We had nuclear land mines ready for deployment in the Fulda Gap. We were fully prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a non-MAD-exchange WW3.

The Imperial Guard would have a lot less trouble with hordes of Orks, Tyranids, and other massed adversaries if they issued Davy Crocketts en masse. Sure, there'll be a radioactive crater that people will need to steer clear of for a few years, but the Imperium doesn't strike me as too concerned about mildly elevated cancer rates in the area once all the hot isotopes burn themselves out. Even if there are exclusion zones for a few decades, that's a blink of an eye for the Imperium.

40K runs entirely on pretending that there is no intermediate between conventional artillery and strategic nuclear weapons, and then concocts flimsy justifications for why those strategic nukes are so rarely used.

It's fine. I'm not complaining. This isn't a setting to go looking for realism in. But if we are going to have a realism argument, well, hordes of pretty much anything are off the table.

In the context of 40k, there other issues regarding strategic weaponry.

For example any of you played Space Marine? In the intro of the game the Imperials consider the deployment of capital weaponry to deal with the Ork invasion on a Forgeworld. They discard it because the forges of the world are considered strategic priority.

The IoM most of the time is the defender, and you cannot nuke yourself to victory.

Also Titans are pretty much strategic weapons on legs, with how often they are stated to have enough firepower to destroy hive cities. Similarly, the Blood Angels used capital weaponry to bombard the Tyranids on Baal, but the whole point of Tyranids is that they have practically infinite troops.

Tyran wrote:
In the intro of the game the Imperials consider the deployment of capital weaponry to deal with the Ork invasion on a Forgeworld. They discard it because the forges of the world are considered strategic priority.

That's why, in a more realistic setting, you'd have massive orbital defenses and blow the Orks up before they reach the planet. Our entire hobby, the actual boots of the ground action, should be a sideshow compared to the real battles waged in space.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tyran wrote:
In the intro of the game the Imperials consider the deployment of capital weaponry to deal with the Ork invasion on a Forgeworld. They discard it because the forges of the world are considered strategic priority.

That's why, in a more realistic setting, you'd have massive orbital defenses and blow the Orks up before they reach the planet. Our entire hobby, the actual boots of the ground action, should be a sideshow compared to the real battles waged in space.

They are sort of.

It's just that Imperial Fleet cannot be everywhere at once and even when it is protecting a world it might not have sufficient power to stop all ships from landing. Plus lots of armies can rise up.

Genestealer Cults and Chaos Cultists can both infiltrate and rise up from the planet itself. Ideally both would work toward compromising any planetary defensive system if they can.
Meanwhile if Ork spores infest a world its very hard to burn out all the orks forever.


Plus there are loads of worlds far from the front lines. It's like playing Stellaris without movement lanes and with free movement. You can protect every world with ships, but each fleet will be smaller and a combined larger enemy fleet can destroy any single world protective fleet. Leaving them free rein to invade the world below. Even if your own fleet than re-unites to come and protect that world the ground forces are already entrenched.
Or you keep your fleet in one place and have to play catch-up. A chaos fleet might strike a world at one end of the Empire; draw your fleet over; then another fleet hits a world at the other end. Again more than ample time to make landfall.

Plus you're not against one opponent.



The Imperial fleet does engage in huge epic space battles; it does stop worlds getting invade and put a halt to crusades and vast hive fleets. But when it fails we get the ground game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tyran wrote:
In the intro of the game the Imperials consider the deployment of capital weaponry to deal with the Ork invasion on a Forgeworld. They discard it because the forges of the world are considered strategic priority.

That's why, in a more realistic setting, you'd have massive orbital defenses and blow the Orks up before they reach the planet. Our entire hobby, the actual boots of the ground action, should be a sideshow compared to the real battles waged in space.

Who says it isn't?
It's just that the camera is focussed on the bit of the fight that made it to the surface. And as most of our battles occur on a 4'x8' or less table top, it's zoomed WAAAY in on a tiny segment of that fight.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tyran wrote:
In the intro of the game the Imperials consider the deployment of capital weaponry to deal with the Ork invasion on a Forgeworld. They discard it because the forges of the world are considered strategic priority.

That's why, in a more realistic setting, you'd have massive orbital defenses and blow the Orks up before they reach the planet. Our entire hobby, the actual boots of the ground action, should be a sideshow compared to the real battles waged in space.

That exact game has you destroying orbital defences so reinforcements can get on the planet. Every time I see people complain about how the fight in orbit matters it's like they forget the invaders can win that.

 Overread wrote:
It's just that Imperial Fleet cannot be everywhere at once and even when it is protecting a world it might not have sufficient power to stop all ships from landing. Plus lots of armies can rise up.

Static defenses on the planet and surrounding moons, spaced stations, minefields, an array of mirrors around the system's star to burn enemy ships like ants, disassembling the entire planet into a fleet of habitat ships and jumping away at the first sign of an enemy... It should be almost trivial to stop most enemies from ever landing.

Genestealer Cults and Chaos Cultists can both infiltrate and rise up from the planet itself. Ideally both would work toward compromising any planetary defensive system if they can.
Meanwhile if Ork spores infest a world its very hard to burn out all the orks forever.

3 exceptions, 4 if you count tomb worlds.

Plus there are loads of worlds far from the front lines. It's like playing Stellaris without movement lanes and with free movement. You can protect every world with ships, but each fleet will be smaller and a combined larger enemy fleet can destroy any single world protective fleet. Leaving them free rein to invade the world below. Even if your own fleet than re-unites to come and protect that world the ground forces are already entrenched.

Who needs a fleet when fixed defenses are cheaper and easier to armor?

Fixed defenses were already proven to be ineffective by WW2, warfare is all about movement, fixed defenses are just fixed targets.

A ship can dodge attacks, fixed defenses cannot. With some simple math the enemy could hit you from outside the range of the defenses.

There is a reason why modern military doctrines are not only based on range, but also mobility.

Tyran wrote:
Fixed defenses were already proven to be ineffective by WW2, warfare is all about movement, fixed defenses are just fixed targets.

Except for shore defense batteries, minefields (both land and sea), ICBM silos in the cold war... Those things are all sure 'useless' right?

A ship can dodge attacks, fixed defenses cannot. With some simple math the enemy could hit you from outside the range of the defenses.

A fixed defense is also more accurate as it knows its range tables and approach vectors. You can also hide them in silos, as just another asteroid or orbital habitat, build an office complex around one. Unless your enemy has already surveyed your system well they won't find every trick you've got.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Fixed defenses were already proven to be ineffective by WW2, warfare is all about movement, fixed defenses are just fixed targets.

Except for shore defense batteries, minefields (both land and sea), ICBM silos in the cold war... Those things are all sure 'useless' right?

A ship can dodge attacks, fixed defenses cannot. With some simple math the enemy could hit you from outside the range of the defenses.

A fixed defense is also more accurate as it knows its range tables and approach vectors. You can also hide them in silos, as just another asteroid or orbital habitat, build an office complex around one. Unless your enemy has already surveyed your system well they won't find every trick you've got.

ICBM silos are really not defenses, considering their whole purpose is to start nuclear apocalypse. Also ballistic missiles are not optimal to target mobile forces, you want cruise missiles for that.

As for the other two, one is pure area denial, the other is a combination of area denial and mobile artillery. They are not going to win a war by themselves and are meant to support naval forces, not replace them. ICBMs can and will pretty much end any war, but MAD is a construct of our current sociopolitical situation and does not necessarily apply to interstellar warfare.

And space makes it even harder because thermodynamics. You need heath to operate and there is no way to hide that heath in space (unless technobbable is involved, and to be fair 40k has a lot of technobbable), so that discards minefields or hiding weapons in rocks.

Planet bound defenses have to work against gravity, which makes them slower and inefficient. To misquote Obi-Wan, space has the high ground. They can work to give the attackers a nasty surprise, but if you lost control of orbit, you already lost the war.

Sure I was wrong at calling them useless, but you cannot replace a fleet with static defenses.

Also, filling the system with defenses might just be prohibitively expensive for many systems. Probably most worlds have defenses commensurate to the value of the world. A major Forge or Hive World probably has lots of system defenses and a fleet to patrol local space. An agri-world probably has some meager orbital defenses and ground based defenses around any population centers, but the Imperium figures any major invasion will be a temporary loss of the world and then they can repopulate in 100 years time.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
an array of mirrors around the system's star to burn enemy ships like ants, disassembling the entire planet into a fleet of habitat ships and jumping away at the first sign of an enemy..

Not taking anything away from your other points, which are good, but I think these might be just a little bit beyond the Imperium's current capabilities.

Tyran wrote:
ICBM silos are really not defenses, considering their whole purpose is to start nuclear apocalypse.

MAD, or even just AD, certainly seems to be an effective defense for nuclear-armed nations.

Also ballistic missiles are not optimal to target mobile forces, you want cruise missiles for that.

Missing the forest for the trees my friend. Any missile that's getting to space will need an ICBM sized (or larger) silo.

As for the other two, one is pure area denial, the other is a combination of area denial and mobile artillery. They are not going to win a war by themselves and are meant to support naval forces, not replace them.

Yes, but naval gun emplacements and minefields have prevented landings IRL. That's the aim here, make a landing too costly to attempt or to slow it down so the navy can arrive. The exact purpose it served in WWII.

And space makes it even harder because thermodynamics. You need heath to operate and there is no way to hide that heath in space (unless technobbable is involved, and to be fair 40k has a lot of technobabble), so that discards minefields or hiding weapons in rocks.

It does, as a point of fact, not make it impossible. That asteroid could well hide a hab, or a mining operation. Those mines hide as communications relays, satellites moved to a high orbit to run out their remaining fuel, the ruins of a hulk transport. There may not be stealth in space but there is room for a lot of deception.

Planet bound defenses have to work against gravity,

Not for laser or particle weapons which the Imperium has loads of. They also seem to do just fine with surface mounted macro cannons.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
an array of mirrors around the system's star to burn enemy ships like ants, disassembling the entire planet into a fleet of habitat ships and jumping away at the first sign of an enemy..

Not taking anything away from your other points, which are good, but I think these might be just a little bit beyond the Imperium's current capabilities.

You'd be wrong. They're within the grasp of our current tech except for scale and the infrastructure to build them.

All you really need are satellites that can keep in formation and rotate to point the sun towards a single point on an enemy ship. It's basically a very large multi mirrored telescope. The best part is that it would be made up of thousands, if not millions, of satellites making it next to impossible to kill before it gets you.

The other best part is that it also works as an engine for your entire star system if you want it to. Picture the IoM planets all burning towards Holy Terra using harnessed starlight; literally reshaping the galaxy for the defense of mankind.

Just a point but note that early in assault campaigns the Imperial Guard is likely landing in D-Day equivalent numbers against planets held by the enemy. Ergo static defences are all well and good until you soften them with bombardment and then throw MANY troops at them until you either lose or overwhelm them.

Essentially its a battle of arms - eventually you run out of resources for building planetary defences. Especially when there are worlds in the Imperium that never see invasion for generations. Worlds that you just wouldn't bother building defensive systems along until a vile xenos or traitor comes a knocking.


Even if you can build everything there's always a support chain. Weapons need maintaining, crewing, arming, upkeep etc.... Again you eventually hit barriers. And that's before we hit the massive bureaucratic nightmare that is the Imperium. They've missplaced whole systems in their archives more than once. Heck in the lore Tau only exists because of an administrative blunder that lost the paperwork!

 Excommunicatus wrote:
And the fact that your conclusion is in fact the complete opposite of the facts on the ground gives you no pause for thought at all?

I don't know. Lets ask the the Takeda cavalry, Ottoman Janissary corp, Zulus, and and anyone who plays a melee centric 40k army what they think. They may have insights about the viability of melee infantry vs gun lines .

 Overread wrote:
Just a point but note that early in assault campaigns the Imperial Guard is likely landing in D-Day equivalent numbers against planets held by the enemy. Ergo static defences are all well and good until you soften them with bombardment and then throw MANY troops at them until you either lose or overwhelm them.

That's the point. They slow the enemy down until help can come.

Essentially its a battle of arms - eventually you run out of resources for building planetary defences. Especially when there are worlds in the Imperium that never see invasion for generations. Worlds that you just wouldn't bother building defensive systems along until a vile xenos or traitor comes a knocking.

Then they aren't protected by the guard and likely just have some local PDF troops with stubbers and that's not really what this thread is about.

Even if you can build everything there's always a support chain. Weapons need maintaining, crewing, arming, upkeep etc.... Again you eventually hit barriers. And that's before we hit the massive bureaucratic nightmare that is the Imperium. They've missplaced whole systems in their archives more than once. Heck in the lore Tau only exists because of an administrative blunder that lost the paperwork!

Or ditch planets, build a dyson swarm of small habs around a star, and manufacture what you need in house. It's not beyond what 40k can do it's just too logical for a setting that wants to have its cake and eat it too.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

MAD, or even just AD, certainly seems to be an effective defense for nuclear-armed nations.

The same could be said as any military, the best defense is a good offense and all that.

Yes, but naval gun emplacements and minefields have prevented landings IRL. That's the aim here, make a landing too costly to attempt or to slow it down so the navy can arrive. The exact purpose it served in WWII.

That is fine but you original stated "Who needs a fleet". Turns out static defenses really need fleet support to properly work.

It does, as a point of fact, not make it impossible. That asteroid could well hide a hab, or a mining operation. Those mines hide as communications relays, satellites moved to a high orbit to run out their remaining fuel, the ruins of a hulk transport. There may not be stealth in space but there is room for a lot of deception.

That is assuming the enemy doesn't simply blows those up, communication relays and satellites are basic targets.

Not for laser or particle weapons which the Imperium has loads of. They also seem to do just fine with surface mounted macro cannons.

Both do have issues with atmospheric interference, and we have seen their enemies counter them somewhat.

You'd be wrong. They're within the grasp of our current tech except for scale and the infrastructure to build them.

All you really need are satellites that can keep in formation and rotate to point the sun towards a single point on an enemy ship. It's basically a very large multi mirrored telescope. The best part is that it would be made up of thousands, if not millions, of satellites making it next to impossible to kill before it gets you.

The other best part is that it also works as an engine for your entire star system if you want it to. Picture the IoM planets all burning towards Holy Terra using harnessed starlight; literally reshaping the galaxy for the defense of mankind.

The scale and infrastructure is putting it lightly. We are talking about a full dyson swarm. While technically low tech, that is still beyond the industrial capacities of the IoM.

Also vulnerable to FTL, which means everyone in 40k.

Tyran wrote:
That is fine but you original stated "Who needs a fleet". Turns out static defenses really need fleet support to properly work.

That fleet may be a fleet in being. The enemy knows you have defenses, knows you have a fleet, and doesn't even try to attack.

It could be using your systems star as an engine so the enemy comes out of the warp only to find your planet isn't there.

It might be dispursing your population into smaller habs so the enemy has nothing to mass assault.

That is assuming the enemy doesn't simply blows those up, communication relays and satellites are basic targets.

So why is only the enemy getting to shoot? They drop out of the warp blind, after all, so you have the defenders advantage.

Both do have issues with atmospheric interference, and we have seen their enemies counter them somewhat.

IRL they do, in 40k many of those issues seem solved or otherwise unimportant.

The scale and infrastructure is putting it lightly. We are talking about a full dyson swarm. While technically low tech, that is still beyond the industrial capacities of the IoM.

Is it though? Realistically it's just a matter of time and raw materials both are resources that any habitable system has in abundance. From there it's just actually starting the process which is easy when you already know how to build things in space and have SSTO spacecraft.

Also vulnerable to FTL, which means everyone in 40k.

I'm not sure how astronavigation to an actively moving system would work. Also, forcing a second warp jump after the first is off-target means more chances your enemy's fleet arrives piecemeal if at all.

That space mirror idea is super impractical and basically worthless. For a few reasons. 1) it takes time for that light to reach a target (light from our own sun takes 8 minutes to reach us). So you'd have to aim and focus those mirrors not at where the ship is, but where it's going to be in the future. 2) it takes time for that light to heat up an object. Ants get popped by magnifying glasses because they're incredibly tiny. Ships, especially on 40k, are enormous. Not only are you going to have to adjust your mirrors a good 10 minutes in advance to keep them focused on the ship, but you'd have to hope the ship follows the exact trajectory you planned for. 3) as that light passes through electromagnetic fields, dust and debris, and gravity wells, it would be distorted and the focus would weaken. Which means that even if you can perfectly plan all of the above, you'd still have issues getting it to do what you want.

