This is ten times better than a regular sword

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.

Hand this relic of dorn over. NOW.

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

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.

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.

not with that tiny amount of reach it isn't

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.

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.

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.

>It may look like a buttplug
It looks like an icing bag to me, you whore.

I hope you keep your innocence you beautiful flower child.

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.

That doesn't make them effective combat weapons.

I need a weapon advertised to kill anyone with bloodloss, only for self defense though.

Enjoy your micropenis, faggot.

...

The word is thrust, you mongoloid.

>blade falls off at first impact

Wow, it's like a shitty xiphos.

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

I thought it was supposed to be a chisel. Like, for stone.

Okay that is pretty cool, but it looks nothing like a buttplug.

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?

Yeah, the one with the axe on the bottom is fucking retarded.

[Agrippa intensifies]

If you're an assassin, maybe? For anything else it's shit.

The first can barely be called flanged either, to be honest.

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...

It sounds more like something for a dickish assassination than for combat to me.
Instead of just strangling the fucker like a normal person.

Aren't these things universally banned because the wounds they make are really fucked up?

This is seven times better than a regular polearm.

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.

Go back to /k/ faggot. Don't spread our shitposts to other boards.

Found the Brit.

As opposed to being stabbed or shot normally?

Weapon bans make no sense at all. Not even from /k/.

>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.

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".

...

Sorry sir, this is part of a bike handle.

I think you mean 2 daggers

The actual blade design that is banned under LOAC is much thinner and more generally-useful. That example is just....yeah, no.

Pic related. George Washington's battle sword makes me proud to be an American.

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.

>specialize in war and combat
>ban a weapon for being too dangerous

Why is this allowed?

Geneva conventions. It's also why we can't change the weather for war purposes anymore.

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

Got a pic of an example?

Not that user, 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?

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.

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.

Well more than that trench knives are about making a knife that is also a knuckleduster

Dorfs are such innocent creatures.

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.

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.

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.

forgot image

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.

It wastes far more enemy resources to seriously injure a soldier than kill them. It adds up over time.

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.

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.

>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.

Fun Fact: this memorial is in New Jersey.

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.

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.

t. Trump voter

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.

There's such a thing as war crimes user, don't be daft.

>Germany
>Refrained from doing really horrible shit in WW2

Um.

the "please reconsider" diplomace?

>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.

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

Not in combat they didn't.
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.

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.

>implying trump wants war

Well fuck Russia.

t. Trudeau

>Implying abandoning allies and ignoring conflicts and disasters in other countries will prevent war

If you have little to no concept of morality, politics, post-war relations and honour yes.

Germans always had an honorable martial spirit.
Also the holocaust never happened.

>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.

>comparing exterminating vermin to honourable combat

>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."

>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.

>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.