That was worth reading, thanks Dave!
That was worth reading, thanks Dave!
Better late than never, i thought this info might be handy in this thread, it's from the short development of type 95 sword thread.
Bruce was kind of leading to this back in post 10, and i think Anderson's understanding would be better by reading this:
06-30-2017, 06:43 PM #4
nick komiya :
Feedback from the field units, collected in 1932 reveals how mistrusted the Type 32 sword was in the Manchurian Incident.
Problems
1. Short grip does not allow a two-hand grip for full force slashing. Particularly when wearing heavily padded winter gloves and uniform. At such times, the enemy is also in padded uniform, so the slashing blade just bounces back and has no effect. The only effective way of fighting in heavy winter gear is by stabbing thrusts for which the Type 32 is well suited. If slashing is meant to be the main use of the weapon, the grip needs to be longer in future.
(March 1932 response from the 20th Division)
2．Adding of the cutting edge needs to be done by polishing, instead of filing to make slashing effective (May 1932 response from 30th Inft Regt.)
3. NCOs have little confidence in the Type 32 sword in practical combat and not a few additionally carry their own private Samurai swords for that purpose. (April 1932 feedback from the 24th Mixed Brigade).
As a result of such drawbacks of the Type 32, the army units quickly started to unite in their support of a 2-handed Samurai sword design. As seen above, front line experience of having to fight in heavy winter clothing in Manchurian winters had a decisive impact on how the Type 95 was born and why the filing work on edges was finally abandoned.
"Okan" posted a pertinent New York Times article from December 1933 over at NMB. Again, poor old General Araki gets the blame.
Some old New York Times articles
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks