Modern Scenarios When a Sword Would Be Preferable to a Firearm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katanas when carried militarily by the Samurai or WWII equivalent (ie. for combat situations), were slung from harnesses and hung off of the thigh. They were not tucked into the sash like in ninja movies. To properly draw the sword, one has to hold the scabbard with the weak hand and free it with the strong hand, it was also commonly necessary to undo the thumbbreak whch locked the sword to the scabbard via the handguard (tsuba).

Military katanas were also carried edge downwards. It wasn't the fastest thing to draw. But it made it easier run around, lay down, jump and crawl around with. Try doing any of this with a sword tucked edge-up into a sash.

No, swords weren't faster to draw than a handgun.
 
The rebuttal was a speed of presentation issue which if you have studied the art is a non issue as you are swinging to cut as you draw sword properly


Well..maybe. If someone has "studied the art" of drawing a handgun and shooting on the drawstroke to the same extent, then who wins? One poster noted on a web page of his own that he had more hours of handgun training than sword training, but how much of the handgun training was the drawstroke and shooting from it? How much was in the classroom (he cited Lethal Force Institute as his training)? How much of the sword training was focused specifically on drawing and cutting (iajutsu?)?

To me it is a physics issue. Does it take longer to draw a short piece of steel from a sheath and point it at someone or does it take longer to draw a 28" or so piece of steel from a sheath and cut someone with it?

And, again, if the sword is so good, then why is it not used in modern warfare?
 
Not used because A. it takes skill B. it IS cumbersome C. You are not supposed to get that close! Hey I can no doubt speed rock a gun and (hopefully) hit your torso a 6' or less even if you side step BUT unless gun gets CNC disconnect (which odds are it wont in this scenario) you ARE gonna get bisected which is final. Once again I think a long knife is good to have in war (been there and done that) and good to have for anti mugging defense.:D
 
In trained hands, a sword, or knife for that matter, is certainly more lethal than a handgun inside 10 feet and probably inside 21 feet as well (unless the gun wielder is equally trained in the Tueller Drill)
 
The Gurkhas still transition from the rifle to the khukuri at 5 paces

http://www.himalayan-imports.com/gurkha.html

in the Faulklands the Argentinians surrendered rather than face dismemberment

8.jpg
 
Gotta love those kukuris! Just bought another HI kuk for a good friend.
 
afghanfight.jpg

Unleash the Gurkhas
Britain's most terrifying warriors prepare to take on the Taliban.
by Victorino Matus
10/12/2001 12:01:00 AM

Victorino Matus, assistant managing editor

FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS, the British army and navy have been conducting joint exercises in the sultanate of Oman. The operation is called Swift Sword II, and by happy coincidence, it happens to put 23,000 British soldiers in the vicinity of Afghanistan. Many of them are now expecting to take part in the ground war and have been training furiously since September 11.

In fact, just last week a war game took place in the heart of the Omani desert. The objective was a two-man post held by the Lancers, an armored infantry unit. One-hundred yards away, a platoon of elite special forces dismounted from personnel carriers and charged the post. The first four soldiers to reach the Lancers threw their SA80 rifles to the ground, whipped out curved, razor-sharp short-swords for hand-to-hand combat, jumped into the nest, and simulated slitting the Lancers' throats. Observers on the sidelines were rendered speechless.

These knife-wielding warriors are members of the Royal Gurkha Rifles. And they're not British--they're Nepalese. Their signature blade is called the kukri. Gurkhas have been known to decapitate their enemies with it (it can also double as a deadly boomerang).

Mere mention of the Gurkhas strikes fear and awe in the hearts of many. As one retired Gurkha officer explained to the Los Angeles Times, "When they're ready to go into battle, their eyes turn red. Then they keep coming. They can never be stopped." Indeed, having fought alongside Great Britain for almost 200 years, the Gurkhas are known throughout the world as legendary soldiers. Their motto: "It's better to die than be a coward."

The legend dates to 1814, when the East India Company, which oversaw the subcontinent under the auspices of the British Empire, went to war against the kingdom of Nepal after repeated raids by Gurkha tribes into Bengal and Bihar. A year later, the boundary dispute was settled and a peace treaty was ratified. But the British went further. Impressed by the Nepalese warriors, they asked them to volunteer for the East India Company. And so, in 1815, the Regiment of Gurkhas was born.

The first test of loyalty came during the 1857 Indian mutiny, and the Gurkhas did not disappoint. They remained on the side of the British even through the bloodiest campaigns, taking part in the siege of Delhi and losing more than half their battalion in the Battle of Delhi Ridge. In the First World War, the Gurkhas finally saw action outside the subcontinent. Approximately 100,000 Gurkhas battled in Ypres, Salonika, Persia, and Mesopotamia. They also fought at Gallipoli.

The Second World War saw a record 112,000 Gurkhas fighting alongside the British in North Africa, Syria, Italy, and in the brutal Burma campaign, which resulted in over 40,000 Gurkha casualties. Colonel David Horsford, who fought with them in Burma, once said that "when the Gurkhas ran out of hand grenades, they spent 20 minutes throwing stones at the Japanese troops." Major Charles Heyman, who served with the Gurkhas more recently in Borneo and is currently the editor of Jane's World Armies, notes that "the Japanese were terrified of them."

