Your nation's Main Melee Weapon

[Amastol]

Amastol issues one of two edged weapons (not counting entrenching tools, or specialized machetes) for combat troops. The more utilitarian ARGUS Model 13 Bayonet or the more aggressive ARGUS Model 14 Bayonet depending on the environment and role of the troops. Most troops carry the lighter more functional model 13, where as front line and reserve infantry units often carry the Model 14 due to its more effective combat performance and intimidation factor.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

Your hand would get sore and blistered if you made more than a few cuts with that.

that's the coolest story I've ever heard

God I'm so cheap! That flashy thing looks too expensive...just settle for an M1862, it's cheaper and it's just 2 pounds.

[-Byzentania-]

The official Saber, we use it for close range weapons.

[Seperate Vermont]

Rapiers.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Rapiers.

That us just awful. Rapiers are not, and never have been practical combat weapons.

[Star Trek America]

Rapiers.

That us just awful. Rapiers are not, and never have been practical combat weapons.

Epee's weren't. Proper Rapiers were. Know your weapons.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

That us just awful. Rapiers are not, and never have been practical combat weapons.

Epee's weren't. Proper Rapiers were. Know your weapons.

Rapiers weren't. Later arming swords with a fancy, rapier style hand guard, sometimes inaccurately called a 'cut and thrust rapier' were. Know your weapons.

[Star Trek America]

Epee's weren't. Proper Rapiers were. Know your weapons.

They were civilian weapons, not combat weapons.

It was determined to be bulky and unfashionable to tote around a large combat going sword, especially when you might be accosted without warning by burglers and thieves in a narrow corridor. Hence why the exclusive thrust and lightness of the rapier became popular.

Sorry bro. Civilian Weapon = Combat Weapon. Reason = Any weapon is Combat Capable.

Epee's on the other hand; the traditional 'view' of a 'Rapier' is a court sword; utterly useless in short. An ACTUAL Rapier was a weapon.

[Star Trek America]

Epee's weren't. Proper Rapiers were. Know your weapons.

Rapiers weren't. Side swords (an arming sword with a fancy, rapier style hand guard, sometimes inaccurately called a 'cut and thrust rapier') were. Know your weapons.

Yeah, they were. Not going to argue this.

[-Byzentania-]

Either way the Saber is better for modern times if we are going into a sword debate, especially ours.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

They were civilian weapons, not combat weapons.

It was determined to be bulky and unfashionable to tote around a large combat going sword, especially when you might be accosted without warning by burglers and thieves in a narrow corridor. Hence why the exclusive thrust and lightness of the rapier became popular.

Sorry bro. Civilian Weapon = Combat Weapon. Reason = Any weapon is Combat Capable.

Epee's on the other hand; the traditional 'view' of a 'Rapier' is a court sword; utterly useless in short. An ACTUAL Rapier was a weapon.

Actually the smallsword/court sword/epee was also a useful combat weapon, it came to replace the rapier for civilian duelling because a shorter, lighter quicker sword that allowed fencing in double time and was able to strike and parry quickly was preferred over a longer rapier that was heavy, restricted to single time, easier to trap because of it's length and almost required an offhand weapon (or cloak, buckler, heavy glove if you have nothing better). The smallsword was useful and made the rapier effectively obsolete, not useless in the least.

Rapiers weren't. Side swords (an arming sword with a fancy, rapier style hand guard, sometimes inaccurately called a 'cut and thrust rapier') were. Know your weapons.

Yeah, they were. Not going to argue this.

The rapier was a civilian weapon, you don't want to issue it to soldiers. Military swords were influenced by the style of rapiers and often had similar style handguards, but they weren't rapiers.

Also, my mistake in using the term side sword earlier, a side sword is a lighter, civilian cut and thrust sword, which was largely replaced by the rapier, which was later replaced by the smallsword.

[Alekseevskaya]

From 2100-Present day (2230) our infantry wield the one hand Zvezda-7 Combat Ion Edged Blade, used in tandem with the Ion Wrist Shield. Made by Rizhskaya Armory

All rights reserved, Rizhskaya Armory © 2050

[-Byzentania-]

I'd argue that the cutlass is more practical, seeing as how most close combat would occur in extremely confined locations, rather then a full length sabre.

well the Byzentanian Saber/Sabren/Sabor/Sabre is a bit shorter then most sabers, it is mid weight (not light but not heavy) and is good for close combat, it is also easy to get out.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

I'd argue that the cutlass is more practical, seeing as how most close combat would occur in extremely confined locations, rather then a full length sabre.

well the Byzentanian Saber/Sabren/Sabor/Sabre is a bit shorter then most sabers, it is mid weight (not light but not heavy) and is good for close combat, it is also easy to get out.

