This is ten times better than a regular sword.
Is this bait or is he really that stupid?
>>46944197
Because while your opponent is busy laughing at you you can stab him?
>>46944197
git gud
It's just a knife, but getting stabbed to the hilt by a knife isn't good, and those blood channels can make things worse than getting stabbed by a longsword.
How would you stat something like this? (Pathfinder or 4E)
I'm thinking exotic dagger; 1d4 on hit plus 1d4/2 (min 1) bleed damage, save attempt after first stabbed, then after target's first round of bleeding. After than DC15 heal check (std act.) to stop bleeding effect.
So, stupid, gimmicky arms and armour thread?
>>46944197
>This is ten times heavier than a regular sword.
FTFY
>>46944388
> it can even turn into a tactical dildo with belt clip
A pair of compass/dividers that double as a dagger.....
>>46944415
That's a photoshop. The actual hammer has just one pair of arms, and there's no real reason it wouldn't be a decent weapon. Putting a bit of ornamentation on the head doesn't really change the fact that it's a hammerhead that's going to smash your shit.
>>46944415
Hand this relic of dorn over. NOW.
>>46944197
>>46944388
>>46944404
At equal skill, even a guy with a gladius will rekt the guy with this shit knife.
You can't even cut something you can only trust.... and 12"5 ? topkek.
A guy armed with a random sword could just cut your head with it's reach advantage.
Even a regular knife is better desu.
Trust + Cut > Trust
>>46944463
the original was no less stupid...
Mace, 15th-16th century.
in itself relatively practical, if overly decorated.
the roll-up chessboard that fits inside it, and the gaming pieces... somewhat gimmicky.
>>46944513
It does appear to have a cutting edge, even if it is at a turned angle. It is still a poorer choice what a traight edged short which can be longer with the same amount of materials. the gimmick with this one is creating a deep wound that will not heal, leading to death. Its good for a spear point though
It may look like a buttplug, but with enough force behind it, it's really a skullplug that makes its own orifice for extra convenience.
>>46944197
not with that tiny amount of reach it isn't
>>46944197
Assuming, of course, that you want only to stab and are fighting enemies with ribs either absent or spaced out wide enough to easily let that through.
>>46944553
Weapons whose point is to create hard-to-heal wounds always seem like a really shitty proposition to me, if we're talking about personal combat and the like.
I mean, a weapon like that, by its very nature, presumes that your opponent will be alive after the fight. Otherwise he's not very well going to have to worry about healing, is he? And if your opponent's going to be alive at the end of the fight, you're probably not going to be looking so hot.
I mean, I get the application if we're talking about assassination or mass combat (where attrition over time can be very important), but in personal combat that seems like a really shitty choice.
Unless you're a vengeful cunt, I guess.
>>46944529
That mace is less practical than the fist one. It's too heavy and the gaps in the haft suggest it's not at all strong for its size. Plus, there's a reason brass isn't usually a first choice for combat weapons.
>>46944565
>It may look like a buttplug
It looks like an icing bag to me, you whore.
>>46944670
I hope you keep your innocence you beautiful flower child.
>>46944197
>>46944388
I thought those were outlawed by military law because when they did connect they basically caused wounds so bad that no amount of triage would stop you from bleeding out.
>>46944916
That doesn't make them effective combat weapons.
>>46944197
I need a weapon advertised to kill anyone with bloodloss, only for self defense though.
Enjoy your micropenis, faggot.
>>46944197
>>46944513
The word is thrust, you mongoloid.
>>46945045
>blade falls off at first impact
>>46945045
Wow, it's like a shitty xiphos.
>>46944197
wasp knife here, you are smalltime
Comrade Sergei beat you to the punch a while ago.
(It's really not all that special.)
one is not like the others
>>46944670
>>46944692
I thought it was supposed to be a chisel. Like, for stone.
>>46944565
Okay that is pretty cool, but it looks nothing like a buttplug.
>>46945146
From the left:
The first looks like a mounted weapon. Also doesn't have a poking end.
The 2nd flips around for an axe. The whole thing is small enough that it might also be a cavalry weapon.
4th is a different color.
5th isn't flanged.
What else?
>>46945146
Yeah, the one with the axe on the bottom is fucking retarded.
>>46944445
[Agrippa intensifies]
>>46944197
If you're an assassin, maybe? For anything else it's shit.
>>46945369
The first can barely be called flanged either, to be honest.
>>46944627
Well then you can always have compromise over compromise.
For instance, triangular blades are pretty good for thrusting weapons, wounds hard to deal, usually better point, usually easier to make stiff (so that it gets even better at thrusting), makes it more durable too. Sure you can't cut but it indeed make it a great thrusting weapon.
So you can make "intelligent compromises", hollow point bullets are another kind of such compromise.
The thing is this tri-meme-knife isn't intelligent, especially because the use of dedicated and only combat knife is fairly limited, and if it can't even cut...
>>46944627
It sounds more like something for a dickish assassination than for combat to me.
Instead of just strangling the fucker like a normal person.
>>46944197
Aren't these things universally banned because the wounds they make are really fucked up?
This is seven times better than a regular polearm.
>>46945717
Yes. It's illegal for any country to assign this as a military standard weapon, and it's nearly impossible to attain a concealed carry license for it.
This is bazillion times better than a regular gun.
>>46944197
Go back to /k/ faggot. Don't spread our shitposts to other boards.
>>46945004
Found the Brit.
>>46945717
As opposed to being stabbed or shot normally?
Weapon bans make no sense at all. Not even from /k/.
>>46944647
>Plus, there's a reason brass isn't usually a first choice for combat weapons
Brass is a very good choice for weapons back in those days. Steels back then were nowhere near as strong or as plentiful as they are now. The only reason bronze and brass fell out of favor was because steel was cheaper and almost as good.
I mean, I was gonna say that in practical combat, that weapon's damn stupid and worthless, and it is, but if you think about it in a fantasy setting, a Thief/Assassin really only uses their dagger for stabbing attacks. If you're going for slashing attacks, there'd be no reason you wouldn't just upgrade to a sword instead.
Sacrificing the eternally-outclassed capacity of a dagger to slash with a crazy-improved crit chance on stabbing? That doesn't sound like a bad trade-off.
