What are your thoughts on the katana being a shitty sword, Sup Forums?

What are your thoughts on the katana being a shitty sword, Sup Forums?

The Glock is better

Yeah but we're talking about slashy slashies not not pew pews

Did I just warp into 2005?

It is kinda shitty sword. Swords were kinda shitty weapons. Even way back when those big knives could do some damage in the right hands, spears and arrows where doing all proper fucking.

AK-47's and Spears. Big killers. Swords... meh.

Aren't swords just glorified through all the tv shows, anime etc. People have watched?

This
Swords were the PDWs of there time.

Their*

Omfg that filename
>6 gorillion times
Lost my shit

Really glorified. Sword fights can be really cool to watch, though. Search longsword fighting
on youtube.

STFU FILTHY GAIJIN

That fucking file name

I have practised the katana and I can tell you: its underrated. If are skilled with this, you can slice through tank armor. Also its very honorable when defending a maiden

As a fellow intellectual I concur with this supreme gentleman
'tips fedora'

The difference between those 2 weapons is explained easily when you compare the availability of good metal in the cultures that the weapons originate from and the type of armor that was most commonly worn.

In the western world during the time of the sword, iron and steel armour was the norm, so the blades had to be suited to fighting against that type of armour. They had a stronger temper, and were made to find gaps and weaknesses in steel armour, but also needed to survive in case they hit rounded steel armour. The style of that time was also more about blocking hits with a shield or letting them hit your armour.

The armour most common in feudal japan, was often leather or bamboo based. Both of which are easy to slash through if the blade is sharp enough. So the temper on katana was softer to more easily grind the edge and make it sharper. Because of this, the main fighting style of that time was to avoid everything and then strike back when you could, since the armour of that time was weak, if you didnt avoid well enough you died.

But both blades also needed to be able to cut through flesh, so they could both accomplish the same end goal, with only one failing since 1 was made more sturdy than the other to account for something that the other didn't need to.

Which is why western swords like The Broadswords, Bastard swords and Zweihanders are better than katanas.

Not saying that katanas are awesome or anything but that test is rigged as fuck. Katanas aren't made to block they are used to deflect. Long swords were made to block. So they were using the wrong tool for the wrong job. It would be like saying a shotgun is a terrible weapon because you couldn't hit a plate at 500m using birdshot.

they look pretty fucking cool though

I have ACTUALLY trained with a katana, they're clunky as shit.

Basically you've got 2 choices. A long katana, or a short one called a wakizashi. Both are used with two hands, but wakizashi have increased mobility which is what wins in a sword fight. Longer swords are easy to catch and hard to maneuver, plus with katana, which are very thin, they break easily and have less mass behind the swing, so busting through armor is highly difficult, which is why proper training has you aiming for the armpits, wrists, and neck mainly. These parts are often unprotected, but in my opinion getting closer with the shorter blade is much better than trying to hit very small precise points with a meter stick.

And fun fact real swords fights often turned into wrestling anyway

Another one is that spears > swords

Euphoric

DELETE THIS

Respeck. I'll still choot your ass a little bit

That test makes no sense. Of course the sword is going to break, you're slamming it against a rigid object being held firmly in place. Not saying Katana are the best or that they aren't shitty. But that test is shit and rigged.