| Nicholas Allan Wilson wrote: |
| It would seem that the tactical varieties are stripped down to be as light weight as possible. This is probably done to make them easier to carry by military personnel. Due to their light weight nature I have a difficult time seeing them outperform re-creations mainly because re-creations generally have more mass. Swords of past eras were seen more as primary weapons instead of as backups. Any other thoughts on this?
~nic |
It depends on what you mean by "outperform". Outperform in defeating 15th century armour? Most likely a 15th century sword, designed for that purpose, would win out. Outperform in defeating a modern flak vest? Well, a sword specifically designed for that purpose would most likely win out. Then there are other factors: Outperform in ease of carry with 12th century garments or 21st century garments? Outperform in being gripped with gauntlets or tactical gloves? etc. After all, there's much more to performance than how well a sword cuts (otherwise we wouldn't have seen so much variation throughout the ages).
But again, as with my previous post, I'm being theoretical, since I view tactical swords much more in the realm of "what if".