Machine made ww2 blade vs. Traditional hand made blade

[rusted180]

Hey fellas.

 

Haven't posted anything in a while, but I was wondering if any of you experts can help...

I was wondering, what is more stronger? Traditionally made swords or machine made type 98 swords? I was always curious about this because you I've heard hand forged blades are extremely strong, but how would it fair compared to a type 98 sword blade in terms of durability, strength, and reliability? I have heard that the type 95 and type 98 swords were made for functionality and not art. Any thoughts?

Also, would anyone happen to know what kind of officer would of carried an old family blade? Were they usually high ranking officers who sat out the war in a nice admin building pushing paperwork or a field officer who gets dirty in the front?

I apologize if some of these questions seem ridiculous, but I always wondered these questions. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance fellas

-andrew shin

[paulb]

Hi Andrew

I think over the years there has been much debate about which is stronger or better. Not only between traditionally made and machine made but also different types of hand made, different schools, provinces etc. The key really comes down to the quality of the handmade blade. As you know this varies dramatically. I would suggest that the best hand made is better than anything else. This is not based on any technical knowledge just my own rather biased view. Others may add weight to this or offer alternative information

Regarding who carried family blades I am sure some carried their family heirloom with pride in to conflict. i think others purchased older blades because they wanted to take some histyory with them Others with less money to spend took what they were given.

I also think that the type of sword carried did not relate to an officers rank although many high ranking officers did have good swords. I think some important blades have appeared surrendered from lower ranking operational officers.

[Alex A]

I would look back to the past, look at why swords broke in battle and why changes where made to construction. If simple construction was adequate there would have never been a need to change. A sword in world war 2 was not up against another sword or naginata etc, so im presuming they didnt need to be as strong, allthough strong enough!.

 

Only accurate testing would give you an answer, equal size swords, maybe a job for the mythbusters :D

My moneys on the more flexible heavily laminated blade.

 

Alex.

[mas4t0]

It's important to take account of advances in metallurgy. A mono-steel blade forged from a high quality modern steel will be significantly tougher and more durable than any traditional blade (regardless of lamination). That is of course assuming that the heat treatment is done properly.

 

This video shows a mono-steel blade produced from a modern tool steel (L6), with which edge holding and wear resistance are compromised in exchange for virtually unparalleled toughness and durability.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 3672,d.d2k

 

I can't give any specifics on gunto, as I have no idea which alloy was used.

[remzy]

I would tend to believe that a good quality traditionally made nihonto would be stronger than a modern made monosteel sword or gunto, simply because the good quality blade might warp under EXTREME abuse, but not break, due the the way the sword is manufactured. whilst regardless of the quality of the monosteel, it would only break, not bend.

 

In the end, swords were never meant to hit against extremely hard objects... so this is pretty pointless.

 

Regards,

[george trotter]

There is quite a lot of discussion on "in the field" testing of gunto here...from memory the truck spring sword won :lol:

http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_138.htm

regards,

[Lee Bray]

whilst regardless of the quality of the monosteel, it would only break, not bend.

 

Why?

Breaking is due to brittleness, which is a function of heat treatment.

Plenty of good quality traditional blades have broken - hagire.

 

A good quality modern monosteel with the correct heat treatment is where my money is going everytime if we're talking 'strength'.

But for either artistic or artifact purposes, I'll take Nihonto.

Probably why I read Nihonto message board and not the Crowbar message board.(thrilling place though that maybe... )

[Alex A]

How is high quality carbon steel of old different from high quality carbon steel of modern times?....

 

Alex.

[mas4t0]

Strength, durability, resilience and toughness are all measurable physical properties which can be looked up on a database, in order to enable Engineers (such as myself) to determine which material is best suited for a given application. As an example, the addition of a tiny amount of Vanadium (approx 0.2%) will significantly increase the strength of the steel; tamahagane of course does not have this.

 

Modern steels are in a completely different league to tamahagane from an engineering perspective; due to there being much fewer impurities (such as Silicon and Phosphorus) and the addition of useful alloying elements (such as Vanadium and Manganese).

 

I'm curious where the idea that a monosteel would be brittle has arisen. On that basis, would you assume that all springs are constructed of laminated steel?

[Lee Bray]

How is high quality carbon steel of old different from high quality carbon steel of modern times?....

 

Alex.

 

Impurities; silicates(glass), phosphorous, excess carbon.

Old steel is full of them. That's why it was folded to drive them out.

Modern steel has very little, if any, of them. Plus, modern has the ability to add advantageous elements such as manganese and vanadium to increase strength.

[mas4t0]

How is high quality carbon steel of old different from high quality carbon steel of modern times?....

