When you have guns, why use a sword?

[Bob_Marley42]

Because some people think it looks cooler.

Thats the only reason, all other arguments are irrelevent as bayonets (which make any rifle type weapon into a handy-dandy polearm) exist.

Also, it allows close quater combat - most gamers don't, for example, want to play a game where you engauge fleeting targets hundreds of meters away, which is why games like CoD have you and the enemy blasing away at each other at less than fifty meters most of the time, games where swords (or other melee weapons) are used against modern or futuristic firearms simply take this to the extreme.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

A man who is good with a knife can kill another man before the guy with the gun can shoot, as long as the man with the knife is fit, and is within twenty one feet. Since this is swords I'm gonna bump that up to twenty four, given the size a sword has over a knife.

21 feet? At 5'8" and wielding a 3 foot foil, even the most elaborate, longest range and utterly silly distance I can cover with an attack is about 13 feet (as in, my opponent can be this distance (measured from my chest to his/her's) away and if they do nothing to defend themselves I can, in a single action, deliver the point to the target with sufficient force to get a touch - or, if in a duel, deliver a wound a few inches deep). Considering the knife (even a very large one) is a few feet shorter than said foil they'd have to take a full step just to accmomplish teh same thing. 21 feet means many steps are required before one is even in range for an attack of any sort with a knife.

There are only a handful of scenarios in which this knife wielding man would win such a battle:
1) The person with the gun is unaware of their presnence at the outset
2) The person with the gun is unwilling to fire
3) The person with the gun is both untrained and immensly frightened to the point that they miss repeatedly.
4) The person with the knife has magic at their disposal.

In the first and second case, nothing has been proven. Either they have been given no opportunty to defend themselves or are unwilling to do so for whatever reason. The third case is a bit more reasonable, but I would consider it unlikely at best that the person fails to deliver even a single shot on target. The fourth case allows for anything as reason has been discarded.

Besides, even with this immense advantage of being at incredibly close range the knife wielding person, even if well trained, is forced to rely as much on luck as anything once combat begins. Even an unskilled shooter is generally expected to hit a man sized target with a handgun when stressed at this range - god forbid the shooter has any training under their belt.

 

[WhoaItsBrett]

To be badass.

Case Solved.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Because some people think it looks cooler.

Thats the only reason, all other arguments are irrelevent as bayonets (which make any rifle type weapon into a handy-dandy polearm) exist.

The bayonett existed first as a defense against cavalry and persisted because personal ammunition counts were often quite low and weapons were difficult to reload at best. It is incredibly rare that one would be well served on a modern battlefield relying on a bayonett while they have even a single shot in their possession. Thanks to the fact that a single squad possesses more firepower than an entire regiment of line infantry in the heydey of the bayonette, you may begin to understand precisely why it no longer serves much purpose. Throw combined arms into the mix and you have an exceptionally lethal battlefield even at ranges of several miles. To put this another way, a modern rifleman can deliver as much aimed fire as 20 - 40 soldiers in the civil war. They can deliver more aimed fire than 10 - 15 WWI riflemen or 4 - 5 times as much as a WWII or Korean rifleman. This is to say nothing of the automatic riflemen (who can deliver as much aimed fire as more than 100 civil war soldiers in the same span of time). On the modern battlefield, the bayonett only serves as a weapon of last resort to be used once all ammunition for all weapons has been exhausted. Even against poorly trained irregular troops it is a gamble. Against trained soldiers charging in with a bayonette is an easy way to get your unit annihilated inside of a few seconds.

 

[Kurokami]

This topic will relate somewhat to JRPGs, and I'll be honest, I love me some Final Fantasy, but in a world filled with machine guns, rifles and rocket launchers why the hell would you use a sword? In almost every JRPG involving guns, the main character will use a sword and still not die despite hundreds of bullets ripping through him (or her). What is the logic behind this? And while some games aren't like that, I'm just curious to here what you guys think the reason for this would be.

Judging by Advent Children I'd have to say its that unless you've cut them in half, you can't REALLY be sure they're dead...

 

[Bob_Marley42]

Because some people think it looks cooler.

Thats the only reason, all other arguments are irrelevent as bayonets (which make any rifle type weapon into a handy-dandy polearm) exist.

The bayonett existed first as a defense against cavalry and persisted because personal ammunition counts were often quite low and weapons were difficult to reload at best. It is incredibly rare that one would be well served on a modern battlefield relying on a bayonett while they have even a single shot in their possession. Thanks to the fact that a single squad possesses more firepower than an entire regiment of line infantry in the heydey of the bayonette, you may begin to understand precisely why it no longer serves much purpose. Throw combined arms into the mix and you have an exceptionally lethal battlefield even at ranges of several miles. To put this another way, a modern rifleman can deliver as much aimed fire as 20 - 40 soldiers in the civil war. They can deliver more aimed fire than 10 - 15 WWI riflemen or 4 - 5 times as much as a WWII or Korean rifleman. This is to say nothing of the automatic riflemen (who can deliver as much aimed fire as more than 100 civil war soldiers in the same span of time). On the modern battlefield, the bayonett only serves as a weapon of last resort to be used once all ammunition for all weapons has been exhausted. Even against poorly trained irregular troops it is a gamble. Against trained soldiers charging in with a bayonette is an easy way to get your unit annihilated inside of a few seconds.

