV. A full set weighs around 30-35 pounds. That's just a ******* VEST. That doesn't fully cover your arms, legs or even your face. That means that soldiers not only carry those 30 pounds just on their chest (half the weight of a full plate armour), they also have to carry their guns, their backpack and whatever other **** their CO assigns them to. We're talking at least 50 pounds, which isn't all that different from a kabuto.
You're just another weaboo in denial. The knight wins every time.
You mean using a flail requires less agility than just unsheathing your sword? That's what Samurais were known for iirc. They were armour just as heavy as knights and their strategy was **** since they only ever fought each other. Compare that to a knight who had to train to use a halberd, a flail, a morningstar, a long and short sword, hand to hand combat, bows (yes, they trained with bows, believe it or not).
I really don't know what kind of ******** you've been eating lately that you've been taught knights were slow. They were trained since they were young with the armour on so they could be fast with them. The plate armour still had weak spots, so they had to learn to cover them, and let me tell you that raising your shield to hide your neckline faster than someone can swing their sword is pretty goddamn fast.
>Also compared to nowdays military guys they dont carry around that much weight when in the actual combat they lay it to the side to be quicker and they are still not wearing plate armor that restricts and hinder their every movement, they carry it in a backpack, that's an huge difference.
You are so, so wrong.
That bitch on my left is an IOTV. A full set weighs around 30-35 pounds. That's just a ******* VEST. That doesn't fully cover your arms, legs or even your face. That means that soldiers not only carry those 30 pounds just on their chest (half the weight of a full plate armour), they also have to carry their guns, their backpack and whatever other **** their CO assigns them to. We're talking at least 50 pounds, which isn't all that different from a kabuto.
You're just another weaboo in denial. The knight wins every time.
#122 to #91
-
stifflimb (05/09/2015) [-] I know they did, but often they could only use regular longbows cause the armor would become an obstaacle when using a longbow.
Are you saying that 2 equally trained men will run at the same speed while one is wearing 70 pound of equipment and the other is not, no they will not.
And yes they could do a lot of movements quite fast, not saying they were handicapped cause then it would not be viable, but still their movements were slowed down, ofc they were with a lot of extra weight on them, and the armor did hinder some movements aswell and it took a lot of stamina to use, you got tired way faster than you would without it, you'd also end up dead way faster than with it.
30-50 pounds compared to over 70 thats spread out over the whole body limiting every move, also knights usually moved around somewhat more and constantly than soldiers did. Never said soldiers walk around ******* naked fighting.
They are made for entirely different areas, in Japan the knight wuld be in disadvantage, in europee the samurai or japanese warrior would be in serious disadvantage.
Are you saying that 2 equally trained men will run at the same speed while one is wearing 70 pound of equipment and the other is not, no they will not.
And yes they could do a lot of movements quite fast, not saying they were handicapped cause then it would not be viable, but still their movements were slowed down, ofc they were with a lot of extra weight on them, and the armor did hinder some movements aswell and it took a lot of stamina to use, you got tired way faster than you would without it, you'd also end up dead way faster than with it.
30-50 pounds compared to over 70 thats spread out over the whole body limiting every move, also knights usually moved around somewhat more and constantly than soldiers did. Never said soldiers walk around ******* naked fighting.
They are made for entirely different areas, in Japan the knight wuld be in disadvantage, in europee the samurai or japanese warrior would be in serious disadvantage.
#127 to #122
-
strictlycommenting (05/10/2015) [-] But here's the thing m8y: neither the armor weighed 70 pounds (60 pounds on average, again, only 5 more than a kabuto) nor the knight would be in that much of a disadvantage in Japan.
Knights fought all over the old world. They fought in plains, forests, deserts, beaches, rivers, etc. They fought all over Europe and North of the African continent. They developed strategies for every enemy under the sun.
Samurais, due to their peninsular location, only ever fought against each other. Their strategies never took huge changes. They never learned what it was to fight against a cavalry of muslims with their fearsome sabres; they never learned what apocalyptic water battles were like, with thousands dead and whole rivers painted red; they never experienced enormous sieges that lasted entire decades.