>>46945964
Idealists want war to be about disabling not killing. You dont stab to kill, you stab to disable and stop. These triblades create wounds that are extremely difficult for surgeons to fix thus prolonging the suffering of the "disabled".
>>46945719
>>46944197
Sorry sir, this is part of a bike handle.
>>46944445
I think you mean 2 daggers
>>46944916
The actual blade design that is banned under LOAC is much thinner and more generally-useful. That example is just....yeah, no.
>>46945045
Pic related. George Washington's battle sword makes me proud to be an American.
>>46944529
that's obviously a ceremonial/ornamental piece of gear. for carrying around and showing everyone you're the guy with the fancy mace it's eminently practical.
>>46944916
>specialize in war and combat
>ban a weapon for being too dangerous
Why is this allowed?
>>46946825
Geneva conventions. It's also why we can't change the weather for war purposes anymore.
>>46946825
Because its not a weapon for function, its a weapon for being cruel and ridiculously impractical?
We give soldiers actual knives that can be used as both weapons and tools, mostly its their guns that are used to kill thing too
>>46946594
Got a pic of an example?
>>46946999
Not that Anon, but GIS suggests >pic attached
I suspect you're supposed to hammer it into your opponent, and leave it there while you go shoot his buddies.
Aren't these things banned by the Geneva convention?
>>46947066
Ah, here we go.
WW1 trench knife. Note, these things are all about the handle -- making absolutely sure you can stab things successfully, and not drop said blade.
Which is maybe 6-8"? Short by "combat" standards -- you're supposed to *shoot* your enemy -- stabbing is for when you run out of ammo.
>>46946825
It's actually less dangerous than a normal knife, but the wounds it causes are really hard to heal. So whoever you stab with it, but fail to kill, is still out of the fight, but now they've got a wound that might never heal right.
If you stab them with this, they probably die from an infection and waste a ton of extra medical supplies before, during, and after they get sent home. If you stab them with a normal knife, they get a cleaner wound and get sent home.
There's literally no gain for you (They're out of the fight either way) and a lot of extra pain, suffering, and potentially wasted medicine for them.
>>46947152
Well more than that trench knives are about making a knife that is also a knuckleduster
>>46945302
Dorfs are such innocent creatures.
>>46944529
This is a Five-Fingered Dagger.
They were really popular in spain with nobles as a defense weapon. Impractical as weapons of war, they could still be used in a fight despite mostly just being something fancy to carry around.
They were favored because the broad blades could be engraved with a lot of fancy etchings.
Likewise there was and still is a long tradition of the rich carrying around decorative weapons. Many were probably used in battle. Not most, but many probably ere especially when considering decoration might not hamper function too much like that mace.
Looking stylish on the battlefield is something a lot of French and Germans did post-medieval time. People still go into battle wearing stupid shit. Guys in the middle east are fighting wearing expensive ray-bans and decorated helmets instead of standard issue wrap-around shades.
>>46945977
Steel is flexible while broze just bends so no. It was commonly used for blunt weapon though because they can bend and still be effective.
>>46944513
While the point(get it? point?) you made about someone with a longer sword having a strict advantage is true, it is not true that thrust + cut > thrust. Pikes ruled the battlefield for centuries, because the actual reason someone with a longer sword would defeat someone with this is not because thrust + cut > thrust, but because longer reach > shorter reach. Rapiers and sabers were among the last swords being used in battle for a reason, someone trained to use them had superior reach compared to other sword styles. Rapiers don't even cut, either.
>>46947227
forgot image
>>46945114
That was use in WW2, wasn't it? I saw photos of wounds like this would cause on the bodies dug up in Katyn forest.
>>46947170
It wastes far more enemy resources to seriously injure a soldier than kill them. It adds up over time.
>>46947281
Yeah and the issue with that is that it fucks both sides over in the long term. Eventually somebody has to lose the war, and who ends up being the one having to help rebuild the loser lest we end up with another Treaty of Versailles? The Winner of course.
Do you want to waste your own resources later because you decided to make the enemy waste a ton of resources by seriously injuring people instead of just killing them quickly? You gonna try to avoid the long term costs by rounding out and murdering all the cripples you made? It's just easier to agree to use basic weapons that "cleanly" kill/incapacitate, rather than weapons made to inconvenience people as much as possible.
>>46947281
Just stabbing the guy wastes a lot. Stabbing him in a way that prevents long term recovery is pointless for the current conflict and does nothing but breed bad blood.
>Grandpa got stabbed and ended up in a field hospital, then a real hospital, then a homeland hospital. He never went back in because he got fucking stabbed, but he's been fine ever since.
Compared to
>Grandpa got stabbed and ended up in a field hospital, then a real hospital, then a homeland hospital. He never went back in because his disgusting torso anus never healed right and he needed to get the puss lanced every other week, then he finally died from it.
Both of them take a guy out of the fight and use up medical supplies, but one of them is completely unnecessary and makes people angrier in the long run.
>>46947066
>I suspect you're supposed to hammer it into your opponent, and leave it there while you go shoot his buddies.
I don't understand this at all. It looks incredibly unwieldy for any sort of active combat and surely killing disabled soldiers isn't so difficult you need a dedicated tool. You'd think a standard knife would do the job just fine and have more practical utility.
>>46947268
Fun Fact: this memorial is in New Jersey.
>>46947281
You're more likely to get seriously injured even with killing intent. The problem is people are mistaking wounded soldiers as the intent when they just plain fail to kill and don't bother doubling down on some one to finish the job.
If you kill them, you succeed and reduce their number. If you fail to kill them but maim them in the process it has the added benefit of possibly draining the enemy's resources in tending to their wounded comrades.
>>46947424
Yes, because people in war with each other try to be polite and are terrified of making the the guys they're trying to kill, maim and conquer angry.
>>46947469
t. Trump voter
>>46947469
Do you know one of the major reasons why WW2 happened?
Because a lot of Germans supported it due to how angry they were about how WW1 and its aftermath were handled. And even during WW2, they refrained from using the really horrible shit because everyone remembered how it worked the last time around. Nobody used gas weapons because nobody wanted to be gassed and a lot of people didn't want to inflict that even on their enemies.
