Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: swords in the military

  1. #1

    Default swords in the military

    for all you members of the armed forces, especially those who are NCO's and thus posess a form of dress sword.

    YouTube - Army Officer, Marine NCO & Marine Officer's Swords seems effective enough

    anyone know the army rules regardng swords? even shortish ones.

    anyone guess why they dont consider using them.

  2. #2

    Default

    They do not use swords for combat.

    They use guns now and In hand to hand (The only thing to even consider using it now and days) They use a Combat knife if using a bladed weapon.

    And for the few military of the world that train for it they normally do not use it because a sword is not as effective beyond extremely close combat(relatively) Knives/short machete offer better Maneuverability and better defense.

    In short it is not as effective as other alternatives for combat that's why they only use them for ceremonial uses.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Valerye View Post
    They do not use swords for combat.

    They use guns now and In hand to hand (The only thing to even consider using it now and days) They use a Combat knife if using a bladed weapon.

    And for the few military of the world that train for it they normally do not use it because a sword is not as effective beyond extremely close combat(relatively) Knives/short machete offer better Maneuverability and better defense.

    In short it is not as effective as other alternatives for combat that's why they only use them for ceremonial uses.
    yeah but, exactly, the USA for example, only has he Kbar, why not a sort of swordsword, something with more reach than a knife.
    the 24 inch swordbayonete used on the baker rifle of the napoleonic era seems a compromise, or something like the butterfly sword, these items also posesed the d grip which has very obvious advantages.

    better yet. why not bayonets, it seems the kalashnikovs seem to make bayonets.

    it seems this sort of thing would be MORE useful considering its urban combat the troops are in. its not like WW1 where it was mostly sniping. and shelling.

  4. #4

    Default

    I served for a year as a conscript in the Norwegian army, my outfit was the royal guard division. During parade drills or guard duty our NCO's and officers were issued ceremonial swords. Which they, at guard duty, carried with them 24/7, whenever they stepped outside the barracks. Although they resembled very much the same ones featured in the YouTube video you posted, they were purely for showmanship, just part of their parade uniform.

    On a different note; We relied and took use of the bayonets on the AG3 rifle, Norwegian version of the Heckler and Koch G-3 series. We were adapt at close combat drills and hand to hand combat. And even though the officers swords were sharpened, it would be highly impracticable to use them in the field, urban warfare or any live action of any sort because we always had our primary weapon with bayonets and sidearm with us.

    Then there is basic human rights to consider. Our goal should always be to subdue an enemy combatant with the least amount of force necessary to do so. To come swinging a sword at someone would hardly be counted as such when the bayonet is more effective and less likely to take a life than to subdue and control someone, in unpracticed hands.

  5. #5

    Default

    When I was in (the short time that it was) i had only ever seen blades like twice. First was when we did bayonet training which we were told we probably we'll never have to do. The second was when we were moving our battery our CO had his ceremonial swords in a display case. I didn't know any NCO's that had them though...

  6. #6

    Default

    I have heard a story about a Scottish officer who brought his claymore into combat in WWII. Apparently it was very effective.

  7. #7

    Default

    I could see how that could be effective. I would think though that using a blade that long would be massively awkward and would put you at a nasty disadvantage. Now though i was told some people are electing to carry tomahawks like this one
    SOG Battle Axe. The Battle Axe from SOG Specialty Knives & Tools

    Personally i might prefer that or a k-bar if it came down to needing it.

  8. #8

    Default

    A short sword, whilst looking awesome, is completely impractical on the modern battlefield.

    On the battlefield, your rifle is your primary weapon. If you get into a situation where you must utilize close combat skills, you have failed neutralize your largest advantage, your superior marksmanship and weapon utilization skills. This means something really screwed up down the line if. Either you or your battle buddy got distracted and let some AK toting asshole sneak up on you. Either way, you're A) Screwed, or B)Locked in a life or death struggle with aforementioned asshole. Odds are, you don't have enough room to make use of a sword. You might not even have room for a knife. Army Combatives is taught as though you have very little room to maneuver. That is why the most basic moves are very similar to judo. They assume that almost all other cases can be solved by a bullet or a knife.