 

Alex.

 

In short; because the perception of high quality has shifted due to there being much higher quality steel available today.

 

10xx series steels are cheap and are relatively low grade by modern standards; however an equivalent steel to tamahagane such as 1086 (that's straight carbon steel with 0.86% carbon) is significantly cleaner (less impurities) and if properly heat treated would have greatly improved material properties. To keep that in perspective, 1086 is a cheap steel, tools steels such as W1, W2 and L6 are fine tuned to their specific application, far cleaner and are fortified with alloying elements.

 

Through folding, the impurities are driven out; but only up to a certain point. Flux is not used in nihonto manufacture as the impurities themselves serve as flux; it is therefore imperative that there be a certain amount of impurities in the steel in order to prevent weld flaws.

[Alex A]

Wow, thanks for the answers guys!. Was this technology available during ww2?

 

Alex.

[mas4t0]

Wow, thanks for the answers guys!. Was this technology available during ww2?

 

Alex.

 

I can go look through some of my books if you'd like some more exact details, but I believe that steels pretty much on par with today's 10xx series would have been available since the mid 19th century. The BOS (Basic Oxygen Steelmaking) process used today wasn't commercialised until the 1950s; there were however other methods available for about a century prior to that, they were just more expensive and more labour intensive.

 

In reality, once you're able to maintain a high enough temperature to keep it completely molten, it becomes an issue of quite basic liquid chemistry; in essence the molten steel contains all the impurities in solution, materials are added to react with the impurities and to precipitate them. The main impurity is Silicon, for which Calcium is added, this forms Calcium Slilcate (Ca2SiO4) aka Slag, which collects at the bottom of the furnace and can be tapped off separately and discarded. Alloying elements (such as Vanadium) can be added to the moltern metal and dissolved into the solution. None of the chemistry has changed since it was first done in the 1850s, it's just that steel can now be produced far cheaper, on a far greater scale and more advanced/ specialised alloys have been developed.

 

I'm not sure how Japan's facilities and metallurgy were during the 20th century (Hitachi now lead the world in a number of ultra-high end steels); but their European allies would in any case have been able to provide them with high quality steel (at least in the run up to the war).

[remzy]

Sure, modern steel is purer etc. but what about a monosteel blade versus, say, a kobuse blade made using modern steel.

Would a mono steel still be stronger than a kobuse made sword with a outer layer of modern steel with a softer modern steel at its core? assuming there is absolutely no flaw in the weld, thats the question that interest me.

 

I believe a balance of softness and hardness make for a stronger blade, but I am no engineer.

 

Historically, we see less Muku style of construction than we see of kobuse style, and it cannot be because they were harder to make.

 

Regards,

[Alex A]

The steel on a traditional blade is wrapped around an iron core. I may be wrong but im sure they tried solid steel blades, but alas, they broke. Surely good quality steel of the time wasn't that bad?

 

Alex

[remzy]

It depend Alex, there has been many style of blade construction over the century http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/construction.html

 

Muku is basically monosteel

[Alex A]

Cheers Remy, knew id read it somewhere.

 

Alex.

[mas4t0]

The steel on a traditional blade is wrapped around an iron core. I may be wrong but im sure they tried solid steel blades, but alas, they broke. Surely good quality steel of the time wasn't that bad?

 

Alex

 

To compare modern steel to tamahagane is really an apples and oranges comparison. In a tatara the steel in never completely molten so there is never a time during smelting where you are able to remove impurities chemically; and there is only so much you can do by forging.

 

Consider a large block of salt contaminated with some sugar (99% salt 1% sugar); it will be virtually impossible to mechanically remove all but the largest inclusions of sugar; this approach is akin to the traditional process. Now consider that you can simply dissolve the whole thing in water and then recrystallize the pure salt and pure sugar separately; this is akin to the modern process.

[mas4t0]

Sure, modern steel is purer etc. but what about a monosteel blade versus, say, a kobuse blade made using modern steel.

Would a mono steel still be stronger than a kobuse made sword with a outer layer of modern steel with a softer modern steel at its core? assuming there is absolutely no flaw in the weld, thats the question that interest me.

 

I believe a balance of softness and hardness make for a stronger blade, but I am no engineer.

 

Historically, we see less Muku style of construction than we see of kobuse style, and it cannot be because they were harder to make.

 

Regards,

 

That is pretty much a null point with modern metallurgy. The issue isn't the balance of hardness and softness, but the balance of brittleness (which is a function of hardness) and ductility. It's just that hard and soft are pretty good indicators of brittleness and ductility.

 

The features of the Japanese blade which make it so special are mostly solutions to problems which only arise due to the crudeness of tamahagane!