There's a reason why "hearts and minds" is the new ideal. Making people hate you is how you get new wars later.
>>46947469
There's such a thing as war crimes anon, don't be daft.
>>46947541
>Germany
>Refrained from doing really horrible shit in WW2
Um.
the "please reconsider" diplomace?
>>46947424
>Grandpa got stabbed and ended up in a field hospital, then a real hospital, then a homeland hospital. The cut was relatively clean so he returned to battle after recovering from his wounds.
or
>Grandpa got stabbed and ended up in a field hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Compared to
>Grandpa got stabbed and ended up in a field hospital, then a real hospital, then a homeland hospital. He never went back in because his disgusting torso anus never healed right and he needed to get the puss lanced every other week, then he finally died from it.
The third option is way more beneficial for the other side. I'm not saying it's moral, just practical.
>>46947574
They did a lot of awful shit to their undesirables and to prisoners of war, but their army didn't do horrible shit in open combat.
I really love how in WW1, Germany, those wonderful and inventive pioneers in gas warfare, attempted to sue so that the US would not be allowed to use trench guns, because they were too efficient at killing at close range
fucking krauts
>>46947574
Not in combat they didn't.
>>46947629
They actually didn't do that much to their POWs, since they didn't want the same done to their own men who got captured. POWs sometimes did get stuck with undesirables, but judging by the records, it was mostly due to lazy middle officers who couldn't be arsed to assign them to the correct prisons. A lot of POWs who ended up in concentration camps actually got taken back out by the local authorities because they weren't supposed to be there in the first place.
Their actual POW camps ranged from "The same as everyone else's basically" to "low security prison". Some of them were downright informal because the prisoners didn't want to get shot for pointless escape attempts and the guards didn't want to get shot in the event of rescues.
>>46947451
That blew me away the first time I saw it, and became aware of how much of an impact Katyn had on Poles, the fact that there are memorials all over the world. Pic of most contentious Katyn memorial - Russians were furious about it and tried to prevent its installation.
>>46947539
>implying trump wants war
>>46947721
Well fuck Russia.
>>46947539
t. Trudeau
>>46947791
>Implying abandoning allies and ignoring conflicts and disasters in other countries will prevent war
>>46947469
If you have little to no concept of morality, politics, post-war relations and honour yes.
>>46947574
Germans always had an honorable martial spirit.
Also the holocaust never happened.
>>46947791
>Implying Trump doesn't want to do the most controversial thing in any situation
He'd declare war on Mexico for not keeping their border 100 feet back from his wall.
>>46947574
>comparing exterminating vermin to honourable combat
>>46947469
>Yes, because people in war with each other try to be polite and are terrified of making the the guys they're trying to kill, maim and conquer angry.
No, people in war try to kill each other.
Pointlessly and cruelly maiming enemy soldiers is a still a thing that can and has had terrible repercussions in the past.
The Geneva conventions weren't created to make war more "polite."
>>46947841
>implying he isnt all for militarily and more importantly economically destroying ISIS.
Also what allies? The ones who refuse to pay their fair share? Fuck em. They'll pay or they will fend for themselves. That saves americans.
>>46947629
>>46947717
>Not in combat they didn't.
Not against the Western Allies, but they did stuff against the Soviets that they wouldn't do to the Western Allies.
Which was one of the reasons why the Red Army completely tore Germany apart when they invaded; because they were ripshit pissed.
>>46947861
>daily reminder that Germany can't even win in honorable combat and german generals had to inflate red army numbers to look good
>>46947629
The Heer committed horrific warcrimes. They almost certainly committed more than the SS units by virtue of sheer size difference but I'd be willing to be arguably did so more often per soldier. Yeah, the VAST majority were not in combat, but that's true for almost any nation. You don't really have the time on inclination to do nasty shit while being shot at beyond stopping someone from shooting. What matters is that after the immediate threat ends what the soldiers do, and for the Heer is was some NASTY shit a lot of the time. A lot of that was because of institutional racism, drug usage, and various other factors, but it still was pretty bad.
>>46947680
Their actually reasoning was SLIGHTLY better. In Europe, especially at the time, shotguns were usually only single or double barreled models used almost exclusively for hunting. The US use of pump action weapons made them much more effective for combat, especially in trenches. However to the German High Command the US soldiers were basically using a hunting weapon to "hunt" their soldiers like sport, hence the outrage. Yeah, it was still probably mostly to try and eliminate the horribly effective weapon, but not PURELY. Take it for what you will.
>>46947852
>Implying violating another nation's sovereignty isn't a casus belli.
>>46947973
Not when they're POC.
>>46947810
Yeah, the Russian embassy tried to pressurise the C of E (that owned the graveyard) to prevent the memorial as planned with the date '1940' on it.They wanted it changed to '1941' so they could blame the Germans, despite having tried to do so at Nuremberg (and failed).
>>46947957
Casual racism was the name of the game, baby. The Japs were horrible to everyone because those people weren't japs. The Germans were horrible to the Russians and Jews because those people weren't similar Western Europeans.
>>46947973
>throwing random terms around makes me sound smart
Also if that applied equally, the US tampering in Mexico since Clinton helped the cartels.
>>46948016
It has nothing to do with it
>>46947227
Cinquedeas were popular in northern Italy, in Venice, not Spain.
>>46948059
>It has nothing to do with it
Since Trump criticized illegal immigration, everyone acts like he literally wants to shoah the Mexicans.
>>46948050
The Japs are terrible, they needed the atomic cleansing so America could step in and rebuild them into something approaching civilized.
They wanted to be Britain so hard and tried to commit so many atrocities to make it so but being nationally inferior they never got it going.
>>46948059
>Also if that applied equally, the US tampering in Mexico since Clinton helped the cartels.
I mean, yeah. That also wasn't okay.
>>46948117
>criticize illegal immigration
>they're all rapists
There's critique and there literal "der ewige Mexikaner" nonsense
Do you guys just like the man because he's as thin skinned as you are about jokes aimed towards him?
>>46946866
>anymore.
>tfw you were born too late for entering the marketing of war as a heaven wizard but the college already got your money
>>46947170
>There's literally no gain for you (They're out of the fight either way) and a lot of extra pain, suffering
But I want my army to emulate Dark Eldar.
