Who is better to use in a cold war battle, a hammer or a sword?

Cold war fighting, hammer and sword who better to use?

Blunt weapon of course has its own advantages, first of all is the production of simple and relatively cheap, apes take a big stick is the earliest blunt weapon, and an ordinary hammer is obviously cheaper than a knife of the same length, while maintenance is also very worry. And if you cut armor with a knife, or if you cut each other with knives, it's inevitable that the knife will make a cut or something like that. But if you take a hammer and swing it round to smash it, anyway, wearing a piece of iron armor weight is so big that flexibility is limited, he can't avoid. Even if the head of the hammer is dented, it won't hurt, because it won't affect the use of the hammer.

Relative to the blunt weapon is more durable, basically no maintenance, there are a lot of ancient copper hammer, ripe copper stick class weapons is for this reason. Although copper is much softer than iron, but even if full of rust are green, it does not affect the smash. And sharp weapons once rust no matter, the more rust the deeper, the strength will be greatly affected by the unbearable to use. So swords and knives a class of sharp weapons need to maintain, keep the state, usually do not use the time to oil, blunt to grind, nothing to rub the knife to prevent rust. But the blunt weapon is very save, almost what maintenance do not need.

And, the blunt weapon damage is not low at all, not to mention those legendary super-heavy weapons, even if the daily handy wooden stick, the lethality is not low at all. In the weapon confrontation sport, even with the steel sword used for confrontation is less lethal than the wooden stick, because the steel sword used for confrontation is made to reduce the damage, and it will deform and vibrate to consume part of the kinetic energy after hitting.

But a wooden stick is harder to deform effectively to use up kinetic energy, so it's very easy to do full damage. There are two people in the use of wooden sticks to fight weapons confrontation caused by a person injured, they take just 2cm diameter of fine ash material whip, ash light weight, a 120cm length of the whip is only half a catty weight, probably more than 200 grams less than 300 grams of the appearance of the two sides are also wearing protective gear.

However, from the use of the difficulty, blunt weapons belong to the need for certain basic skills to play a role, but need to learn the skills of relatively sharp weapons to be much less. Sharp weapons, on the other hand, are mostly easy to learn and hard to master. For example, take a wooden stick, or even an iron rod, if you don't know how to use it at all, it's actually very difficult to cause enough damage, and in reality there are a lot of cases where you hit your opponent with a stick several times, and then fail to cause any effective damage, and end up being killed by the opponent's counterattack.

But with a sharp knife, even a child has the ability to kill an adult. With a blunt weapon you first need to learn how to fire it to make sure you can do enough damage, or else holding it might just give away your head. Whereas a sharp blade can kill a person without any skill just swinging blindly.

However, the two masters of the same sword can kill a novice too easily, and are simply people from two different worlds. Sharp blades are easy to pick up, but there are countless techniques that need to be practiced. To consider the angle of the swing, the direction of the force to be consistent with the direction of the blade, deviation of more than 5 ° in fact, it is difficult to feel out, but the effect of the swing will be much worse. Not to mention a lot of how not to hurt the edge of the case to dial block the opponent's weapon counterattack and so on. And blunt weapons need a minimum of skills to use, but once learned, as opposed to sharp weapons there is not much advanced skills to follow.

One expert may be able to cut through a large group of half-assed swordsmen. But we all use blunt weapons, as long as they will be the basic power skills, then the master of the half-cocked player suppression is not so obvious, a few ordinary players go up to beat up, the master if you do not run most likely also have to kneel.

Ancient blunt weapon is more active folk, because first of all, blunt weapon is cheap, do not need too much effort to maintain, and secondly, blunt weapon damage is relatively better control, do not want to kill each other can not be killed, as long as it is not to the vitals of the greetings are not easy to get into the life of the lawsuit. But the sharp weapon then you don't want to kill people, but accidentally cut large blood vessels, the other side is dead, even if not dead is also very easy to cause disability, once accidentally killed, that in front of the most likely in addition to surrender can only run away.

Sharpshooter is very difficult to control the degree of damage, and at the same time a lot of places can not pass, after all, even in ancient times there are weapons control. Especially the sword, in many dynasties, the sword is a status symbol, ordinary civilians in many dynasties are not allowed to wear a sword, what identity to wear what grade of sword some dynasties have special regulations. But you carry a stick, in any dynasty can not be said to be illegal, because it is too good to get, it is impossible to ban the stick, the hammer can not be banned, the carpenter smashed nails also have to use ah.