Thats my point - a sword is just as worthless as a bayonet on the modern battlefield, with the added downside that it doesn't have a gun attached to it.

The arguments in favor of the sword (other than "it looks cool") usually centre around the fact it can't run out of ammunition. Well, niether can a bayonet. Additionally, just a a sword is intimidating, so is the bayonet - which is why it was not uncommon to see British troops in Iraq and Afhgnaistan with bayonets fixed (though generally not using them, but charges did take place sucessfully on a number of occasions).

In close quaters fighting, such as in urban warfare or clearing village compounds in Afghanistan the bayonet still serves a useful role (in addition to its general utility as a knife).

 

[GloatingSwine]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroesPreferSwords

 

[jamesworkshop]

Because they're right. katanas are awesome, which is why i never understood why JRPG heroes always use giant impractical western swords when katanas are available

western sword

buster sword

Spot the difference

 

[Janus Vesta]

Because they're right. katanas are awesome, which is why i never understood why JRPG heroes always use giant impractical western swords when katanas are available

Most people use armour, katanas are made for slashing (hence the curved blade) while western swords are made for thrusting. You can pierce armour easily enough, but slashing it wont do anything. But that raises the question "Why do they slash with thrusting sword? And why are they carrying claymores and bastard swords like shortswords?"

 

[Nincompoop]

I am talking about a fantasy world where people's skin or armor might resist the kinetic energy per volume a bullet has. Then, a giant sword wielded by someone that obviously is seriously is strong, is much more effective as he would 'smash' his opponents.

Or are you saying that if someone that wouldn't get cut or pierced of any kind would get more of a push from a bullet than from a sword?

Yeah, I am saying that. If their skin can resist the kinetic energy of a bullet, a sword is going to be utterly ineffective. Go and shoot what a bullet can't penetrate, and then start wailing on it with the sword. Not worthwhile either way. Think about it -- if the square inch or so of their body that's subjected to however-many-hundreds of foot-pounds of energy isn't going to be penetrated by a bullet, and they're not going to get the least bit of internal damage from it ... well, why would you take a baseball bat to someone like that? Most likely wouldn't work. Same rationale applies to a sword, since obviously the edge wouldn't be able to cut something like that.

The bullet that wouldn't pierce wouldn't deliver much of a blow, thus not getting much internal damage.

But the sword would. Imagine cloud hitting a dude that can't have his skin penetrated, but the dude would get tossed 100ft, the internals would suffer. Even more so since his weight would be used against him.

Besides, blunt trauma is exactly that; Something that doesn't penetrate, but leaves internal damage. A blunt trauma can be worse than a knife wound, e.g.

Consider it being a world that has the same technology as us, same weapon power. But with the exception of superheroes running around that can throw cars around, wielding giant swords.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'm sorry, I was sleepy when I wrote that, the most important detail is 21 feet is the maximum distance a man with a knife can close before a shooter can draw their gun, aim, and fire.

That IS an important detail and now all is well with the universe. 21 feet is quite a way move when someone is shooting at you but if their weapon isn't readied then I'd call it reasonably plausible.

 

[Altorin]

Given enough (and I mean a lot) of training I'm sure a master on swordsmanship could take down an amateur mook with a gun.

I disagree, and so does the internet.

I doubt a real swordsman would spend so much time showboating. If he had actually attacked Indy instead of swirling his sword around like a tool, he might have won.

and the movie would have been a lot shorter, and less funny.

 

[TheKwertyeweyoppe]

you know what would be funny? Cutting a bullet in half just to have both halves hit you in different spots anyway

 

[thenoblegaunt]

Swords don't need to reload.
Plus swords are more stylish and elegant, and more badass for that matter.

 

[TheKwertyeweyoppe]

well, there are two buster swords, the larger one is clearly to be used by giant trolls or something. it also seems to be more like a giant cleaver than a proper sword, it also has holes in it which doesn't look very efficient for cutting through people.

that's actually a pretty practical sword compared to a lot of them. Considering that i said IMPRACTICAL western sword, and this probabely has more relation to a broadsword than a katana i'd say the buster sword is pretty much what i meant by impractical western sword, just with more spikes and gems on the hilt. the above sword on the other hand is perfectly practical.

 

[Ze_Reaper_Of_Zeath]

How about a Gunlance?

Spoiler

 

[Arkzism]

well it also matters if you know how to shoot one properly as well, but to be honest its much easier to point and shoot than it is to hack n slash

 

[lenneth]

Because the guns are about as damaging as walking up to your opponent and breathing on him (see Devil May Cry 3)

 

[Avida]

Because GAMES ARE FUN.