Originally Posted by Jonathan Locke

i explained this before, in a previous post.

I asume that you are talking about the red, iron masks that they show in museums/historic shows/movies/etc..., where the mask has sort of a human resemblance, but the image is blended in with some type of animal, most likely a dragon or eagle. If so, i will say it again, most samurais did not wear masks or iron armor, shogun and warlords wore those things, the samurais wore wide legged pants and robe-like shirts made out of cotton or another cloth, and if they knew they were going to battl, they would probably wear a light leather armor or something of similar confortability and weight.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The sword has a straight, wide blade about 40" long by 6" wide, double-edged, with a blood gutter running down the length of the richly engraved gold inlaid blade. The blade is a good high-carbon steel, with a full tang. The hilt is brass, about 8" long, with an extremely wide brass crossguard, about 10" across. The sword weighs approx. 30lbs. I would never dream of attempting to use it in a fight, it is entirely too unwieldy, but it is the classic 'hand and a half sword'. If you did ever manage to connect with a slash the damage would be catastrophic to the recipient..

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

A lovely dissertation, but the matter was already settled in previous posts.

PS: The sword weighed in at about 25lbs(don't remember exactly) when i weighed it a few weeks ago.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Locke

It really shows you have never been in a swordfight.

Thunar: It also really shows you haven't either

The samurai's blade is basically made from the steel mines in the mountains of Japan, which i believe you can tell that Japan is not the same as Europe. The metal found in these mines is then folded into sheets over and over again, to reinforce the blade's strength, then most skilled swordsmiths layer the blade with a minute coating of a different steel, to create a contrast. Then as a last touch, the richest and most advanced smiths apply a thin layer of a variation of titanium in the blade's edges, making the blade able to cut throgh pretty much anything.

Thunar: Are you talking today or back then? because if you are talking back then that is full of bull, the katana had a soft iron core ( like the europeans) that was incased in harden steel ( like the europeans) different styles of forging but same results and no it couldn't cut through anything either in fact the first Ninja-kens were broken and discarded Katana's but don't take my word for it take these quotes from Jim Hrisoulas on the subject on another board Claymore vs Katana

Jims quotes.But before I go any further let me make one thing clear...I do not really
care for the Japanese style of blade as all the hype, misconceptions and
other misinformation that is out there about them just drives me
nuts..Rather I prefer Mid-Eastern and Northern European pattern welded
blades over the Japanses blades...same techniques, same level of skills
involved...)

Another one:There is nothing mystical about any blade, Japanese, Danish, German or
American..Steel is steel, and it will behave like steel.. There are no
secret processes, no dark, arcane mysteries about forging a good blade.
Advances in techniques and technology? Yes...almost constantly in
metallurgy and metallography..but "secrets"? I do not think so.....Does
skill play a part in this? Yes, does experience play a part in
this..yes...Does it take decades to get this? in most cases, not really

Yet another one:Some will try to say that everyone must start out the same way, long
apprenticeships that take years and years to advance in this art...I do
not feel that this is fair if you wish the art to advance overall. Case
in point since this all started with the Claymore/Katana thread...Japanese
blades..


This is a classic example of non advancement. The Japanese smiths found
something that worked and then they just went more or less stagnant. No
evolution of materials, very limited exchange of information between
smiths, no real experimentations on design or function... Does this make
the Japanese blades any lesser in quality? Not really but it also doesn't
allow for "free thinking", as the "masters" will say "You do it this way
as this is the way I learned it, or else you won't be doing it"...


Now tradition is one thing, but to strangle the desire to expand and
experiment that is in the hearts of most artisians is to me a crime
against the creative spirit...One that I hope I am never guilty of...


In all the years I have been teaching, in all the writings that I have
penned I have never limited the people involved by saying "This is the
only way to do this"....In fact I have expoused the exact
opposite...trying to encourage others to try new things, to allow this
dying art to expand, to revive and to advance.


If everyone followed the same "guild like" structures that some people say
are required to be able to make a decent blade, this world would still be
in the Dark Ages as far as many aspects of modern life...


Fact: traditional Japanese construction is in a simple way composite
pattern welding. The same techniques were used by nearly every iron
working culture at one time or another, for various reasons...The Japanese
did not usually etch the blades to reveal the patterns more boldly, but
they used the various grades of ferrous materials to enhance the strength
and cutting ability of the blades...The Vikings, Danes. Germans, Poles,
Franks, Finns and others did the same, but they also appreciated the
beauty of this material and etched the surface to reveal the patterns..(I
am not saying that the Japanese did not appreciate the beauty of even the
unetched steel, as you can still see some patterning and the Japanese
looked at that as a desirable trait in a higher quality blade....they just
didn't "get into" the bolder contrasts that the rest of the world
did..this could be the "less is more" aspect.)