>>46948160
>Do you guys just like the man because he's as thin skinned as you are about jokes aimed towards him?
I'm in this only for the memes.
>>46948160
In general? Yeah that's a big part of it.
>>46948160
>they're all rapists
He didn't say that all illegal immigrants are rapists. He said some are good people. Around 60-80% of Mexican women who cross the border illegally get raped. Half by coyotes and half by their fellow illegals. A disproportionately large number of them ARE rapists. It's not some unfounded claim.
>>46944197
That is a diving knife.
>>46948262
>Coyotes
... they get raped by wild animals?
>>46948282
Going deep for justification, you surface empty handed.
>>46948282
>That is a diving knife
Incorrect.
Also,
>a diving knife that can't be used to cut yourself free if you get entangled
wew lad
>>46947616
As stated by
>>46947541
you are showing an incredibly short sighted mindset.
The reason warcrimes are a thing, is because the third option is actually really really bad for everyone. Its a mindset of mutual destruction that results in the war never ever really being settled until fucking everything is destroyed.
The third option is the edgiest, but that is it mang.
>>46948282
Aren't diving knives supposed to be able to cut rope or shit you might get tangled in?
>>46948317
Assuming you aren't trolling...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyotaje
>>46944445
Very Scots
Engineering murder
>>46945851
nothing says "fuck you" quite like a gun-a-pult
>>46944388
It's tuned to A standard?
Thats odd, never heard of a musical knife before
>>46945964
The idea is to prevent "unnecessary" suffering.
In many people's eyes, killing a man with mustard gas is inhumane, but blowing him up with a bomb so he can lay in a bloody puddle staring at his nubs is fine.
The idea behind banning knives like this stems back to Napoleonic times. Many nations used triangular bayonets, which caused irregular wounds and were more difficult to dress properly. This led to infections and horrible suffering and death of men who were out of the war anyways because you stabbed him in the gut with a bayonet before antiseptics even existed. A regular blade bayonet killed just as efficiently and left easier to treat wounds, so it was decided to ban irregular shaped bayonets later on. I believe most went to this after WWI, although the Soviets used their triangular mosin bayonets all through WWII. I could be wrong about all that later stuff.
I always find it ironic that this quest for "humane" weapons exist. You never shoot a man to wound him, you shoot to kill. A regular bullet has as much potential for suffering as a shotgun blast at close range (in WWI, Germans considered shotguns against the rules of war and would shoot any American caught carrying one, claiming they were inhumane) You also see banning gas later on, yet napalm, airburst shrapnel, and Nuclear weapons were all fine.
This premise is always selectively enforced, and if the weapon is very effective at its job, odds are the force will keep using it anyways. It usually takes massive outrage or the weapon to stop being effective for it to get truly banned. Take gas for example, it was as likely to target your own men as the enemy depending on the wind, and with improvements in gasmask technology wasn't very useful. Hence it gets banned after WWI. Yet napalm continues to be used because it works, despite the fact that it causes incredible amounts of suffering as it burns you alive. And we dropped that stuff on civilians all the time in WWII.
>>46944197
This is literally a cultist's sacrificial dagger. It'd be terrible in an actual fight.
>>46944442
Underrated post.
>>46946777
>he's an American
My deepest condolences, friend.
>>46944404
>DC15 heal check
crank that up to thirty and we can talk.
Field doctors couldn't reliably sew that motherfucker's wounds up in wwi, you think some level 1 medieval bumfucks would do it unaided by magic?
>>46944565
My first thought was a pickaxe from Fable.
>>46949216
Nah. Crank it up to 20 because nothing in the fucking book goes past a DC 20 heal check.
>>46949312
ok, but at least add (wielder level)/2 rounded down str damage.
>>46948877
>You never shoot a man to wound him, you shoot to kill
No, you shoot to incapacitate. Once the guy you're shooting at can't shoot back anymore, your job is done.
>>46946825
Imagine being stuck by a three sided sword with a huge wound that's four inches deep. After literally crawling back to your muddy, rat filled, disease infested shithole that is your basic ww1 trench, imagine being told, woth blood everywhere, and mud gouging its way into your flesh, that there's no way in hell the nurse will be able to close the star shaped wound.
Its literally one of the worst ways to die.
>>46949360
Retard you NEVER point a weapon at someone unless you INTEND to kill.
If i need to explain why then you really are retarded.
>>46949360
"Shooting to incapacitate" is stupid Hollywood bullshit that isn't actually a thing in real life. Bullets will FUCK. YOU. UP.
>>46949719
m8, if you shoot a m8 in the leg you're going to take him out of combat, you're going to take the m8 who has to carry him away out of combat, and you're going to take the m8 who has to patch him up out of combat.
If you kill a m8 the enemy will just ignore the corpse that can't be saved, and shoot you.
>>46949360
No, you do shoot to kill, but if the guy drops, you don't shoot again, because that's a fucking war crime.
>>46949847
That isn't as effective of a way to wage war as you think it is.
>>46949719
Just shoot the leg, you fucking racist.
>>46949719
No, the rule is that you don't point the weapon at anything you're not willing to kill. You can shoot to wound - you just have to acknowledge that you still have a good chance of killing anything you hit and be okay with that.
>>46949901
>shoot the leg
>hits a major artery
>the person dies out in minutes because they weren't a boy scout who knew how to make and apply a tourniquet
You do not point a weapon at something unless you are fully prepared for the possibility that you will end somebody's life.
>>46945719
Somehow that name sounds like Quebecois swear words.
Especially if you add "Espece de" in front.
>>46947841
>implying starting wars will prevent war
>>46948877
>mfw white phosphorous
The fact that it's used for what it shouldn't be used for frequently causes me intense discomfort.
>>46950157
Do you feel like a hero yet, Walker?
>>46950157
But hot damn if it isn't effective.
>>46947604
>>46944513
>muh gladius
>>46944565
people only think that on /fit/ bro
>>46949719
>>46949905
Close.
Never point a gun at anyone unless you're willing to kill them. That's true. However you never shoot to wound. Using a gun in self defense is not about killing - it's about removing a threat to your life. You don't remove a threat with a grazing shot to the leg or shoulder. You remove a threat by killing it. Period.
