Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I was bored and thinking about stuff today and came up with this question:

Why does the imperium bother with close combat?

When one thinks about it, humanity today has gotten away from sword & board and went towards ranged weaponry, so why regress into close combat? I would think that any unit or person dedicated towards close combat would just get shot up and killed before they could ever get that close.

Now there are things like rhinos and drop pods to get troops closer but rhinos would get blown up by heavy weapons and kill mostly everyone inside and once the doors drop down from a drop pod, whatever comes out would get killed pretty fast. Races such as tyranids which have things that can realistically get close enough for close combat by means of sneaking around like genestealers or lictors or dark eldar things with super fast speeders, beat your typical man and space marine every time whether close combat oriented or not.

The only thing I could see making close combat viable are storm shields since they seem to be able to protect the user from everything. Pistol + CCW seems rather useless since the only thing protecting the user is his armor. While power armor is strong, in the SM books I read, those astartes are constantly getting holes put in them by boltguns.

Conclusion

Pistol + CCW of any sort = user dead before he gets close enough
Storm shield + CCW = sort of useful.

Sergeants without a weapon with greater than or equal range of his subordinates seem useless other than giving orders.

__

Although I don't put up that good of an argument, it just seems commonsense to me that dudemens would get shot to death before they get to CC.

Thoughts?

Shock and awe factor.
If you can get in close with dedicated assault troops you will devastate an enemy gunline.
The Imperium has both the capability and technology to pull this off (Space Marines) though Imperial Guard wouldn't go in for CC volutarily unless they has no other option.
Power armour is strong and marines are fast(possibly faster) when wearing it, comined with jump packs and drop pods they can easily get close to an enemy and do a lot of damage especially if supported by other Imperial forces.

I am not an expert on warfare of any kind, but here are some of my thoughts:

1) I think even modern soldiers still get issued close combat weapons, and receive close combat training. It is not a focus of current tactics, just a way to ensure that if troops get in close combat, they have a chance.

2) War started out in close combat many many years ago. Then we got more and more long range weapons and battles were fought from further away. But currently combat is getting more short-range again, being fought in cities and ruins.

3) Weapons are getting meaner, especially in the grimdark version that is 40k. Meltas, plasma weapons, rail guns, rockets, etc. You basically only have 3 ways to mitigate those weapons:

3.1) Hide and do nothing else but hide. Sure you might not get killed, but you are not doing anything to stop the other guy from shooting.

3.2) Try to shoot back.

3.3) Get in close combat to take the long range nasties out of the equation.

So I could see combat evolving back into a form where we try to get in hand-to-hand, if only to take the guns out of the picture.

It's all situational - on a wide open plain, facing a load of snipers and battlecannons then yes, anyone is going to get shot up on their way over; in tight, confined spaces, urban terrain, dense jungle, etc. etc. then CC is going to come into its own. If they're fighting over a vortex missile factory, stray bolts exploding all over the place may be counterproductive to the task in hand.

The objective also needs to be considered: in that example above, they probably don't want to destroy the factory and ammunition as it's too valuable, same reason they didn't lay waste to it from orbit. Maybe they want to capture an enemy commander (although that doesn't seem too common from what little I can gather) - again, bombarding it with Basilisks and Colussi is not going to help achieve the objective.

I think your trying to much to apply the rules of our world to the 40k world.

A quick example would be in the 40k movie..I wont spoil it for anyone but..There were clearly many times when a CC weapon was more then needed.

Trench Warfare would also require extensive Close Combat training. While the majority of the time you'll be firing guns over no-man's land, the real action starts when one side has the balls to run across the field and beat the daylights out of the other brutally in close quarters. Close Combat is also more feasable in terms of cost, since Magazines run dry (either the marines need more bolter shells, or the Guardsmen need to recharge their power cells) whereas they can still throw a punch or swing a sword.

There is also the matter of who they're facing. Eldar have at least three whole Aspects Dedicated to Close Combat, Three of the Chaos Chaos Gods favour close combat attacks over ranged combat, and two whole races (the Orks and Nids) are CC-dependant (in the Ork's case, because they're not that good at aiming, while the Nids would much rather chew your face off than put a solid slug, no pun intended, through you). To say nothing of the countless feral creatures in the galaxy, who have yet to master the basic bow and arrow, who would prefer CC much more over complex ranged attacks. These conditions forces the Imperium to take Close Quarter fighting very seriously.

Their manufacturing and logistics are too weak to produce ammunition in the quantities needed.

With respect to d-usa's analysis, the key problem with a sword is that you can't ever hit anyone more than about three feet away.

A couple of guys throwing rocks can take down the best swordman in the world as long as they can keep at least four feet away from him.

That is why we use missile weapons.

When armour technology surpasses weapons CC happens more.

