PHYSICS PROBLEM HELP!!!!?

an axe.

i guess an axe would have a heavier mass so newtons 2nd law F=ma

suggests that a bigger mass would provide a bigger force which would hack through the armor more easily.

Without getting technical, if you just wanted to "hack through the enemy's armor" I would use the battleaxe.

The first (every object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force) and third (To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) law of newton I can't really see a difference between the weapons.

But for the second law (Force equals mass times acceleration) I think you would get a stronger force for the battleaxe because the weight is heavier, and it is also mostly at the end. So also, if the end is weighted when you went to swing the axe you could get more acceleration too.

So in conclusion, the axe because more force to hack through the armor.

The first answer is completely correct.

But if you "WERE" to get tchnical, The sword would way much less thus giving you an increased amount of speed compared to that of the battleaxe so in a fight to the death, I would have to pick the sword simply because if I had the battle axe (which is significantly heavier then the sword) then the knight would probably just cut my head off before I even got to swing it. lol

So Just to hack through the knights armor without having to fight would be the axe because it is more effective, but if we were to fight the sword because I might get a few hits in.

Hope I helped! :D

Both can be used, but specifically and with certain application of force, to be effective.

Against plate armour, a sword would have a hard time penetrating over a distributed area, so slashing would be out of the question unless you could provide a very substantial amount of force that could peirce the armour over the whole contact area that was resisting your application of force. Ideally you'd be wanting the thrust the blade as to focus all your strength into a small area, giving that point a much greater amount of force than any single point of the same size when slashing. To add to that, your also reducing dramatically the surface area which your trying to penetrate, so overall there is much less resistance to your now concentrated force.

However most blades are substantially lighter than a heavy battle axe, and the momentum that can be gained when swinging an axe can multiply your striking power by storing your applied force as kinetic energy, not to mention gravity will assist any downward strike, much more so on the heavy axe than on all but the heviest swords.

Also, because of the greater amount of force that can be utilized when weilding the axe, the whole surface area of the blade can be used effectively, even at penatrating plate armor, which allows a greater probability of scoring a successful blow with each strike. That said however, the heavyness of the axe, coupled with its length, can make it cumbersome and only really effective at over an arms reach, which can mean if your enemy gets too close you could be in considerable trouble, even just in trying move back into an advantageous engaging range. The sword doesnt encounter these problems because it is almost all offensive weapon, only with the hilt being relatively safe, where as the axe was ussually mounted on a pole arm, which allowed greater engaging range than most blades, but with limited offensive capacity.

That said, many axes had other attachments in various places, most commonly a hook or spike would be added to give the weilder some thrusting capability and also the ability to hook onto the enemy and pull them off balance, with the weight of the axe, their own strength, and crucially, the weight of the enemies armour.

Theres a military maxim that states "speed is armour", basically, if your fast enough you dont need to worry about being hit, and that belief is still held true today, while US forces in afghanistan and iraq, adding more heavily armoured cars - 'MRAP's', to deal with IED's (roadside bombs, etc), british forces are actually reducing the armour on some of their Land Rover WMIK's, which is already alot easier to airlift than a humvee, but will be more manuvarable and better armed with 40mm GMG & GPMG, and other various set-ups.

With this in mind, the sword provides greater manouverability than the battle axe, but requires alot more skill and knowledge (or just plain luck) to be effective against heavy armour. Also, the battle axe is big, heavy, and long, so is an obvious danger to slow armoured units, where as an enemy could be relatively confident against a swordsman in the knowledge that only certain instances will put the him at risk. In other words, the survivability of a swordsman is higher, but the probability of him successfully defeating the knight is lower than the heavy axeman.

Personally i'd use the sword, because my survival is much more important to me than defeating the knight, but added to that, if i can survive long enough, the chance of the knight suffering attrition, being exhausted by having to fight in heavy armour, could sway the battle distinctly in my favour, where as a heavy battle axe would wear me down as fast as his armour would deteriate his stamina.