It's not like you just raise a gun because someone looked at your wrong or turned their nose up at you. You draw a gun because shit has taken a drastic turn for the worse and it's the only option you have left.
>>46944415
Reminder that this is a real weapon in 3.5
>>46950424
Well hot damn, because it isn't effective.
It's good at marking targets, especially with modern IR tech. It's alright at antimateriel; worse than a good dems kit but ashitload faster to set up and so handier, since in any situation where you've got to blow up your own shit you're generally in a hurry.
It's bad at killing/disabling people in combat, and much nastier in terms of permanent harm for no benefit.
That is why they don't use it. If they thought it really was better than other types of AP grenades, they would not have banned it for AP use. Militaries are often terrible, but generally somewhat practical.
Same reason cluster munitions and especially cluster mines are banned as fuck; they're not that good at killing soldiers or denying territory, and fucking fantastic at making the countyr you're fighting over unlivable. It's not hard to make them break down over time or frangible either. The US justifications for not agreeing to that are flimsy and shit.
![['avin a giggle].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2DW1sfe.jpg "['avin a giggle].jpg")
>>46951099
It looks like one of those baby-hand dildos
>>46947961
Daily reminder that Italy won more world wars than Germany
>Master race
It wouldn't be so bad on a long handle and turned sideways as a pick head. Penetrates better that way, more reach, won't twist in your hand, and you can hit harder than a stab.
That having been said, picks were supposed to be light, which I doubt this is. Just put a notch in a pick and be done with it.
>>46948525
Fucking bards
>>46945045
Looks a little like the Orcist, even though elf weapons were almost always about slashing.
>>46944529
>the roll-up chessboard that fits inside it, and the gaming pieces... somewhat gimmicky.
Is this the most /tg/ of all weapons?
>>46951464
Until they put a backgammon set inside a halberd.
>>46946825
Its the same reasons nukes arent videly used in war.
First it means all bets are off and your enemies will start using weapons that give you really no way to fight back.
Second is just that, its about honor and not being a dick. An unfixable wound is also horrible for morrale.
>>46947629
To SOVIET prisoners of war, yes.
>>46944404
You fucking retard.
Blood channels don't do fucking anything.
Want to know how to make someone bleed a lot?
PULL YOUR FUCKING WEAPON OUT OF THEM AFTER YOU STAB THEM
Seriously, the thing OP posted is bot less effective at stabbing and cutting.
It's a fucking malformed bar mace, and absolute piece of shit.
>>46944565
I believe those were called trench spikes. they were used in ww1 to pierce helmets and puncture skulls.
>>46948877
are nukes legit not on the weapons ban list? I know countries have them but are they still tolerated in war? none have been dropped on people since nagasaki so im guessing no.
>>46949360
>No, you shoot to incapacitate. Once the guy you're shooting at can't shoot back anymore, your job is done.
you're an idiot
>>46947469
You are wrong for many reasons s already listed, but before the concept of "total war" existed you better believe people were more "polite" to each other in war. It was still bloody and brutal but there were some basic rules that were followed in all but the most hateful of conflicts.
>>46949866
>No, you do shoot to kill, but if the guy drops, you don't shoot again, because that's a fucking war crime.
your hearts in the right place, but you're also wrong.
>>46947430
trench knives are a weapon of cruelty and brutality, it wasn't about being a functional combat knife, but they are a guaranteed kill which is way they are outlawed for the horrific wounds they cause which are extremely difficult to close in a war zone.
The use of this "knife" is considered a war crime, there are a whole lot of weapons designed to kill or maim but this knife is kind of special.
These fucking things are designed to kill as painfully as possible, rather than being practical these weapons are specifically designed to be cruel.
>>46947574
Only/mostly in Russia and not as a policy, unlike Japan and the intentional brutalizing of soldiers to dehumanize them so they would more willingly commit atrocities.
>>46948317
>animals?
Every time.
We have a lot of mexicans who are drug traffickers, a lot of mexicans who are drug smugglers, a lot of mexicans who are human traffickers, and a lot of mexicans who are human smugglers.
Coyotes are mexican human smugglers.
>>46944197
This faggot piece of tacticool shit is banned world wide?
Things that aren't banned: HESH, basically every anti tank round in use, Dogs, Whacky .50 rounds, small grenades, Depleted Uranium anything (Might be depleted but when it gets shot up and discarded in the field the dust an fragments cause cancer), any small HE ordinance, incendiary rounds.
The list goes on forever.
Who the fuck even makes these rules? Seriously, you can't have a war without people getting fucked up.
>>46952009
Have they banned white phosphorus yet? They were trying to ban it when I was in but it hadn't gone through.
>>46952064
Well the jews love dumping their hot white phosphorous loads on hamas so I doubt that there's anything that can be done to ban it.
>>46952064
Americools refuse to stop using it, so I guess it's not banned in standard format.
>>46947382
>Eventually somebody has to lose the war
>a war ever actually ending
>in the late 20th into 21st century
>in the war economy
I bet you think the Gulf War ended too don't ya?
>>46948877
White phosphorus tho.
I remember seeing a movie when I was 14 or so where a guy got caught at the edge of a phosphorus grenade explosion and his squadmates had to cut off the skin the phosphorus was on. That made a big impression on me and I still can't believe that shit is still going around.
>>46947629
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say anything.
>>46947846
Your containment board's that way, bootlicker.
>>46951491
>>46947846
>>46952321
I can't tell the difference between bait and asshurt anymore.
>>46947247
>Rapiers don't even cut, either.
Yes they fucking do. You won't be cleaving people in half, but you could cut certain vitals just fine because of the speed the tip of the blade would swing at. It's just thrusting was the Rapiers main design point.
>>46946594
/tg/ never try and go /k/ please.
Russia was fucking using triangle bayonets from WW1 to when they dropped the Mosin.
China, the UK when they weren't fucking pussies, and a few other countries, used triangle blades.
>>46947430
The idea is it's a hole. A thiner blade like pic related was meant to better slip through ribs IN ORDER TO PIERCE INTERNAL ORGANS.
