Swords in combat?

[sergeantgiggles]

I know I'm getting far too old to continue nursing stupid hollywood notions about fighting, but there's one that won't go away:

Would a sword be of any practical use as a secondary weapon in modern combat?

Obviously firearms are infinitely superior in almost all aspects of modern combat, but I recall one or two of the veterans/servicemen on this forum saying that they have had occasion to use their bayonet or ka-bar on an enemy in the sandbox, in a thread a while back that was about knives.

So the question follows, if a knife has utility, why doesn't a sword?

[`tek]

only if a hs cut the nme's head clean off.

[Toastar]

Because to get the power to lop off a limb you need to windup, they're bulky and hard to manouver with. Try getting in a jeep with a sword on your belt :P

Knives on the other hand are good for stabbing or slicing a persons throat if you don't care about stealth, they're extremely convienent and they're easy to carry and conceal.

[Capt. Planet]

I still think Tomahawks are the way to go.

[Toastar]

The Patriot or Dances with Wolves type Tomahawking?

[Pipes]

last of the mohicans tomahawking

[Capt. Planet]

Vietnam Tomahawking.

[Airborne506]

Gulf War Tomahawking. Boom.

Knives definatley still hold a place in combat, be it by themselves or as a bayonet. I remember hearing about the fighting in Najaf last year and how when the hand to hand fighting started in the battle some guys didn't have time to get their pistols out so they quickly grabbed their knives and went at it.

As for swords, I have a WW2 magazine with an article in it about a guy named Jack Churchill. He carried (and used) a bow and arrow during the withdrawl Dunkirk and carried a claymore (the sword) throughout the war. I'll try to post some excerpts or scan the article. He was in one of the Commando units during the war and I believe fough in Italy.

[SWATJester_os]

No.

Knives are another story. But swords? No.

[GrosPoisson]

So the question follows, if a knife has utility, why doesn't a sword?

There were complaints from a good number of US soldiers that the majority of the M16A2s had fixed buttstocks and were needlessly hard to move around inside of a Humvee crammed full of other gear.

If something like a rifle being too long is cause for complaint and causing problems on the battlefield, the same would go for a sword.

[aCeed]

I remember hearing about the fighting in Najaf last year

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1128904/posts

[gYmBaG]

knives are alot smaller then a sword. thats the key point

[Milkman Dan]

knives are alot smaller then a sword. thats the key point
They also serve a more practical purpose than a sword, as they're used for many different purposes especially in confined spaces. Swords would: A) probably cost too much, B) be too bulky, and C) serve no actual practical purpose.

Hand-to-hand combat is a last resort. The last thing you want to do is give your enemy the advantage by having an extremely cumbersome weapon opposed to his knife, which he can manuever quickly with and probably cut your neck before you even get your swing off.

[Shadow]

One of my Military Skills Instructors at Recruit Training Unit said to me, "If you're close enough to use a bayonet, you are way too fucking close to the enemy."

[Mystrick]

The 2 oldest weapons the Marines use is the M2 and the Sword. But they use the Sword with their dress uniform so that solves no purpose to the topic.

A sword is too outdated, too chivalrous for today, and too heavy. If you have a sword I'm pretty sure your enemy will have a gun.

[Col.Kurtz]

swords are way to big to be any use

[Stig]

I wouldn't say that swords are totally useless... so the answer to the first question (are they of ANY use) is yes. I'm sure that in Certain unique situations, they can be useful.

As to the second question, a Knife is more useful then a sword in more situations, which is why they're still carried around.

Swords are cooler, though.

[kreket]

Some of the modern knives have a length of twentifive to thirty centimeters. A medieval sword is of course longer, but I'm not sure about something from the days of Alexander the great. Probably longer, but not that much. Something to consider when we're defining things?

Shovels are common in armies, can be assembled for more compact storage and gives a bit of range to swing a piece of flat metal on a stick. If you read Im Westen Nichts Neues there is a description of some soldiers choosing grenades and showels above firearms when people were readying to charge threnches. Worth to note that fellow soldiers would probably be next to anyone doing so with all the firing power needed.

I don't see the sense of bringing a two-handed greatsword onto the battlefield, but knives and shovels are good substitutes should one ever be in close combat and low on ammunition. I'm not sure I'd put as much faith into it as a white flag...

[GoatChomper]

If you read Im Westen Nichts Neues.....
aka All Quiet on the Western Front.

[The WOOO Meister]

only if a hs cut the nme's head clean off.
Okay, stop. Don't talk like that.

[kreket]

Old habit that. When I'm not in my first language I tend to give every title in their original language. Gotta learn someday.