Swords Retained as Military and/or Police Weapons?

The Rifles technically retain swords, but that's because they defined a bayonet as a "sword" many years ago, back when they used sword bayonets and the line infantry used spike bayonets. That's about your only option for a modern military unit using swords in a first-line role - they're too heavy and limited compared to a firearm & bayonet for most military roles, and too lethal for police roles.
 
Whilst they have their uses as pointy sticks when all else fails, the main role of the bayonet, even in Napoleonic times, was to intimidate the enemy into running away or surrendering. Bayonets rarely meet bayonets in action historically. Equally a visible naked sword, like a naked bayonet is an extra step in the escalation of riot control. In a submarine, or indeed any enclosed space, there is insufficient room to swing a sword for a slashing cut and naval cutlasses are made straight and shorter than infantry swords to kill by stabbing. Donkey Wallopers were more prone to long bent slashing swords but even they ended up with the straight thrusting sword at the end of their days. In a body of troops/sailors the boarding pike used en masse is a superior pointy stick but a lone wielder will be at the mercy of a swordsman who gets inside the length of thrust of the pike just as a lone lancer is vulnerable to sword armed cavalry after the first shock.

The snag for military use is that guns are even better at letting air in and blood out and can do so without coming near the victim. In Police use the baton is unlikely to cause lethal damage but a pointy sword is very likely to run into someone by accident. Trained users can still use a baton effectively even if the opponent has closed right up with you but all you can do with a sword when they are that close is punch them with the hilt or cut off the nearest ear. When policemen in Britain had swords (as they did) if an assailant ran into it the courts took the view that it served them right. Nowadays the criminal would probably be handsomely compensated if he survived and the policeman jailed.

Essentially the police sword is a weapon to kill people. A baton/truncheon is a weapon to temporarily disable. The military sword is out ranged by even the most feeble gun. I have been amongst troops with fixed bayonets (and have some for my own rifles and muskets) and they are extraordinarily easy to stick into someone by accident. I was always more nervous amongst my colleagues with fixed bayonets than when they had live rounds.

So I can come up with no scenario where police would retain swords other than ceremonially and militarily the bayonet is a better choice as a stabbing device of minimal weight and size. Try running, crawling and getting into various firing positions with a sword dangling off your belt. Even the old Rifle Brigade long bayonet scabbards would stab you in the back of the leg when you kneeled. Just perhaps a very short sword. more of a long knife, that could be kept horizontally across the back might function as a short sword and bayonet and be useable as soon as drawn without wanting fixing to the modern stubby rifles. Even so it could be no more than @15" overall at most. More seax than sword.
 
Just perhaps a very short sword. more of a long knife, that could be kept horizontally across the back might function as a short sword and bayonet and be useable as soon as drawn without wanting fixing to the modern stubby rifles. Even so it could be no more than @15" overall at most. More seax than sword.

Or perhaps vertically on the back of the webbing like so.
 
Delta Force wrote:
It seems a sword could be useful for guarding a ship or submarine against internal threats due to the reduced risk of damaging vital equipment or the hull. Swords could also be useful for defending against people armed with knives and other melee weapons, both as a tool of intimidation and as a way to help the user maintain their distance. Within a certain distance it is quite possible for someone with a firearm to be physically attacked before being able to bring a firearm to bear, but that wouldn't be an issue with a sword. Swords are also less likely to injure bystanders by their very nature.

For police use there would be the issue of issuing a lethal weapon in a role similar to the non-lethal truncheon, but it still seems like there could be a naval use? Is there a big enough niche for swords to see issue as a modern military and/or police weapon?

Just as an FYI, I'm not sure as my information is a bit out of date, (last check was around the mid-90s) a good number of USN ship carry swords on board. They also have spears, axes, daggers, maces, and bows and arrows though none of them are carried in any 'official' capacity. Similarly these have been carried in combat by the Marines, Army and Air Force though they are not usually in the primary combat weapon position. They are also available for many western militaries AND police/civilians in a similar manner as is the training for proper use thereof.

This however is specifically NOT an "official" use as most of those involved are members of either the Society for Creative Anachronism or other such organizations which practice and perform such martial combat arts. We used to joke, (back in the 80s) that once WWIII started and everyone switched on all the electronics, electronic counter-measures, counter-counter-measures, etc and everything blew out NATO would still win the war because the majority of us had all this medieval mayhem hardware at hand while the enemy did not :)

They are not used 'officially' because while somewhat intimidating a firearm is MUCH more intimidating and requires a lot less training and skill. To properly wield a sword is a lot harder than people think.

Note to Insider; actually using a sword in a 'non-lethal' manner is a lot harder than you'd think. Striking with the flat has a high chance of bending and/or breaking the blade and a loss of control if not done correctly. GarethC is correct in that they are difficult to use in a 'non-lethal' manner and while RiggerBob is generally correct in the damage that can be done with the PROPER use of a single edge sword the problem and key is PROPER use and that takes both skill and training. An eye-opening exercise is trying to use a sword in any of the listed manners against a side of beef.

Short, blunt weapons are much easier to use and train than edged weapons and are very much less lethal without correspondingly greater effort. There is also the fact that with proper training if such weapons are used against you, (such as having it knocked out of your hand and picked up by someone else) you can in fact reduce the damage they do to you whereas getting stabbed or cut with your own blade is more likely unless your armored. Efforts to combine melee weapons of some type and stun technology have been going on for a while but I've yet to see an effective "taser-blade" deployed.

In general there is little that an edged weapon brings to a modern melee fight short of lethal or crippling damage dealing because by the point they would be deployed that's the outcome that is going to happen one way or another. Pulling a blade is like pulling a gun, you don't do it to intimidate. You pull one to make the simple point that from here on out SOMEONE is going to get seriously hurt if not killed and that is the EXACT message you WANT to send at that point.

The idea of using them onboard a ship to avoid collateral damage, while it sounds logical is really a non-starter due to simple fact that any boarders are not going to be so constrained and you end up bringing a knife to a gun-fight with all that implies.

Randy
 
Top