>>46951895
Trench knives were NEVER banned, it was HOOKED blades that were an issue because the Krauts were using them and if the Nazis were using it then oh fuck you're in shit now, and even then it was a non issue because hooked blades suck shit.
A triangle shaped blade created no worse of a hole than a fucking bullet, that's why nobody fucking cared.
The fucking retarded triangle blade in OP is just that, fucking retarded.
It was banned from military use because A. You need a knife, you got yourself a bayonet. B. It's a two pound chunk of useless steel that won't kill shit any fucking better than your standard M9 bayonet and in term of weight, could be traded out for 2 loaded PMAGs. Or an M9 and fucking 5 fucking loaded mags. C. Because it's fucking god awful retarded and serves no fucking use in deployment, in which you have a very tight list of what you can and cannot bring, almost all of it being standard issue with exceptions made for shit like PMAGs because US Issue GI Mags suck derka dick when in circulation for 5 years.
>>46949866
>but if the guy drops, you don't shoot again, because that's a fucking war crime.
Nonsense. It's standard procedure in many modern militaries to shoot a dropped enemy repeatedly to make sure he's incapacitated. Despite what Hollywood has led you to believe, a single bullet rarely kills immediately and a wounded foe is still dangerous.
>>46951842
The International Court of Justice heard a case on the matter of whether nuclear arms are illegal intrinsically. They are not.
The general rule of weapons is that illegal weapons are those that are specifically banned at international law (and domestic law, but obviously that is an internal matter for states), and those that are disproportionate in their effect or collateral damage.
A weapon may be disproportionate because it is in and of itself incapable of being contained, or can never be used in a proportionate way - bioweapons fit here, as they can't be contained. Some weapons are disproportionate because they are far more harmful to others, and less effective, than alternative weaponry - landmines that do not break down are headed this way, although not actually in it, as 'temporary' mines are readily available and most countries have signed treaties against the use of landmines anyway.
While nuclear weapons are horrific, can cause unprecedented destruction, and leave after-effects that last for an extremely long time, they are not inherently disporportionate. It is because of their unprecedented destructive ability that they are not inherently disproportionate, as they cannot be entirely replaced by 'clean' explosives, and a theoretical scenario in which the use of a nuclear weapon is justifiable can exist.
In future legal terms, if ever a nuclear weapon is used to do something other than instantly end a war, or if one is ever targeted at a civilian population centre instead of amilitary target (that may have civilian population nearby),the law will almost certainly change.
This will not happen because in pragmatic terms the first time a nation uses a nuclear weapon will also almost certainly bethe last time it ever does.
>>46947554
>There's such a thing as war crimes anon
There's such a thing as not being a pussy, faggot.
>>46952463
>It's just thrusting was the Rapiers main design point.
>thrusting
>main design point
>>46952659
Officers should go into battle with swords again. Arab insurgents shit their pants and run when someone charges screaming at them with a sharp object.
>>46952815
It's not like anyone needs to. Arabs are abysmal at modern warfare.
>>46949847
you know this method of waging war is not done with bullets?
it's done with traps, IEDs, landmines, fletchette grenades, etc.
most of which are banned as war crimes by the geneva convention...
>>46952115
>ertez Israel
>playing by the rules
"We have no nukes"
>>46951494
>First it means all bets are off and your enemies will start using weapons that give you really no way to fight back.
If you're using nukes and there's still an enemy left to fight back, you're doing it wrong.
>>46952064
Technically it is banned for use as a weapon, due to it being a chemical weapon, but there are other uses that aren't banned. It is often still used as a weapon anyway and there is rarely anything done about it, they just say that it was intended as a target marker or something like that and there is rarely any hard evident or unbiased witnesses to say that it was intentionally used as a weapon.
>>46953152
>If you're using nukes and there's still anybody left, you're doing it wrong.
FTFY
>>46953152
Except it doesn't work that way. At all.
The whole driving force behind mutually assured destruction is that even if you go nuclear, everyone else can do so in response.
>>46952665
The is a reason why people don't finish off a downed enemy in war but it depends on the war and the circumstances. Basically a wounded enemy is better than a dead one because then they become a drain on enemy resources. It is this principal that created a large portion of the weapons that are considered war crimes, weapons designed to horribly maim but leave them alive so that they must be taken care of by their allies. Not just with resources either the sight of allies is such horrible suffering or having to kill them to put them out of their misery is an extremely effective form of physiological warfare.
>>46944404
It's called a fuller, not a blood channel. It's main intent is to lighten the weight of the blade for balance. on this thing its just there to look cool
I'm making a sword that looks like a bat when sheathed is this relevant to this thread? Or are we just arguing back and forth about the pros and cons of cruel but nonlethal weapons and tactics in wartime?
>>46953207
We've been of MAD doctrine for a while buddy; NUTS is the order of the day.
>>46951746
Not even close anon.
>>46953359
>Tfw I remember dead checking people in Iraq
>>46953489neat
>>46953489
How easily is it to sheathe/unsheathe? Is it very loose?
>>46953152
Nuclear weapons aren't all launched at once, idiot. They would be fired in strategic salvos to disable series of targets until theoretically the other side gives up.
AND, nuclear silos are so fortified and spread out that there's no possibility that you can remove all of them at once, which means there will ALWAYS be second strike capability unless you're a shitty little North Korea base that has one nuke sitting around leaking everywhere.
Scorched earth is not a viable policy for anyone, anywhere, at anytime
>>46944404
>blood channels
You have no idea what a fuller is for, do you?
>>46953634
The sheathe didn't work well as is so I'm reworking it. I tried to work with just a slit cut down it and I was going to fill in the sides and do some wood dickery to make it all look homogeneous, but that was too much trouble so I've cut the sheath in half so I have access to both sides for carving/fitting etc and then I'll use a wood spacer in between the halves to true it back up to looking like a normal bat.
As far as it being loose, I'm making a locking mechanism, basically a very simple pin system so that when the blade is in the sheath you can slide the pin in and it'll be solid.
The only other concern is making the sheath properly wieldable in the off hand, because long knife and short club is pretty much perfect for using with capoeira
All in all it's just a first draft really. If it turns out nice I'll use good steel and a proper slugger and really make an effort rather than just slapping stuff together so I could make a batman pun.