Semantics. A cutlass/short sabre/whatever your people call a short, curved, one sided, back sword optimized for cutting is well suited for the task.

[-Byzentania-]

The official Saber, we use it for close range weapons.

Short swords would be better.

We call those large knives, we want to slash and our weapons are strong enough to stab, but we usually slash.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

They were civilian weapons, not combat weapons.

It was determined to be bulky and unfashionable to tote around a large combat going sword, especially when you might be accosted without warning by burglers and thieves in a narrow corridor. Hence why the exclusive thrust and lightness of the rapier became popular.

Sorry bro. Civilian Weapon = Combat Weapon. Reason = Any weapon is Combat Capable.

Epee's on the other hand; the traditional 'view' of a 'Rapier' is a court sword; utterly useless in short. An ACTUAL Rapier was a weapon.

Attempt to stab your opponent with a rapier, hit his body armour, rapier gets snapped in two, prepare for a gut full of lead and/or steel. Swords overall are awful for modern CQB, they are large, and require far more effort to use than say a knife, bayonet, short axe (tomahawk, hatchet, or even a pickaxe), or some form of club. A modern soldier from a first world country can be compared to a knight. While they may not be covered in armour, their heads and torsos are very well protected, safe from most melee weapons, so there are a very limited number of ways to kill them. You could go for the arms or legs, but that leaves you rather open, hence bayonets are useful since you can force your enemy to keep their distance. On the other hand, knives allow you to get in close and hit the gaps in their armour, such as their neck, and face. Axes and clubs allow you a way to say f*** the armour, I'll do what I want, since the axe, can go through some body armour, and the mace/club delivers enough blunt force to cause significant damage without penetrating the armour. The only thing swords are good for is looking cool, in reality they are largely useless in combat (as Nick said, swords like the cutlass may have some use, but most are still useless).

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Short swords would be better.

We call those large knives, we want to slash and our weapons are strong enough to stab, but we usually slash.

Go for a cutlass or gladius or something, go for a short sword.

[Federal Rome (Ancient)]

The standard gladius.

[Latin Hispania]

Our soldiers are issued one of the two following standard combat knives. This goes to every single soldier in the armed forces.




Some are also issued a machete that some would call a mix between a falchion and a kukri knife.


Soldiers are also free to purchase and use their own knifes, as long as they do not exceed the overall length of 60 centimeters (2 feet) or weigh more than 2.5 kilograms (5 pounds)

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Epee more useful than a rapier? Also your use of side sword is correct if wiki is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-sword

Not so much 'more useful' as 'better suited to the situations it came up in'.

Rapiers are long and sometimes awkward, especially in confined spaces, the side sword was shorter and quicker in use.
The rapier was more difficult to use to quickly attack and defend, the small sword allows fencing in double time. Because of this someone using a smallsword can stand sideways and present a smaller target, opposed to someone armed with a rapier and offhand weapon who needs to stand facing and present their chest instead of side.

Someone with only a rapier is unlikely to defeat someone with only a smallsword, the smallsword wielder will simply close, deflect the rapier away and pass inside it's point, and then stab the rapier wielder who's needing to back up to make effective use of their weapon.

Think about it this way, the smallsword did replace the rapier through out most of the world and when that change started everyone carried a rapier because it was fashionable to do so. The change happened because the smallsword was more effective for defending one's honour and cutting down the odd street tough.

Otherwise, damn self-doubt re: side sword.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Attempt to stab your opponent with a rapier, hit his body armour, rapier gets snapped in two, prepare for a gut full of lead and/or steel. Swords overall are awful for modern CQB, they are large, and require far more effort to use than say a knife, bayonet, short axe (tomahawk, hatchet, or even a pickaxe), or some form of club. A modern soldier from a first world country can be compared to a knight. While they may not be covered in armour, their heads and torsos are very well protected, safe from most melee weapons, so there are a very limited number of ways to kill them. You could go for the arms or legs, but that leaves you rather open, hence bayonets are useful since you can force your enemy to keep their distance. On the other hand, knives allow you to get in close and hit the gaps in their armour, such as their neck, and face. Axes and clubs allow you a way to say f*** the armour, I'll do what I want, since the axe, can go through some body armour, and the mace/club delivers enough blunt force to cause significant damage without penetrating the armour. The only thing swords are good for is looking cool, in reality they are largely useless in combat (as Nick said, swords like the cutlass may have some use, but most are still useless).

Pretty much this. In fact when the rapier was made, it was made to not pierce body armor but probe at the joints. Stabbing and slashing at a thing of modern armor and plate is useless thing to do with a sword.