Also one torpedo or gunshot or grot through the lens of the glass and its shattered.

 flandarz wrote:
1) it takes time for that light to reach a target (light from our own sun takes 8 minutes to reach us). So you'd have to aim and focus those mirrors not at where the ship is, but where it's going to be in the future.

The same as any weapon in common use in 40k and much faster than a macro cannon battery or missiles.

2) it takes time for that light to heat up an object. Ants get popped by magnifying glasses because they're incredibly tiny. Ships, especially on 40k, are enormous. Not only are you going to have to adjust your mirrors a good 10 minutes in advance to keep them focused on the ship, but you'd have to hope the ship follows the exact trajectory you planned for.

You do realize that lascannons are lasers and they work just fine, right? The sun has more power almost any 40k ship and properly focused won't need a ton of time or target. Aiming is handled via servitors linked into a targeting system so the mirrors that need to move do so in sync with each other.

3) as that light passes through electromagnetic fields, dust and debris, and gravity wells, it would be distorted and the focus would weaken. Which means that even if you can perfectly plan all of the above, you'd still have issues getting it to do what you want.

40k fires lasers from the ground to space without issue, this is a solved problem in-universe.

Also, we plan to use lasers to push things to Alpha Centauri with modern tech. So aiming and focusing over those distances is already plausible, why would things be worse in 40k?

 Overread wrote:
Also one torpedo or gunshot or grot through the lens of the glass and its shattered.

Yes, because this is going to be a single glass lens and not thousands or millions of polished metal mirrors... Try looking up the concept before critiquing it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
an array of mirrors around the system's star to burn enemy ships like ants, disassembling the entire planet into a fleet of habitat ships and jumping away at the first sign of an enemy..

Not taking anything away from your other points, which are good, but I think these might be just a little bit beyond the Imperium's current capabilities.

You'd be wrong. They're within the grasp of our current tech except for scale and the infrastructure to build them.

All you really need are satellites that can keep in formation and rotate to point the sun towards a single point on an enemy ship. It's basically a very large multi mirrored telescope. The best part is that it would be made up of thousands, if not millions, of satellites making it next to impossible to kill before it gets you.

The other best part is that it also works as an engine for your entire star system if you want it to. Picture the IoM planets all burning towards Holy Terra using harnessed starlight; literally reshaping the galaxy for the defense of mankind.

I'll not address the mirrors, as others have done so already, but disassembling an entire planet and using it to construct a fleet of basically craftworlds would take extreme technology, resources, and time. I don't believe even the eldar are currently capable of that anymore. Plus you'd be losing the planet's resources which are needed for the Imperium's war efforts. I think you have the IOM confused with Pakk Protectors.

You're seriously asking why something we can do can't be done in 40k? Because we have scientists and they have cultists who memorised a manual. They can put things together but no idea how it works.

You specifically said "an array of mirrors around the system's star". There's a big difference between a few hundred to maybe a couple thousand meters (ground and space warfare distances) and the 150 MILLION kolometers between the Earth and Sun. One takes, at most, seconds to cross. The other, literal minutes.

We shoot lasers to the moon now, and yeah. That's fine. It still ends up diluted, but we can do it. But, again, you aren't talking about maybe a few kilometers. A focused mirror array would need to pass though millions of kilometers. Even in-universe, there's a lot that can stop that before it reaches the target. As foe the Alpha-Centauri thing, aiming at something (and accounting for all the variables that go into that) that isn't actively trying to evade you is easier than trying to hit a target that doesn't want to be hit.

Of course, in universe stuff just works because GW and the writers want it to. They could say "the Dark Eldar build a gun that turns stars into candy" and it would work in universe because GW says it does. But I was under the assumption part of the discussion was based in some kind of realism. And, realistically, a solar mirror array is an awful idea

The issue with a dyson sphere, beyond the scale required, is the absurdly complex orbital dynamics required.

The easiest design is a ring of satellites around the star, but such configuration only harnesses a negligible amount of energy of the star. More complex orbits will collect more energy but you start hitting efficiency issues as the satellites start shadowing each other.

And the less efficient, the more satellites are required.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I'll not address the mirrors, as others have done so already, but disassembling an entire planet and using it to construct a fleet of basically craftworlds would take extreme technology, resources, and time.

We could do this with modern tech. The issue is time and a lack of spaceborne manufacturing which isn't an issue in 40k. Also, these just need to be habs with solar panels on one side, a mirror on the other, and some way to turn when needed and station keep when not. If you can build a 40k shuttle you can build these.

Plus you'd be losing the planet's resources which are needed for the Imperium's war efforts. I think you have the IOM confused with Pakk Protectors.

Mining a planet for its resources removes those resources now? I was unaware that this was how mining worked, thanks for enlightening me!

----

Also, the math for using 1% of the suns per second output as a weapon:

The sun releases energy at a mass–energy conversion rate of 4.26 million metric tons per second, which produces the equivalent of 38,460 septillion watts (3.846×10^26 W). 1% of that is 3.846x10^24 W which is roughly 908,000 Gigatons of energy.

Some calculations put the output of a typical macro cannon battery at ~44 Gigatons per 12 gun battery. Even at the high end, where a macro canon shell is assumed to fly at 0.5c this beam is equal a 275 macro cannons if it stays on target for a full second.

 flandarz wrote:
You specifically said "an array of mirrors around the system's star". There's a big difference between a few hundred to maybe a couple thousand meters (ground and space warfare distances) and the 150 MILLION kolometers between the Earth and Sun. One takes, at most, seconds to cross. The other, literal minutes.

We shoot lasers to the moon now, and yeah. That's fine. It still ends up diluted, but we can do it. But, again, you aren't talking about maybe a few kilometers. A focused mirror array would need to pass though millions of kilometers. Even in-universe, there's a lot that can stop that before it reaches the target. As foe the Alpha-Centauri thing, aiming at something (and accounting for all the variables that go into that) that isn't actively trying to evade you is easier than trying to hit a target that doesn't want to be hit.

You're making an assertion about beam diffraction, so do the math.

Just above I did the calculations for a beam that focuses 1% of the sun's energy into a weaponized beam. Assume that the ideal spot size is 1 meter at 1 light hour and work from there.

Tyran wrote:
The issue with a dyson sphere, beyond the scale required, is the absurdly complex orbital dynamics required.

The easiest design is a ring of satellites around the star, but such configuration only harnesses a negligible amount of energy of the star. More complex orbits will collect more energy but you start hitting efficiency issues as the satellites start shadowing each other.

And the less efficient, the more satellites are required.

Yes, this is all true and all solvable with modern methods. Do I really need to go over to atomic rockets and start slinging those calculations around?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Mining a planet for its resources removes those resources now? I was unaware that this was how mining worked, thanks for enlightening me!

It does if you use them to construct these habitat ships of yours. The Imperium uses planets for other resources besides raw materials as well. Like food production.

And this is still a lot to ask of a society that can't remember how to manufacture certain marks of tanks.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Yes, this is all true and all solvable with modern methods. Do I really need to go over to atomic rockets and start slinging those calculations around?

Yes, I would like to see the math of how such orbital mechanics are solved.

Tyran wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Yes, this is all true and all solvable with modern methods. Do I really need to go over to atomic rockets and start slinging those calculations around?

Yes, I would like to see the math of how such orbital mechanics are solved.

I want to see him do the math on disassembling a planet.
I'm particularly interested in how he'd even come up with #s concerning the psychics & magic the setting contains.

ccs wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Yes, this is all true and all solvable with modern methods. Do I really need to go over to atomic rockets and start slinging those calculations around?

Yes, I would like to see the math of how such orbital mechanics are solved.

I want to see him do the math on disassembling a planet.
I'm particularly interested in how he'd even come up with #s concerning the psychics & magic the setting contains.

I want an explanation on how we could do it and then assemble it back together as ships using modern technology. After that maybe we can do cold fusion or cure cancer.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Mining a planet for its resources removes those resources now? I was unaware that this was how mining worked, thanks for enlightening me!

It does if you use them to construct these habitat ships of yours. The Imperium uses planets for other resources besides raw materials as well. Like food production.

Grow food on the habitats. Bonus points for using 3D plots and taking advantage of microgravity.

Tyran wrote:Yes, I would like to see the math of how such orbital mechanics are solved.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a11098/dyson-sphere/

https://www.space.com/38031-how-to-build-a-dyson-swarm.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

ccs wrote:I want to see him do the math on disassembling a planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drilling_and_blasting

Do these, just on a planet-spanning scale. It would be slow with modern technology, but given that the IoM has vastly better tech than we do this is even easier for them. Bonus points for setting up mostly automated mines in otherwise uninhabited system and shipping the mining output via stl transport ships to avoid warp issues.

Gadzilla666 wrote:I want an explanation on how we could do it and then assemble it back together as ships using modern technology. After that maybe we can do cold fusion or cure cancer.

You mine the resources and refine them. Possibly at the mine itself if you're turning the entire planet into a factory designed to mine and refine itself. With current tech it would be slow and we'd want to start by mining Mars, Venus, or an NEO so we have a habitable place to live while we set this all up. These aren't issues for the 40k universe.

You're overlooking a key concept - that of sedentary vs nomadic lifestyle. You're basically arguing that the Imperium should go nomadic when their entire social structure and technology is built around sedentary life. Their whole ethos and outlook on life is grounded in the idea of a single static home.

A home world, a home town, a home itself. Things built and rooted in a fixed position within the universe. From that they draw not just their own livelihood, but their whole identity and way of life.



The Eldar needed the birth of Slaanesh to abandon their sedentary life; and even then many of them still settled upon worlds (Exodites).

 Canadian 5th wrote:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a11098/dyson-sphere/

https://www.space.com/38031-how-to-build-a-dyson-swarm.html

Your source is talking about dismantling the entire inner solar system.

That is far beyond the resources of the IoM, we are talking about sextillions of metric tons of material, while the IoM struggles to build ships that only mass a few billion metric tons.

 Overread wrote:
You're overlooking a key concept - that of sedentary vs nomadic lifestyle. You're basically arguing that the Imperium should go nomadic when their entire social structure and technology is built around sedentary life. Their whole ethos and outlook on life is grounded in the idea of a single static home.

A home world, a home town, a home itself. Things built and rooted in a fixed position within the universe. From that they draw not just their own livelihood, but their whole identity and way of life.

Your point? They can and should do this because it's the smart choice given the threats they face.

Tyran wrote:
Your source is talking about dismantling the entire inner solar system.

Yes, yes it is.

That is far beyond the resources of the IoM, we are talking about sextillions of metric tons of material, while the IoM struggles to build ships that only mass a few billion metric tons.

Building one giant ship is not an equal challenge to building the same mass in smaller vessels. As an example the UK Navy has a total displacement of approximately 439,200 tonnes (815,200 tonnes including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary). Their largest ship displaces only 65,000 tonnes by your logic they shouldn't be able to build a fleet because they can't build one singularly massive ship.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Your source is talking about dismantling the entire inner solar system.

Yes, yes it is.

That is far beyond the resources of the IoM, we are talking about sextillions of metric tons of material, while the IoM struggles to build ships that only mass a few billion metric tons.

Building one giant ship is not an equal challenge to building the same mass in smaller vessels. As an example the UK Navy has a total displacement of approximately 439,200 tonnes (815,200 tonnes including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary). Their largest ship displaces only 65,000 tonnes by your logic they shouldn't be able to build a fleet because they can't build one singularly massive ship.

No he's saying that just because you can build a 65,000Tonne ship doesn't mean you can then build a 100,000,000,000,000 Tonne ship. In fact there are huge hurdles of technology required to make advances like that. Not leave of which you're into building mega-structures that will generate their own gravity field that will have a massive impact on those living aboard. In addition you're talking about an Imperium of Mankind that still loads the ships they have by giving humans the fuel and making them walk into the reactor which basically destroys those people through extreme radiation exposure (and gods know what else that's inside those reactors). All because that's how its always been done. They take people, scoop out their minds and make them into living cyborg servitors - some of which are built purely for the task of tightening one bolt on a tank that hasn't changed in design for generations. About an Imperium who have the right to punish and execute people for making modifications like putting a better sight onto their rifle.

Not only haven't they the technology, they don't even have the social structure nor upbringing to start even the basics of developing such technologies.

 Overread wrote:
No he's saying that just because you can build a 65,000Tonne ship doesn't mean you can then build a 100,000,000,000,000 Tonne ship.

Then it's a good thing I never suggested that. I suggested a Dyson Swarm which is millions of smaller habitats circling their star in a complex series of orbits. The articles I posted cover both types of structure as well as simple Dyson Rings and Dyson Bubbles.

Please pay attention to what I'm writing and fully read the posted links next time.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
1) it takes time for that light to reach a target (light from our own sun takes 8 minutes to reach us). So you'd have to aim and focus those mirrors not at where the ship is, but where it's going to be in the future.

The same as any weapon in common use in 40k and much faster than a macro cannon battery or missiles.

2) it takes time for that light to heat up an object. Ants get popped by magnifying glasses because they're incredibly tiny. Ships, especially on 40k, are enormous. Not only are you going to have to adjust your mirrors a good 10 minutes in advance to keep them focused on the ship, but you'd have to hope the ship follows the exact trajectory you planned for.

You do realize that lascannons are lasers and they work just fine, right? The sun has more power almost any 40k ship and properly focused won't need a ton of time or target. Aiming is handled via servitors linked into a targeting system so the mirrors that need to move do so in sync with each other.

3) as that light passes through electromagnetic fields, dust and debris, and gravity wells, it would be distorted and the focus would weaken. Which means that even if you can perfectly plan all of the above, you'd still have issues getting it to do what you want.

40k fires lasers from the ground to space without issue, this is a solved problem in-universe.

Also, we plan to use lasers to push things to Alpha Centauri with modern tech. So aiming and focusing over those distances is already plausible, why would things be worse in 40k?

 Overread wrote:
Also one torpedo or gunshot or grot through the lens of the glass and its shattered.

Yes, because this is going to be a single glass lens and not thousands or millions of polished metal mirrors... Try looking up the concept before critiquing it.

You're advocating for the Dyson sphere of defensive weapons.

Because what you're leaving out is:
- It's a huge mirror array, where each element of the array is going to need a control system and be subject to transmission delays, and coordination issues due to the scale.
- It's a huge mirror array, where each element of the array is going to need maintenance.

It's a perfectly fine idea if what you're looking for is something that could be built as a massive art project, or similar style of public works, or be the result of repurposing a public works project.

I can imagine someone trying to write up a "solar powered laser defense array" and figuring that at sufficient scale they could just cut out the laser system. The problem with that is that you have to pay more (more control elements, more maintenance, more raw materials to build it) for the system to increase the scale.

And that's before getting into "So the attacker brought its own mirror array/solar panels"...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Building one giant ship is not an equal challenge to building the same mass in smaller vessels. As an example the UK Navy has a total displacement of approximately 439,200 tonnes (815,200 tonnes including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary). Their largest ship displaces only 65,000 tonnes by your logic they shouldn't be able to build a fleet because they can't build one singularly massive ship.

Insane difference in scale, what you are asking is the equivalent of asking the UK navy to build a fleet with a total displacement in the quatrillions of metric tons.

BTW that is like giving everyone (and I mean everyone) their own personal Nimitz class supercarrier and a free battleship.

 solkan wrote:
You're advocating for the Dyson sphere of defensive weapons.

You're massively behind the conversation. Check the links I've posted a page back about how we have modern proposals to start building a Dyson swarm with modern tech.

Tyran wrote:
Insane difference in scale, what you are asking is the equivalent of asking the UK navy to build a fleet with a total displacement in the quatrillions of metric tons.

Indeed, it is a matter of scale. You start by building factories that build factories and then once each site is set up you have those factories build the mining equipment and refineries. Then those start to build and launch your mirrored space habitats.

BTW that is like giving everyone (and I mean everyone) their own personal Nimitz class supercarrier and a free battleship.

Yeah, but you can also have a population of 1 Trillion assuming 1,000,000 stations holding 1,000,000 people each. That's a low-end figure, you can get into the Quadrillions around a single star if you assume a larger swarm, larger habs, or storing some people as digital entities.

If anyone needs a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, here it is.

Edit: The above was in response to an enormous wall of text from Ernestas, which now appears to be gone, at least to me.

Also through that entire youtube video about Adrian I noted two things

1) It never once said anything about close combat - it was all GUNS and ranged weapons being used.