    Many drill sergeants consider combatives to be nigh useless on the modern battlefield because an opportunity very rarely presents itself to be used, and it takes away valuable training time from other things. Many would much rather use that valuable time for marksmanship training, or something more useful.




    Quote Originally Posted by Titus View Post
    Then there is basic human rights to consider. Our goal should always be to subdue an enemy combatant with the least amount of force necessary to do so. To come swinging a sword at someone would hardly be counted as such when the bayonet is more effective and less likely to take a life than to subdue and control someone, in unpracticed hands.
    I found this statement interesting. In the US Army, the idea is to completely destroy the enemy using as much force as deemed necessary by those on the ground. Human rights don't come into play (as basic doctrine) for active combatants. I'm not being critical of you or the Norwegian Army, I just thought it was interesting the differences in philosophy.

    Oh, and the infantry school dropped bayonet training a while ago. They also dropped IV training and our class was the last that did ruck marching (curse my luck for being in that last class). Go figure.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MessyMan View Post
    I have heard a story about a Scottish officer who brought his claymore into combat in WWII. Apparently it was very effective.
    as said by that badass 'mad jack' churchill said "In my opinion, sir, any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed".
    that guy also brought a longbow with him

    that said, wellington hoped to be able to bring a company of longbowmen with him on campaign, and i can imagine why.
    good rate of fire
    silent and would be excellent in ambushes. can easily deliver incenidaries
    LETHAL against soft targets and not bad against armour
    and consider the effect of powerful clothyard (90cm long) arrows plunging into a tight mass of musketeers would be devestating, and a longbow has a range way beyond that of the musket (effective range, approximately 80 yards against packed formations,
    accurate
    long ranged.
    2 big disadvantages id say would have to do with the expense of their equiptment, the longbow is far less durable than a musket or baker rifle as would the arrows be.

    that said, he was never able to find a decent number of men who had such a level of skill.

    the greenjackets of the 95th rifles would easily be the closest thing to the longbowmen although their rate of fire was very low, about 1-2 shots a minute at best due to the greased patch that allowed the ball to grip the rifling as itt exited the barrel it also made it very hard to ran it in, the brown bess, the standard infantry musket for much of europe and was used on BOTH sides of the american revolution, with this you could, with good technique, get 3-4 shots (one youtube vid shows a guy getting 3 shots off in 48 seconds,)

    a crossbow with a light pulling device (often strapped to tthe belt) could get about 8 shots a minute, a longbowman in the same test got 9 in 30 seconds.



    the nepalese have the right idea though with the khurkri, a quite wicked blade and nastily powerful, being the ghurkas standard bladed weapon.

    and, it comes to me as NO surprise that the most recent recorded usage of bayonets being useful is by the scottish in iraq, no surpriises there.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by sparkmaster View Post
    I found this statement interesting. In the US Army, the idea is to completely destroy the enemy using as much force as deemed necessary by those on the ground. Human rights don't come into play (as basic doctrine) for active combatants. I'm not being critical of you or the Norwegian Army, I just thought it was interesting the differences in philosophy.
    Sorry Sparkmaster, my mistake. I think I might have rushed that post a bit.

    What I meant to imply by that statement was that our current operational procedures as the royal guard, at guard duty during peacetime, I.E, not in actual combat, followed the same philosophy as I listed before. This is because the most likely assailant would be treated as a civilian, in our case.

    Of course it would be a different matter entirely during war or crisis.

Similar Threads

  1. military furries??
    By foxkitty in forum Babyfur / Diaperfur
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2010, 11:34
  2. Military?
    By Twitch in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-Sep-2009, 20:01
  3. gays in the military
    By foxkitty in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 05-Sep-2009, 07:21
  4. Opinion on the Military, especially Air Force
    By datosprivados in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-Feb-2009, 05:51
  5. collecting swords
    By schoolboy21 in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 29-Jun-2008, 20:12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.