Katana Vs Sword

Katana are not meant to butcher, they are meant to be used to slash through flesh and meat. An experienced user (or anyone who has read a little about them) knows that the primary part of the blade meant for use is around the tip :/ I really wish they wouldn't have wasted it like that and just shipped it to someone who wanted it...Still thumbed you up because you have nothing to do with their stupidity and it's a pretty obvious result.

Katana is an overrated weapon. If you can't hit the enemy with it, eg; they parry, block or wear heavy plate, you are going to break it.

I really hate when they show it as the superior of the superior of the superior swords. When a scimitar or kilij is just better off in a combat, or a rapier in a duel.

I blame the anime for it. Let the thumb downs ban me.

Post gif about breaking swords, everyone becomes weapon specialist

You really can't can't CAN'T do a general comparison between a Japanese "Katana" and a European Broadsword.

WHY?
Two reasons:

1.) Different tools for different jobs. Comparing a Katana to a Broadsword is like comparing a Sports Car to a 4x4. Put the two next to each other on a race track, and the Sports Car will appear far superior. However try taking both off road and see which seems better. You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

2. When it comes to quality and performance of a blade, just like with cars, it all depended on who made it. Sword smiths (Both Euro and Japanese) were artisans. Some were masters of their art, others not so much. Some specialized in mass producing, others crafted one blade at a time, sometimes taking years to fulfill a commission. Also, crafting a sword was a bit like making wine. It all depends on the quality of the materials available at the time. Smiths back then weren't metallurgists, Chemists, or Engineers. They knew what worked, but they didn't know WHY or HOW it worked. So there were lots of random factors beyond their control. So even with the same smith, the quality of their blades could vary dramatically from sword to sword.

So basically the age old debate of European vs Japanese swords is pointless. Even if you were to compare specific blades, (for example The River Witham Sword vs. Kusanagi-no-Tsurugi) you would struggle to find a fair comparison between the two, as both were developed in entirely different environments for entirely different uses.

Almost every comment is some nigger acting like they are an expert on swords just because they've seen an episode of fucking naruto.

To all the people whining the Katana lost, it's common fucking sense.
When the Katana was built, armor was not an issue. Armies would literally fight in wood, rope, and bamboo armor for minimal protection from ARROWS. Melee fighting was skill based, one reason why armor would've slowed down the combat on one side. But then you look at the Longsword and realize it was designed to puncture and slice through plate and scale armors, things Japan and China had never heard of at the time. Katana's were good for slicing through flesh in 1 on 1 combat, but would fail if brought up against any form of protection from Europe.
They were both great swords for their era, and great swords for their area, but in the end, the Longsword was designed to do more than slice through flesh.

ITT: Everyone's a weapon expert.

Next up we will put up a rapier up to the same test!

chill out guys, i got this.

That's like running a Lamborghini into a Hummer.

ITT: Teenagers arguing about weapons that aren't used anymore.

Everyone should know katana's aren't made to go full force against another blade right?

Anyway, it's still pretty cool in slow motion!

Yeah, that's not what katanas are built for. They're not there to meet a sword head-on.
In Feudal Japan, there was little availability for the elements required to make steel.
They solved their metal shortage problem by making the katana. An extremely sharp and lightweight blade with enough durability to DEFLECT heavier cleavers.
All they had to do was train the user of the blade the proper 'swishing' technique to deflect an enemy sword in battle. That's why samurai fights look so fluid, because they are trained never to strike the enemy directly, but rather swipe in at an angle.

There are different types of Katanas. The kobuse type is made using two steels, which are called hagane (edge steel) and shingane (core steel). Honsanmai and shihozume types add the third steel, called kawagane (skin steel). There are almost an infinite number of ways the steel could be assembled, which often varied considerably from smith to smith. Sometimes the hagane is "drawn out," (hammered into a bar), bent into a 'U' shaped trough, and the very soft shingane is inserted into the harder piece.
I doubt the Katana in the Gif is one of does.

With that said. The Katana is not made to bash thing. You use it (mostly) to redirect the opponents sword.

The Katana is way better for cutting Then the European longsword, but the European longsword was build to hold more force behind each hit.

They are different types of swords, used for different types of fighting styles.

If it came to a battle between a Samurai and a Knight, then the Knight would properly win with because of his shield.

/Argument.

inb4 Not an expert, I use Wiki.

The Katana is obviously very poorly made, but also consider that the sword has it's weight fully supported along the entire blade.

hey guies, let's fire a gun at a tank and see how that works out