2) He got taken out of action numerous times by guns. It was the fact that most of them hit extremities and missed his core (barring the first few) that allowed him to keep taking injuries and surviving. Along with some insane luck in getting hit in the head around 5 or more times that I could count and surviving each time.

He was an impressive warrior, but you can clearly see that he never charged into close combat blind; he was using rifles, revolvers, grenades. All ranged weapons.





Also I thought we'd given up with close combat VS ranged and moved onto sedentary life on planets and moving the whole population itno spaceships.

This comment is in regard to human endurance, especially when pushed to the limit by fictional drugs.



Ironically, it is holywood who had portrayed completely wrong picture of real combat. In life, people just do not die if you shoot him. Person will not collapse just because you had stabbed him with a knife. In all likelihood, he would simply draw his knife and would slit your throat and will continue combat. We like to imagine combat like that, because it makes it enjoyable to watch, otherwise it would be depressing. What would happen if audience would know that artillery barrages do not kill people? That after any bombardment most people will be dying and a lot of people converted into corpse like state, being unable to move, but being unable to die quickly? What would happen if people would know that main effect of airstrikes and artillery bombardment on cities are countless trapped and slowly starving people under rubble? Streets filled with dead, dying and ones who are unable to die? We were painted a wrong image that a bullet shot = death. Even bloody white prosphorus and napalm was widely excgarated. Few are lucky enough to be killed by it quickly, most will remain half burned and left as walking corpse. Some of those people will die, others will be unlucky and shall survive. With no benevolent Nurgle to pray to, their lives afterward are grim indeed. We like to imagine that battlefields of old were about kill or be killed. You are not a first one who thought that ancient combat was deadly. In fact, fighting other men eye to eye back then with sword and rifle was the most safest time during combat. Most men would die fleeing from battle like cowards they were. After huge battle, you would not see field littered with the dead, but the dying. It would moan, it would beg. Aftermath of a battle or side effect of a conflict is actually where suffering lies, in slow demise of a man. It is death by disease, by starvation and last thing that kills you in major war is an actual enemy.

Now, I had explicitly said that wound to a critical area will result in person dying. Not all your points are critical areas and person can survive being shot in the head multiple times, crashing planes, being shredded by grenades, having its intestines on a wrong side of a body, being shot in main area of your body, being stabbed and sliced with knifes. A person can survive such wounds for extended period of time to receive after combat medical aid. What makes one person more resilient than your average Joe? I think it is a will to live and to fight. In my experience people who die and majority of humans have barely any fire in them. They have little passion and they are very quick to give up. In hospital I can say who is likely to die based on how spicy individual is. By that look in their eyes. My grandmother soldiers through operations which turn out with critical complications, brushes strokes aside. She has every imaginable disease and her body just gives up randomly. She stops hearing out of a sudden and then everything is fine later on. She had survived far beyond anyone's expectancy and doctors are in awe at her endurance. In a very similar way I had overcame medical conditions what doctors would say would be practically impossible to overcome and my very existence defies traditional medical knowledge and wisdom. I'm strong believer in human will and its ability to reshape reality. Thus by extension, I do believe that how endurant human being is in combat is largely dependent on his will. Of course, excluding critical hits, though aiming for those critical spots in combat is just a military delusion. Modern firearms are extremely ineffective weapons and soldiers effectiveness at killing anyone with them had dropped drastically since musket era and we are talking how soldiers imagine themselves headshotting most of their enemies. Prolonged exposure to ideal, firing range conditions and next no none existent practice in trying to hit each other with firearms had resulted in such weird perception.

Here is a great example of how real life commissar from W40k would look like in our world!



Do you think that it was impossible when Yarrick lost his arm and still kept fighting? Pfff, this soldier just tore his arm himself. I bet if war would be more brutal, he would be driving his power sword into the skull of some Ork warboss the very next moment!

Fun aside, I do realize that he is an extreme example, but an example nonetheless. If you say that all those things are impossible for human body to endure under some sci fi drug which would push human body to its very limits then you have to explain why this man wasn't killed. He is not the only one. We have plenty of such extreme examples. We had even such extreme examples of a large scale where soldiers rose up like zombies and ran to concentrated gunfire. They were already dead, but bloodied and muddy they rose from a battlefield where all life from it was sapped by artillery fire and concentrated poison gas attack. These zombies, and they were Russians of course had overran positions of 14 German battalions. Germans had panicked when dead rose from the earth and started charging their positions in melee. They tried to shoot them like many of you smart guys thought to do, but when that did not worked, what a soldier to do? They keep firing and hitting their enemies, but they just kept on coming. You can't kill the dead as they are already dead and thus under such supernatural threat, Imperial Guard formation had broke psychologically and it had fled battlefield.



In this example we see upwards to thousand men charging somewhat modern, massed enemy formation in melee and breaking it under psychological pressure. An aspect which many of you had utterly ignored in combat. If you think that a man can die so easily then you have to explain and also this. How gas which was deemed to be deadly to humans had utterly failed to do its task and kill those defenders?

We also ignore even simple supernatural phenomena like zombies who can overrun professional military deployed in full force, there are a lot of movies and shows who portray how that happens. Or we can talk about how Chaos hordes happen to fight against modern force deployed in choke point against entrenched military with artillery, tank and machine gun support. Such fight was during first war on Armageddon and Imperial defenders barely won, because sheer numbers of those combatants had tied down Imperial forces and Chaos could launch its elite spearhead through undefended flank of defenders to its civilian population centers and ultimately encircle defenders in a giant flanking maneuver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Also through that entire youtube video about Adrian I noted two things

1) It never once said anything about close combat - it was all GUNS and ranged weapons being used.

2) He got taken out of action numerous times by guns. It was the fact that most of them hit extremities and missed his core (barring the first few) that allowed him to keep taking injuries and surviving. Along with some insane luck in getting hit in the head around 5 or more times that I could count and surviving each time.

He was an impressive warrior, but you can clearly see that he never charged into close combat blind; he was using rifles, revolvers, grenades. All ranged weapons.





Also I thought we'd given up with close combat VS ranged and moved onto sedentary life on planets and moving the whole population itno spaceships.

I had meant to address point that a human body can't take any punishment which was raised by another fellow in a comment which I had quoted. I had provided examples where human body can take extreme levels of punishment. There are countless examples where human persevered against untold odds and hence, I think that humans can be a lot tougher to kill if they are whipped up into a frenzy and given combat drugs which would push their bodies to their limits. I had also given example on a mass scale where deadly gas had completely failed to kill garrison despite expectation from German command and every soldier on a ground. Furthermore, Russian bayonet charge on large scale during WW1 shows that even against modern armament, such charge can be extremely effective if done properly and attacker disregards his own casualties. This is I believe why most people imagine melee combat in W40k being just a fiction for a sake of cool. They can't imagine any side being so bloody determined to win an engagement that they would just throw their soldiers and people to physically push them out.

Same thing is happening everywhere. In siege of Vraks both sides often engaged in human wave assaults and fought hand to hand, because ground was far more important than human life. WW1 also had this a plenty despite huge artillery and machine gun presence, later even with widespread introduction of tanks.

Ernestas,

Your hordes need to meet grazing fire, enfilade fire and beaten zones. Never mind barbed wire and artillery. You have a wonderfully anachronistic De Grandmaison view of warfare. I am trusting that you are tongue in cheek for this thread.

My head-cannon for Space Marines and melee is that their armour is proof against the "nerveless weapons" that stop mortals from getting into melee in the real world.

Cheers,

T2B

 Ernestas wrote:

Ironically, it is holywood who had portrayed completely wrong picture of real combat. In life, people just do not die if you shoot him. Person will not collapse just because you had stabbed him with a knife. In all likelihood, he would simply draw his knife and would slit your throat and will continue combat.

Most people who get shot tend to stop taking aggressive action. Even if they're not dead, ruptured organs, shredded muscles, shattered bones, burst lungs, tend to make continued combat difficult. Yes there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

Modern firearms are extremely ineffective weapons and soldiers effectiveness at killing anyone with them had dropped drastically since musket era

Whoa, hold up, full stop. STOP.

No.

I guarantee you a modern rifle will be orders of magnitude more effective at killing people than a musket will be. What you may be confused about is the staggering number of rounds used in combat to kill an individual enemy combatant. This is not due to weapons being ineffective, but rather to these weapons being insanely well supplied, turned on anything even remotely scary, and used to hose it with firepower. This isn't always done with the intent to kill, but to suppress. Suppression is 99% of shooting in combat, ensuring an enemy has no chance to pop up or cross an area or disturb your own crossing. Suppression of this kind simply was not a thing in previous eras, it is a reflection of modern industrialized warfare. Do not mistake being profligate with ammunition as being ineffective.

I have in my home right now swords, knives, axes, shields, and firearms of various types. You ask me what I want to defend myself with, I'm not reaching for the musket, I'm not reaching for a sabre or dussack, I'm sure as hell not reaching for a longsword, I'm going to grab a modern firearm, because it will be by far the most effective tool for that job.

Do you think that it was impossible when Yarrick lost his arm and still kept fighting? Pfff, this soldier just tore his arm himself. I bet if war would be more brutal, he would be driving his power sword into the skull of some Ork warboss the very next moment!

Yarrick is such an exceptional character he's called out and recognized amidst a literal *galaxy* of untold trillions of humans, and travels in the circles of demigods.

We have plenty of such extreme examples. We had even such extreme examples of a large scale where soldiers rose up like zombies and ran to concentrated gunfire. They were already dead, but bloodied and muddy they rose from a battlefield where all life from it was sapped by artillery fire and concentrated poison gas attack. These zombies, and they were Russians of course had overran positions of 14 German battalions. Germans had panicked when dead rose from the earth and started charging their positions in melee. They tried to shoot them like many of you smart guys thought to do, but when that did not worked, what a soldier to do? They keep firing and hitting their enemies, but they just kept on coming. You can't kill the dead as they are already dead and thus under such supernatural threat, Imperial Guard formation had broke psychologically and it had fled battlefield.

There's a wee bit of misunderstanding and myth in this example, but no, the Russian's didn't just bodily absorb bullets and keep fighting as literal zombies, and the position was lost to the Germans within days. Great example of bravery under some of the first gas attacks by the defenders, but it's not what you're trying to make it out to be either.

 Ernestas wrote:

*snip a whole bunch of misinformation and misunderstanding*

The goalposts have moved so far during this whole discussion I think they're on a different filed playing a different sport now. I'm not even sure what you're really arguing any more.

The whole thing about Hollywood misrepresenting modern warfare and the effects of bullets is hilarious next to the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding that follows. Vaktathi's already touched on the "muskets are more accurate than modern rifles" hilarity which instantly torpedoes any credibility you might have still had (not that there was much anyway) but there's also the fact that all these examples you keep putting out there are often only known about because of how remarkable they are. Yes, some people have survived after having limbs blown off, and even continued fighting in some cases. The only reason we really know about them is precisely because they're so remarkable and out of the ordinary. 99.99% of people will stop fighting after those sort of injuries and more often than not it's because of physical, not mental, reasons.

Also, I have to pick up on the whole "will to live" rubbish too. It would be funny if it wasn't so insultingly ignorant. This idea that people die because they lack the mental fortitude to shrug off a physiological effect is, quite simply, dangerously incorrect and, especially in the current crisis, disgustingly so. Dude, this idea that you can just "tough it out" has no basis in science or medicine. It doesn't matter how great your mental fortitude is if your vital organs are all shutting down due to an infection or cancer or any number of other deadly conditions. The idea that you just need a positive mental attitude is exactly the kind of stupidity that's going to prolong the current crisis and we've already seen people breaking self-isolation and carrying on as if everything is normal because they think they're young and healthy and therefore invulnerable to harm. Ordinarily I might give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was yet another misinterpretation of the fact that improved recovery from major trauma and illness has been linked to attitude and mental factors but at this stage I think you're frankly just making stuff up that fits your required narrative.

At this point, I think it's obvious to anyone but you that you really don't know what you're talking about. Every single post is filled with inaccuracies, misunderstood "evidence", confirmation bias and a severely skewed view of how...well...anything works in the real world.

Are we still seriously replying to a dude with zero relevant practical experience, whose fascination with melee combat stems from swordfighting as a hobby, telling us how Hollywood gets it wrong and citing zombie movies as pertinent evidence?

Like I said above. Dunning-Kruger effect. He is literally never going to admit to being wrong about anything.

It's reminding me of when I thought dual pistols were really cool and looked up roughly how useful they actually were. Shockingly the answer is not very.

pm713 wrote:
It's reminding me of when I thought dual pistols were really cool and looked up roughly how useful they actually were. Shockingly the answer is not very.

Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

A brace of pistols is a better idea than dual-wielding them but still falls below learning how to do a quick reload or using a higher capacity magazine.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

A brace of pistols is a better idea than dual-wielding them but still falls below learning how to do a quick reload or using a higher capacity magazine.

Probably depends on the tech level of the pistol - the way Overread was describing things sounded like the sort of flintlock-era pistol you'd see in a stereotypical pirate movie, as opposed to a modern pistol with a magazine.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

A brace of pistols is a better idea than dual-wielding them but still falls below learning how to do a quick reload or using a higher capacity magazine.

Probably depends on the tech level of the pistol - the way Overread was describing things sounded like the sort of flintlock-era pistol you'd see in a stereotypical pirate movie, as opposed to a modern pistol with a magazine.

Yeps!

Though I still love games like Torchlight and Grim Dawn even though the musket style weapons they use clearly have some kind of infinite ammo cheat going on! It would be really neat to play those kind of games with realistic reloading, but you'd likely need a team of people to make a party work otherwise after 2 shots you'd be out and have only a few seconds to reload before you'd get there. And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

 Overread wrote:
Yeps!

Though I still love games like Torchlight and Grim Dawn even though the musket style weapons they use clearly have some kind of infinite ammo cheat going on! It would be really neat to play those kind of games with realistic reloading, but you'd likely need a team of people to make a party work otherwise after 2 shots you'd be out and have only a few seconds to reload before you'd get there. And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

You'd probably also want a pavise to hide behind at that stage. Though at that point I think you've moved beyond what a game like Torchlight can handle and still remain true to its own style.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah now what you really need is a leather sash that holds multiple pistols! Fire, drop, pull another one and fire!

Think of it like a bandolier; only for whole pistols not bullets/ammo.

A brace of pistols is a better idea than dual-wielding them but still falls below learning how to do a quick reload or using a higher capacity magazine.

Probably depends on the tech level of the pistol - the way Overread was describing things sounded like the sort of flintlock-era pistol you'd see in a stereotypical pirate movie, as opposed to a modern pistol with a magazine.

Yup. I think that specific image has its origins in descriptions of Blackbeard who was described as wearing "a sling over his shoulders, with three brace of pistols, hanging in holsters like bandoliers; and stuck lighted slow matches under his hat" in Charles Johnson's A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the most Notorious Pyrates

Old Captain Teach had a real flair for the dramatic and understood the power in an intimidating appearance.

Didn't he take it further - I thought he put the burning slow matches into his beard at one stage.

 Overread wrote:
Didn't he take it further - I thought he put the burning slow matches into his beard at one stage.

That sounds like a good way to gain the nickname "Captain No-beard-but-severe-facial-burns"

 Overread wrote:
They take people, scoop out their minds and make them into living cyborg servitors - some of which are built purely for the task of tightening one bolt on a tank that hasn't changed in design for generations.

Thank The Emperor. I wouldn't want to be mentally functional for that job.

Matora wrote:

 Overread wrote:
They take people, scoop out their minds and make them into living cyborg servitors - some of which are built purely for the task of tightening one bolt on a tank that hasn't changed in design for generations.

Thank The Emperor. I wouldn't want to be mentally functional for that job.

There's hints that the mind wiping isn't perfect - that some servitors do recall part of their humanity; buried beneath layers of obedience and servitude.

 Overread wrote:

Matora wrote:

 Overread wrote:
They take people, scoop out their minds and make them into living cyborg servitors - some of which are built purely for the task of tightening one bolt on a tank that hasn't changed in design for generations.

Thank The Emperor. I wouldn't want to be mentally functional for that job.

There's hints that the mind wiping isn't perfect - that some servitors do recall part of their humanity; buried beneath layers of obedience and servitude.

The Mechanicus trilogy has a servitor basically rebel and get other servitors to join in. But there were many shady things going on in those books it's not going to be common.