And now a comment from Hank Rheinhart a on of the leading experts in swords today.

Quote:Hype . . .
As Ancient An Art As Sword Making

Hank Reinhardt
Senior ARMA Advisor


Hype is part of the American scene, maybe even the culture, and most
of us have learned this and are ready to discount a lot of hype we
hear. In some areas, however, it appears that hype is becoming true,
and many people take as facts stories that are, at beast, outrageous.
This seems to be particularly true with the Japanese sword. In the
early 1950s, with the release of the movie Bad Day at Black Rock, in
which one-armed Spencer Tracy uses karate/judo to tear up villain
Ernest Borgnine, the U.S. went on a kick glorifying the Oriental
martial arts. Since that time we have been treated to increasingly
impossible feats of derring-do -- heroes who leap straight up over 10
feet, who unarmed and single-handedly take 15-20 villains and destroy
them without working up a sweat or getting a bloody nose, who can hurl
a knife 50 feet into the trigger guard of a pistol. Ridiculous.


If the unarmed impossibilities are not bad enough, we are also treated
to the armed impossibilities: Mac 10 submachine guns that fire 300
rounds from one magazine, swords that shear plate and concrete columns
and then are struck edge to edge and never take a nick, and knives
that cut barbwire with a mysterious twist of the blade. Most of this
people see as hype, but for some reason, when the Japanese sword is
hyped, everyone believes it.


As a student of arms and armor for many years, I find this both
distressing and amusing. When I mention that a Viking sword,
"Quernbiter" by name, was called this because it was supposed to have
cut a millstone in half, everyone laughs and considers it a tall tale,
which it undoubtedly was. Then the same audience will gravely assure
me that the Japanese Katana has been known to cut a machine gun barrel
in half.


This stunt must have happened several times, because when I tried to
track the source, it seems to have occurred on Guadalcanal,
Bougainville, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, and several other islands. I have to
believe Japanese soldiers have some sort of pathological hatred for
machine gun barrels. I have also wondered why they never tried to cut
down the gunner.


Not only are Japanese blades exalted by such folks to the point of
sheer absurdity, but European blades are downgraded until they become
mere bars of iron, incapable of cutting hot butter. This just isn't
true.


Students of arms and armor have always regarded the Japanese sword as
a very fine weapon. It has good balance, may be well constructed, and
it does what it was designed to do pretty well. But it is made out of
steel, and has all the limitations of other steel swords. It isn't
magic.


The earliest Japanese swords were direct descendents of the Chinese
swords of the same period-straight, single-edged blades. These swords
were poorly made, and may not have been tempered. Around 300 to 400
AD the Japanese learned how to temper the swords to produce a steely
iron. Even after this, the sword was not highly regarded, and the bow
was considered much superior. Soon, straight double-edged swords
began to appear, but did not remain on the scene very long, possibly
because tempering a double-edged sword offers problems. Legend has it
that a single smith, Amakuni, designed the first single-edged and
curved sword. The exact shape of this blade is not known, but it was
not until roughly 1100 AD that the sword reached the final shape. By
1300, it was a truly good sword and very well made. These early
blades all seemed to be slightly larger and longer than blades made
after the end of the 16th century. There have been volumes written on
the methods of constructing a Japanese sword, and it is not my purpose
here to elaborate on them. The method was complex and involved
layering the steel to produce a blade very nearly homogenous in its
various elements. On top of this, a very hard steel was used for the
edge, and a softer, more shock resistant type was used for the rest of
the blade. Sometimes the edge was covered by the softer metal,
sometimes the hard steel covered a softer body.


The end result was a blade that had a very hard edge, and a resilient
body. However, even with the resiliency, the Japanese sword was not
very flexible. One school of swordsmiths, the Soshu, was noted for
producing blades that were very tough because they possessed a slight
degree of flexibility. A look at European theories in the same time
frames shows different approaches.


As early as 700 BC, the Celts were forging weapons, both spears and
swords, by piling on layers of iron and forging the whole mess. This
process continually improved until by 500 AD excellent pattern-welded
swords were being made. In this process, bundles of carburized iron
bars were welded together, and then a hard steel edge was welded on.
This produced a sword, usually double-edged, with a soft, resilient
body and a hard edge. The sword was flat, rather thin, quite light
and flexible. Weight was in the area of 28 to 40 ounces.


These swords remained quite popular until about 900 AD when a new
sword appeared. This sword was somewhat slimmer in the area of the
point, tapering more sharply from the hilt, and was composed of
steel-not iron that had been carburized, but steel all the way
through. They were easier to make and, for all intents and purposes,
just as strong as the earlier blades.