After World War II, the Gurkha regiment was scaled down. Many remained in India after that country's partition in 1947, and the rest went to Hong Kong. Gurkhas were sent to the Falkland Islands in 1982, and legend has it that hundreds of Argentinians surrendered to British forces upon hearing that a Gurkha patrol was coming their way. In recent years, the Gurkhas would see action in the Gulf War, East Timor, and even Kosovo. To date, they have earned 26 Victoria crosses.

When Britain handed Hong Kong back to the Communist mainland, the Gurkhas vacated the garrison there and relocated to Brunei and England (some even take turns standing guard at Buckingham Palace). Today, the number of Gurkhas in the British army has dwindled to about 3,500. But the British still love them. Take, for example, the words of a letter writer in The Mirror:

"Once again, Britain sends for the Gurkhas in its hour of need. These warrior soldiers will cope well with the terrain in Afghanistan and will not fail us. . . . The Gurkhas are good friends of Britain and are always ready to help us."

Last year, when Gurkha Headquarters moved from one town to another in England, huge crowds turned out to bid them farewell. Said one politician, "There is a considerable vacuum now. Local people are very proud to have had these doughty warriors living amongst us . . . we will always be proud and grateful we were part of the Gurkha family."

Though the Royal Gurkha Rifles have dwindled in number, more and more Nepalese want to join up. Recruiters looking for as few as ten men have on occasion had more than a thousand show up, some as young as 14. (It's easier to fake your age as a Gurkha--the average height is 5 feet, 3 inches.) Many are lured not only by the mystique but by the pay, more than 12 times what they would make in Nepal. The training is rigorous and includes ten-mile hikes and running up mountainsides with over a hundred pounds of rocks on one's back. Needless to say, Gurkhas are famous for enduring long marches and can do so at different paces, such as the "double march" (known as "the Keel Row") and the "quick march" (also called "the Black Bear").

The Gurkha company in Oman consists of about 150 men. Asked how they like it in the desert, some of them complain that it is hot, but add, "We are enjoying it here." The temperature is about 115 degrees. And what do they think about the latest crisis? One rifleman told a reporter from The Mirror, "The attack on America was very sad and many lives were lost. It was terrible to watch on television. So I would love to go to Afghanistan to fight." He went on to say, "From what I have read, the Taliban are bad people, so the fight would be very just. I would even ask to go first." A British officer said, "for them, it is like playing in the World Cup."

I asked Major Heyman what it would be like for the Taliban if they confronted the Gurkhas. "I'll put it to you this way," he said. "You wouldn't want to meet the Gurkhas on a dark night, especially when they've got their bloodlust up."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/353gosbp.asp
 
A kukri can be used as a boomerang? That's news.

A sword has no place in modern warfare.

I've seen the Tueller drill fail in demonstrations against people who AREN'T used to it. Cuts OR gunshot wounds aren't necessarily stoppers. There is no guarantee.

A sword DOES require skill, which is one reason why it isn't used. Why train extensively with a weapon that has a limited range when your enemy can pretty much have a couple of minutes of instruction with a long gun and kill you? I agree that a knife is a nice thing to have and am almost never without one but it is a tool and a supplementary weapon, not a primary one.

While the heroism of the Gurkha regiments is not in question, no one (not even their British officers) has ever given them high marks on the intelligence scale.
 
Harold,

I think you sort of miss the point. The kukri is a psychological weapon... for the enemy and for the Gurkhas themselves. Sort of like the bayonet for more "western" armies. There is more to being a warrior than basic rifle marksmanship. ;)

While the heroism of the Gurkha regiments is not in question, no one (not even their British officers) has ever given them high marks on the intelligence scale.

What source have you got for that? Just curious. Because the notion that stupid people make good infantry is a false one.

ANYway, I don't think anybody is arguing for the adoption of Zweihanders as standard issue anytime soon.
 
No, Sean, I don't miss the point. I understand perfectly the psychological impact of the kukri wielded by small Asians with a formidable reputation for using them in combat. There are MANY tales of what a kukri has done to men in warfare but it is still not really preferable to a firearm. It is just the preferred weapon of the Gurkhas in close quarters. From what I've read, they're becoming more of a modern-day unit, anyway. In addition, there are fewer Nepalese-born and bred Gurkhas in the service and more who were born to Gurkha soldiers while on duty and raised in more modern and less harsh environments.

I'd have to look up the sources but they're both in a bookcase at the house. I am thinking that one of them is "The Gurkhas" by a guy named John or James (can't remember which) Parker. I went through a phase of fascination with the Gurkhas after reading a little about them in a science-fiction series and decided to purchase some more (factual) reading about them. Make no mistake, the Gurkhas are much-loved by their British officers (I don't believe that ANY Gurkha has ever been made an officer), are fierce, are tough, are loyal and obedient to a fault...but even the officers that brag on them (and service as an officer to the Gurkhas seems to be regarded as something of an honor) are very candid about the mental faculties of their troops. Of course, this is to be expected of guys who are, for the most part, raised as goat-herders in backwards, rural mountain areas of what is, basically, a Third World country.
 