I thought about this thread the other day. Even in the middle of a quarantine my unit made me go to the range and qualify on my weapon. So impractical to shoot and hit targets popping up from 50-300 meters away. With a weapon that can also switch to full auto and fire way more rounds.

 Overread wrote:
And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

I'd say 4 shots

It seems that 1-2 shots per minute is reasonable for poorly trained conscripts, 3 for reasonably trained soldiers, 4 for well trained soldiers, and 5 for the truly exceptional (and probably unsustainable). I'm fairly sure Sharpe has Redcoats shooting 4 per minute as their schtick for being well-drilled compared to most other troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Ernestas wrote:

*snip a whole bunch of misinformation and misunderstanding*

The goalposts have moved so far during this whole discussion I think they're on a different filed playing a different sport now. I'm not even sure what you're really arguing any more.

The whole thing about Hollywood misrepresenting modern warfare and the effects of bullets is hilarious next to the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding that follows. Vaktathi's already touched on the "muskets are more accurate than modern rifles" hilarity which instantly torpedoes any credibility you might have still had (not that there was much anyway) but there's also the fact that all these examples you keep putting out there are often only known about because of how remarkable they are. Yes, some people have survived after having limbs blown off, and even continued fighting in some cases. The only reason we really know about them is precisely because they're so remarkable and out of the ordinary. 99.99% of people will stop fighting after those sort of injuries and more often than not it's because of physical, not mental, reasons.

Also, I have to pick up on the whole "will to live" rubbish too. It would be funny if it wasn't so insultingly ignorant. This idea that people die because they lack the mental fortitude to shrug off a physiological effect is, quite simply, dangerously incorrect and, especially in the current crisis, disgustingly so. Dude, this idea that you can just "tough it out" has no basis in science or medicine. It doesn't matter how great your mental fortitude is if your vital organs are all shutting down due to an infection or cancer or any number of other deadly conditions. The idea that you just need a positive mental attitude is exactly the kind of stupidity that's going to prolong the current crisis and we've already seen people breaking self-isolation and carrying on as if everything is normal because they think they're young and healthy and therefore invulnerable to harm. Ordinarily I might give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was yet another misinterpretation of the fact that improved recovery from major trauma and illness has been linked to attitude and mental factors but at this stage I think you're frankly just making stuff up that fits your required narrative.

At this point, I think it's obvious to anyone but you that you really don't know what you're talking about. Every single post is filled with inaccuracies, misunderstood "evidence", confirmation bias and a severely skewed view of how...well...anything works in the real world.

I thoroughly agree. I work in healthcare. I've helped care for very motivated people who have died of cancer or pneumonia or liver failure despite their motivation. Having a positive outlook helps, but it is no substitute for vital organs that have failed.

 Overread wrote:
And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

Tear, pour, spit, tap, cock, fire.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Overread wrote:
And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

Tear, pour, spit, tap, cock, fire.

Don't forget to pull your rod out!

 Overread wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Overread wrote:
And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

Tear, pour, spit, tap, cock, fire.

Don't forget to pull your rod out!

Well, I don't see how it will help but okay

*Begins unbuttoning*

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Overread wrote:
And if watching Sharp has taught me anything its that 3 shots a minute is what you can best expect.

Tear, pour, spit, tap, cock, fire.

Don't forget to pull your rod out!

Well, I don't see how it will help but okay

*Begins unbuttoning*

That's it! You've earned 30 lashes for childish attempts at humour whilst on drill!

 Overread wrote:


That's it! You've earned 30 lashes for childish attempts at humour whilst on drill!

Hey, I was just trying to demoralise the frogs with some sturdy english wood!

Also, my first comment was relating to Sharpe's shortcut method which doesn't use the ramrod

If it's the 41st millennia and you are fighting rabid cultists who worship the dark gods, I'd prefer an automatic rifle over a las gun, I'd modify my ammo, to assist it to expand on impact. Remember folks, Geneva Convention is not existant. And they literally worship the dark gods and want to feed your soul to a demon god.

I'd prefer to have a squad automatic weapon over a plasma, melta or flamethrower(not much fun in your lines if that goes up...) because heavy gunfire, is great to suppress people with, and if they choose not to throw themselves into cover they will be riddled with holes. A grenade launcher would be handy.

You can cover ground fast, but if you are coming apart under enemy fire, and when you get close the enemy close into a hedge of bayonets(yeah ask the Scots at Culloden the effectiveness of swords vs bayonets) and start hurling grenades what good is the fickle blessing of the dark gods?
I mean, Khorne will certainly get his blood. Either way.

Besides the best method for melee combat, cost benefit wise, provided you have a band of rabid cultists, is to strap bombs to some of them and use them as suicide bombers. So melee combat would be effectively deterred by this potential threat...
(lol I can imagine some assault marines jumping in on a cultist squad and having a real bad day)

Against foes that are much more powerful and naturally faster than humans? Well weight of firepower is just that, outnumber them, put up a screen of fire so they can't move. Frag them to hell. Prod any of the bigger pieces that are left with your bayonet. If they move brass them up, the bayonet is mounted on the end of the weapon for a reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you don't have the numbers or firepower against superior foe you are dead anyway so aforementioned tactics to martyr yourself for the god emperor would have more effect.
Everyone got their grenades rigged? Good! Time to give those dastardly raptors a real bad day men!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
We had nuclear land mines ready for deployment in the Fulda Gap. We were fully prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a non-MAD-exchange WW3.

The Imperial Guard would have a lot less trouble with hordes of Orks, Tyranids, and other massed adversaries if they issued Davy Crocketts en masse. Sure, there'll be a radioactive crater that people will need to steer clear of for a few years, but the Imperium doesn't strike me as too concerned about mildly elevated cancer rates in the area once all the hot isotopes burn themselves out. Even if there are exclusion zones for a few decades, that's a blink of an eye for the Imperium.

LOL they use Russ eradicators that do that but on a much smaller scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ernestas wrote:


The thing with frenzone drug in lore is that it makes person into mindless beserker. You can cut person's arm with chainsword and it won't have any effect on him. Sure, his body might be dying, but combat is often very fast and brutal. He might need a minute to bleed out and die, but he only need a second to stab you with his knife.

Yeah the Russians came across this in the Chechnyan war to varying degrees. The result was usually that the Russian soldiers shot them over and over until the 'bezerker' fell on the ground and bled to death. Surprisingly quick when everyone has automatic service rifles. For a less controversial example look at when when the police have to shoot a ice junkie who is charging at them with a knife.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Insularum wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Are you forgetting that things like bayonet charges largely haven't been attempted since around the time of the american civil war? Or at MOST world war 1? Automatic weapons have largely made it irrelevant. There are some limited examples of melee fighting, but it's pretty rare.

Because rounding up a bunch of boyz and charging at the enemy has proven to be disastrously catastrophic for at least a century.

I dunno about that.

As observed, the most recent bayonet charge was in Afghanistan in 2011. Bayonet charges were also successfully performed by western units during the Falklands War, Yugoslav conflict, and during the Iraq wars.
During the Korean War, both sides used bayonet charges, the Chinese very extensively so.

It's pretty easy to turn up a fairly significant number of bayonet charges made during modern conflicts with a cursory search. While not the primary weapon of any military, it is definitely still something than is still used.

In Iraq 2004 at Danny Boy there was another close quarters engagement with bayonets and no British loses, however for anyone trying to romanticise melee over ranged combat needs to go play some paintball then reconsider.

things are significantly more complicated when someone is shooting at you. That 10ft gap between buildings/cover is plenty of time for a bullet to find you. Hell, even an open doorway is enuff. or if your enemy is utilising barrier indifferent projectiles that car/wall/whatever doesnt provide any protection at all.

Barrett M82A1, turning cover into concealment for 35 years.

I prefer a 304mm rocket mortar. Been turning city blocks to rubble since 1944.

 OldMate wrote:
Against foes that are much more powerful and naturally faster than humans? Well weight of firepower is just that

Or as this classic comic puts it:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, my first comment was relating to Sharpe's shortcut method which doesn't use the ramrod

I love the show, but while Napoleonic-era muskets could be tap-loaded because the balls were deliberately undersized for the bore, rifles used balls sized to the bore, which have to be actually rammed through the rifling with non-negligible force- which gets progressively worse as the gun fouls. Three shots per minute is quite fast for a musket, let alone a rifle, let alone either under combat conditions.

And that's my useless bit of pedantry for the day.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Ernestas,

Your hordes need to meet grazing fire, enfilade fire and beaten zones. Never mind barbed wire and artillery. You have a wonderfully anachronistic De Grandmaison view of warfare. I am trusting that you are tongue in cheek for this thread.

My head-cannon for Space Marines and melee is that their armour is proof against the "nerveless weapons" that stop mortals from getting into melee in the real world.

Cheers,

T2B

Yes, I'm half serious in this thread. I'm just little bit pissed that some people take it too seriously and tend to argue way too seriously over details. I also love to figure out stuff through discussion, but when someone goes and starts by saying that you are wrong in every statement you make, it is very, very annoying. I personally would behave differently in creating army than trying to rely on such things, but I'm saying what I would do if I would live in W40k. Even Imperial guard has melee formations of normal humans called Penal Legions. They too are pumped up by combat drugs and herded toward mines fields, barbed wire and machine guns and are expected all to die while someone more valuable is moving into position. In lore such formation was used to charge into demon engines and space marines with a great effect. Not because they had killed anyone, but because they almost managed to distract troops which just had reached citadel's walls from realizing that formation of super heavy tanks are maneuvering into position for direct fire in order to cover up a breach. They had bought up valuable time and were an effective distraction. An effective use of manpower in lore and I think that same concepts would work and in real life.

How I imagine melee based army made out of individuals perform in real life? I will give you a perfect example in a lore where we had exactly only hordes of madman charging into melee range against professional army full with artillery, heavy armor, machine gun and space marine support. Entrenched at the edge of jungle with a river splitting two sides. It did not end up end well for Imperial guard, but for completely different reasons than you would imagine.

Listen from 49:45 if youtube derps out. If you need context, you can go backwards a minute or two and you will get operation briefing too.


This is how I imagine such army would perform in real life. The real thing that people are missing is not the combat performance of a man with a knife charging into massed professional army, but their sheer numbers. In this War, such army almost defeated space marines, defeated Imperial guard despite them being entrenched in most favorable conditions and killing them by the millions. First War of Armageddon almost did not ended in decisive defeat for Imperial Guard there is that you all forget that numbers have quality of their own. Khorne hordes were simply too large for Imperial armies to engage. They could not cover all the territory and this is what they had used. When Imperial Guard engages their hordes, elite formations of Khorne hordes moved out uncontested to high value, strategic objectives. In our world, it would be like having professional army bogged down killing millions of madman charging them while enemy formation made out of amazing tanks, artillery, ifv and soldiers going uncontested into most vital objective for a war effort. You can't do anything, because your army is bogged down and can't effectively retreat anymore.



That means that I have a lot bigger reserve of units which I can use. In war of Armagedon, in order for defenders to safely ride out and set up that massive slaughter field, they had to concentrate their forces and ammunition reserves into a very small area compared to available ground for maneuver. This is when elite formations flanked through unprotected flanks and threatened to surround or get into Imperial Hive Cities. There they could had replaced all loses from those cities. So, you had killed millions of heretics in your little ambush. You think that as a success? Now you have many million more civilians turned into madness and converted into cultists. In next battle, you will be facing tens of millions of cultists, screaming and charging into your lines instead of those measly millions which you had killed prior. I want people to understand that before arguing that W40k is silly and that melee does not work. Melee does work and spectacularly so, because in W40k they have very small differences. It is not high technology that makes melee possible like super duber armor, but simply that they can drive people insane and to effectively herd them and force them to charge enemy lines. At this point, artillery shells and bullets become more expensive than manpower and stress which such charges create upon enemy lines allows more elite formations to maneuver freely and to cut off, encircle, take critical objectives, ground, etc. This is exactly what we had seen in War of Armagedon and why it is actually a viable military strategy.

Even in our world, if we could force people to charge into enemy lines with explosive collars and slave masters, melee armies would be very effective if not whittled down. The thing is, as we progress technologically, we use less and less manpower and weapon systems. They become ever more capable and destructive, but at the same time, they do not have same quantity of firepower as their older, cheaper alternatives. Like, how much bombs can 1 F-35 deliver against charging armies vs 3 F-16 at a same cost? As armies progress, this tendency just amplifies, we have smaller armies capable of doing less killing at a large scale. On the other hand, human population on Earth grows immensely. Most of them are concentrated into massive cities. Fall of even one such cities, you can think of dozen of millions of people getting converted into cultists and joining ranks of Lost and the Damned. You might kill a lot, but in the end, your squads will be easily overwhelmed if not concentrated and if concentrated, your movement is heavily restricted. Now think in real life how an army is supposed to stop millions strong invading force from getting into ANY of their cities? Evacuating hundreds of millions of people from surrounding area is not an easy task which could be done quickly and it will heavily disturb running of an entire nation. If Khorne worshippers land anywhere on this planet, even without all high tech things, just ability to convert people into cultists, it would be already a major war of Earth. We would not be capable of stopping so much manpower to getting into major cities where our combat potential would drop dramatically compared to open field engagements. From there those millions would multiply into tens of millions of fresh cultists who would spread further in all directions or if needed would be focused into giant encirclement maneuvers. You can't move your army, because you have no more than hundred thousand troops on a ground, rest are support personnel, in navy, avation, etc. These troops have to be dispatched through thousands of kilometers of land in order not to be flanked. Otherwise if they focus somewhere in one place, you can move your formations through loosely protected flanks deep into enemy ground. In addition, when attacker has this massive numbers advantage, it can defeat you in detail. Focusing a lot bigger numbers on your position somewhere where you have least stuff and break through there thus forcing you to retreat from your all positions as enemy will start flooding in from a single gap in your lines.

I hope, I had explained logic behind such troops in a way you understand how I think. I do not think that melee in W40k is illogical. I see how it can be done if we agree that certain things about our world can be different. And any other disagreement which I have is rather over extremes. People do not think that a guy with a knife is dangerous up close if they have a gun. This was a major point with which I had disagreed. I think, it is extremely silly for people to try and prove that having an assault rifle in a room makes a knife obsolete, but here we are. Other disagreements were about effectiveness of small arms fire. Soldiers have this unshakable beliefs in their rifles and firepower superiority. I on the other hand, believe in armor, ambushes and speed. I'm afraid of unseen threat, I'm afraid that there is someone behind the corner waiting to ambush me and I won't be able to react quickly enough. This is where my fears lies and differences between me and other people. I disagree that an assault rifle is best weapon in all cases and I value different things. Like pistols, like swords in those extreme close combat cases. Or ability to blend in with a terrain, use camouflage and stealth to get awfully close to the enemy and wipe out threats in an ambush while quickly melting away in dense terrain.

Btw: Ironically, even real life bolter would be a good weapon for me which historically was proven to be a bad weapon. Trading range for destructive firepower.

@Ernestas

You are aware that a massive horde of slaves with explosive collars, combat drugs and slave-master is going to require a massive suply chain for their food, water, medical equipment (if only for the slave-masters), etc. Plus a horde walking on foot for days on hand arrives in a combat zone exhausted with bloodied feet and injured back isn't exactly all that scarry. It's difficult to move such large quantity of troops in coordonated manner. It requires an extansive communication network and a large number of commanders to act on those information and relay them up the chain of command in a timely manner. If that system is ever damaged, it would leave you with a lot of immobile asset or uncoordonated assets that might start fighting each others in the confusion. 40K makes very little sense and the only way it's semi-believable is with the introduction of magic.

 Ernestas wrote:
Yes, I'm half serious in this thread. I'm just little bit pissed that some people take it too seriously and tend to argue way too seriously over details.

That's bs and you know it. You've been taking it completely seriously for this entire thread without a hint of exaggeration; you're just saying this as a cop-out after everyone's told you over and over again that you're wrong.

For anyone entering the thread now: This guy has claimed that swords beat guns in modern-day close-quarters fighting, because the fact that he does swordfighting for fun has given him unique insight that combat vets, SWAT officers, and military instructors are too set in their ways to recognize.