When weapons surpass armour gunfights are better.

ivangterrace wrote:So I was bored and thinking about stuff today and came up with this question:

Why does the imperium bother with close combat?

Thoughts?

- the fantasy influence in 40k did it.
- gaming tables are too small.

Any Guard officer would be perfectly fine with starting the game at maximum firing range of his IG weapons.

Close combat is also a way to end riots.

I want to know why they take your rifle off you when you make sergeant (in the guard).

Officers only having pistols as they're not really expected to fight - it's a bit WW2 but okay. Sergeants? Not so much.

Its a matter of adaption, remember you got a lot of races against the imperium that like to get up close and personal, so it would be required that your army is trained to some extent for CC combat if you didn't want to get out right slaughtered. Also to put this in a real world prospective, there is many cases in modern warfare such as Vietnam, and the current Aghgan wars of assaulting a position with bayonets in forward.

The idea of close combat in future warfare is incredibly silly. But, it's in 40k for one reason: The Rule of Cool

There's no other explanation for how running around with a sword will become a reasonable strategy in warfare. Range is simply incredibly useful. Even in "urban" warfare, you can shoot a guy whose running at you multiple times before he can stab you. Even if he's starting from the other side of the room as you, you're going to get off multiple shots.

Ground battles in general are actually pretty silly. Air (and Space) superiority would be the entire determining factor in the world of 40k. It basically is today, and if you factor into the equation a complete disregard of civilians, air power is all that matters.

Grakmar wrote:The idea of close combat in future warfare is incredibly silly. But, it's in 40k for one reason: The Rule of Cool

There's no other explanation for how running around with a sword will become a reasonable strategy in warfare. Range is simply incredibly useful. Even in "urban" warfare, you can shoot a guy whose running at you multiple times before he can stab you. Even if he's starting from the other side of the room as you, you're going to get off multiple shots.

Ground battles in general are actually pretty silly. Air (and Space) superiority would be the entire determining factor in the world of 40k. It basically is today, and if you factor into the equation a complete disregard of civilians, air power is all that matters.

I don't agree - as I said in my first post, it all comes down to the situation - want to infiltrate an enemy base without raising the alarm? Sneaking up and knifing them in the back of the neck is much better than charging in firing.

Air (etc) superiority is a major contributing factor to victory, however it again depends on the situation - controlling the air is not much use if the enemy is hiding in deep caves under tall mountains.

Any unevolving form of warfare will eventually be countered by an enemy, we can even see that in 40K games - new lists and tactics emerge, other lists and tactics are devised to counter those lists. One one-trick army will have a tough time as it is too predictable, a range of options is much better - your enemy is less likely predict how/where/when you will attack.

The reason for bothering with close combat is simple enough - the weapon ranges are far too short. Actions that would, in the real world, see you picked off one by one over a long, laborious trip to the enemy's line suddenly become much more feasible when the enemy is afflicted with much shorter ranged weapons.

A classic example is the Eldar Guardian squad. Ten (or more) guardians equipped with the equivalent of shotguns and a single long-ranged platform capable of turning a man into a puddle with a single shot. Sure, you could sit and exchange fire with them at long range. But you can also gather together just out of weapons range and rush the guardians instead, and they won't be able to shoot you (note that the lack of defensive fire in 40K contributes to the usefulness of close combat as well - try pulling that stunt in Flames of War, and it probably wouldn't work out so well...).

VikingScott wrote:When armour technology surpasses weapons CC happens more.

When weapons surpass armour gunfights are better.

Prove it.

Seriously?

Kilkrazy wrote:

VikingScott wrote:When armour technology surpasses weapons CC happens more.

When weapons surpass armour gunfights are better.

Prove it.

Killkrazy has a point here. For a long time armour beat ranged weapons but when ranged weapon beat armour people still used CC because the weapons took too long to reload or are in too few numbers. The ranged weapons have to be easy to use, deadly and good at penetrating the current generation of armour and with a reasonable rate of fire. After that you're pretty much set to use ranged weapons over CC.

ivangterrace wrote:When one thinks about it, humanity today has gotten away from sword & board and went towards ranged weaponry, so why regress into close combat? I would think that any unit or person dedicated towards close combat would just get shot up and killed before they could ever get that close.

This is where your thinking went wrong. Many of the enemies in 40k are too tough or too numerous (Orks, Nids, Marines/Terminators being obvious examples) to be shot up before they're in your face, eating/chopping/crushing your men.

Breaking news: nothing in WH40k makes any sense, chainsaw swords are not the weapon of the future.

More at 11.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:Breaking news: nothing in WH40k makes any sense, chainsaw swords are not the weapon of the future.

More at 11.

It is 11...

sourclams wrote:

ivangterrace wrote:When one thinks about it, humanity today has gotten away from sword & board and went towards ranged weaponry, so why regress into close combat? I would think that any unit or person dedicated towards close combat would just get shot up and killed before they could ever get that close.

