Hi all!
off topic there is and maybe not fit in here and i am a rokkie about swords.

I have use bow and arrow (classic style) little in around 25year and have seen alot about it
how it going forward with all new compound bows and fiber arrows,
but with swords there are nothing new happend
the last 100 years, what i can see or i have missed it.

Well i have thinking along time about how would swords look like today if they was still in use by army,
and that man or woman who find up gunpowder die in a explosion and there was no powder at all,

i asked one man what he think about it 5 year ago and the answer i get was like:
"uhh.....uhhh... i have newer thinking about it.....that...jezzus, i need some fresh air! excuse me."

with all these material we have today, and what will tell the army men
"trust this one, the newest model 2005 will help and protect your men out there."

anyone who have an idea about:
length?
weight?
handgrip?
edge?
blade bend/straight?

just a little brainstorming, maybe not so small.

sorry for my swenglish

Well, I would imagine that the advancements in sword construction would have followed a similar pattern to that of knives. With that in mind, tool steel would probably be popular as a blade material, hard nylon material like Prylon would be widely used as a grip material, and kydex would often be used for scabbards. Like knives, many blade lengths, widths, etc. would be available. However, I'd speculate that short (18-24 inch) blades with single-handed grips would be issued to infantry units because they would probably be fighting in phalanxes--much like the Romans. Even if they were not, short swords have been popular with infantry for centuries, so that is my guess.

Of course, light-sabers (from Star Wars) would be ideal... But we have not got to that point yet, and there is only so much you can do with steel.

I have thought about this very same thing myself. I see, in a futuristic battle zone, a short sword similar to a Roman Gladius. I picture it with a blade of about 22-24 inches, a heavy armor piercing point, partially serrated on both sides, blackened blade , and a historically shaped black Krayton handle. Kydex scabbard, of course, with a multi-mount belt for hip or over the shoulder carry. Oh yeah,...the weighted, yet hollow pommel would unscrew in the middle to stash emergency items. Thats my thoughts, anyway. Sounds cool to me. Hell....I may build one and show it off to you guys! Dang........I need to send y'all some pics of the blades I've made. You all might think they're crap, but I like 'em. MCM

First of all, I can't really see swords still in use today. Even without gunpowder there would still be large projectile weapons in use. Things like airguns (pumpkin chuckin' anyone? :D ), rockets, bombs (dynamite), napalm, nuclear weapons (was that regular or extra dead? :eek: ), etc. If those didn't come around I'm sure lasers would have advanced to a useful point. Plus, you could always drop rocks, darts or whatever from an aircraft.

But all that reality aside :D , let's get creative.

I think in order to answer the sword question, you need to know the type of armor. Going with the laser advancement idea; I see carbon/kevlar reinforced with High strength steel and polished to a mirror finish (coat of arms as a hologram :cool: ). This would be worn over a nomex/kevlar arming suit. Helmets would be entirely closed with mirrored, tinted eyepieces. With such an evolved set of armor the sword might not be much of a sword, but more like a tuck (bang the guy on the head and then find a squishy part to stab). I do agree that swords if not like a tuck would be single handers probably used with a buckler to protect the finish on the armor. They also might have carbon fiber fullers to lighten the blade and make it quicker (just a thought :D ).

whew! :D

Thanks for yours answer!

I will see if i can draw a simple sketch of this ideas and put up here,
kevlar and all that is wath they have today and will need something like sword/axe/pikehammer mix
i belive a small saw/wave edge can do something on that kevlar and rip it up, but that will i
dont paint up on it, and have sable look to for it, some sort of crossguard or knuckleguard will i make to.

i hope i dont need to take down the flag and change name after this. :D
Rokkie i am. :)
see ya later!

Dang!! :eek:
Here it is, the brand new sword model 2k5 infantry standard.

well! it dont look so nice out, but anyway it is one, :D

the axe idea did i dump, but pikehammer will i think will work,
maybe need to be shorter, just to hook on a helmet or shield or armor

someway facts
blade length 610mm or 24''
blade width 50mm or 1,96''
blade thickness on backside 5mm or 0,2''
overall 724mm or 28,5''
weight 800-1000g or 1,76 - 2,2 pounds

did i get anything right? :\

oboy! need to sleep now.