You folks got it all wrong... Why, just the other day when I was flitting about from tree limb to tree limb, chasing an adversary, I realized that I was flitting more heavily to the right beccause my pistol was making my right side heavier than my left... courtesy Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

A sword is definitely more useful when flitting...:D
 
In Raiders of the the Lost Ark, the script called for an elaborate duel between Indy with his whip and the big guy with his sword. Pulling the gun and shooting him was improvisation by Harrison Ford. . . . good stuff. :D
 
They shot the whip vs. sword scene a few times. Seen it; pretty impressive. Harrison, being sick the whole time they were shooting in the Middle East, just couldn't take another take and improvised the "just shoot him" scene.
 
Not that it matters with respect to this thread, but as I recall from several outtakes of unused film I recently viewed Harrison Ford was wielding a sword for the big fight instead of his whip. A wide bladed scimitar like the one the bad guy in black used.
 
Harrison Ford had the runs that day, so he wasn't up for too many takes as was needed for the fight scene. Pay attention to his face next time you see the movie and you can certainly tell he was trying to hold his cheeks together during that scene.
 
To drift this thread at least somewhat back:

Ghurka units exist in three armies: English, Nepalese and Indian.

Only English units disallow Ghurka officers -because it is a mercenary unit.

I used to see Ghurkas in Hong Kong, they are about 5'5"-5'6" in height and very slightly built. They certainly didn't look threatening. I didn't even know they were Ghurkas until someone pointed them out.
 
Yes...back to the tangent of the tangent of the tangent of the original thread...

AHHH...there is ONE modern scenario where a sword would be preferable to a firearm...

When a thread goes so far from its starting point that you need to cut off the tangents that have developed, THEN you would need a sword!

:neener:
 
A sword better than a gun? Probably not but here are 2 examples where a big knife is welcome.
1) What do you answer that knock at the door with? I go through the kitchen and a big butcher knife is easily at hand. If questioned about it, people don't seem as upset when they see you lay a butcher knife down as when you put a pistol away.

2) When wandring in the woods a large knife [machete] is not seen as a "bad thing". But having it will prove to be more useful than carrying most any firearm. Defense? yes 2 pit bulls just killed 1 woman and seriously injured another. I would rather have a short sword on my belt than a firearm at home. We can't all carry concealed [unfortuantely].
 
Dunno if this thread already covered this but...

The last time swords where issued for military field use, they where given to officers, with the unstated purpose that they where to be used to keep their own men in line.


Literally in line, as in fixed formation marching into cannon fire line.
 
About the only case I can think of where sword/dagger would be preferrable to firearms is a matter of stealth and one did not have a silenced firearm.
I can think of several situations where a sword could be useful for self-defense. The primary situation is when your government outlaws guns (like well over 1/2 the world experiences). Witness the riots in Africa where thousands were hacked to death with machetes. A sword is a definite step up over a machete, which is probably the primary weapon of defense in poor countries.
Just last year there was a story about an Australian man whose house was broken into by 6 men bearing iron bars. The home owner had a Samurai type sword. One intruder was killed and one was injured (arrested at hospital), the others fled.
As far as a military combat situation, as the old saying goes, "If your life is dependent on how big your knife is, you're already in a
boatload (actual word was different) of hurt."
 
Man, some of you guys should do stand up comedy. Had me ROTFLOL!

Seriously, instead of a sword, how about a Bowie knife on the suspender strap of your web gear? Brush cutter, and If you train with it!, it could be a last-ditch defense weapon if you run your pistol dry or suffer a malfuction you don't have time to clear.

The Bowie will give you much more reach than a fighting knife like a K-Bar.

Just a thought.

Regards,
 
Before Gerber gave in to the PC garbage they had a real nice 12" double edged fighting knife. It developed from about th 60's , In Nam, to the late 80's. It appeared to drop off the catalogs about then.

I have one of the late 70's models, it is somewhere around here after my move. While on active duty I would place a Silloute target on the wall of my room using 1/4" standoffs. I would practive slicing the paper only. The First Sgt, never mentioned the target during inspections, he would just "look" at it.

Carried it on duty while in the field. Had to stow it sometimes as the brass found it too much for the Air Force. Wimps! Kept an Air Force survival knife on me 24/7 while in the field otherwise, Mobile Radar Unit, as well as a Balisong in my coat or pants pocket. Got flack for the survival knife too. Often the night perimeter patrols were in heavy fog and light rain, Germany. Felt the knife was a good addiition to my gear. Trained with it a lot as I had more access to it than my pistols and the range.

We were issued a .38 S&W model 10 or M-16 while on perimeter guard duty only. No weapons while off duty in the field. Of course "my" S&W Model 59 9mm or S&W Model 28 .357 mag was close at hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top