 

The lamination was necessary because the marquenched tamahagane was simply too brittle and the ductility of iron was needed to give the blade resilience and toughness. In the case of modern steels, Martensite is often the hardest, toughest and most resilient microstructure and the balance of hardness to toughness is determined by the temper. As an example, ALL steel aerospace components are entirely Martensite. A lot of those components have no need for hardness, and their resilience is the single most important factor.

 

To weld a softer core to a suitable modern steel would do nothing to help as the softer iron/ steel would likely not be as tough as the outer layer of Martensite; and even if the non-martensitic core was tougher (which isn't the case with any alloys that I'm familiar with) you'd still be introducing a grain boundary which would compromise the overall structural integrity by a much greater amount than you'd have gained.

[remzy]

Bah! where is the poesy in that? :D

 

Good point tho.

[mas4t0]

Bah! where is the poesy in that? :D

 

 

I'm sorry Remy.

[Alex A]

Very educational Mark, but still cant help siding with the traditional over the ww2 type 98, biased I suppose.

 

Alex.

[mas4t0]

Very educational Mark, but still cant help siding with the traditional over the ww2 type 98, biased I suppose.

 

Alex.

 

Well Alex, as strange as it may seem in light of all I've just said, I would have to agree with you, at least for the better nihonto!

 

Using a metallurgically superior steel is no guarantee of a superior blade; the superior steel simply has more potential. I would always vouch for an expertly heat treated traditional blade over an inexpertly heat treated blade constructed of modern steel.

 

The magic is entirely in the heat treatment. While a modern tool steel would massively outperform a tamahagane blade if the heat treatment on both was perfect; the fact of the matter is that the heat treatment of a factory produced blade is never anything close to perfect. For one they're heat treated in batches and secondly, even if the heat treat were done individually by a smith, unless he has worked with that particular steel for an extended period and has truly mastered the heat treatment, the results wouldn't be much better.

 

There are actually a series of super premium alloys (used primarily in kitchen knife making) which are produced by Hitachi (called Aogami Super Steel). They produce two families, known as White steel and Blue steel (due to the paper that they're packaged in). On paper blue steel greatly outperforms white steel, but the vast majority of manufacturers shy away from it; the reason being that white steel is much more forgiving in terms of heat treatment. Perfectly heat treated blue steel will outperform anything else out there, but if the heat treat is slightly off, the results are very disappointing. White steel on the other hand produces a fantastic knife even if the heat treat is a little off.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Hi, Mark:

 

As an other engineer, your comment

As an example, the addition of a tiny amount of Vanadium (approx 0.2%) will significantly increase the strength of the steel; tamahagane of course does not have this.

happens to be incorrect. There was a thread on Swordforum.com

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?66278-Just-making-one-point-about-Tamahagane

that addresses the fact that iron filings do, indeed, have elements other than pure iron, including vanadium & titanium.

 

Ken

[mas4t0]

I apologise Ken, I honestly wasn't aware of that, though I would be VERY interested to see a chemical breakdown.

I've never come across steel produced here in the UK where there is more than trace amounts of Vanadium, unless the steel has been actively fortified with it.

 

On the other hand, having random alloying elements within the steel is far from ideal. I may be missing something, but I for one would not be inclined to spec titanium as an alloying element for a steel I was intending to produce swords from. Likewise, as far as I'm aware, Silicon is only useful for low carbon steels as it helps prevent porosity; and it is generally actively removed as it is considered an impurity.

[John A Stuart]

I forget where this came from, but, here you go. Notice the tables. John

Tamahagane Production, Control of Slag.pdf

[Dick Tait]

How is high quality carbon steel of old different from high quality carbon steel of modern times?.... Alex.

 

"Old" steel was produced by reducing the impurities (i.e. carbon) from the iron (by heating, hammering, quenching) down to the correct level.

 

"Modern" steel is produced by removing all the impurities first (high temperature heating & adding oxygen to react with the carbon) and then adding back the carbon & manganese to get the correct percentage.

 

Google: Henry Bessemer & Robert Forester Muchet.

[mas4t0]

I forget where this came from, but, here you go. Notice the tables. John

 

Thank you John it's most appreciated, I've looked for something like that for a long time.

 

Tamahagane seemingly has a Vanadium content of 0.015%, I would expect that you'd need about 10x as much for it to be significant as an alloying element.

[rusted180]

WOW!!! so much info! more than I expected! thank you all experts who chimed in to my post! much to learn for me!

[Alex A]

This is turning into a complex topic lol, just for a minute, forget vanadium and modern steels and ask yourself..

 

During world war2, would a soldier with a gun need a particularly high strength blade?

 

Alex.