---

 Attachment: 42.51 KB

I made some small changes

grip - 10mm longer and 8mm widther so it can fit something like icehockey-glove

hook - moved and changed to snap-on type and shorted to 1'' from blade,
no problem with scabbard, maybe a snap-on axe can fit in there to
crossguard/knuckleguard - just some small one's to fit better

am i on wrong way with this one, in a look on history?

---

 Attachment: 16.45 KB

Myself, I'd assume "modern" swords would be quite similar to those used back then; after all, why fix something that isn't broken?

If it was up to me, I'd likely equip both foot soldiers and cavalry with backsword-bladed baskethilts with blades in the 37" range, propably with a false edge, weighing around 1,3 kg or 2,9 lbs, assuming that heavy armor wouldn't be present in the battlefield. The optimal steel might be something like 5160 - durable and not very expensive. Bucklers or larger shields in the off-hand might be a jolly good idea as well.

If heavy armor is common in the battlefield, a sword isn't exactly the weapon of choice. While half-swording techniques are very effective in one-on-one combat, grappling and possibly going to the ground are not a very good idea when the opponent has friends to help him... Polearms, on the other hand, should serve quite finely, so the sword's role would be that of a backup weapon. For this purpose, I'd choose a stiff, sharply tapering hand-and-a-half capable of half-swording in a pinch. A rondel would be absolutely neccessary, too.


Rabbe

personally, i agree that the 'modern sword' should and would be similar to old swords, why break from what works. I also am pretty sure, that I would wish to go into any combat situation without some sort of sword, regardless of other weapons. This would of coarse be secondary weapon and would only be used in extreme cases. We have to remember that while all of us here are sword lovers the rest of the world is still obsessed with guns, we have to accommodate that, not vise versa. That is why in my opinion the armour would not change much if at all from the current forms of armor. There will be very little chance for hand to hand combat, which is why the sword should be a secondary weapon in modern combat.

According to a book called Get Tough by Capt Fairbairn, the brittish army used a large knife called a smatchet during WW 2 and the United States considered adopting it also. It was probably a very good choice and would have been used, so far as I can tell, like a gladius. Boker makes them and you can order one from Island Security for 175 dollars. Then all you have to do is carry it around and that's the problem even if a guy is inclined to knife fighting soldiers just have too much to carry. Even photos of the notoriously overloaded troops of D-day do not show any packing a smatchet. You might say that modern soldiers are "mounted" so that weight is less important but I suspect that getting in and out of vehicles makes you just as wary of bulky protruding things also. I'll hazard a guess that if any US soldiers or marines get close enough to use a blade they have orders to use non leathal force on their opponate and so some kind of baton would be better than a blade, and of course they probably just wrestle them down or use their rifles. As much as I like swords, it's hard to envision a situation where they are not either too much or too little force.
Robert Heinlein predicted that fighting on spaceships would be with blades since you would destroy the ship you were trying to board with guns etc, but I suspect that other wepons will take over there also. It may be just as vital to have the crew intact as the ship.
So, I think the sword would be effective but I don't think it would accomplish the mission of taking prisoners and that seems to be a big priority in modern war.
No one is sorrier about that than me!
See ya
Steve

I hate to say this Rabbe , but for most people , it is VERY easy to take a prisoner with a firearm . It is simple for the military to do , point the weapon at the person and say " surrender or die " .

You would be suprised at how often that works .

I cant speak for the Army , but in the Marines we still teach the use of the bayonet to the recruits . What this means is that even if you get into close combat with the enemy the last thing you want to do is drop your weapon and draw a sword . Remember , IF you win that fight you then have the danger of OTHER enemy personal farther away being able to fire on you and you have no way to return fire .

That said , most of the Marines I knew and do know DO carry a belt knife of some kind ( the K-bar , various Gerbers , smachets , ect , ect ) . These are very useful as tools and all kinds of chores that come up in the field , but to use them in combat is the LAST resort . When I was in the Corps my personal favorite was the British paratrooper knife , a large single bladed wooden handled thing that could be used for all kinds of thing .

Ah, but that applies to swords as well. My point (which I, looking back at my previous post, admittedly did not explain very clearly) was that taking prisoners (well - ones armed with similar weaponry, that is...) with a gun isn't really that much easier than with a sword.


Rabbe