Two very important factors should be noted here. The European smiths
were constantly trying out slight variations and whole new shapes.
There were single-edged swords, slightly curved blades, and short
swords like the Roman gladius as well as wide-bladed chopping weapons.


The Japanese, once they had decided on a basic shape, never made any
attempts to improve on it. Many would like to say that having found
the perfect shape, there was no reason to improve on it. I don't
think that's true at all.


The Japanese culture has always been quite rigid, heavily bound by
tradition. This highly controlled society did not encourage
experimentation. The plus side is that it did leave us with a large
number of very fine swords that are quite old and in excellent shape.


Let's take a look at cutting powers. The European blade was light,
fast, with a hard edge (carbon content ranges from .75% to 1.2%) and
capable of delivering a terrible, shearing blow. It was also a
one-handed weapon, usually used in conjunction with a wooden shield.
Flexibility was a definite necessity. When cutting into a shield or
the body of a foeman, the blade had to be able to twist and bend and
not break or distort. A man with a sword cutting him does not stand
still. Opposed by the armor in use at the time -- mail, leather or
heavy padding -- a sword can cut much deeper if it is thin and wide at
the striking point because a thin blade does not have to push a great
deal of material aside. These swords will cut mail when a hard blow
is struck and the mail hit squarely. I've spent a lot of time and
money testing the cut on hams covered with mail. If the blow is not
hit squarely, the edge will skate and not bite. When the mail is
fairly hit, even with force, there is very little, if any, damage to
the edge of a good sword.


The Japanese sword is a superb draw-cutting weapon. This is the
method that has been taught for the past several hundred years, and
the evidence seems to indicate that it was always used in a similar
fashion. In a draw cut, the blade is pulled as it cuts, and therefore
not only shears, but slices as well. In soft tissue such as flesh or
bone, it delivers a truly fearsome cut, being easily capable of
cutting a torso in half. The draw back is that it doesn't cut armor,
even mail, very well. A draw cut is very ineffective against hard
armor. Changing the cut, and delivering a shearing blow does not work
either. The blade of the katana is thick, with a sharp cutting bevel.
The edge is strong, but the wedge it presents has to move aside more
material. When cutting into metal, this is very difficult to do.


There are two additional points that should be considered. The
Japanese sword was a two-handed weapon. Using both hands, a much
harder blow can be delivered. Earlier swords, which were slightly
heavier and longer, would add even additional force to the blow. But
even with these advantages, the sword was not very good at penetrating
armor.


The Japanese made good swords, but they also made very good armor.
Many of the suits have plates of the same steel as the sword blades.
The front of the plates was just as hard as the sword edge, while the
back was soft and springy.


In order to have a good chance against the armor there are three
weapons that are much better than the sword. They are the bow, the
yari (spear) and the naginata. That explains why in battle, the three
principal weapons used were the bow, the yari and the naginata.


In Europe, when practical firearms made armor obsolete, it was quickly
abandoned. The same thing is true of Japan. One thing the Japanese
are not is stupid.


That is true with all warrior societies. The sword was never the
principal battle weapon. It has always been the weapon of last
resort. The Roman relied on his pilum, the Greek his spear, the
knight his lance, the Mongol his bow, and the Landsnecht his pike or
halberd. In Japan it was just more so. The sword was used on the
battlefield for the last bit of hand-to-hand combat, to finish off the
wounded, and for the last forlorn stand, when the warrior chooses to
kill and die.


All of the above refers to fully armored warriors. Never forget that
in both Europe and Japan there were many warriors on the field who
were not fully armored.


Another "fact" about Japanese swords is that the point, which is
distinct and unique, is an armor-piercing point. It isn't. Shoving a
knife or sword through a car door isn't that hard and many blades can
do it. The Japanese point is harder to pierce with than many other
designs. However that point is one of the best cutting points ever
designed. Generally a sword point involved in a cut produces a lot of
drag and reduces the efficiency of the cut. However, the Japanese
point with its sharply angled "edge" portion, actually aids the cut.
This would be quite important, as many standard cuts with Japanese
swords are made with the first 6 inches of the blade. Europeans simply
ignored the problem, which for them was very minor. Most of their
cuts were made well back of the point. Due to the shape of the sword,
the optimal striking point on most European blades was very well down
the blade. Much later, many European cavalry sabers had points
similar to the Japanese.


