Talk:Pattern 1908 cavalry sword

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European / World War I C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Untitled

I realise this article still needs some work. I will go back over it referencing properly when I get time Epeeist smudge 11:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally a fine article, IMO. Assertions of "arguably the best" or "ultimate expression" cannot be included in encyclopaedia articles, however, as they state the author's opinions. We can say "So-and-so argues that it is the best" etc., but we can't say it. --Fire Star 06:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your criticism. I need to work through this again attributing these comments to the authorative authors. I expected to be able to do this within a couple of days of the posting, but sadly it hasn't happened. Watch this space. Epeeist smudge 14:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm, suitably embarassed by having missed the possessives, thanks for the edit. I maybe think you slightly overdid some of the wording edits- although I understand POV criticism, an article does need a few adjectives. I'll try to rewrite with some references whilst trying keep some sort of flow. Thwere will be a be a few more articles on British Swords coming up, your input will be welcome. Epeeist smudge 15:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to have links to reviews of the swords perhaps by the sword manufacturers, the British military, soldiers who used them, etc., if any are available. --Fire Star 17:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't much of that type on these patterns, partly because they were hardly used in anger and partly because I think they were rather good, and the Army only seems to put pen to paper to complain! There are several such comments on other swords which were widely criticised. These will be in future articles. Epeeist smudge 05:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patton Sabre

Thanks to who ever made the reverts on this. I have a few comments on this but I'd like the (anonymous) editors view on this if possible.

1. Is the official US military designation "Saber"? Fine if it is, but if not I wouldn't say that the Patton blade fits the strict definition of a sabre.

2. The phrase "last" expression came from an earlier edit. I'd originally used "ultimate" but this was changed by an earlier as being POV, changing the meaning of the sentence. I may revert this to something closer to my original intent.

3. The Edit refers to "heavy cavalry". I'm not that familiar with the US Army history, but I didn't think there was any distinction between cavalry grades.

I would like to see an article on the Patton sword (or saber!) as well as his cavalry swordsmanship system if anyone has the time and expertise. Epeeist smudge 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epeeist, as the author of the Patton additions, I can verify that the U.S. Army did indeed classify the M1913 as a saber (American spelling, of course), that its double-edged blade therefore became a modern sabre variant, that the U.S. Army continued its development into the 1920s, and that it was intended for use by Army cavalry units that constituted heavy cavalry but were not designated as such. It is illuminating to note that in service the Patton sabre was strapped to the cavalryman's saddle and never worn on the person. Jack Bethune 03:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jack, your comments are appreciated and my apologies for doubting you! I've read a little on Patton's "system" for swordsmanship in J Christoph Amberger's, Secret History of the Sword but have been unable to obtain a copy of the manual or get much more background data as it sounds fascinating if, erm, eccentric. anyway I'll make a couple more minor edits to this page when I get chance. Hope you'll keep on rye on it to keep me honest Epeeist smudge 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epeeist, thank you for your fine work on Wikipedia and your good will towards others. Regarding the sabre manual, here's a link to an online copy of the 1914 version: [[1]] Jack Bethune 18:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, thanks for the link. It is a topic of real interst to me. Interestingly the manual was issued under the authority of Leonard Wood- one of my other edits was adding to Roosevelt's page that Wood injured him with a singlestick, someone else picked this up , i think and added it to the single stick page before i got chance. you have to love wikipedia! Best regards. Epeeist smudge 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flexibility

While the section of the sword makes it relatively stiff for its weight, these swoords do have a remarkable 'spring' and degree of flexibility, especially towards the tip. This was no doubt intended to allow them to flex if hitting a hard surface and also to facilitate pulling the sword without snapping it. Not a pleasant business. Stub Mandrel (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class Review

To make this a B-Class Article please:

Put Citations
Put more Images

Flubeca 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]