How is this thread still going

 Galas wrote:
How is this thread still going

By the dark and ancient rights of the mii-go, with just the right amount of forsaken children.

epronovost wrote:
@Ernestas

You are aware that a massive horde of slaves with explosive collars, combat drugs and slave-master is going to require a massive suply chain for their food, water, medical equipment (if only for the slave-masters), etc. Plus a horde walking on foot for days on hand arrives in a combat zone exhausted with bloodied feet and injured back isn't exactly all that scarry. It's difficult to move such large quantity of troops in coordonated manner. It requires an extansive communication network and a large number of commanders to act on those information and relay them up the chain of command in a timely manner. If that system is ever damaged, it would leave you with a lot of immobile asset or uncoordonated assets that might start fighting each others in the confusion. 40K makes very little sense and the only way it's semi-believable is with the introduction of magic.

This is where you are wrong. This is Chaos we are talking about and slaves. They do not need much in terms of support and humans can march very far indeed. Look at historic death marches, even half dead people can beat huge distances in freezing cold with no water or food as human body just refuses to give in and bloody die. Furthermore, you are thinking in terms of Order. Think in terms of Chaos. You do not need to coordinate hordes. All what you need to do is to ensure that there is enough of them where you need them, rest will do something useful by themselves. Raid countryside, will slip by gaps in defense, capture town, etc. As for food, water. We are living in post scarcity society. Even before industrial revolution, armies were living on the land, scavenging. There wasn't any supply chains big enough to supply a whole army. In our or any sufficiently advanced world, there is food bloody everywhere. In every small town there is enough food and water for thousands of soldiers to last for weeks or more. If you capture a major city, you can feed armies for seasons. Furthermore, it is not like food is such precious commodity when life expectancy of a slave is such low and most valuable resource are those explosive collars and drugs which you put on them.

That's bs and you know it. You've been taking it completely seriously for this entire thread without a hint of exaggeration; you're just saying this as a cop-out after everyone's told you over and over again that you're wrong.

For anyone entering the thread now: This guy has claimed that swords beat guns in modern-day close-quarters fighting, because the fact that he does swordfighting for fun has given him unique insight that combat vets, SWAT officers, and military instructors are too set in their ways to recognize.

Not at all. It is just you who took this way too seriously and started by stating really curious things. Like that new bullets are by 999% more effective than old bullets without stating how. Then you proceed to harass and insult me when you ran out of arguments. I wanted not to name you directly, but you are a person which I meant previously who thinks that just by having a gun, makes you invulnerable to anyone with a melee weapon when they are standing next to you.

In addition, even SWAT officers agree with me. They use pistols (sub machine guns) and shields. Instead of addressing those points you just kept harassing me throughout pages as you lack any arguments to back up your beliefs.

 Ernestas wrote:
Not at all. It is just you who took this way too seriously and started by stating really curious things. Like that new bullets are by 999% more effective than old bullets without stating how.

Shouldn't you be at least somewhat versed in terminal ballistics before making a thread like this? I'm not talking about looking up FBI penetration and lethality tests, or casualty breakdowns from recent battlefields, but just watching something like The Wound Channel, InRange TV, or C&Rsenal on YouTube.

In addition, even SWAT officers agree with me. They use pistols (sub machine guns) and shields. Instead of addressing those points you just kept harassing me throughout pages as you lack any arguments to back up your beliefs.

First, an SMG isn't a pistol, they just fire a pistol caliber round. Second, many law enforcement agencies are moving away from the SMG towards military-style carbines. Third, the job of a SWAT team is to ensure that everybody, even the criminal, survives the raid so, in theory, they arm themselves for defense so they have time to subdue the bad guy and secure the scene.

There's a reason why the modern military doesn't use that same equipment for breach and clear operations and instead prefer rifles, grenades, and the occasional shotgun for opening locked doors. Going further back we also used flamethrowers for clearing enemy structures.

Most people who get shot tend to stop taking aggressive action. Even if they're not dead, ruptured organs, shredded muscles, shattered bones, burst lungs, tend to make continued combat difficult. Yes there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

I agree. The issue here is two fold. Why there are exceptions. I believe in finding answers to all questions and merely stating that "there are exceptions" is not good enough for me. How a person can keep on fighting with immense damage to his body? What makes one an exceptional individual. I had touched that in my previous comment.

Secondly, we are not speaking about normal people. We are speaking about people who are drugged up. If they are not on drugs then they are worshippers of Khorne. That means that they are very, very angry and want to die, because that means that they died well and Khorne will judge their souls kindly. And then person really wants something, merely rupturing an organ is not enough to discourage him. Only most critical damage will kill human instantly and then we are talking about dozen of seconds of fighting. It takes an uncomfortable long time for person to die when we are fighting in conditions I had originally mentioned.

Whoa, hold up, full stop. STOP.

No.

I guarantee you a modern rifle will be orders of magnitude more effective at killing people than a musket will be. What you may be confused about is the staggering number of rounds used in combat to kill an individual enemy combatant. This is not due to weapons being ineffective, but rather to these weapons being insanely well supplied, turned on anything even remotely scary, and used to hose it with firepower. This isn't always done with the intent to kill, but to suppress. Suppression is 99% of shooting in combat, ensuring an enemy has no chance to pop up or cross an area or disturb your own crossing. Suppression of this kind simply was not a thing in previous eras, it is a reflection of modern industrialized warfare. Do not mistake being profligate with ammunition as being ineffective.

I have in my home right now swords, knives, axes, shields, and firearms of various types. You ask me what I want to defend myself with, I'm not reaching for the musket, I'm not reaching for a sabre or dussack, I'm sure as hell not reaching for a longsword, I'm going to grab a modern firearm, because it will be by far the most effective tool for that job.

Yes, this is what I had meant exactly. Soldiers are extremely trigger happy and will go full dakka dakka on a vague belief that there might be an enemy soldier. This results in firearms being used at their maximum range with very low kill probabilities. The bigger, more effective weapon you give to a soldier, the more he is inclined of becoming an Ork with his new dakka. We can see this from just how less and less deadly modern battlefields are becoming. Before you would have entire fields of dead and dying. Thousands would be slain in few moments by firearms. Now, after an intense battle we had 1 wounded soldier...Our attrition is unusually low and most threats are being dealt indirectly via air strikes and artillery. I wanted to write that in order to see if anyone is reading and I was inspired after discovering that myself. Though, this doctrine betrays another weakness of modern day soldier. They are used to expend large amounts of ammunition to achieve suppression (which I do not understand why, I mean, throw a smoke grenade and move out) this in turn will lead to situations where soldiers waste too much ammunition on threats which are too far away to be dispatched reliably and they won't have enough when real assaults begins. I had heard that even today we have issues with ammo despite how much soldiers are carrying, now imagine that you have to fight hordes of enemy soldiers whole day long. They are not really capable soldiers, but they have guns who are capable of killing you and you have to laboriously clear them out of their houses and positions. During such fighting, soldiers will get entangled, use up their ammunition and might not be ready for counter charges. Remember, I considered 1:35 kill ratio as quite good. I play different game than trying to maximize kill count.

Though, I do agree that modern weapons are more and more effective. I just wanted to highlight that despite more deadly weapons, soldiers became less efficient in killing others with them. Mostly due to their doctrines of maximum firepower, engaging enemy at ineffective distance and then suppressing them until someone else can deal with them. I was also quite surprised to find out that instead of aiming and carefully planning firing lines, ambushes, stealth, maneuver. Soldiers are more dakka dakka kind nowadays. And we laugh at Orks. In fact, Orks are the ones who had the right idea all this time!

There's a wee bit of misunderstanding and myth in this example, but no, the Russian's didn't just bodily absorb bullets and keep fighting as literal zombies, and the position was lost to the Germans within days. Great example of bravery under some of the first gas attacks by the defenders, but it's not what you're trying to make it out to be either.

That was an imagery which came to German soldiers. I had shown a real world example where soldiers came into terrain which was transformed into a hell hole and they were attacked by troops out of nowhere which they thought were dead. They had charged them with bayonets and despite all the modern weaponary, they fled. Why then Germans did not fired them and they had died? People here are forgetting one massive element when talking about military matters. It is a psychological element and it is just as important. If for example you see a massive brute charging and he has an armor plate on his body. You fire and fire, but you keep hitting that plate and you can't see that your bullets are penetrating and going into his flesh. You start panicking, because everyone had lied to you. Your weapon can't stop him. Then you either freeze in fear or flee like it had happened in that case. Chaos is a very similar case. Rag tag bunch of individuals. They all look horrible. Some are deformed monsters. Others are carrying skulls and other trophies which makes them look intimidating. Most soldiers would break, especially ones without preference for combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shouldn't you be at least somewhat versed in terminal ballistics before making a thread like this? I'm not talking about looking up FBI penetration and lethality tests, or casualty breakdowns from recent battlefields, but just watching something like The Wound Channel, InRange TV, or C&Rsenal on YouTube.

Yes, I know quite a bit about small arms.

First, an SMG isn't a pistol, they just fire a pistol caliber round. Second, many law enforcement agencies are moving away from the SMG towards military-style carbines. Third, the job of a SWAT team is to ensure that everybody, even the criminal, survives the raid so, in theory, they arm themselves for defense so they have time to subdue the bad guy and secure the scene.

There's a reason why the modern military doesn't use that same equipment for breach and clear operations and instead prefer rifles, grenades, and the occasional shotgun for opening locked doors. Going further back we also used flamethrowers for clearing enemy structures.

First, this is why I had wrote it in an (enclosed manner) to show my subjective opinion. Though, you can call it however you like, those are two handed pistols for me. Their purpose is all the same, they are only enlarged versions of their smaller brethren. Also, thank you for confirming what I had said. They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines. Was going more on a basis of my country rather than USA. Furthermore, we had used them only to highlight my point in previous debate about nature of a weapon. SMG have qualities which makes it a better close quarters weapon. This is why SWAT had preferred it over assault rifle. Thus it proves me right over catbarf that a weapon physical qualities matters and having assault rifle in close quarters is not an ideal weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The goalposts have moved so far during this whole discussion I think they're on a different filed playing a different sport now. I'm not even sure what you're really arguing any more.

The whole thing about Hollywood misrepresenting modern warfare and the effects of bullets is hilarious next to the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding that follows. Vaktathi's already touched on the "muskets are more accurate than modern rifles" hilarity which instantly torpedoes any credibility you might have still had (not that there was much anyway) but there's also the fact that all these examples you keep putting out there are often only known about because of how remarkable they are. Yes, some people have survived after having limbs blown off, and even continued fighting in some cases. The only reason we really know about them is precisely because they're so remarkable and out of the ordinary. 99.99% of people will stop fighting after those sort of injuries and more often than not it's because of physical, not mental, reasons.

Also, I have to pick up on the whole "will to live" rubbish too. It would be funny if it wasn't so insultingly ignorant. This idea that people die because they lack the mental fortitude to shrug off a physiological effect is, quite simply, dangerously incorrect and, especially in the current crisis, disgustingly so. Dude, this idea that you can just "tough it out" has no basis in science or medicine. It doesn't matter how great your mental fortitude is if your vital organs are all shutting down due to an infection or cancer or any number of other deadly conditions. The idea that you just need a positive mental attitude is exactly the kind of stupidity that's going to prolong the current crisis and we've already seen people breaking self-isolation and carrying on as if everything is normal because they think they're young and healthy and therefore invulnerable to harm. Ordinarily I might give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was yet another misinterpretation of the fact that improved recovery from major trauma and illness has been linked to attitude and mental factors but at this stage I think you're frankly just making stuff up that fits your required narrative.

At this point, I think it's obvious to anyone but you that you really don't know what you're talking about. Every single post is filled with inaccuracies, misunderstood "evidence", confirmation bias and a severely skewed view of how...well...anything works in the real world.

This is called: a debate. We have to touch reasoning behind it in order to discover if a statement is correct or not. This is why to some it might appear that goalposts are constantly moving. In the end, people here could not prove even a single point to the contrary to what I had said despite your claim that "everything I had said is wrong". I'm quite disappointed in you all to be honest. People here constantly get stuck up on silly things which they can't prove. Instead they act like experts on all things, despite their limited experience and understanding. If you disagree with anything, they act arrogantly and ultimately use only ad hominem in trying to bully out you out of discussion. I'm disappointed to know that most people are like this these days. If you have ideas which are different than their own, that means that you are an idiot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OldMate wrote:
If it's the 41st millennia and you are fighting rabid cultists who worship the dark gods, I'd prefer an automatic rifle over a las gun, I'd modify my ammo, to assist it to expand on impact. Remember folks, Geneva Convention is not existant. And they literally worship the dark gods and want to feed your soul to a demon god.

I'd prefer to have a squad automatic weapon over a plasma, melta or flamethrower(not much fun in your lines if that goes up...) because heavy gunfire, is great to suppress people with, and if they choose not to throw themselves into cover they will be riddled with holes. A grenade launcher would be handy.

You can cover ground fast, but if you are coming apart under enemy fire, and when you get close the enemy close into a hedge of bayonets(yeah ask the Scots at Culloden the effectiveness of swords vs bayonets) and start hurling grenades what good is the fickle blessing of the dark gods?
I mean, Khorne will certainly get his blood. Either way.

Besides the best method for melee combat, cost benefit wise, provided you have a band of rabid cultists, is to strap bombs to some of them and use them as suicide bombers. So melee combat would be effectively deterred by this potential threat...
(lol I can imagine some assault marines jumping in on a cultist squad and having a real bad day)

Against foes that are much more powerful and naturally faster than humans? Well weight of firepower is just that, outnumber them, put up a screen of fire so they can't move. Frag them to hell. Prod any of the bigger pieces that are left with your bayonet. If they move brass them up, the bayonet is mounted on the end of the weapon for a reason.

Hell yeah! Someone who finally understands.

I mean let's be honest, Ernesta's self-important blathering here doesn't even exactly match with how melee is handled in 40k, let alone real life.

 Ernestas wrote:
Yes, I know quite a bit about small arms.

Frankly, that sounds like BS. You don't seem to know the first thing about weapons, let alone tactics, strategy, or logistics.

First, this is why I had wrote it in an (enclosed manner) to show my subjective opinion. Though, you can call it however you like, those are two handed pistols for me.

That ignores little details like the barrel length and increased muzzle energy on an SMG versus a pistol and is thus wrong, like everything else you've posted in this thread.

Also, thank you for confirming what I had said. They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines.

You're also wrong here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rifles_and_carbines

https://www.thelocal.fr/20160229/paris-police-to-be-equipped-with-assault-rifles

 Melissia wrote:
I mean let's be honest, Ernesta's self-important blathering here doesn't even exactly match with how melee is handled in 40k, let alone real life.

Please elaborate.

Frankly, that sounds like BS. You don't seem to know the first thing about weapons, let alone tactics, strategy, or logistics.

I had corrected a lot of people here and informed about what they do not know. I think, I'm one of more knowledgeable people here.

hat ignores little details like the barrel length and increased muzzle energy on an SMG versus a pistol and is thus wrong, like everything else you've posted in this thread.

That is irrelevant. They are bigger versions of a smaller weapon, of course they will have some differences. They still fire same ammunition and are good at a similar roles. The real problem is that you are attacking personal views which author himself stated to be as his own and not objective. You seem to be eager to attack someone else for bizarre reasons. Is this to what I had reduced you? You have pages upon pages of things to disagree on and you stick with a thing which I myself stated from a get go to be a subjective viewpoint? Is this what you think proves that I know nothing in your eyes? You seem unreasonably hostile, especially in gaming forum, I suggest you to take a break.

You're also wrong here:

The very first weapon in your link shows a sub-machine gun...Like seriously, read what you are quoting. Furthermore, mere showing of all the weapons being used does not invalidate what I was saying. My argument was very specific, that assaulting closed areas, police prefers to use sub-machine guns. In addition, your second link also doesn't say anything. If they are to be equipped with assault rifles, so why they were using sub-machine guns prior to that?

Here is an answer why:

However, submachine guns are still used by military special forces and police SWAT teams for close quarters battle (CQB) because they are "a pistol-caliber weapon that's easy to control, and less likely to over-penetrate the target".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun

So called "experts at everything" were beaten by first lines of a wiki article...Or now you are going to disagree even with that as a part of me getting everything wrong?


I had done some further digging, this is why sub-machine guns are being replaced:

Unfortunately, the same asset that made it the primary choice for CQB work (being a pistol caliber weapon that's easy to control, and less likely to over-penetrate the target) has also come to be its biggest limitation with regard to being the weapon of choice today. On the law enforcement side of the house, with the 1997 North Hollywood bank shootout, the police found themselves out-gunned with their pistol caliber weapons while dealing with two rifle-wielding body armored-up assailants. Because it took so many rounds to finally put the robbers down, it was decided that not just SRT-type teams needed rifles, but also normal patrolmen who might find themselves as first responders to an incident.