I have been assured, frequently in fact, that Japanese blades are so
strong and tough that they never break, nick or bend. Well, they
break, they nick, and they bend. They frequently nick quite badly.
Damascus steel is a superior steel, or it can be when done by a superb
smith. But even a superior steel is still steel and will respond like
steel. One sad fact is that the harder the steel, the more likely it
is to chip and nick. A softer metal will bend, flatten or otherwise
distort. When this happens, it is relatively easy to pound or file a
new cutting edge. When a chip leaves a gap, not much can be done. A
piece can be reforged into the blade, but this also requires that the
blade be retempered."


http://www.thearma.org/essays/*hype.htm





as for your comment regarding if the knight would stand there like a shop dummy... Well, Snipe gave us the scenario of the samurai puncturing the knights armor, which means the blade has gone through it, so once the weapon has gone throuhg he armor and reaching the unprotected flesh, the knight is dead. Sure he could move around all he wants, but the sword is still gonna be trhought the armor, and even if he gets it off, now the samurai knows that he can break the armor and kill him, even if it takes another stab or hack.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I couldn't get past the first paragraph in that post.

'Steel is steel' is a patently ridiculous comment.

Anyone who says it is has nothing to offer a debate about different blades.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"Thunar:Yes he did but that sword wouldn't existed anymore for the samurai because that design fell out of favor."

The Choku-To was still in use, it was just not as common.

Thunar: uh no not really, maybe in role playing games.

I have little doubt that a double handed bursting thrust with a Choku-To would penetrate plate armor...and i would sure love to try.

Thunar: I'm sure it could with enough force but so could european daggers could since that what is made for.

"Another "fact" about Japanese swords is that the point, which is
distinct and unique, is an armor-piercing point."

The tanto tipped Choku-To is all about penetration.

"It isn't."

Yes....it is.

Thunar:again wouldn't be in use anymore and again he is talking about the katana mostly

"Shoving a
knife or sword through a car door isn't that hard and many blades can
do it."

Nice bit of hyperbole, but no, most blades WON'T penetrate a car door cleanly.

Thunar: Again its Hank Rheinhart and he is a leading expert of swords and I thinking the hyperbole is the katana that could cut through anthing.

"The Japanese point is harder to pierce with than many other designs."

That has more to do with the curved blade than the tip, and again, that is not the case with a Choku-To Katana.

Thunar: Already comment on that.


"However, the Japanese point with its sharply angled "edge" portion, actually aids the cut.
This would be quite important, as many standard cuts with Japanese
swords are made with the first 6 inches of the blade. Europeans simply
ignored the problem, which for them was very minor. Most of their
cuts were made well back of the point. Due to the shape of the sword,
the optimal striking point on most European blades was very well down
the blade."

Meaning you have to get closer to your opponent. The Katana's optimal cutting point is designed to maximize stand-off range.

Thunar: Different styles and stokes for different folks that is all

"Much later, many European cavalry sabers had points
similar to the Japanese. "

Gee...i wonder why...

Thunar: And don't mention the fact the japanesse where copy european blades styles in the late 1700's early 1800's such as the fuller near the back of the spine.

"I have been assured, frequently in fact, that Japanese blades are so
strong and tough that they never break, nick or bend. Well, they
break, they nick, and they bend. They frequently nick quite badly.
Damascus steel is a superior steel, or it can be when done by a superb
smith. But even a superior steel is still steel and will respond like
steel. One sad fact is that the harder the steel, the more likely it
is to chip and nick. A softer metal will bend, flatten or otherwise
distort. When this happens, it is relatively easy to pound or file a
new cutting edge. When a chip leaves a gap, not much can be done. A
piece can be reforged into the blade, but this also requires that the
blade be retempered."

The Katana has a very hard edge, and a very soft spine. It is designed to block with the soft spine or side of the blade...NOT the edge itself.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"Thunar: uh no not really, maybe in role playing games."

Well them i expect you to offer definitive proof that the Choku-To was no longer in use during the 15th century.

I'll be waiting.

"Thunar: I'm sure it could with enough force but so could european daggers could since that what is made for."

Hence disproving the claim made by some on this thread that plate armor was impenetrable.

"Thunar:again wouldn't be in use anymore and again he is talking about the katana mostly"

The Choku-To IS a katana. You don't even know what kind of weapon the sword is, but you expect me to believe you when you claim no one used them any more in the time in question? Swords are passed down from generation to generation among a family. It is entirely reasonable to believe that Choku-Tos fit that pattern.

"Thunar: Again its Hank Rheinhart and he is a leading expert of swords and I thinking the hyperbole is the katana that could cut through anthing."

Ah yes....the leading expert that claims 'steel is steel'.

LOL...the dude is a quack.

"Thunar: Different styles and stokes for different folks that is all"

Well, you take the style that says a weapon with an optimum cutting point midway down the blade is best...i'll take the one that has it's optimum cutting point out near the tip. When i have a solid 12-18" reach advantadge over you, do not be surprised when i cut your spleen out.

"Thunar: the european blades also had a hard edge and its block on the flat side of the blade now in a pitch battle between to armys you telling me that a edge to edge strike is not going to happen?"

In war, anything is possible. That's just life. Edge to edge strikes are a good way to break any sword...