Postby James Brazas » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:18 pm
This is somewhat outside the scope of the forum, but I think I could venture an opinion.
Am I correct in assuming this is modern-day combat and everyone has modern combat rifles? (M-16, M-4, Ak-47, etc.)
That would change the analysis.
All things being equal, swords are always better than knives.
Reach: A modern combat knife generally has a blade of 1 foot or less. Swords ranged between having 2 foot blades up to 4 foot blades. So the sword has a definite reach advantage over the knife.
Coverage: Swords have much greater hand protection. Modern combat knives rarely have much of a handguard, whereas swords ranged from having a long crossguard to complex hilts protecting the entire hand. The crossguard also has the advantage of being able to trap and manipulate the opponent's blade - which is hugely important.
Power: Swords typically have much more firepower as well. A good cutting sword can sever an unarmored head or limb with ease. A good thrusting sword can easily penetrate modern armor (it was designed to penetrate steel "chain" maille in a single, powerful thrust, so it would have no problem with modern armors).
Leverage: Due to the size of swords, they have a definite leverage advantage over a knife and can easily push the smaller weapon aside or manipulate it as the swordsman see fit.
Speed: Knives are fast, but so are swords. A knife may seem faster and nimbler at first, but physics tells us that the longer the weapon, the faster the tip is moving (assuming the same amount of force is behind each blow). I could go into the physics if you want, but the long and short of it is that the tip of a sword is moving much faster than the tip of a knife. It must also be remembered that real swords are much lighter and nimbler than the pathetic low-end "swords" most people are familiar with today. The actual historical weapons ranged in weight from under 1 lb. (smallsword) to around 8 lbs. (the largest two-handed swords ever made). Most were 2 t0 3.5 lbs. All of them had balance points quite close to wielder's hands (3 to 5 inches being typical for Medieval/Renaissance swords). So they were very fast weapons. Since I'm assuming we're talking about one-handed swords suitable for dealing with armor, the weight is likely about 2.5 lbs.
Versatility: Knives are versatile weapons, no doubt about it. But so are swords. Swordsmanship may not be as well known today, but to learn everything there is to know about combat with even one sword style could take years or even decades. The variety of cuts, thrusts, guards, parries, pommel strikes, crossguard strikes, binding and winding techniques, hooking techniques, grappling techniques, etc. is simply staggering.
So, all things being equal, a swordsman will almost always defeat a knife-wielder.
That begs the question: why use knives when you can use swords?
Here are the reasons:
1. Ease of transport: When a soldier is already carrying a rifle, a pistol, grenades, night vision, body armor, various other pieces of electronic equipment, water, etc., would he rather carry around a 3 foot sword dangling from his waist or a knife in his belt?
2. Limited usefulness of melee weapons: Usually, a modern soldier patrolling around has a rifle at the ready. That rifle will enable him to fire on virtually any target that he sees (except tanks, jets, etc.). He has no use for a sword or anything like that at distance. Why bother running at someone with a sword when you can just shoot him? So the only time a sword would ever be useful in modern combat is in very close quarters, such as when "house cleaning" (searching a building for hiding enemies), stealth missions, or when surprised by a hidden enemy who is very close by.
3. Quick draw: In such a situation, the soldier has only a split second to think. If the enemy is too close to shoot, then he has the choice of either hitting him with his rifle, stabbing with the bayonet (assuming he has one), or drawing some other weapon. If he chooses to draw another weapon better suited for melee combat (like a knife or sword), it had better be the quickest weapon to the draw possible. With training, a sword can be drawn very quickly. But due to its length, it will never be as quick to the draw as a knife. This is the same reason why medieval and renaissance knights used their dagger as their quick-draw weapon instead of their sword. Swords are better than knives, but when you absolutely have to have a weapon drawn as quickly as humanly possible, knives/daggers are quicker to the draw.
4. Bayonet: Another advantage of knives and daggers is that they can be made into bayonets. So, if you really are worried about getting into a situation where melee combat is called for, you can just turn your rifle into a short spear. A modern rifle with bayonet might not be as versatile or effective as a sword at melee combat, but you don't have to worry about drawing another weapon. Your ranged weapon is your melee weapon.
