Japanese Katana vs. European Broadsword: What are your opinions about this?

[tom_mai78101]

Care to watch this GIF animated clip?



You can see how powerful the blow is, chipping away a notch in both of the swords.

What is your opinion on this matter? Do you believe something is wrong, like the posture, the technique, etc.?

2ch, a Japanese 4chan originator, has made huge amounts of opinions about this, and actually embarked heavy controversy about this. One actual critic said:

It's because of the broadsword is placed on a table. Without the table, it would've dealt a bigger blow and can cut away the broadsword away.

Few do take this seriously, as most of them either blamed on the katana as fake, or the technique is wrong.

 

[Samael88]

Of course the broadsword will win over the katana in this situation, I have no doubt about it.

I am a bit doubtful though if the result would be the same if they switched the blades so that the katana was lying on the table and the moving blade was the broadsword.

There are some other factors as well such as the broadsword being thicker than the katana and the fighter actually strikes when a katana is made for cutting.

With these things in mind I can still honestly say that I believe that there is nothing wrong with the result that would affect the end result except for the broadsword not moving(not that the end result would be any different if it where the other way around).

 

[Winterherz]

katana = slashing weapon / speed & fighting finesse
broadsword = cutting weapon / brute strength


[YOUTUBE]fxYvwEnKRjA[/YOUTUBE]



on the GIF clip, obviously the broadsword. . It's like airdropping a minicooper from 5000ft into an M1 tank, only without a parachute.

 

[13lade619]

eh.. what's your basis for the difference between cutting and slashing?

The katana's curved form allows for a more powerful slash at the same striking speed
because it focuses the impact to one spot.

The broadsword makes for easier stabbing with its thick base and straight profile.
It's also generally heavier, able to deal bludgeoning damage through the armor.

And only an idiot will block edge to edge.

 

[uberfoop]

The video shows nothing, and has nothing to do with one sword beating the other. In fact, the swords did the same amount of damage to each other, as seen in those slits on the blades.

Swords are not meant to strike immoveable hard objects. They can strike immoveable soft objects, because those will decellerate the blade slowly as the sword slowly digs in and comes to a halt, and they can strike moveable hard objects, because those will also decellerate the blade slowly as the struck object gives way beneath the blade. But striking an immoveable hard object like that causes the middle of the blade to try and force the upper half of the blade to come to a stop just about instantly, and keep in mind that the upper half is already moving far faster and with far more energy than the rest of the blade. The end result? The momentum carries it down past its breaking point.

The European sword was spared such a fate not because it's tougher (in fact, single-edged Japanese swords have the advantage of being able to warp slightly back on themselves and are thus much tougher if used right), but because it's a well-supported object that had to undergo no such acceleratory crap and which was able to disperse the forces along the entire table anyway.

They should have just struck a massive tungsten block with that katana. It would have proven just as much. Which is to say, nothing.

 

[Nenad]

Well, my vote is for the katana (regardless of the .gif).

The Katana is superior in it's build then the Broadsword. I own both a Katana and a Broadsword and a Katana is much easier to wield and swing then the broadsword. Although both have advantages in combat, the Katana is the superior sword.

The low-down:

Both weapons have to be held in two hands (unless you're a giant or incredibly strong).
Both Weapons have good slashing power, but the katana has more stabing power.
The Katana gets 1 more swing per 2 swings then a broadsword.
The Katana is lighter to carry and swing, and has a faster cut.
The Broadsword can and most likely will break the bones of the enemy, purely because it takes more power to swing and the gravity is more leniant towards the broadsword. This does not make it more powerful in combat, but on an off chance that you manage two exact hits, the kill is safer with the broadsword.

Those are my 2 cents.

Also, if you want to compare Medieval weapons with Orient Weapons, i suggest you compare a Flail and a Katana, the Flail is a much more powerful weapon then a broadsword and is easier to swing.

 

[Slapshot136]

the broadsword is thicker and heavier.. what else is new?

I think the 4chan people are biased by anime ;P

also, I think the video is flawed in this respect: the broadsword is held in place at 2 points, while the katana is only held at one point - if they switched the swords and had the sword on the table held at only 1 point, I think that it would give a fairer result - but like uberfoop said, they are fairly similar - I also think that the katana is sharper in general when compared to the broadsword because of a superior forging technique, which would explain why it dealt roughly the same damage to the broadsword (ignoring the bending, since I think that's because of how the swords were held)

 

[Whitesock]

I don't think the kantana was built to fight gauls and vikings, but moreso weapons that are in eastern martial arts (the stick, the stick with a blade, the sythe, chained sticks (sort of like larger numchucks) farmer tools or modified ones basically) because most people that opposed the far east were basically revolutionaries, though not quite as organized.