|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:05 am
indeed, the immortal sword, a blade with handle attached, whether its the chunks of jade carved by the maoris into vicious chopping devices, the higly efficient swords of the vikings with their distinctive "snake in the blade" pattern, and of course the swords of the east, the sword has shown up in many guises throughout human history [or at the very least, attempts at a sword].
here is something debatable however: i read in a book about how the katana [or japanese swordmaking in general] had the finest blade ever, literally the sharpest steel that ever existed before the 20th century and yet, i read elsewhere about damascus steel or "watered steel" as its sometimes called, a damascus steel blade could apparently slice effortlessly through a piece of falling silk and apparently the secret to making damascus steel has been lost [or deliberately suppressed?] so just what is sharper? tamahagane steel or damascus steel?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:57 am
Toledo steel was a Damascus variant (its ancestor actually) used in rapiers, from what I vaguely recall. The classic katana is the sharpest, most efficient blade on earth, however it is not good for absolutely everything. The Kilij, Zweihander, Claymore, and Rapier are all fine blades that for what they did, did best. The Kukri is also a superior weapon. If a weapon can hack off a limb in one hit without trouble, or chop a man in half, or chop multiple people in half, that's where it counts. The Katana is technically a Saber-Dao class where it can be optimized on horseback - a curved blade trademark. But it is also a wedge like an axe, something you don't see on many other blades. The blade has multiple aspects of tempering, between the spine and the edge so it functions mechanically differently from most other blade types.It is actually more rigid than a long sword and breaks almost like glass.
The Katana is the only blade I know of capable of taking more than 1 hit from a .50 Cal BMG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
