Would a Katana literally just bounce of someone in plate armor without hurting him or even giving any sensation (such as vibration)? I can't tell you how in so many "Knights VS Samurai" discussions, the first thing the knight side brings is that knights wore plate armor than Katanas were made out of primitive metals so it won't be able to crack the plate and in fact will chip. I definitely believe Katanas weren't designed to fight plate armor and they won't be able to cut off what Knights wore. But the assumptions many people have in the knight vs samurai discussion is that the katana will literally bounce off the plate armor the moment it impacts and that someone in plate padddings is so well protected they won't feel any pain. Hell they assume that knights armor is so much stronger that if a Katana hits hurt, no effect will happen to the plate armor wearer. The plate armor wearer won't even feel the kinetic force of swinging katana, they won't even hear the "ringing vibration" often shown in Hanabara cartoons when you hit an empty suit on display. There is an assumption plate armor is so advanced that a sword as light as katanas will just feel like a tickle towards the wearer at best with the blade resulting with chipped off pieces and at worst caused the sword to shatter. However I seriously doubt this. I definitely can see the Katana being damaged by hitting plate and the plate armor being undented. Thing is I remember reading in battles and sword duels about Samurais getting knocked on the ground by Katanas. The remarkable thing is in some experiments replicating these duels and battles, the Samurai armor was NOT damaged at all, not even a scratched. But despite the armor being unharmed, the participants in the experiments stated not only did they feel such force from being knocked down, they even admitted the area ******* hurts and there were bruises on the hit area (which were some of the areas the Samurai armor defended the most like the chestplate,etc). Update 2: Now I know Samurai armor is a different beast from European armor and often was made out of inferior metal compared to the stereotypical knights armor. But the fact the Katana swings (executed by an Iado expert) were able to make FULL GROWN physically strong men knocked down on the ground in full body armor (not just the Samurai armor but modern layers of padding and some participants even wore chanmail) and the knocked down participants had bruises made me doubt many knights vs samura claims Nevermind the fact that REAL SAMURAIS who were hardened killers and war veterans were knocked down when hit by Katanas in historical battles and duels. Who were likely more physically conditioned than real Samurais. So it makes me doubt the claim that a knight will literally go just laugh at the Samurai after getting hit by a katana because the katana simply bounced off in a hypothetical duel as theorized in these knight VS samurai debates. If its saying something even the richest Samurais were ABLE to purchase the metals used to make European armor or even actual plate armor imported from Europe during the late feudal period yet they feared getting hit by a katana because of possibility of death! I mean peasants using light wooden farm weapons like a stick or a pitchforker were ABLE to hurt knights in plate armor and even kill them. Some of these farm tools were even lighter and more fragile than Katanas like a scythe or a branched picked off from the ground just moment before battles were able to SERIOUSLY cause knights bruisings and there are incidents of peasants killing knights with these weapons that were much weaker than Katanas.