The second and a major issue that has dropped the submachine gun down on the list as a primary tool for CQB is its range limitations. Since the global war on terror [GWOT] began, the military has had to deal with one crucial factor that most police departments and stateside HRT teams generally don't have to deal with when it comes to CQB. In addition to having to shoot targets at room distance in the target building, military operators also have to deal with a 360-degree threat of targets out to medium distance as you approach and depart the target area.

https://www.defensereview.com/submachine-guns-smgs-outpaced-by-today%E2%80%99s-modern-short-barreled-rifles-sbrssub-carbines-or-still-a-viable-tool-for-close-quarters-battleclose-quarters-combat-cqbcqc/

So, this is merely because threats they are facing requires bigger firepower as police has to transform itself more and more to soldiers. Furthermore, this article is also wrong according to these internet experts, because it agrees with me by portraying a wrong image that a person did not died easily from any weapon which had hit him.

Because it took so many rounds to finally put the robbers down

So, please explain me how this is possible. A person stops fighting after 1 shot from a trained soldier or swat officer. yet, here it says that these people simply wouldn't die. How can they not die if any shot essentially means a mission kill? You people go into such extreme positions and you will never admit in being wrong. I expect fully for you to ignore this point too and proceed with further personal attacks to prove your points.

 Ernestas wrote:
I had corrected a lot of people here and informed about what they do not know. I think, I'm one of more knowledgeable people here.

The Dunning–Kruger effect called. It would like a word with you.

That is irrelevant. They are bigger versions of a smaller weapon, of course they will have some differences. They still fire same ammunition and are good at a similar roles. The real problem is that you are attacking personal views which author himself stated to be as his own.

Except that they aren't used interchangeably or even for similar roles. You won't, for example, see a beat cop carrying an SMG at his hip instead of a service pistol. Nor will you see a SWAT team going in with nothing but a pistol at their hip.

The very first weapon in your link shows a sub-machine gun...Like seriously, read what you are quoting. Furthermore, mere show of all the weapons being used does not invalidate what I was saying. My argument was very specific, that assaulting closed areas, police prefers to use sub-machine guns. In addition, your second link also doesn't say anything. If they are to be equipped with assault rifles, so why they were using sub-machine guns prior to that?

You said, "They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines." Try reading what you yourself have written before correcting others. You'll get fewer insults hurled at you that way.

However, submachine guns are still used by military special forces and police SWAT teams for close quarters battle (CQB) because they are "a pistol-caliber weapon that's easy to control, and less likely to over-penetrate the target".

What does any of this have to do with the price of tea in china? Especially when SMG or Carbine both weapons are ranged and eminently practical? Wasn't the thrust of your argument that these specialized teams should be using clubs and swords instead of any form of ranged weapon because 'Ranged Combat is Impractical'?

The Dunning–Kruger effect called. It would like a word with you.

And it applies to people who are quick to call on this. It is ad hominem attack. The moment they ran out of arguments and were disproven in their points, they started to attack me personally. This means that you are susceptible to Dunning-Kruger effect, not me.

Except that they aren't used interchangeably or even for similar roles. You won't, for example, see a beat cop carrying an SMG at his hip instead of a service pistol. Nor will you see a SWAT team going in with nothing but a pistol at their hip.

Their qualities are similar, easy to control and they use same ammunition. I based my views on that. Furthermore, I also base my views on that there is awfully small difference between pistols which looks like submachine guns and submachine guns who looks like pistols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0korpion

Both are useful in exact same situation in which you would like to use them.

You said, "They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines." Try reading what you yourself have written before correcting others. You'll get fewer insults hurled at you that way.

Europe is a big place. There are a lot of nations in Europe. Each of those nations are highly independent, they are essentially a different world all to itself. It would be like you are from Canada, right? So, even if Mexico is in America, I couldn't say that they use in Mexico X weapon and thus Canadians also use X weapon, because they are both located in America.

ou said, "They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines." Try reading what you yourself have written before correcting others. You'll get fewer insults hurled at you that way.

No, an argument went like this. Catbarf claimed that having an assault rifle in close quarters is always the best option. I had said that no, different weapons have different handling qualities and thus, assault rifles are not ideal in close quarters. I said that pistol would be better than assault rifle in close quarters due to superior handling characteristics which would result in better control of a weapon. He of course had disagreed on that too. Then he brought up SWAT. I said that SWAT uses sub-machine guns. Then other people joined upon argument and said that they are now using more weapons. Sure, I agree with that, but all of that doesn't mean I was wrong in my argument. As for melee weapons, I say that a melee weapon is just as dangerous as ranged weapon when you are in range of a melee weapon. At most I had said that a swordmaster would have decisive advantage over someone in melee when he is standing in melee with them himself due to sword being easier, quicker to control and being able to parry assault rifle. This is the most I had said about melee being better than a ranged weapon. I only said that WHEN you are in melee, a guy with an assault weapon is quite screwed. Some people went to such foolish extremes to argue that they will always beat someone with a melee weapon while holding an assault rifle despite them being in melee range already. So, I was stuck in arguing for a page or two that no, if someone is standing next to you with a knife, you are really screwed and I got a lot of hate for that.

 Ernestas wrote:
And it applies to people who are quick to call on this. It is ad hominem attack. The moment they ran out of arguments and were disproven in their points, they started to attack me personally. This means that you are susceptible to Dunning-Kruger effect, not me.

Ah, the school ground I'm rubber and you're glue defense! I've not seen that attempted since grade-school.

Their qualities are similar, easy to control and they use same ammunition.

Name their other similar qualities.

Europe is a big place. There are a lot of nations in Europe. Each of those nations are highly independent, they are essentially a different world all to itself. It would be like you are from Canada, right? So, even if Mexico is in America, I couldn't say that they use in Mexico X weapon and thus Canadians also use X weapon, because they are both located in America.

You made a blanket statement about Europe using exclusively SMGs and not using carbines. I proved you wrong.

No, an argument went like this. Catbarf claimed that having an assault rifle in close quarters is always the best option.

It is if you're looking for a lethal option against anybody in the room. Which is why I brought up the difference between a SWAT teams and their goals and the military.

I had said that no, different weapons have different handling qualities and thus, assault rifles are not ideal in close quarters.

Given that this thread is about military engagements and not police operations, find a single modern first-world military that agrees with your assessment and maintains SMGs for anything other than that PWD role or other extremely niche use cases.

I say that a melee weapon is just as dangerous as ranged weapon when you are in range of a melee weapon.

That is not at all what your opening post to this thread said. You're either trolling, lying, or mentally disadvantaged if you can't see that.

 Ernestas wrote:
This is where you are wrong. This is Chaos we are talking about and slaves. They do not need much in terms of support and humans can march very far indeed. Look at historic death marches, even half dead people can beat huge distances in freezing cold with no water or food as human body just refuses to give in and bloody die.

Historically people in "death march" didn't fight and were moving much more slowlyy than a well fed army walking on foot. If you are in starvation mode you lose muscle mass very quickly and disease will spread like a wildfire within your troop and reducing their combat effectiveness further. when you shoot them with combat drug, instead of going beserk and charge forward, most of them will simply have a heart attack and die on the spot or after a few seconds of intense activity.

Furthermore, you are thinking in terms of Order. Think in terms of Chaos. You do not need to coordinate hordes. All what you need to do is to ensure that there is enough of them where you need them, rest will do something useful by themselves.

And that requires coordination and excellent communication between your various hordes and your more elite troops. If you lead it to chance, your hordes migh collide with one another, one could be movingg toward wild areas of no use and other might change direction leaving your precious elite elements or command structure defenceless to a raid or counter-attack.

Raid countryside, will slip by gaps in defense, capture town, etc. As for food, water. We are living in post scarcity society.

No we are not living in a post scarcity and the Imperium even less. The casual Imperial citizen in a Hive World lives on a starvation diet of food mostly produced outside the planet itself and that if, faced by giant hordes of troops, your enemy doesn't use a scroched earth tactic, destroying anything valuable

Even before industrial revolution, armies were living on the land, scavenging. There wasn't any supply chains big enough to supply a whole army.

No, they were not living off the land, they had freight trains. If they didn't the army would disolved and died quickly. Every army was followed by a train of non-combattant carrying food, medical supplies, tents, etc. It's what made the Roman army so mobile, it's logistical train, road and fort system to supply their troops. Medieval armies could survive a little bit more easily from pillaging, but the reality was that those army were very small. Joan of Arc is a famous commander who fought and won several important battles with about 5000 troops in her command and at the time, it was considered a sizeable force. One of the largest battle of Medieval Europe was the battle of Agincourt where 10 000 British knights and men-at-arms fought about 20 000 French Knights. The French army had a train of about 10 000 people to feed and manage the army. These are ridiculously small numbers. ISIS, an insurgency group, not even a proper army, could count at it's peak about 70 000 combattants.

In our or any sufficiently advanced world, there is food bloody everywhere. In every small town there is enough food and water for thousands of soldiers to last for weeks or more. If you capture a major city, you can feed armies for seasons

That's also ridiculously false. There is actually very little reserve of food and goods in towns and cities. The COVID-19 outbreak should have tought you that. You can run out of things very fast after a lock down and imagine, our current lockdown is a very soft one. Those reserve of food aren't usable on the go either. You can't eat grain, flour or raw meat. In a recently conquered town, your slow moving hordes of self exploding slaves will take massive casualties to occupy a town where civilians have already pillaged food and valuables and where power and water is down and that's if the town didn't evacuated and was torched before you could step in it. Since your horde are moving slowly, it could take them four or five hours to arrive, walking in the outskirt of a city before if they were detected by a sentry in a lookout tower, if they have aircraft reconnaissance or scouts, it could be days, even weeks before you attack any town. Your big horde is also vulnerable to losing its overseers to snipers and partisan action. A river with a destroyed bridge would stop it dead in its track, etc. Plus, your horde needs to find those recerves of food and generators to cook it and transform it if they want to extand beyond their logistical chain. Plus, a diet of starvation followed by gluts will reduce the effectiveness of your hordes who will fall sick and some might die of it.

Furthermore, it is not like food is such precious commodity when life expectancy of a slave is such low and most valuable resource are those explosive collars and drugs which you put on them.

If you want them fit for combat and expect them to walk there, an average male slave will consume about 3000 calories worth of food every day, almost as much as two sedentary men and it's going to take them weeks to go anywhere. Their life expectancy in combat might be very short, but they need to be alive for months if they want to conquer an area the size of a small country. It would take at least five months of forced march in a perfectly straight line without anything to stop you to cross Canada from East to West. Are you drugs, even in the best preservation condition, lasting that long in reserve?

Ah, the school ground I'm rubber and you're glue defense! I've not seen that attempted since grade-school.

You are not familiar with that ad hominem means?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Name their other similar qualities.

Outside of what I had mentioned, it is size. These weapons are usually smaller than other weapons. Possess less powerful rounds and thus rounds are less dangerous and do not overpenetrate. Lower recoil than of other weapons, but a lot of those qualities come from using same caliber ammunition which is a biggest deal.

You made a blanket statement about Europe using exclusively SMGs and not using carbines. I proved you wrong.

I had said that in my region they still use sub-machine guns. This isn't a blanket statement, you just did not paid attention to what I was saying specifically. Furthermore, you showing that police is moving towards assault rifles does not invalidate my points at all. It only proves me right.

It is if you're looking for a lethal option against anybody in the room. Which is why I brought up the difference between a SWAT teams and their goals and the military.

It isn't. Police moves out to bigger calibers, because they more and more often have to fill roles of soldiers and sub-machine guns prove inadequate for roles they were chosen for. SWAT officers actually prefer sub-machine guns for CQB and lethality of a weapon is not at all the primary concern to them. It only means that your rounds will overpenetrate and your weapon will be harder to control.

When you look back in time, the MP5 SMG had two attributes that made it the logical choice for hostage rescue CQB work; the first and most important attribute is that it is controllable on full-auto at room distance. During the assault on the Iranian embassy, the SAS shot in full-auto bursts at their targets. This is where the submachine gun shines, and is exactly how I feel it should be employed. Second, because it is a pistol caliber, over penetration of the target is minimized. This is crucial for hostage rescue work. The last thing you want to do is engage a threat and have it go thru and hit the person you are trying to save.

https://www.defensereview.com/submachine-guns-smgs-outpaced-by-today%E2%80%99s-modern-short-barreled-rifles-sbrssub-carbines-or-still-a-viable-tool-for-close-quarters-battleclose-quarters-combat-cqbcqc/

You might have a point if you would claim that you want to really kill that charging brute, but you need to work on your statements man. They are outright wrong and it is child's play to disprove me, even on grounds where I myself agree on it being just my own subjective view and that I'm ignorant on recent developments.

Given that this thread is about military engagements and not police operations, find a single modern first-world military that agrees with your assessment and maintains SMGs for anything other than that PWD role or other extremely niche use cases.

That ignores completely the argument which we had. First agree that SMGs are easier to control than assault rifles in CQB engagements. You are moving debate goals when you encounter something which you cannot argue against and then people wrongly accuse me of shifting debate goals.

That is not at all what your opening post to this thread said. You're either trolling, lying, or mentally disadvantaged if you can't see that.

I had said that during further debates and in opening statement, you will find nothing touching that exact topic. In there I had spoke mainly about how deceptively quickly melee combatants can close the distance. Why you pretend to be such huge authority and hostile when you yourself are ignorant of debate which I had? You jump into 13 long thread, I do not expect you to know everything that had happened, especially over such long period, but you place yourself into such unreasonable and hostile position that it makes me wonder about your character. This is also exactly why this thread went astray, people in a similar, extremely hostile and personal manner would take extreme positions. First they will be arrogant and condescending, later they will turn hostile and start to attack me personally. This is where Dunning–Kruger really manifests and I'm sad seeing that you too can't be more reasonable. In this thread, I was heavily disappointed by many members of this community to be honest.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
epronovost, I will address your comment tomorrow or even later since Canadian 5th is such a hassle. I will mention just one thing now.

Historically people in "death march" didn't fight and were moving much more slowlyy than a well fed army walking on foot. If you are in starvation mode you lose muscle mass very quickly and disease will spread like a wildfire within your troop and reducing their combat effectiveness further. when you shoot them with combat drug, instead of going beserk and charge forward, most of them will simply have a heart attack and die on the spot or after a few seconds of intense activity.

I fully agree with you. I just did not wanted to mention about realities of Chaos, because I might get too real and scare people with it. Yet, Chaos practice cannibalism and in lore it mentions quite often. Hence, Chaos can't starve, it doesn't need to worry about food supplies. With their low life expectancy, they do not need to worry about drinking polluted water either. Those too weak will be consumed in order to fuel the strong. Horde will loot everything they encounter and when advancing through civilized worlds, people and supplies are plentifull indeed.

I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

Most close combat in trench warfare was due to infiltration by highly trained fighters in favorable conditions (at night with low moon and on new section of trenches with fewer enemy soldiers and exhausted sentries. Those attacks were raid made to harrass, demoralise and maybe, if lucky steal orders or maps from officiers and thus get a glimps of enemy plan. There, a good bladed weapon was of use, but rare were the soldiers talented enough to be efficient in that role.

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

Schocktroops and infiltration assault tactics in combination with cover from artillery including potential buntschiessen (aka chemical warfare with multiple agents) and creepeing barages.
These formations further were the veterans and of those the best of the best because all others wouldn't do or capable of doing it.

I mentioned that some time ago in this very thread.

 Ernestas wrote:

Because it took so many rounds to finally put the robbers down

So, please explain me how this is possible. A person stops fighting after 1 shot from a trained soldier or swat officer. yet, here it says that these people simply wouldn't die. How can they not die if any shot essentially means a mission kill? You people go into such extreme positions and you will never admit in being wrong. I expect fully for you to ignore this point too and proceed with further personal attacks to prove your points.

They wouldn't die because of their supreme willpower, although being fully covered in body armor probably helped (it's right there in the snippet )

 Ernestas wrote:
You are not familiar with that ad hominem means?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

I am, are you aware of what a wall of ignorance fallacy is?

Outside of what I had mentioned, it is size. These weapons are usually smaller than other weapons.

Smaller is relative. Pistols range from military sidearms to small 5 round concealed carry weapons. SMGs are all exclusively half again as large as a service pistol and usually closer to double the size and weight. SMGs are closer in size to a small carbine than to a pistol so you're flatly wrong here.

