Is a sword the patrician choice for kebab removal?

Ballistics gel imitates the ballistics of flesh, not the friction, and especially not a bleeding wound.

better than trying to remove kebab without a test run? unless you can get access to a pig slaughterhouse.

Attached: 130803210684103.gif (500x280, 477K)

meh.

>straight swords are good for armor

No swords are good for armor. Straight swords are just a different style/philosophy in their use

not trying to rag on you. just saying weapons progressed the way they did for a reason and that those reasons are bloody. but if a straight sword tickles your pickle than don't let me stop you. i hope you remove all the kebab slugger.

Attached: 103210691035.jpg (600x302, 221K)

i agree with you. swords were like a sidearm, better that then nothing when you have no other options and you cant run. lances were the main deal for medieval armor because of putting the combined weight of you and your horse behind a single point but I didn't want to get into all that. good call tho.

Attached: 10321608406510.gif (404x252, 748K)

Ballistic gel has the same density as flesh, but thats it. It is only an accurate representation of flesh when you shoot it. Other than that, it is completely different.

Sticking a sharp sword through meat is damn near effortless.

i agree with you. it's difficult to get a true test on a bladed weapon without felonies involved, or access to some kind of butcher or slaughterhouse.however i imagine going into a conflict with a weapon you aren't practiced with is worse and that is all i'm trying to say. i am working on a bottle of vodka and maybe it's coming out wrong. not trying to upset anyone or pretend i know anything about killing with swords.

Attached: 139840365140351.jpg (474x310, 18K)

>pretend i know anything about killing with swords
That's essentially what you're coming off as.

Sword fighting is basically "stick them with the pointy end", unless you're up against someone with training, which 99.99% of the time you won't be.

Thats exactly right, swords filled the same role that handguns fill right now, they're light, and comfortable to wear as part of your uniform/daily attire. If needed, you can easily draw it and defend yourself/threaten someone. You have a massive advantage over anyone unarmed.

Not very helpfull at all on a battlefield where everyone has armor and full sized weapons

Im not op btw, just someone who jumped into a sword thread.

And if you ever butchered a deer then youd know its very different to ballistic gel in how its cut

>Not very helpfull at all on a battlefield
Mad Jack Churchill would disagree with you.

Attached: when you see it.jpg (1200x769, 151K)

i didn't mean to. i'll bow out here and leave the discussion to the professionals. i'll have a shot in your honor. cheers!

Attached: 13068461681601.jpg (443x640, 62K)

oh okay. i've never butchered a deer, but I imagine doing it with a sword while the buck is still kicking and trying to gore you back would be a feat and that's all i'm trying to imply. like i mentioned to the other user, i'm in my cups and i should probably shut it. imma head back to lurking now.

Attached: 10684035106315.jpg (960x686, 231K)

>here's a reason straight swords fell out of use since gunpowder made medieval armor obsolete.
Handguns started to be used seriously in the 1400's. Straight swords were still common in the 1700's and some 19th c. sabres had straight blades.
So no, you're off the mark. Also, straight swords aren't necessarily good for armor in the sense that no swords is exactly good against armor.

>Thats exactly right, swords filled the same role that handguns
It's a little bit disingenuous. Swords were expected to be used and simply used much more than pistols.

Didn't work too well in 1453 did it

I understood that reference.

He still knows more than you. God you Euro swordfags are retarded.

Nice argument, fag.

>too weak to swing a longsword

youtube.com/watch?v=0wMGdIXp_oU
Matter of preference mostly, on foot anyway. Curved sword is more cutty and a bit easier to cut with. Straight sword stabs better and has a little more reach.
Just this.

Oh, and also, less trained users (common soldiers, sailors, stuff like that) were often given curved swords. They are easier to use, for an untrained person.

Depends on how much deus vult. There are better options though.

Attached: d3917054eccebf8d08abd9f898587bff.jpg (1779x2480, 2.77M)

ALL

Attached: 1559063773851.png (309x266, 16K)

When the turks started losing to christians big time in the late 17th century, it was mostly with superior european firearm infantry and artillery. Then again, the hussars had some spectacular victories as well. And in earlier battles (nikopolis) european knights fought well, they were just too fractured and ill-led. In the end, the real reason the ottomans were stronger than the crusaders or balkan states, but weaker than early modern austria and russia (and inferior to the commonwealth on the battlefield, but not suffering from political retardation), was a complicated political and economical matter. In matter of arms and equipment (not necessarily military tactics and strategy) europe was always at least level with the ottomans.

>buying a sword
>not at least an Albion
Not gonna make it.

Are you?
youtu.be/HNEBpu8eDsU