The M1913 Patton Sword

[David R]

The cut versus thrust argument looks to have gone on throughout the entire time swords were in use. By the end of the 19th C thrust was winning out but if swords had carried on in use longer, cut might have gained ground again.
It certainly did in the Imperial Japanese Military, who in the 1930s abandoned the Western style sabre and appeared to go back to their traditional style sword for both Army and Navy.
The funny thing is that it seems to have not been the nostalgia for tradition that is so often put forward, but a practical decision based on experience in Manchuria.There was considerable research done, field testing, and a lot of to and fro between the various arms... Tradition and familiarity undoubtedly played a part though.
Below archive pictures from the development process, and fuller discussions in great detail here https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/japan...komiya-691796/

[Jim McDougall]

That is some most interesting perspective David, thank you. It is well noted that the cut vs. thrust thing was a most active debate throughout the last centuries of the sword, and the 'Patton' as well as the British 1908 were of course distinctly thrusting swords.

Again, here I would emphasize that these two patterns were effectively the 'end game' in regulation military swords, along undoubtedly with certain variation in some other countries. I wanted to touch on them only as a 'closing look' at swords that evolved out of the 19th century efforts to establish a close to these debates, but without moving into analysis of 20th century swords.

Again, thank you so much for this detailed input, very well presented!

[David R]

I would also point out the British 1897 infantry officers sword as a dedicated thrusting sword, and a variant of this was adopted as a cavalry sword by the City of London Yeomanry.
As late as the 1920's British Imperial Officers webbing had a frog for the sword. What is often missed is that in combat a pistol can not parry a sword attack, and this matters if your primary enemy (Afghanistan) is a dedicated sword user. The P1897 is as much a parrying bar as it is a thrusting blade.

[Jim McDougall]

That is well noted David, and I had forgotten about that sword with my concentration on cavalry swords.
With the M1913 Patton sword, at the time Patton was advocating its design focused on the thrust, the war department was intent on redeveloping the M1906 Ames cavalry sword with a more curved blade.

I suppose that if being attacked by a sword wielding opponent, if you had a pistol you would presumably fire and have no need to parry. However in remote circumstances, lack of ammunition or serviceable firearm, clearly the edged weapon would become primary.

[David R]

There is no doubt, but that I would like a Patton sword, it looks a damn sight handier than the British equivalent. Living in the UK I have to accept that this would be very unlikely.
Regarding shooting your blade wielding assailant, look up the US experience in the Philippines. In the end, they had to invent/adopt a new pistol 45.ACP, because a 38 revolver did not do the job!

[midelburgo]

I have one of those things. The blade looks like coming from a 1600 ritterschwert. Patton was at Sweden in 1912 for the Summer Olympics, so the similitude to Swedish 1893 could be more than casual.

I think I read somewhere of the sword being used in the 1914 Veracruz campaign.

The basket seems more intended to protect the hand from hitting something in the cutting arc than from an enemy weapon.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by midelburgo

I have one of those things. The blade looks like coming from a 1600 ritterschwert. Patton was at Sweden in 1912 for the Summer Olympics, so the similitude to Swedish 1893 could be more than casual.

I think I read somewhere of the sword being used in the 1914 Veracruz campaign.

The basket seems more intended to protect the hand from hitting something in the cutting arc than from an enemy weapon.

Very well noted, Patton was one of the foremost swordsmen in the US, and was indeed in Sweden. When he designed his sword it was based on British, French and Swedish preference for the thrust.
In Patton's view, the thrust was keenly an 'attack' movement , so of course he deemed this militarily essential.

I am not aware of any presence of these in the Vera Cruz events, and it seems this area of the Mexican campaigns was mostly with US naval and Marine forces.

However, 2nd Lt. Patton, with Pershing's forces, then with the 8th cavalry out of Ft. Bliss, Texas, in 1914 was to lead an attack on Mexican forces on American side of Rio Grande R. He had planned a sabre (the Patton swords were collectively termed that) attack, but superiors ordered the swords left at the fort. The Mexican forces had left before he got there.

It seems the only use of the M1913 as a weapon in 'action' was in the previously mentioned Washington D.C. riots in 1934, and then only using flat side of blades as crowd control prods.

Regarding the huge guard, I think this was to protect the user's wrist. Patton was well aware of 'duelling' cuts to the wrist thus impairing the users hold on the weapon. He fought with epee's and sabers in his fencing, and on one occasion deliberately struck his opponent on the wrist thus disabling him. The Scots were well aware of this action also, and applied guard extensions on their basket hilts to defend from wrist blows.
With these swords, I am not sure that they were expected to meet sword to sword combat, but protecting the hand and wrist from injury was essential to retain grip on the sword.