And on the battlefield, not to mention the long pole weapon, take the sword to the standard, the sword and shield, sword and shield, sword cavalry, and even double-sworded soldiers and so on, these are the sword as the main weapon. But except for the slave soldiers who couldn't afford to be issued weapons and took a wooden stick, there were basically no troop types that used blunt weapons as their main weapon. On the battlefield, blunt weapons have always existed as secondary weapons. If blunt weapons were really far more powerful than sharp weapons, everyone on the battlefield should be using blunt weapons to smash each other. So why is it that the dominant weapons on the battlefield are all sharp weapons?

Before answering that question above, let's first talk about the weight of blunt weapons. A lot of people who do not know much about cold weapons always think that hammers and other blunt weapons will be very big and heavy, in fact, it is not, because the blunt weapon as a sidearm is obviously not suitable for making too big and too heavy, because it is very tiring to carry it. Really do a 800 pounds of sledgehammer, a war horse is afraid to pack are not. Conventional hammer weapons, rarely more than three pounds, the battlefield standard heavy blunt weapon is probably the heaviest whip, mace. But in fact, the actual battle whip mace three pounds or so is also common, the Fujian Museum collection of the Song Dynasty Li Gang mace with the sheath weighs 3600 grams, remove the sheath should have six pounds, which is already very heavy. That kind of dozens of pounds of sledgehammer and so on are fictional.

And swords are generally in this weight range of 2 to 3 pounds, so in fact the weight of swords and hammers is roughly equivalent. But if the weight is about the same, why do warriors prefer swords to hammers? Obviously hammers are cheaper, better cared for, and don't require particularly much skill. This was mainly because sharp weapons were more energy efficient; after all, it was normal to fight a battle for hours or even a day.

With a blunt weapon like a hammer, you'd need to use a lot of force for each blow to do effective damage. This results in you not being able to swing for long periods of time at all. If you're interested you can try smashing green coconuts with a hammer to see how many you can smash in a row, generally it's harder for people who haven't worked out to smash more than ten in a row. Generally speaking, it is more difficult for people who have not exercised to smash more than ten in a row. Most of them feel that their hands are a bit soft and their strength is not enough after smashing a few. But look at the coconut sellers peeling coconuts, peeling a few hours to peel a day is common.

At the same time the same weight of blunt weapons and sharp weapons, obviously the size of the sharp weapon is longer, which leads to blunt weapons face sharp weapons in the length of the disadvantage. The same weight of weapons, blunt weapons can not reach the distance of the opponent, against the hand holding a sharp weapon is able to attack the holder of blunt weapons. Marching and fighting, with the same weight, it is obvious that carrying a sharp weapon is more cost-effective.

Another cold tip is that it is widely believed that the center of gravity of the hammer is more forward, but in fact, although the center of gravity of the hammer is indeed more forward from the length of the hammer, but the center of gravity of the hammer and sword from the hand is in fact almost the same position, basically in the same interval. The center of gravity from the hand is the range that a normal human can swing with one hand with relative ease, beyond which it lacks dexterity, and your opponent will easily dodge your attacks.

People think that in the face of wearing armor opponent blunt weapons tend to be stronger than sharp weapons, this statement can not be considered wrong, but in fact, blunt weapons on the armor of the restraints are not generally people think so serious. Because the weight of blunt weapons is not very heavy, we learned before that the weight of the war hammer is not very different from the sword, and even the center of gravity and the distance between the hands is not very different, so the war hammer wants to kill a fully armored warrior with a single hammer is obviously not realistic. Whip, mace is heavier, but want to break bones is not difficult, want to kill directly at once is also really not easy, after all, the opponent will not be like a target standing there not moving to slowly prepare, swung round with full force swung out to hit.

In the full armor fighting competition, is allowed to use the war hammer, although the weight of the limit, but also belong to the weight of the actual hammer, just to avoid people deliberately do overweight hammer to hit people. However, the rules of the Full Armor Fighting tournament prohibit stabbing, as stabbing with a sharp weapon is much more lethal compared to a blunt blow. In fact, in ancient warfare, stabbing an armor seam was a far more common tactic than pulling out a blunt weapon against a heavily armored opponent. Most Japanese samurai, for example, were still armed with short swords known as armored passes, but hardly ever with blunt weapons.

Another irrefutable piece of evidence is that European war hammers, as armor continued to evolve, didn't increase in weight to counter armor, but instead got smaller and smaller. Knights in the Middle Ages tended to wear lockjaw armor, and the warhammers of the time were on the large side instead, but by the time the Renaissance saw the popularity of plate armor, the warhammers that were popular at the time became even smaller. Because by brute force is not easy to smash through the armor to injure the person wearing armor, but also to attack the weak part of the armor defense is more effective, smaller hammer head is easier to smash the armor cracks and other weak parts. So historically, blunt weapons were actually not as powerful as commonly believed.