In WWII the Germany army was around 70% unmotorized until the end of the war. WWII was still a war of horse mounted troops for the wehrmacht.

They were using planes by 1916 (the halfway mark). Same thing with tanks. Yes, they got newer and better tanks/planes as the war went on, but their introduction was 1916 at the absolute latest. Now if you want something really crazy, one of the first submachine guns, the MP-18, wasn't around until 1918. That's right, we figured out tanks, planes, and belt feds before we figured out smg's (an smg just being a machine gun that fires a pistol cartridge)

​@@redoktopus3047 Yes but they didnt use a lot of cavalry. The horse was mostly used for dragging artillery and logistics.

With the German collapse of late 1918 they did some cavalry charges

No doubt. To be honest, Cav is never going to go away, be it horse back or mechanized. I do believe the last horseback cavalry charge(training) was Dec '41 for the US. Technology will evolve but shock and awe of cavalry will remain. Russians are using motorbike cavalry which seems to be working out decently.

Yes. I grow granddaddy purp and blue dream

Swords were still practical in WW1. A sword and pistol was a very effective combination for defending yourself in close spaces like a trench. The problem in the infantry, however, is only the officers carried swords. It made them a target, so they hung up their swords. The cavalry, however, kept their swords since every enlisted man had a sword as well. Cavalry in general was significantly more useful than people think during the war.

@@Specter_1125 Good point. There are some really brutal looking WW1 melee weapons in my local museum that were used in the trenches for close combat. The examples they have are mostly horrible looking chair legs with nails and barbed wire attached, but I could imagine one of these elegant swords would be very useful in those circumstances

@@Specter_1125I always kinda wondered why there weren’t dedicated trench-raider teams with swords. guess the hard part was getting into the trench 😅

Castles and castle-like fortresses continued being built well after cannons became the predominant battlefield artillery. The walls just became thicker and shaped differently, but the general concept of big stone walls forming concentric layers of fortification continued on for a couple of hundred years after cannons became widespread.

@@Candlemancer Fair point. The thick stone walls and fortifications around my hometown got wrecked by artillery in the 17th Century but they chose to repair and rebuild them immediately after the conflict as they still had some practical purpose

I think the 1882 is more Art Nuveaux than Deco. Totally Brutalism on the other

That's so him

I hope your family still has it. Sounds like a really cool heirloom to have.

For some reason i never thought Id see a fat electrician quote on a channel i associate with HEMA. But his quotes definitely fit in so many HEMA or just combat sports in general videos

I do wish gun owners in the country recognized the difference.

thrust in opposition- you use your thrust to simultaneously put the opponent’s blade out of alignment. this allows you to strike and guard in the same action whereas a parry would have to be followed up by a riposte, which is not very feasible when you’re on a galloping horse. that’s also why the cavalry saber is so heavy, it’s meant for decisive thrusts delivered on horseback.

Great answer. To build off that point about the heft: a sword with more mass will be harder to displace. In blade contact with a lighter sword, it will have a noticeable presence. On foot, being able to flit hither and tither with disengages are handy, but if you only have the window to make a singular thrust before you're past your foe, all that fliting isn't of much use. A hefty blade improves your odds of landing that thrust without being displaced before it lands, and the fatigue cost is mitigated by how intermittently you actually present the blade.

"No direct parries are taught, because at the completion of a parry the enemy is already beyond reach of an attack. The surest parry is a disabled opponent." "1st; it is a serious error to seek the blade of the adversary instead of disregarding it and seeking the touch, brushing the blade aside as a secondary consideration should it interfere. There is a strong tendency toward this seeking of the blade among men who have fenced under the old rules. It must be prohibited. On foot, at the walk, it is quite possible to make this sort of a parry and still have time to touch; but, mounted, at a gallop, a man who seeks the blade of his foe and parries it may escape uninjured, but so will the other man. The speed of the horses is such that the enemy will be out of reach before the trooper can make an effective lunge at him, whereas if he disregards the other's saber and lunges at his body, he will, in so doing, force his adversary's saber aside and transfix him. Moreover, the very idea of seeking the saber so as to parry it is taking a defensive frame of mind and is contrary to offensive cavalry spirit." Saber Exercise 1914

So, basically, Patton’s sword work has more in common with the use of lances than traditional sword fighting

@@PJDAltamirus0425 And more in common with Polo. The Calvary Officer's Sport

one wonders how many times Patton stabbed his horse before coming up with that scabbard design

​@@robinswordsit's definitely telling about the mindset regarding WW1, really interesting stuff!

You could probably get a decent antique for less than having it reproduced

@@robinswords Really? I didn't know. I shall have to do my due dilligence in this regard. Swords are great. But Swords for cheap are better! Thank you!

Not really a saber, more an estoc. See also the Polish Konserz [nothing new under the sun] and the British 1908 which may well have/probably did influence Patton.

It allows you to take some weight out of the blade without reducing its strength. I think I've seen some people saying it actually *increases* the strength of the blade, but I don't know if that's true, or if I've misinterpreted them, or if they've misinterpreted someone else.

The patton sword isn't terrible though, it's purpose built. Patton himself wasn't the sole designer, but put post of the finishing touches as well as advocated the project substantially.

I think it was back in December actually. The hit was at the very base of the nail.

@@robinswords Ohhh yeah… they take so long to work themselves out lol

Swordfighting

Even with gloves fingernails can get smushed.

No, this is the real one.

Incorrect. More true in the case of the 82, but still incorrect.

Peer cavalry charges only died out in WWI (in a big way, brrrt). There were a few afterward, but they were useless against armored vehicles and trenches.

​@@DanielMWJ Just because the most famous (and arguably most consequential) front in WWI was mostly trench warfare, it was not the only front. Cavalry still played a large role in the Middle East and the Eastern Fronts.

@@digitaljanus And even on the Western Front, cavalry charges were still important. Trench warfare was the pike wall of its era, very static, fairly inflexible and near impenetrable *until it isn't* and the lines break down, and then flanking by light cavalry becomes as devastating as it ever was.

The M-1882 is a standardization of the non-regulation swords that were in use by French Colonial Officers who had a very real expectation of needing to use them. It was carried into WW1 as a combat-tested design. The M1913 was the result of Patton's time abroad studying swordsmanship in the French school. The design itself is a close match to the British 1908 Cavalry Sword. There was an expectation of use for swords going into WW1. Regardless of how much any particular model was actually used, they were certainly still designed and issued with combat applications in mind.

No, this is me. There are two imposter Facebook pages.