Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kronckew
 they found out those impressive wounds were caused by the indians having rehilted surplus british 1796 light cav. sabres - which had been issued to the sepoys before the revolt, main diff. was the indians actually sharpened them (and knew how to use a curved sabre). the brits had by then gone with the more 'modern' straight swords that were basicaly dull as a butter knife from drills with a metal scabbard.
the french also were 'impressed' by the 1796LC sword when wellington's troops used it in spain, complaining about it's horrible wounds. those British officers who thought they knew better, shortly after had their troopers 'spearpoint' the blades & latter issue sabres/swords got progresively straighter as the ossifer class decided a thrust was better than a cut. that of course has been discussed ad nauseum. (i personally think the disabling cut was better than the killing thrust, as it takes more resources and manpower to look after a wounded man than a dead one. a better strategic result) |
Excellent points!
As you say the discussion on effectiveness of sword types is a well trodden path.
The battle effectiveness of the 'slash' or cut from a curved blade is indeed in the debilitating nature of the injury not the speed at which it causes death.
A thrust may cause any number of fatal wounds but still allow the victim to fight on for precious moments, or even minutes. A slash or long cut may lack depth but be immediately debilitating, removing the victim from combat, tieing up valuable resources in treatment etc.