>>46944197
I would rather have a pointy long stick that has a harden point
>>46953489
Just out of curiosity how illegal is that in your country? It's pretty cool, can we get a picture without your hand covering the seam?
>>46949847
>>46949360
>durrrrr shoot him in the leg and he's done
Gee wiz, sure showed me. There's totally not instances through out the history of firearms where men continued to fight on despite being wounded, sometimes causing incredible damage or losses.
Definitely no instances of guys laying down wounded then taking themselves and others around them out with grenades or a hidden pistol.
And definitely no instances of guys being severely wounded, then climbing back into their gun positions and continuing to fight.
Thank God all it takes is one single humane shot in the leg then he's combat ineffective. And his buddy will be out too! Because every fighting force has comradery and brotherhood and would never leave a man dying on the ground so they could get revenge.
There are literally only two instances where shooting to wound is a thing, and both are mostly Hollywood inventions
1. A sniper is a complete dick, and shoots a man in an enemy squad to wound on purpose. He then uses the wounded man as bait/psychological war, and uses him to figure out where others are hiding as he pleads for help. This also rattles the rest of the squad as they have to sit there and watch their buddy die (this is Hollywood as hell, but did happen, Full Metal Jacket has a good scene for it)
2. Enemy officer or something is running and he cant hurt you so you shoot him in the foot. Even then, this would cause intense bleeding and pain, so youd need to provide first aid or you could kill him. Look up bullet wounds to the leg, especially rifle rounds like an M16 causes. It is not a clean little hole, it looks like somebody set off an m80 under his skin. Not to mention it's honestly more efficient to just use a Taser, rifle butt, or almost anything else to incapacitate them.
This is ignoring the most important factor, that to shoot to incapacitate means you would need to actvely aim AWAY from center of mass, which is just going to get you killed when the other guy aims to kill
>>46947721
Australia has an extremely long memorial that starts in Sydney and ends in Canberra over 300kms away.
They planted a specific species of tree, can't remember which, one for every ANZAC soldier killed in WWI.
As you drive the length of this memorial, there is regular rest stops, each named after a Victorian Cross recipiant along with a sign explaining who they were.
>>46954060
I live in America so not at all. Knives are basically only illegal if you're carrying them secretly with intent to kill someone with them. There are some types like automatic knives that are always illegal to carry, but basically unless I'm ACTUALLY trying to sneak around with a baseball bat pretending it's not a sword then I'm in the clear.
It's mostly a common sense thing, I'm not actually going to try and conceal the blade nature of the thing in order to carry it in public, and carrying around a baseball bat in public would pretty much already put me in the "sir we have some questions to ask you" territory.
I guess the most illegal it would conceivably get is if I was carrying it, not trying to conceal it, and then had to use it to defend myself in a mugging or something, which is both crazy unlikely and at that point the "I feared for my life" defense is going to outweigh the "you can't carry something like that" fact.
Any of that make sense? I've been awake for 40 hours. sorry.
>>46953535
Iraq would not be one of the wars where maiming rather than killing would be a valid option, when invading a country to topple their regime they are unlikely to care for their own wounded. If the enemy leader is saying fight or die there really isn't any point in even trying that strategy.
>>46947170
>If you stab them with this, they probably die from an infection and waste a ton of extra medical supplies before, during, and after they get sent home
>There's literally no gain for you
If i'm on the opposing team then there's plenty to gain from me wasting the enemy's time and resources when in the field. Do you even basic tactics?
>>46944388
>440a
>making anything but a kitchen knife out of stainless
It's supposed to make it sound badass if you don't know anything about steel grades I guess? Then again people who buy this kind of thing usually don't.
>>46955119
Yes. There is a point where that becomes counter productive though.
>>46954556
Thanks, I had no idea about how the Iraq war went.
>>46955490
I think it's sarcasm.
>>46944565
This is called a war pick you fucking idiots.
>>46944627
Actually, a weapon like this is good because by being hard-to-heal, you're more likely to cause bleeding out and sever muscle fibers. Ideally, you'd kill someone as soon as possible but hard-to-heal weapons tend to leave awfully destructive wounds which mean any protracted fight is going to end in your favour.
>>46945067
>>46945081
>>46951382
>>46946777
The xiphos/leaf blade shape design is actually quite effective; the shape of the blade lends itself to stabbing and thrusting very well and they were fairly wide spread in Europe; the Celts were using them against the Romans.
The problem with a leaf shaped blade however is that they need to be made from iron or bronze because those metals are softer than steel; steel can't hold the shape as well and obviously, when steel started becoming the next big thing, they were phased out for being ineffective in comparison.
The biggest issue though is that, frankly, while a leaf shaped blade is great for one on one combat, it was useless against the Roman gladius and battle tactics for fairly evident reasons
>>46956203
You're less likely to sever muscle fibers. That knife can only stab, and it's edges just aren't sharp enough to slice, they're is an edge, and it will cause damage, but it won't slice and sever, what it's going to do is punch a hole, and things are either going to get pushed out of the way, or they're going to tear. You ARE more likely do cause more devastating stab wounds. but not MUCH more than a regular blade, and in fact thick wedgelike stabbings can often push vital organs out of the way instead of puncturing them, resulting in a larger hole, but less internal damage.
A flat blade will get the job done, it will be easier to heal if it's nonfatal, but it will be more likely to be fatal outright. In addition, if you're talking about severing muscles then you're talking almost exclusively about cutting and slashing, not stabbing. That blade won't be able to cut, not effectively.
Ultimately the golden rule will always be "pointy stick=bleedy hole" And there's no doubt that this thing IS a sufficiently pointy stick, but flat daggers are just going to do a better, cleaner job, and be far more versatile to boot. There's no way you're going to be using that twisty knife for any camp chores.
>>46945719
This looks like the kind of thing Gygax would think up in wet/fever dream.
>>46945964
You know what expanding bullets/dum dums are, yeah? And what they do to people?
>>46947263
This just looks like a normal cinquedea .
>>46947717
The Nazis committed dozens of war crimes, what the fuck are you smoking. The only reason they didn't use gas weapons was because the Brits were so prepared for them. Look at what the likes of Oskar Dirlewagner did to fucking France. Jesus christ.
