Whoah

Whoah

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XO9HoH_GsYA
youtube.com/watch?v=1s0dRcdyizU
youtube.com/watch?v=8traZev-PlM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Japan is fucking pathetic sometimes.

Here we go again.
But seriously, is it really possible to do this if you use an extremely sharp katana? There's that gif where the katana gets bent, but I think it was because thy didn't fold it over a thousand times.

is the guy trying to force an answer out of her? if he is why the fuck would you swing a sword into her face like that.

This show also had the dumb gaijin casting swords in a fucking mould.

Only the sasuga nippon self-insert man could make the bestest hardened steel edges and flexible cores, despite those techniques appearing in celtic europe in the 2nd century.

his sword is literally magic though

Whoah

Jesus what fucking show?

Today I learned that nips did use half-swording.
youtube.com/watch?v=XO9HoH_GsYA

...

youtube.com/watch?v=1s0dRcdyizU

>posting the edited version

Katanas are designed to cut human flesh, leather armor and tatami, thus why the edge is thin and sharp.
European style armor are mostly full steel armors thus the swords were thicker and dull to do damage through mass, they weren't designed to cut efficiently.

Obviously making tests of quality by just swinging a katana on another sword with full force and wrong technique is not a real benchmark since the sword has a complete different meaning for its existence.

if I remember correctly, she's supposed to be a knight who is trying to protect people from a "zombie" like warrior.

>posting the edited version.
Shame on you.

>European swords were dull
My favorite myth.

Your second point is solid, but your first point is wrong on major accounts. The various renditions of the long sword were absolutely designed to cut, and they were not intended to do damage through heavy armor. They were thing and came to a fine-point on one end to help pierce armor, but the reality of warfare in Europe was such that the heaviest armor far outclassed the best swords. People in heavy armor weren't getting hurt by anything short of pole arms (as in, any sort of weapon made by fashioning a club or blade to the end of a pole, not whatever video game shit you're imagining) or a hammer.

No sword is designed to cut anything except flesh.

Estocs were pretty dull, given that they were essentially a giant ice-pick. The best myth about European swords is that there was a single design - or even a single family of design - in usage at any point. There were plenty of European swords which were designed to be dull, like many types of broad and long swords or estocs or certain types of rapiers, however there were many of styles of sword from even those same families I just mentioned that were quite sharp and intended for cutting. At any point in the history of European warfare pre-17th century, you can find dozens of styles of swords spread throughout multiple families of weapons in use at any time, with myriad designed and intended purposes.

The katana was basically designed to do one thing well, because the Japanese never fought anyone but themselves. Europeans had dozens of designs in swords because they interacted with dozens of peoples and fought wars with all of them. Had the Japanese done the same, you can bet they would have developed different sword designs. They only didn't because they didn't need to.

>People in heavy armor weren't getting hurt by anything short of pole arms (as in, any sort of weapon made by fashioning a club or blade to the end of a pole, not whatever video game shit you're imagining) or a hammer.

or a dagger

youtube.com/watch?v=8traZev-PlM
Longswords were also designed to cut, though. Otherwise, everyone would've just used clubs/hammers instead.

Thing is, swords weren't used against armoured knights. Against those, the focus was on bashing the helmet and disorienting the wearer using shields. Gaps were targeted (if present).

Seiken no Blacksmith.
The girls are extremely fuckable, but the katana worship makes it almost unwatchable.

>Katanas are designed to cut human flesh, leather armor and tatami, thus why the edge is thin and sharp.

>European style armor are mostly full steel armors thus the swords were thicker and dull to do damage through mass, they weren't designed to cut efficiently.
The blades of Japanese swords were commonly thicker than those of European swords, which is a consequence of the manufacturing process. A Japanese blade is generally made by embedding a high carbon steel mantle around a low carbon steel core (more elaborate means of construction existed, but that's generally the basis of it). The high carbon steel mantle is hardened towards the edge by using a differential quench, which is achieved by covering the blade in clay layers of different thickness, heating it and then plunging it in water, resulting in the various parts of the blade hardening to a different degree. This method of construction however, results in relatively "thick" blades, since the soft core needs to be thick enough to support the stresses of combat. This is not necessarily to the blade's detriment, as a weapon that is primarily a cutting implement can use a bit of weight.

In late medieval Europe, blades were manufactured differently (although different processes co-existed). The blades were usually given a quench in watered sand, or oiled sand, which achieved a similar result of gaining a hardened exterior while leaving a softer core. The remaining heat from the inside would also provide the blade with a temper, helping to reduce stresses within the more rapidly cooled parts of the edges (at the cost of taking hardness out of the edges, of course). The result was that Europe could forge thinner blades that would be more flexible. Rapier blades for example could not have been forged in the same manner as katana were made, they would immediately bend upon impact - and stay bent. It can generally be said that European swords tend to be lighter and thinner at the same length.

i mean if the sword getting cut is made of a soft metal and has no heat treating, maybe.

it's not

>is it really possible to do this if you use an extremely sharp katana?

Well depends on what is your definition of katana. If for you anything that has the katana profile is a katana, then probably yeah. You can just make your katana of something stronger than steel, then make the other sword from soft cheap steel. It's not actually that hard to cut into soft steel with proper heat treated steel. If you push the material difference even further... then yeah. I'd say it's possible.

>K-KATANA???!!!!

Obligatory.

Now someone post the unedited version.

This video alone means nothing without this one.

Basically this guy made all swords in the traditional way they are made.
When he rammed the katana against a pinned longsword, the katana bent.
When he rammed the longsword against a pinned longsword, the pinned longsword broke.
Now imagine if he rammed a longsword against a pinned katana.

Here's the webm version of the other.

Actually I might just join these two webm together right now. No idea why I never did this before. Hold on for just a sec.

Done.

No. First, katanas have a triangular cross section, which means the further you cut the bigger the resistance, since you hace to displace a greater amount of material. Against the lump of steel in the gif, the friction forces would make it impossible to cut it without breaking the katana. Add the fact that katanas had a very brittle edge, and I would doubt it would be possible against even a shitty european arming sword.

That's because Estocs were essentially rapiers, they were design to stab. The "big metal club to hit people with" theory with european swords is objectively wrong.

thought i was in /fhg/ for a second.

Katanas are indeed magical, manifold enchanted works of wonder

...