Actually, attempt to stab with your rapier and connect with armour, it flexes and you try again. It's made of steel, not stainless, and not carbide.

Also, the rapier was not invented for finding gaps in armour, that was the estoc/tuck, which was longer and heavier and stiffer than a rapier. It was earlier by about 200 years and a military weapon. The rapier was not a military weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89p%C3%A9e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallsword I'm not arguing the effectiveness of the smallsword over the epee. But couldn't a rapier wielder just grab the flimsy epee with his off hand , snap it, and proceed to run the epee wielder through?

Epee = smallsword. Their effectiveness is equal as they are the same. Anyways, as for rapier vs smallsword...

If he's wearing gloves, certainly he could grab it, as could the smallsword wielder with the rapier wielder's weapon. It comes down to likelihood. The longer, slower rapier is more likely to be grabbed by the smallsword wielder who has one hand free than the shorter, quicker smallsword is likely to be grabbed by the rapier wielder, who would most likely be holding something in his offhand already for defence.

[-the Ukrainian SSR-]

Sorry bro. Civilian Weapon = Combat Weapon. Reason = Any weapon is Combat Capable.

Epee's on the other hand; the traditional 'view' of a 'Rapier' is a court sword; utterly useless in short. An ACTUAL Rapier was a weapon.

Attempt to stab your opponent with a rapier, hit his body armour, rapier gets snapped in two, prepare for a gut full of lead and/or steel. Swords overall are awful for modern CQB, they are large, and require far more effort to use than say a knife, bayonet, short axe (tomahawk, hatchet, or even a pickaxe), or some form of club. A modern soldier from a first world country can be compared to a knight. While they may not be covered in armour, their heads and torsos are very well protected, safe from most melee weapons, so there are a very limited number of ways to kill them. You could go for the arms or legs, but that leaves you rather open, hence bayonets are useful since you can force your enemy to keep their distance. On the other hand, knives allow you to get in close and hit the gaps in their armour, such as their neck, and face. Axes and clubs allow you a way to say f*** the armour, I'll do what I want, since the axe, can go through some body armour, and the mace/club delivers enough blunt force to cause significant damage without penetrating the armour. The only thing swords are good for is looking cool, in reality they are largely useless in combat (as Nick said, swords like the cutlass may have some use, but most are still useless).

I think you just insulted every NS MT Nation with Knights out there...Hard like.

Otherwise I agree. I issue ceremonial swords to officers though. Just a cavalry sword/saber.

[Satirius]

Attempt to stab your opponent with a rapier, hit his body armour, rapier gets snapped in two, prepare for a gut full of lead and/or steel. Swords overall are awful for modern CQB, they are large, and require far more effort to use than say a knife, bayonet, short axe (tomahawk, hatchet, or even a pickaxe), or some form of club. A modern soldier from a first world country can be compared to a knight. While they may not be covered in armour, their heads and torsos are very well protected, safe from most melee weapons, so there are a very limited number of ways to kill them. You could go for the arms or legs, but that leaves you rather open, hence bayonets are useful since you can force your enemy to keep their distance. On the other hand, knives allow you to get in close and hit the gaps in their armour, such as their neck, and face. Axes and clubs allow you a way to say f*** the armour, I'll do what I want, since the axe, can go through some body armour, and the mace/club delivers enough blunt force to cause significant damage without penetrating the armour. The only thing swords are good for is looking cool, in reality they are largely useless in combat (as Nick said, swords like the cutlass may have some use, but most are still useless).

Modern body armour, with ceramic inserts even, will not protect against a cold steel thrust.

The armour concept of stopping a ranged projectile with initial velocity is different from that of a projectile with constant velocity. A thrust with a bayonet for example pushes the equivalent of a full power rifle round into the tip of the blade, and the velocity is constantly being reinforced, unlike a bullet which has no additional force imparted on it once it hits matter.

Of course it would slow it, and it is silly to rely on cold steel to kill. But the modern soldier is most definitely not the equal of a knight when cold steel in involved.

Modern body armour would actually be more effective against maces though, thanks to all those anti-trauma plates and soft protection.

Shoot twice

your cold steel clatters on the ground

dwi B)

[Scharrath]

A variety of monomolecular knives, usually coated with a poisonous or hallucinogenic toxin of some sort, are the most common.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Can someone answer this for me? Why use swords in CQB? They take up a good amount of space, force you to disarm yourself (can't wield your main weapon and a sword at the same time unless you are Satirius), and are long. Why not use bayonets, which don't disarm you, and allow you the versatility of a spear (or short sword if you use 18in sword bayonets), a club, and a gun?