>>46947281
>>46947469
>>46948877
Even white phosphourous isn't as bad as VX, some of the nastier binary chemical weapons or the Novichok Agents. Or like, any of the bioweapons.
>>46956561
I'm assuming what you do with this weapon is stab > twist, kind of like its a fairburne. Also, I'm not saying that this weapon is better than a normal weapon, it isn't. But with serrated knives, flamberges and this piece of shit, the irregular cuts mean its harder to stitch up.
As another anon put it, this thing makes torso anuses. You shank someone in the stomach with this, realistically you're going to puncture their gut or they'll bleed out. You don't have to aim at vital organs the wound wil be so nasty.
>>46954461
depends on the state
but is also largely unnecessary
a bat is already a very dangerous weapon
>>46944197
It is ten times better than a piece of sharpened rebar.
It is half as effective as a sword.
>>46956768
Yeah thats what I was saying. 90% of the laws regarding knives and shit is intent, and I don't intend to do anything violent, so it's a moot point. Theoretically if I made it really really good so that it looked exactly like a bat a cop could hassle me over it. But pretty much the only situation where that could possibly happen is if I walked up to a cop, showed him how it worked, showed that it's sharp and dangerous, then called his mother a cunt and shit on his car. Or kill someone with it. I don't plan on doing either of those so I'm fine.
>>46956740
Yeah definitely, but even then, you can do the exact same thing with a regular knife. You can take a kitchen knife and start twisting it around in someone's torso and it'll cause comparable damage. The spiral knife probably does it a little slicker, but ultimately there's just not going to be that much noticeable difference. It's like shooting someone in the head at point blank range. Yeah, shotgun is going to make a bigger mess than a handgun, but either way the goal was reached way before that difference matters.
>>46946825
Because the point of the weapon is to maim and cripple, not kill, because casualties are cheaper and hurt morale less in the long run.
>>46944445
>46944445
so close Anon
>>46953645
>strategic salvos
>scorched earth
kek
>>46953816
Sounds like a plan. It'll probably be a far way off, but post that shit on /k/ once you've got it finished up.
>>46947539
>being so butthurt about Trump that you have to bring him up in completely unrelated conversations
>>46946910
These days it's a lot more artillery and air support that do the killing. The infantry's guns suppress the enemy and keep them in one spot to target easier.
>>46945977
Bronze and brass aren't the same.
>>46951965
>Coyotes are mexican human smugglers.
but they're not necessarily human mexican smugglers
>>46945302
>round chisel
>>46946063
You think that's something, you should see the weapon tables in Song of Swords.
>>46957319
ehhhh i dunno man. I just make dumb stuff out of scrap and found materials with barely any tools. and from what I've seen unless you're screaming about how guns are the one true god then /k/ doesn't really seem to be interested. I mean I used to make threads on /b/ ages and ages ago where I would make stuff live for anyone watching, getting input from the thread on what to make and stuff and that was pretty good fun for everyone. I even did it on that other chan for a while after /b/ became unsavable but before it that other chan's became literally nothing but pedothreads. I haven't really found any place to post anything I make, and honestly the occasional /tg/ weird weapons thread is the only place I feel somewhat welcome.
You think /k/ would be at all interested in that shit or would they just bitch and moan that whatever I make isn't tacticool enough and has too few bullets?
>>46944197
holy shit the dildo knife is real? i always thought it was one of those fake futuristic scifi weapons in the newer CoD games
>>46944388
it has a name
>>46951186
I? What?
>>46947170
>>46947464
>So whoever you stab with it, but fail to kill, is still out of the fight, but now they've got a wound that might never heal right.
>If you kill them, you succeed and reduce their number. If you fail to kill them but maim them in the process it has the added benefit of possibly draining the enemy's resources in tending to their wounded comrades.
But the false assumption that this claim makes is that maiming somebody will actually stop somebody from fighting.
If you kill somebody, they can't kill you. But if you wound somebody, even a mortal wound, they could still have enough life left to kill you.
>>46952781
I'm not that anon but what does that mean? The rapier is able to cut, it just is not an effective slashing weapon.
Oh wait. You made a joke didn't you.
>>46954461
>all knives are basically legal to carry in America lmao!
Nearly every state has a ruling on the size of knife you can carry and a lot of them have serious repercussions for anything over the size of a Swiss army knife.
>>46956619
Expanding bullets, or "dum-dums", are just hollowpoint rounds for rifles. They create a larger wound cavity in exchange for some overall penetrative power. This is why they were suggested for use against Zulus and the like, since they had a reputation for not being stopping by regular ball ammo, and they were not armored.
>>46956619
Dude, Dirlewanger was a fucking psychopath. The guy was a special kind of wackjob.
>>46956619
>You know what expanding bullets/dum dums are, yeah? And what they do to people?
Create marginally better wound vectors that don't justify the costs?
>>46957859
I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said that pretty much any knife (other than explicitly banned ones like auto-knives) are legal to own. And when it comes to carrying, most knives are legal in my state, with the main limits being on what you're allowed to carry concealed. You don't have swat teams busting into ching chong shops and flea markets and confiscating all their shitty knockoff swords and daggers.
You're putting words in my mouth just so you will have something to argue about. But I don't want to argue, and there's nothing to argue about. I'm looking at the Michigan knife laws and regulations right now. Instead of arguing with me over shit I didn't say, why not just go google them yourself and then write us a short explanation of them in your own words since you seem to want to prove something. This way you can not only be correct, but you don't have to be smug and argumentative with someone AND the rest of the thread can learn something about american knife laws from you.
Doesn't that seem like a more productive course of action than just being contrarian, rude, and very very vague about any sort of knowledge you're pretending to have? Also I believe I mentioned I have had very little sleep, I'm not exactly in the right state of mind to be properly explaining laws and regulations, why don't you take over?
>>46944565
I think you may be the only person who saw a buttplug.
>>46950195
Is /tg/ now /k/ for melee weapons?
>>46944197
I'd rather have something I can slash AND stab with, thanks.
>>46958156
Was it ever not?
>>46958293
If only someone had said, ten years ago, that future /tg/ would include people who aren't from the US and speak English as a second language.