Possess less powerful rounds and thus rounds are less dangerous and do not overpenetrate.

I asked for qualities that aren't ammo related so I'm ignoring this and your other point below.

I had said that in my region they still use sub-machine guns. This isn't a blanket statement, you just did not paid attention to what I was saying specifically. Furthermore, you showing that police is moving towards assault rifles does not invalidate my points at all. It only proves me right.

"but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines." Which region was mentioned in this quote? I ask because I'm failing to see one...

Also, if the police are moving towards one weapon it means they're moving away from another similar one. Thus police units are moving away from the SMG because it no longer meets their needs. Hence it can't be the ultimate close combat weapon.

It isn't. Police moves out to bigger calibers, because they more and more often have to fill roles of soldiers and sub-machine guns prove inadequate for roles they were chosen for. SWAT officers actually prefer sub-machine guns for CQB and lethality of a weapon is not at all the primary concern to them. It only means that your rounds will overpenetrate and your weapon will be harder to control.

Yes, and this disproves my point about militaries prefering carbines how exactly?

That ignores completely the argument which we had. First agree that SMGs are easier to control than assault rifles in CQB engagements. You are moving debate goals when you encounter something which you cannot argue against and then people wrongly accuse me of shifting debate goals.

I came in here:

"In addition, even SWAT officers agree with me. They use pistols (sub machine guns) and shields. Instead of addressing those points you just kept harassing me throughout pages as you lack any arguments to back up your beliefs."

I've never argued with you about how easy to use a weapon is, only about the general utility of the SMG versus the carbine in situations where the aim is lethality; such as a military sweep and clear mission versus a SWAT rescue mission. Try to keep your arguments and who they're with straight.

I had said that during further debates and in opening statement, you will find nothing touching that exact topic. In there I had spoke mainly about how deceptively quickly melee combatants can close the distance. Why you pretend to be such huge authority and hostile when you yourself are ignorant of debate which I had? You jump into 13 long thread, I do not expect you to know everything that had happened, especially over such long period, but you place yourself into such unreasonable and hostile position that it makes me wonder about your character.

I've posted in this thread before today... I've also read the entire thread and find your argumenst to be sophomoric at best and an outright farce or attempt to troll at their worst.

Your refusal to answer point-blank questions such as those that follow don't help your case:

If SMGs have so many advantages why don't military units use them for close-quarters battle?
How are SMGs and Pistols related outside of the ammunition they fire? In which ways are SMGs closer to carbines than pistols?
How are your slave armies going to get where they are going if the enemy takes steps to deny them resources?
What percentage of losses do you expect your slave units to take after each engagement? How many of those are from the enemy, from lack of supplies/poor treatment, and from the drugs or explosive collars?
Why hasn't your tactic for masses of disposable units been put into real-world practice?

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

We could expand this to Imperial Japan, who actually had this backwards mentality written into their military doctrine. Yet, despite all the "fighting spirit" the Imperial Japanese Army was inept at anything that didn't involve committing war crimes against civilians or holding a well entrenched position to the last man and ultimately losing that position. The Imperial Japanese Army wasted literally (literally) thousands upon thousands of lives on suicidal charges against enemy troops and only ever succeeded in instances where the enemy was woefully outnumbered. In fact, the IJA had been behaving in this manner since before WWI, and despite taking grievous losses in numerous instances from the Russo-Japanese War onward, never considered for long that they might be wrong about the conducting of infantry warfare.

Which is a wonderful metaphor for this thread, cause I don't really see the point in trying to convince someone so deep in their own ignorance that they're wrong.

 LordofHats wrote:

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

We could expand this to Imperial Japan, who actually had this backwards mentality written into their military doctrine. Yet, despite all the "fighting spirit" the Imperial Japanese Army was inept at anything that didn't involve committing war crimes against civilians or holding a well entrenched position to the last man and ultimately losing that position. The Imperial Japanese Army wasted literally (literally) thousands upon thousands of lives on suicidal charges against enemy troops and only ever succeeded in instances where the enemy was woefully outnumbered. In fact, the IJA had been behaving in this manner since before WWI, and despite taking grievous losses in numerous instances from the Russo-Japanese War onward, never considered for long that they might be wrong about the conducting of infantry warfare.

Which is a wonderful metaphor for this thread, cause I don't really see the point in trying to convince someone so deep in their own ignorance that they're wrong.

That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .
Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

 Ernestas wrote:
In addition, even SWAT officers agree with me. They use pistols (sub machine guns) and shields. Instead of addressing those points you just kept harassing me throughout pages as you lack any arguments to back up your beliefs.

Here in the real world, SWAT officers are overwhelmingly equipped with compact carbines and submachine guns. Shields are used for riot (lightweight plastic things, not bulletproof) and staging (heavy, often wheeled Lv4 ballistic shields). None of which has anything to do with a sword, which was what you claimed constituted the superior weapon in hand to hand.

The fact that you just suggested pistols and submachine guns are equivalent demonstrates zero familiarity with firearms or their use. I'm done trying to address your 'points' line by line because they're all pulled right out of your ass without any real-world experience or even a modicum of book-learning backing them up. The moment you outright said that you know better than military instructors and combat veterans because you play with a sword on the weekends was the moment you lost any respect I might have given to your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .
Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

The land war in China was the IJA at the height of its power going up against multiple disparate groups of insurgents, already militarily bled dry by two decades of warlords slugging it out, and armed with a hodgepodge mix of German and other assorted European small arms. And they still failed to effectively occupy much more than Manchuria. Japan fared much better at sea and in the air than they did on land.

Banzai charges were exactly what OP is suggesting should have been wildly effective, especially against the ill-trained and poorly-equipped Chinese irregulars, and yet even in that context were completely ineffective. But why read history, when OP can give you thought experiments borne out of a LARP hobby instead?

Not Online!!! wrote:
That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .

The Second Sino-Japanese War effectively a war against a stateless country. Even the alliance that formed to oppose Japanese occupation, the Second United Front, effectively collapsed into infighting by the end of 1938 (the war only started in 1937). The land war in China wasn't against a country and a more professional and modern army than the IJA would not have become mired in an unending ground conflict against rebels from a dozen different groups that were fighting each other as much as Japan. In point of fact, the IJA's backwards strategic and tactical doctrines are probably the core reason that the Second United Front could afford to fight itself as much as it did. A big reason Mao Zedong came out on top in post-war China was because he used the opportunity presented by Japan's inability to effectively conquer the landmass they invaded and he either wiped out or absorbed other warlords and militias while keeping the IJA chasing its own tail (or in some cases directing them at his rivals using informants).

EDIT: And if we really want another point of comparison, the IJA was trashed like a toddler in the school yard trying to fight a SWAT team at Khalkhin Gol by the Red Army. The same Red Army that had to scrape and fight tooth and nail just to hold together because Stalin purged the officer corp about as often as he visited a bar. They were themselves not the most effectively organized or trained military force, were also at the time using outdated military tactics, and they still managed to beat Japan so hard the Japanese government completely altered its strategic goals and objectives in the aftermath because a war against the Great Britain and the United States of America seemed more feasible at the time. That's the level of backward ineffectiveness we're talking about when it comes to the Imperial Japanese Army, who tried mass infantry charges against artillery and machine guns as a tactic for fifty years and pretty much never won a ground war (Manchuria doesn't count).

Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

This isn't what I'm getting at and I think you know it.

 LordofHats wrote:

Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

This isn't what I'm getting at and I think you know it.

It also very much depends on your definition of assault and what your strategic objective is.

If you mean to take and hold ground currently being held by an enemy force entrenched in defensible positions? Then yes, you most likely need superior numbers to be successful. But if your objective is not to hold the ground but rather sabotage, or taking a prisoner, or collecting intelligence then no, you may not need superior numbers providing that you have an effective plan.

An example of the former could be Operation Overlord, D-Day.

An example of the latter could be Operation Chariot, the raid to take out the dry docks at St. Nazaire.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .
Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

The land war in China was the IJA at the height of its power going up against multiple disparate groups of insurgents, already militarily bled dry by two decades of warlords slugging it out, and armed with a hodgepodge mix of German and other assorted European small arms. And they still failed to effectively occupy much more than Manchuria. Japan fared much better at sea and in the air than they did on land.

The Republic of China, aka Kuomintang government, as much as it was a disorganized failed state still HAD an actual proffesional army to back itself up.There is a reason they were regarded as the biggest fish in china.

Banzai charges were exactly what OP is suggesting should have been wildly effective, especially against the ill-trained and poorly-equipped Chinese irregulars, and yet even in that context were completely ineffective. But why read history, when OP can give you thought experiments borne out of a LARP hobby instead?

I don't know.
Even Kriegers are not shown to be not that stupidly suicidal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .

The Second Sino-Japanese War effectively a war against a stateless country.

Mhm, Republic off china?

Even the alliance that formed to oppose Japanese occupation, the Second United Front, effectively collapsed into infighting by the end of 1938 (the war only started in 1937). The land war in China wasn't against a country and a more professional and modern army than the IJA would not have become mired in an unending ground conflict against rebels from a dozen different groups that were fighting each other as much as Japan.

Like Afghanistan? A proffesional army means rather Jackshite if the enemy is willing and able to use terrain for guerrila warfare and china is one such country that not only has the terrain for it but also size for it.

In point of fact, the IJA's backwards strategic and tactical doctrines are probably the core reason that the Second United Front could afford to fight itself as much as it did. A big reason Mao Zedong came out on top in post-war China was because he used the opportunity presented by Japan's inability to effectively conquer the landmass they invaded and he either wiped out or absorbed other warlords and militias while keeping the IJA chasing its own tail (or in some cases directing them at his rivals using informants).

OK , Singapoor campaign, Mandschuria, Korea? That were just flukes aswell, huh? Next your going to tell me that IJA infantry men couldn't shoot straight?

EDIT: And if we really want another point of comparison, the IJA was trashed like a toddler in the school yard trying to fight a SWAT team at Khalkhin Gol b[/quotey the Red Army. The same Red Army that had to scrape and fight tooth and nail just to hold together because Stalin purged the officer corp about as often as he visited a bar. They were themselves not the most effectively organized or trained military force, were also at the time using outdated military tactics, and they still managed to beat Japan so hard the Japanese government completely altered its strategic goals and objectives in the aftermath because a war against the Great Britain and the United States of America seemed more feasible at the time. That's the level of backward ineffectiveness we're talking about when it comes to the Imperial Japanese Army, who tried mass infantry charges against artillery and machine guns as a tactic for fifty years and pretty much never won a ground war (Manchuria doesn't count).

That is so wrong it ain't even funny.

the battle of Kalkhin Gol, aka supposedly the Soviet B team with what, Zhukov?
Then we look at numbers?
According to Kotelnikov , we have the soviet union ( and mongoloia ) at over 61'000 men whilest the IJA had about 20'000 to 30'000 at any given point.
The japanese still managed even outnumbered to inflict more casualities against a superior enemy, including armor and airpower.


Further, the fact that it was deemed more favourable had multiple reasons, not last but least internal political with a varying slew of officers groups vying for power on top of interbranch issues between the army and the navy.
And the Japs were very aware of that:
"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."
Especially Yamamoto.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Mhm, Republic off china?

It's like that law degree you eagerly brag about didn't involve much else.

The Republic of China existed only because Chiang Kai-shek said it did, and the West generally preferred to agree with him rather than admit the Kuomintang controlled almost none of the country. They occupied the capital and the nominal state, but that state held no real power while warlords and rival political factions operated autonomously in their own fiefs. China had not had a real government since the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1912. EDIT: One could even consider the absolute denial of political realities in China the most significant international blunder the West made in the 20th century. They completely misjudged everything about how China would turn out in the first half of the century.

Like Afghanistan?

Afghanistan has been conquered multiple times in it's history. I have no idea why people are so eager to buy Osama Bin-Laden's propaganda that it can't be done. The challenge with places like that aren't the conquest, it's the occupation, especially in a modern era of democratic states and mass information. Even a dictatorship has to ultimately find an excuse for things.

And you're still being obtuse because this is not what I was talking about.

Singapoor campaign

Singapore was a strategic disaster zone and the British knew it well before the invasion of Malaysia even began. While numerically superior to the invading army, the British forces were a mix of provisional and irregular units, poorly trained, equipped, and most significantly poorly supplied. They had little to no air cover or air defense, and while the IJA was laughable on the ground, they were somewhat competent in the air at least until 1943.

I also said they never won a land war, and they never actually won the war in East Asia which is kind of something I'd expect even you to be able to notice.

Mandschuria, Korea

Manchuria was in the hands of a few warlords and was not a country. Calling that a war is like calling a bar fight a UFC fight.

There was no war for Korea (though if you want to go further back, there are multiple instances of Japan trying and failing throughout history). Japan nominally gained control of the country after thea succession of treaties in 1876 and 1910. The only armed action related to the event was conducted by the Imperial Navy, not the Army and the Army was a very different machine in the 19th century relative to later.

That were just flukes aswell, huh?

You must suck as a lawyer, because you can't follow a discussion for gak.

Next your going to tell me that IJA infantry men couldn't shoot straight?

They were as good as any in marksmanship, but marksmanship alone can't overcome the general insanity of the tactical doctrine and combat mentality taught in the officer corp, especially in the young junior officers who came up in the late 30s and 40s who were trained more like political operatives than effective field commanders. Over the course of the 1910s and the 1920s, the senior staff of the IJA had increasingly adopted the use of junior officers to stage coups, disrupt the government when they were displeased, and assassinate political rivals. It heavily disrupted the chain of command and the ability of even talented commanders to innovate and caused a tactical stagnation that saw the IJA never advance out of 19th century warfare norms.

That is so wrong it ain't even funny.

It's amazing how you hold these ideas while being so clearly out of depth concerning the topic.

the battle of Kalkhin Gol, aka supposedly the Soviet B team with what, Zhukov?

Zhukov played a big part. The Siberian Army was insulated from officers purges to a degree because of distance and isolation. It also didn't help that the Kwantung Army in Manchuria was effectively it's own state in terms of how it behaved. But that really just goes to my point. The IJA was not an effective ground army. An effective ground army doesn't have divisions of troops deciding "hey, let's try and invade Siberia" without telling anyone before hand. It's especially egregious in this case, cause they'd already pulled that stunt twice! The invasion of Manchuria started as an independent action, and the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War as well. Yet, because of bonkers internal politics the glaring issue those scenarios presented was never resolved, and Siberia had the makings of a defense waiting for them unlike their prior stunts.

If you ever decided to actually learn about something before talking about it, I'd suggest Fighting Ships of the Rising Sun by Howarth. It's a good book on the whole, and the Imperial Navy's responses to the army's antics can be quite humorous at times.

And the Japs were very aware of that:

That's not much help when the more insane part of your military controls the government.

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

Yamato is a stand out in both branches of the Imperial military. His progressive branch was also a very small minority of sane men in a highly politicized institution. I'm not sure what you think this indicates however. I'm talking about the IJA. Not the IJN. There's a good argument to be made that in the 1930s the Imperial Navy was strongest navy in the world, and they had a very talented officer corp. It's actually baffling that the quality of the forces of the IJN and IJA could be so stark. The IJN were almost a polar opposite of the utter mess the IJA was (the actual topic of my comments I can tell you suck at following them). And this quote has zero to do with the IJA. Yamato recognized that his fleet did not have the logistical capacity to engage in a prolonged war effort against a modern Industrialized nation. They had good ships, good crews, and the most developed air arm of anyone at the start of the war. They even had a decent submarine fleet, for lack of ever employing it properly. But Japan had zero ability to replenish losses. There are no natural resources on the Japanese isles that could build naval vessels for a modern navy or keep them going and the resources they could quickly seize had their own host of logistical problems that would take many years to resolve. Yamato was talking solely about the Navy in this comment, he wasn't taking the Army into account at all because he didn't expect much from them.

And this is all really beside the point, cause I was talking about IJA being the only army in WWII that actually had 'fighting spirit can overcome anything' written into its tactical doctrine and frequently engaged in suicidal mass infantry charges like it was still 1890. The thing that's actually relevant to the thread.

First. Learn some manners. secondly show me were i brag about a law degree?


Secondly, Afghanistan, as in an exemple of why an profesional army can't hold on to territory.
Meanwhile the IJA was capable of maintaining controll off mandschuria for 11 Years. Meanwhile the modern USA struggles with occupation off Afghanistan seemingly comparatively alot more.
Insofar we don't know about how much the Kwangtung army struggled because totalitarian state is probably a lot more grey area.