This is where your thinking went wrong. Many of the enemies in 40k are too tough or too numerous (Orks, Nids, Marines/Terminators being obvious examples) to be shot up before they're in your face, eating/chopping/crushing your men.

But they do CC better and have the numbers so why bother? Exception being marines in PA because whether chaos or loyalist, they die from gunfire. Terminators are about the only thing I can see not being killed easily in CC or gunfire.

Terminator armor is tough, but it would make sense for them to shoot anyway since they would get protection from their super-duper-invincible armor and cover. That is, if they don't have storm shields, which are basically mobile cover.

Again, dudes with storm shields make sense, other things don't.

Because it's cool!

Honestly, given the prevalence of bugs with claws, Orks with swords and so on, it pays to have some sort of close combat training. Even if it's ineffective, it would boost morale in a fluff sense. Even if a Guardsman would get butchered in close combat, if he's trained he at least won't think he will.

The other explanation would be how modern infantry are trained in close combat. US Marines use close range assaults with bayonets to disorient and terrify their targets.

The most likely reason is because close combat makes for a more exciting game and lets 40k differentiate itself from other sci-fi games. It's just the rule of cool.

From the last sentence I think you are putting to much store by air superiority. While important and able to offer an advantage, the footsloggers are required as well to do a job.
At some point the poor grunts are gonna have to mix it hand to hand.

I see what you are trying to say, but gamewise I can understand the CC weapons. If the IoM were exclusively shooty, people would complain about having no close combat facility and were fed up of getting trounced in the melee.

Scott-S6 wrote:I want to know why they take your rifle off you when you make sergeant (in the guard).

Officers only having pistols as they're not really expected to fight - it's a bit WW2 but okay. Sergeants? Not so much.

Hate to break it to you, but that's how it works in the real military as well.

At least in the Artillery batteries I was in. At E-5 and up they hand in their M-16 and get an M-9.

because firearms are so ineffective...

40k's always been a game of 'who has the most power weapons' since 3rd edition. Bonus points if they're on jump troops

Phototoxin wrote:40k's always been a game of 'who has the most power weapons' since 3rd edition. Bonus points if they're on jump troops

I know some IG players that would like to disagree with you.

Monster Rain wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:40k's always been a game of 'who has the most power weapons' since 3rd edition. Bonus points if they're on jump troops

I know some IG players that would like to disagree with you.

Very true, its he whom has the most Tanks wins

sourclams wrote:Many of the enemies in 40k are too tough or too numerous (Orks, Nids, Marines/Terminators being obvious examples) to be shot up before they're in your face, eating/chopping/crushing your men.

Lampshaded with the Tyranids, especially in apocalypse, where if you hit too much you run out of ammo for the turn. 40K is also simplified, it wouldnt be surprising if the CC techiques taught to the generic guardsman involved escape moves and low blows.

Also, another factor we haven't considered yet: Each individual world is different. A lot of marines are recruited from Feral Worlds, where they probably dont even have blackpowder. They're also given enhanced bodies. Pouring all that resources into a pair of legs and eyes just to aim a bolter seems kind of a waste when you consider all the stuff they can potentially do up close and personal. On the Imperial Guard side, the ones who are raised on Death Worlds or Feral Worlds probably had to learn how to fistfight, or knife fight, or become some horrible creature's next lunch when their gun jams/run out of ammo. Necessary survival skills carried over to their military life, and possibly to later generations because, hey, it works.

Ach, I can't find the thread, but one poster had a great example.

In the early Middle/Dark Ages, the Bow was the most advanced ranged weapon, and to a fully armored Knight it wasn't very dangerous. If, during these times, you wanted to kill a knight things like pikes/spears etc. were a necessity.

In 40k, the concept is the same. S4 AP5 is the standard issue weapon, and since most of the armies (Read as: Space Marines) in game can boast armor that can easily deflect the munitions of these weapons, the good ol' sword and board is not only a potentially effective but also more cost effective, as Power Swords don't need bullets/charge packs (They might need a power source, but Lexicanum is being kinda vague...)

Im gunna go with these factors:

Ammo runs out

40k close combat weapons are potentially more devastating than ranged ones AT TIMES.

A lot of less civil races are melee oriented, so not knowing how to fight good in close quarters is going to get everyone killed.

In 40ks day and age, there are times when ranged combat simply wont blow people away (space marines). In modern day, running into combat will get you insta gibbed by an assault rifle, but in 40k, their armour can easily hold up and once their in there they are good. If I was a 10 foot tall armoured super soldier I know Id rather have a massive sword that can cut through anything with ease than a bolter if I was trying to kill 50 guardsmen. You cant get shot in hth