If we're talking about strategy, again, the knights win. Steel is universal; there's a reason why it was used all over the world, even in Japan, where humidity would make it useless really fast.
Also, try carrying 50 pounds on your back only and 60 all over your body and you tell me which is more difficult. You need a strong back to carry 50 pounds on it. You only need subpar limbs to carry 5-10 pounds on them.
And Knights were medieval Tanks m8. Most fights were fought with regular soldiers wearing chainmail and a ****** helmet. Knights, due to their armor, only went there to either inspire fear or break enemy formations.
The Samurai was an elite unit for it's time and location, but again, the knight is just overall better. Better strategies, more battle experience, unmatched technology, harsher training. The only real thing the Samurais have over the Knights was their ranged experience, with a superior bow training since boys.
Knights fought all over the old world. They fought in plains, forests, deserts, beaches, rivers, etc. They fought all over Europe and North of the African continent. They developed strategies for every enemy under the sun.
Samurais, due to their peninsular location, only ever fought against each other. Their strategies never took huge changes. They never learned what it was to fight against a cavalry of muslims with their fearsome sabres; they never learned what apocalyptic water battles were like, with thousands dead and whole rivers painted red; they never experienced enormous sieges that lasted entire decades.
If we're talking about strategy, again, the knights win. Steel is universal; there's a reason why it was used all over the world, even in Japan, where humidity would make it useless really fast.
Also, try carrying 50 pounds on your back only and 60 all over your body and you tell me which is more difficult. You need a strong back to carry 50 pounds on it. You only need subpar limbs to carry 5-10 pounds on them.
And Knights were medieval Tanks m8. Most fights were fought with regular soldiers wearing chainmail and a ****** helmet. Knights, due to their armor, only went there to either inspire fear or break enemy formations.
The Samurai was an elite unit for it's time and location, but again, the knight is just overall better. Better strategies, more battle experience, unmatched technology, harsher training. The only real thing the Samurais have over the Knights was their ranged experience, with a superior bow training since boys.
#128 to #127
-
stifflimb (05/10/2015) [-] The armor weighted between 40-55 pounds mostly, but they usually had swords or other weapons aswell, they also often used shields and clothes underneath and more, thats why it goes up to perhaps 70 pounds all together.
Since they did not go to every place under the sun or faced every kind of people under the sun they did not make strategies for every single one, and knights was not 1 single order, there were knights from multiple different countries with different amount of training and knowledge and once again, I've been talking about japanese warrior not just samurais.
And for a knight to spend long time in japan or any asian place their armor goes to **** from the climate, just having him there a day or so would not do much but long term it ammters.
"where humidity would make it useless really fast." and for a whole set of armor that would go to **** pretty quickly since it cannot be shielded properly if he's gonna be combat ready and it's hard to keep it cleaned up so it wont get destroyed.
Yes it's easier overall for the body but it's still taxing on the overall endurance instead of 1 single part of the body.
Went up and down how much knights were fighting depending on how rich the army was, the richer the more people could be equiped with plate armor so even smaller troup leaders could do it.
Otherwise knights nearly only fought when it was necessary for the higher commands themself to actually fight and risk their lives.
The knights were still not 1 single order and in strategy they were experienced in large clashes with armies, they had ofc 1vs1 combat training and experience but their main training was in leading the armies.
Unmatched technology? No just no, perhaps in some aspects but not unmatched overall, for example here with Japanese they had black powder, something Knights would have 0 clue about.
Dont got the expertise on it but saying that knights had harsher training then samurais sounds wrong, not saying it's the other way around but I'd expect it's somewhat on the same level.
Since they did not go to every place under the sun or faced every kind of people under the sun they did not make strategies for every single one, and knights was not 1 single order, there were knights from multiple different countries with different amount of training and knowledge and once again, I've been talking about japanese warrior not just samurais.