Mandschuria was under the controll off the Fengtiang clique, the at the time most powerfull contender for controll off china.

And this is all really beside the point, cause I was talking about IJA being the only army in WWII that actually had 'fighting spirit can overcome anything' written into its tactical doctrine and frequently engaged in suicidal mass infantry charges like it was still 1890. The thing that's actually relevant to the thread.

You mistake me for another poster, because i agree with the sentiment. But the "fighting spirit focus" can also still be found later with the WW1 french so.

They were as good as any in marksmanship, but marksmanship alone can't overcome the general insanity of the tactical doctrine and combat mentality taught in the officer corp, especially in the young junior officers who came up in the late 30s and 40s who were trained more like political operatives than effective field commanders. Over the course of the 1910s and the 1920s, the senior staff of the IJA had increasingly adopted the use of junior officers to stage coups, disrupt the government when they were displeased, and assassinate political rivals. It heavily disrupted the chain of command and the ability of even talented commanders to innovate and caused a tactical stagnation that saw the IJA never advance out of 19th century warfare norms.

Ohh absolutely, still makes it an acomplishment for how far they pushed inlands in China without completly collapsing as soon as they entered.

As for the internal disruption of any command chain really. I guess the best case study for the whole mess Japans internal politics were you can take a look at how they adopted Tanks, respectively the constant flipflopping from mechanized to mixed, to completly ignored to then reimplemented not necessairly in that order but still.

 Ernestas wrote:


I had corrected a lot of people here and informed about what they do not know. I think, I'm one of more knowledgeable people here.

Your belief is incorrect, but that statement tells me all I need to know about the futility of continuing to debate with you (not that the rest of the thread hadn't already made that painfully obvious). Seriously, ask yourself why literally everyone has told you your wrong in this thread, often with links to references to back up their point and in some cases with real-world experience of the stuff you have admitted you have no first-hand knowledge of yourself? Doesn't it seem even a little bit strange that your conclusions don't match those of experts anywhere?

Just to take two examples, we've had someone with experience of training SWAT teams in the real world tell you you're wrong about...well, everything to do with CQB. We've also had someone with medical knowledge point out you are incorrect about your "will to live" belief.

I know it's very attractive to think you're one man who has discovered the ultimate truth that nobody else can accept and you're waging a personal crusade to bring the light of knowledge to the ignorant masses. But in this case, as in pretty much every other case like this, you're just someone who's out of their depth and unwilling to accept that reality.

Not Online!!! wrote:
First. Learn some manners. secondly show me were i brag about a law degree?

I have no patience for this stupid game you play. And literally every time I've ever exchanged with you. I have yet to even see you participate in a discussion that doesn't somehow end up with you lording it over people like it's special, though admittedly we only seem to cross paths infrequently here so maybe you're less of a git when I'm not looking.

You mistake me for another poster,

Oh sorry, let me check. Nope it was you who posted this;

That seems a bit off considering the Land war in China .
Also to assault anything you need numerical superiority.

Asinine comment that didn't really have anything to do with the post it was replying to. This banal exercise is banally predictable. You throw out some straw man that's not as clever as you think it is, revel in your ignorance, and then act like you're not the poster who posted. Learn some respect for others and you'll get some manners from me. I give less than a gak if you find my frank appraisal of your frequent posting behaviors rude.

Insofar we don't know about how much the Kwangtung army struggled because totalitarian state is probably a lot more grey area.

I don't know what this sentence is saying.

I said the Kwangtung Army was basically a rogue state within the IJA, one that a more coherent military force would have stamped out. Instead they got medals and the guy who said "this is stupid" got killed by some academy students who thought an entire element of the Army behaving independently was a great thing (I mean, they did literally think that but I'm not wasting my time explaining that here). They would take it upon themselves to start three armed conflicts and the government back in Japan would "have no choice" but to go along with them, lest they internationally admit that the army was unable to control itself. It was only a matter of time before they bit off more than they could chew and a more coherent military force would not have festered into such behavior.

still makes it an acomplishment for how far they pushed inlands in China without completly collapsing as soon as they entered.

They pretty much did. The Imperial Army's time in China after the first year chasing its own tail, being led around by the nose, massacring civilians, and failing to defeat enemy forces that were actively fighting and undermining each other. Mao Zedong arguably won China on the sole basis of the realization that the Imperial Army was not effective, could never hold China, and so he spent his time and resources targeting rivals and undermining Shek's Kuomintang while he simply waited for Imperial Japan to fall apart.

Seriously I don't get this. I said this out in my second posts in response to your first.

Mandschuria was under the controll off the Fengtiang clique, the at the time most powerfull contender for controll off china.

The Fengtiang clique did not control Manchuria in 1931 and they were not a powerful contender for control of China either. They surrendered nominally leadership to Kuomintang in 1928 after Japan blew their leader up cause he wasn't very good at being a puppet. They spent the next few years as the "Northeastern Army" on paper. At that point they were absolutely not a contender for anything and they spent all their time fighting a tiny civil war among themselves to see who could control Manchuria's lucrative rail lines. How the hell is it that you can point them out but you make a banal comment about Republic of China in response to me saying China did not have a government that could rule China?

But the "fighting spirit focus" can also still be found later with the WW1 french so.

Neat. Someone already commented on WWI. I was replying to them saying it could be extended to WWII, and gave an example. Maybe try reading the discussion sometime

It's almost like you google this as you go and don't even bother reading the results. Fengtiang is not something you can come across while not knowing the state of China after the Qing collapse and I find it insulting you think that is going to go unnoticed. Maybe instead of telling people to have manners, you should get some yourself. I find it incredibly arrogant that you'll engage in a discussion with this kind of blatant dishonesty.

You still haven't provided me with an answer on that supposed law degree i should have lying around, which i don't and never stated to have? Which is incidentally why i doubt you got the right man. Or you ad hominem me randomly for no reason seemingly?

Oh sorry, let me check. Nope it was you who posted this;

In response to the fact that the IJA did perform somewhat. Sure the doctrine was backwards still you shouldn't generalize the IJA that way overall as you did in your post answering pyrolachi.

I don't know what this sentence is saying.

I was doubting the general capacity of the kwangtung "controlling" mandchuria, as in we can assume they did it or not, just like Italy never really managed to pacify ethiopia and needed to constantly maintain material and manpower there. And we know comparatively less about it then other occupations, preciscly because the Kwangtung army was basically a totalitarian state not wanting to show anything it did.

I said the Kwangtung Army was basically a rogue state within the IJA, one that a more coherent military force would have stamped out. Instead they got medals and the guy who said "this is stupid" got killed by some academy students who thought an entire element of the Army behaving independently was a great thing (I mean, they did literally think that but I'm not wasting my time explaining that here). They would take it upon themselves to start three armed conflicts and the government back in Japan would "have no choice" but to go along with them, lest they internationally admit that the army was unable to control itself. It was only a matter of time before they bit off more than they could chew and a more coherent military force would not have festered into such behavior.

One can counter that and point to the often times rather over enthusiastic Wehrmacht generals, which were under total governmental controll.

Neat. Someone already commented on WWI. I was replying to them saying it could be extended to WWII, and gave an example. Maybe try reading the discussion sometime

my bad, i thought you wanted to point out the ridicoulusness and wanted to reinfore that by another exemple of a at the time leading military power.

It's almost like you google this as you go and don't even bother reading the results. Fengtiang is not something you can come across while not knowing the state of China after the Qing collapse and I find it insulting you think that is going to go unnoticed. Maybe instead of telling people to have manners, you should get some yourself. I find it incredibly arrogant that you'll engage in a discussion with this kind of blatant dishonesty.

I was a bit preocupied searching that one law degree i should have... somewhere according to you, mind telling me where?

And that still doesn't change the fact that the Fengtiang clique was comparatively one of the more powerfull cliques in China, having won in 1926 against the Zhili / central government. And yes, Mandchuria still was weakened by the lost war against the Northern expedition it still was probably one off the bigger fish in the chinese pond so there is for or against for my bringing them up as an exemple where the IJA did ok.

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

This is where we start confusing points. I said that human body is capable of sustaining far more punishment than people imagine, because someone had claimed that a human body will fall down after one bullet shot in center mass. My argument was, IF we would have fictional drug frenzone which could make people go beserk and push human body to its natural limits like we see in lore, I would think that melee charges would be actually a viable strategy. I do realize that what would happen with normal people is that they will get suppressed and most of them would not be motivated enough to keep on pushing if they get hit by a bullet.

Remember, in lore frenzon and penal troopers are shown to have their arm detached with a chainsaw and soldier just keeps on trying to kill you. I also showed a video where a human just cut part of his own arm off and went back to his business. I think that Yarrick's example is not so exceptional when we look at real world cases. As for how far we are from such drugs, well, that is another topic which we need to investigate. I do think that we have something which would be useful, but not as effective and useful as frenzone. Also, in lore most human charges are done with help of drugs. In chaos, I imagine substance abuse would be quite common and such things like frenzone would be really popular with soldiers. Penal legion can use it on mass and I remember Iron warriors saying that they sometimes use drug crazed slaves to die in similar fashion for them.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Or you ad hominem me randomly for no reason seemingly?

I feel like the reasoning was pretty clear. Your reading comprehension continues to fall short.

In response to the fact that the IJA did perform somewhat. Sure the doctrine was backwards still you shouldn't generalize the IJA that way overall as you did in your post answering pyrolachi.

This sounds like an extremely generalized response to a not remotely generalized comment. I never claimed they couldn't perform. In fact, I listed at least two things they were quite good at; oppressing civilian populations and fighting to the last man. Unfortunately, neither helped them win a war.

I was doubting the general capacity of the kwangtung "controlling" mandchuria, as in we can assume they did it or not, just like Italy never really managed to pacify ethiopia

I don't think there's much comparison. Infrequent armed resistance in Manchuria was a constant, but it never threatened Japanese control of the region. It helped that they had the last Qing Emperor on hand to prop up as a puppet, and a lot of population was willing to buy into that after 20 years of civil war. The primary strategic reason to hold the area (the Manchurian railway network). The ability of the Kwangtung Army to attack and invade other regions from Manchuria is kind of testament to the level of control they exercised. Italy's attempts to use Ethipoia as a spring board comparatively never got off the ground.

One can counter that and point to the often times rather over enthusiastic Wehrmacht generals, which were under total governmental controll.

This was a very different culture, and a distinction that would take more time to explain adequately than it is worth. No one in the Wehrmacht went off and started a war of their own volition, expecting the rest of Germany to follow them into the mess. The Wehrmacht fostered a culture that encouraged independent action among it's commanders, but it didn't go so far as to glorify insubordination piggybacking on older socio-political concepts like the IJA ended up doing. It absolutely didn't have the disastrous result of junior officers openly defying their commanders in war time, resulting in such things as mass charges despite being told to hold defensive positions, refusing to abandon defensive positions when later generals tried to stop throwing away men fruitlessly, or entire army elements wandering off and doing their own thing without telling anyone.

my bad, i thought you wanted to point out the ridicoulusness and wanted to reinfore that by another exemple of a at the time leading military power.

Nope. After WWI, most countries dumped that whole ideology. Germany and the Red Army still kind of had the 'fighting spirit overcomes all' mentality, but more as a spirit de corps/political rhetoric than actual doctrine. Japan on the other hand, arguably suffered from a lack of practical experience, both in the Army and the Navy in warfare operations. The Russo-Japanese War ended in a sudden and decisive engagement as Tsushima Strait, and that complete upset and the ease of subsequent conflicts fostered a self-defeating mentality in both branches, but the IJN manage to be mostly coherent and professional while the IJA became a big mess. Their participation in WWI was mostly in name only. They didn't gather the same war fighting experience other powers did. Their successes in East Asia up to that point in time tended to be quick, ending with the rapid collapse of organized resistance. Sporadic insurrections in Manchuria and Taiwan did little to challenge their control of the regions they held.

The Second Sino-Japanese War was the first conflict that actually became a drawn out affair without a swift military and political victory, and the IJA became ineffective in the face of that. What success they found throughout the theater owes itself much more to a lack of readiness. The Army utterly lacked a coherent strategy for stabilizing the China Problem (what they literally started calling it in the Navy). Different commanders ran around doing their own thing, coordination was poor, and the strategic aims horribly misguided. For some reason they mistakenly believed they could conquer China by simply holding Northern China. Things did not go that way, and to be fair I don't think the IJA ever fully appreciated the realities of China's politics at the time either. They kept operating on a mistaken assumption they could force Shek into a truce that would give them the rich regions of the country, but Shek was never in any position to offer any truce in the first place. That the war started at all heavily damaged his brand.

And that still doesn't change the fact that the Fengtiang clique was comparatively one of the more powerfull cliques in China, having won in 1926 against the Zhili / central government.

I don't know why you're talking about stuff from the 20s when Manchuria was invaded and occupied in 31. I literally just said in the last post that the clique became something of a 'name only' affair after 1928. Bringing up something from 1926 has little bearing on either of those things, unless we're just confirming that you're figuring the chronology of events out as you go.

it still was probably one off the bigger fish in the chinese pond

What made Manchuria valuable were its railroads. Relative to Northern China (which is to the southwestin contemporary terms), it's a big region geographically but was not nearly as densely populated, and what population there was was more concentrated along the rail lines. It was a much easier problem figuring out how to control Manchuria than the rest of China. You can still see this in modern population density. Most of what was "Manchuko" has a population equivalent to Canada. Northern China on the other hand, is equivalent to several European nations and has 2-3x as many people. Manchuria was a big fish solely because of it's economic and strategic value. It was itself a region that was very easy to control in itself thanks to its rail lines. A big part of why Shek settled for leaving the remnants of Fengtiang to fight among themselves with the nominal recognition of his authority that came in 28. it was easier and more realistic than trying to oust them from the area.

I don't know why you're talking about stuff from the 20s when Manchuria was invaded and occupied in 31. I literally just said in the last post that the clique became something of a 'name only' affair after 1928. Bringing up something from 1926 has little bearing on either of those things, unless we're just confirming that you're figuring the chronology of events out as you go.

In name only ?
There were still an estimated 160'000 Fengtiang and allied clique troops there putting up resistance. It's only after the Japanese army wins these initial encounters that the Japanese Government regards it as a fait accompli and sends in reinforcements. And is probably just as important overall for the rise to power for the military aparatus which eventually culminated in the assasination of 1932
So yes bringing up 1926 is important to the broader context.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red Army still kind of had the 'fighting spirit overcomes all' mentality, but more as a spirit de corps/political rhetoric than actual doctrine.

wasn't that especially initially an issue with counter offensives by inexperienced commanders in the early stages?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

feel like the reasoning was pretty clear. Your reading comprehension continues to fall short.

you have yet to provide any reason founded as to why.

Hence my question where that law degree i supposedly like to brag about came in and as to how i still think you are confusing me for someone else.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ernestas wrote:

Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.

At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.

So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?


This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.

This is where we start confusing points. I said that human body is capable of sustaining far more punishment than people imagine, because someone had claimed that a human body will fall down after one bullet shot in center mass. My argument was, IF we would have fictional drug frenzone which could make people go beserk and push human body to its natural limits like we see in lore, I would think that melee charges would be actually a viable strategy. I do realize that what would happen with normal people is that they will get suppressed and most of them would not be motivated enough to keep on pushing if they get hit by a bullet.

Remember, in lore frenzon and penal troopers are shown to have their arm detached with a chainsaw and soldier just keeps on trying to kill you. I also showed a video where a human just cut part of his own arm off and went back to his business. I think that Yarrick's example is not so exceptional when we look at real world cases. As for how far we are from such drugs, well, that is another topic which we need to investigate. I do think that we have something which would be useful, but not as effective and useful as frenzone. Also, in lore most human charges are done with help of drugs. In chaos, I imagine substance abuse would be quite common and such things like frenzone would be really popular with soldiers. Penal legion can use it on mass and I remember Iron warriors saying that they sometimes use drug crazed slaves to die in similar fashion for them.

Not sure on that last part, i know that they use regular humans with basic equipment as secondary formations. Which accordingly to IW standards get drilled and are more comparable to something akin to PDF and IG then crazed lunatics. However regard for them is also low.

Looks like this thread has run its course...

Just a note for the future, please try to avoid comments about other posters reading comprehension or similar. An argument will be much more effective focusing on the merits / weaknesses of the points being made, rather than making things personal.

Thanks everyone