And for a knight to spend long time in japan or any asian place their armor goes to **** from the climate, just having him there a day or so would not do much but long term it ammters.
"where humidity would make it useless really fast." and for a whole set of armor that would go to **** pretty quickly since it cannot be shielded properly if he's gonna be combat ready and it's hard to keep it cleaned up so it wont get destroyed.
Yes it's easier overall for the body but it's still taxing on the overall endurance instead of 1 single part of the body.
Went up and down how much knights were fighting depending on how rich the army was, the richer the more people could be equiped with plate armor so even smaller troup leaders could do it.
Otherwise knights nearly only fought when it was necessary for the higher commands themself to actually fight and risk their lives.
The knights were still not 1 single order and in strategy they were experienced in large clashes with armies, they had ofc 1vs1 combat training and experience but their main training was in leading the armies.
Unmatched technology? No just no, perhaps in some aspects but not unmatched overall, for example here with Japanese they had black powder, something Knights would have 0 clue about.
Dont got the expertise on it but saying that knights had harsher training then samurais sounds wrong, not saying it's the other way around but I'd expect it's somewhat on the same level.
#39 to #38
-
demandsgayversion (05/08/2015) [-] With the war over, all the dwarves can go back to mining, find more mithril
#40 to #39
-
stifflimb (05/08/2015) [-] Nah, cause everytime they go out to find some they wake up a balrog and gets run over by goblins, they've gotten tired of that **** , next they wake up another fire dragon to mess up **** even worse!
Plus they would never make anything man sized cause then that would mean the damn elves could get their hands on the sweet "more glowing than twilight" mithril swag cloths, not gonna happen!
Plus they would never make anything man sized cause then that would mean the damn elves could get their hands on the sweet "more glowing than twilight" mithril swag cloths, not gonna happen!
#43 to #42
-
demandsgayversion (05/08/2015) [-] "but it is clear that they remained numerous from the earliest days of the mythology through the writing of The Lord of the Rings"
well **** .
well **** .
#58 to #53
-
sirformidio (05/08/2015) [-] The English Longbow was barely capable of taking down a knight in full armor, and we're talking about the single strongest strung weapon up until the proper Compound Hunting bows were made.
#64 to #61
-
sirformidio (05/08/2015) [-] So what you're saying then is the English Longbow would do even less damage than previously stated. Interesting.
#84 to #64
-
unclewalrus ONLINE (05/09/2015) [-]
Basically. What the 400+lb draw bows were mostly used for was mowing down the poor schmucks not wearing full plate. Bodkin arrows could penetrate chainmail and leather, maybe iron armor at close range, but they fared quite badly against well made steel full plate.
The dudes in armor were mostly dealt with by other dudes in armor or by crossbowmen.
The dudes in armor were mostly dealt with by other dudes in armor or by crossbowmen.
#59 to #53
-
legionary (05/08/2015) [-] Yeah you have a point, the japanese was introduced to matchlocks in 1543. Late middle age/early renaissance. But didnæt the samurai have their strict code of honor? Would a samurai run away? In a straight sword on sword fight i would vote knight. But if it was in a forest and the samurai played sneaky i think he would have a bigger advantage. Knight aren't known for their woodsman skills.
#60 to #59
-
stifflimb (05/08/2015) [-] Well it does not strictly have to be a samurai, just a katana swordsman, so playing dirty should not be a problem, also I believe samurai's do played dirty if it was needed to archieve the goal for their master despite they might have to kill themself later to regain their honor.
#14
-
minorian (05/08/2015) [-] Really looks like some kind of platform at a beach disrupting a tide
#12
-
aodahn ONLINE (05/08/2015) [-] i thought it was water... and then i read the title... i am not disappointed.
#133
-
phanactssonjoe (05/13/2015) [-]
they should try reinforcing diamonds with carbon like how they do with steel
#113
-
Zombiefried (05/09/2015) [-] You haven't lived until you've had a fresh blue chip fly up your nose.
