Switch Theme:

Why ranged combat is impractical  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 Ernestas wrote:
I'm not sure if we had listened to a same video. It proved that despite having every advantage, completely melee force just overpowered modern style army.

-There was a massive effect of those human wave effects which you utterly had missed. Psychological.
-That is misunderstanding the context.
-This tactic was extremely effective.
-Thus human wave assault won. It had its desired effect.


'The completely ineffective human wave attack was supported by a non-human-wave attack, and the latter was successful, so human wave attacks work.'

 Ernestas wrote:
Those weapons were issued in widespread use from the moment they became practical and yes, they are comparable in effectiveness when they are firing.


Triple the effective rates of fire, far higher hit probability thanks to modern optics, lower manpower required to operate, issued on a squad basis rather than battalion basis, and don't require tripods or gun carriages with a non-negligible setup time.

But yeah sure late-1800s machine guns are just like modern MGs. And muskets are just like assault rifles.

 Ernestas wrote:
Furthermore, these kill ratios are not lopsided. They are in fact favorable. You see, I do not count bugs which I crush beneath my boot as an act of violence as they are utterly beneath my consideration. I do not count how much oxygen soldiers will consume on their mission as it is utterly pointless. I do not count how much ammo soldiers will fire in war as ammunition is just too easily to replace. You count such silly things in order to justify your own pointless beliefs. People who often are sent into melee in W40k are not soldiers. In whatever faction they are so beneath the notice of their betters that my previous comparisons holds true. Chaos slavemasters will send their slaves just to see them being ripped to shreds as it amuses them. Tyranids will create literal mountains of dead hormogaunts as they are so cheap. Ork mere boys should be considered more as a symptom of Ork spores rather than an actual combatant. They are in Ork society as kids are in ours. They might one day become something of value, but for all intents and purposes they are utterly and completely useless and no matter how many you kill, the biggest impact they will have in their misreable lives is when they die and seed surrounding countryside with dozen more Orks.


Even in-universe, Tyranids don't use Hormagaunts to drown defenders in bodies. That's what Termagants are for. They have guns.

You might as well be arguing that spoons are excellent weapons and beat assault rifles... if you have a completely unlimited number of them. That's disingenuous. You know what'd be more scary than a charging horde of Orks with axes? A charging horde of Orks with guns.

 Ernestas wrote:
You continuously ignore my points. When it comes to stopping power sheer kinetic energy does not matter, size does. Medieval cannon ball might have as much kinetic energy as a modern bullet, but I won't believe that even you will argue that getting directly hit by a cannon ball will have less convincing power for you to stop than a modern bullet. You have a right mind when you mention qualities of a round itself, but largely they are irrelevant and most bullets are designed for ballistic performance and thus they are pretty much identical. You also ignore one of the reason why rifles were replaced by assault rifles. Their larger, more powerful rounds were too powerful to for their intended targets. In a very same way why some anti tank guns were not used, because they would just overpenetrate their intended targets.


This is so completely wrong I don't know where to start.

1. Kinetic energy matters. Size doesn't. Stopping power is a myth. It's not 1980 anymore. Repeating thoroughly debunked ideas doesn't make your points more compelling.
2. Medieval cannonballs had far more energy than modern bullets. Come on. If you're going to use a thought experiment to argue in favor of historical myths, at least get it right.
3. 'Most bullets are designed for ballistic performance and thus they are pretty much identical' is wrong. Utterly wrong. Tell me, what's a boat-tail bullet? Or a spitzer? What's a JHP? Or a wadcutter? How does the weight distribution changes of a tungsten-core projectile affect range and accuracy? What's frangible ammunition used for?
4. I've already mentioned overpenetration as a reason why modern intermediate-caliber firearms are as lethal as older full-sized rifle calibers, why are you repeating it here?

 Ernestas wrote:
In June 2010, the U.S. Army announced it began shipping its new 5.56mm, lead-free, M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round to active combat zones.[141] This upgrade is designed to maximize performance of the 5.56×45mm round, to extend range, improve accuracy, increase penetration and to consistently fragment in soft-tissue when fired from not only standard length M16s, but also the short-barreled M4 carbines


When I dig little further:

It uses the same components as the M855-a jacket, a penetrator, and a metal slug. But the new round contains some subtle changes (see Figure 1). The copper cup, from which the jacket is formed, is reverse-drawn, the opposite of how the M855 jacket is drawn. The hardened steel penetrator is almost twice as heavy as the one used in the M855 and is fully exposed instead of hiding beneath the softer copper jacket.


So, this round has doubled its cap size. What is a massive departure from what previous round was designed to do thus proving my point that new rounds are designed for penetration effect and not soft tissue damage. Article expands deeper on how new round is better, mostly its improvements are tied with more predictable performance which makes round more dependable. Also, improvements in manufacturing and eco friendliness. Considerable portion of soldiers had expressed that their 0.223 caliber lacks stopping power. This is why military improves ammunition which it gives out and considers increasing caliber of their main small arms.

https://www.army.mil/article/48657/evolution_of_the_m855a1_enhanced_performance_round


Did you miss the phrase 'consistently fragment in soft-tissue when fired from not only standard length M16s, but also the short-barreled M4 carbines'? Regular M855 was intended as an armor-piercing round and doesn't yaw when it drops below around 2500fps. In 14.5"-barrel M4s this limited the range of that maximally-lethal effect to around 100 yards. M855A1 extends this to around 300yds.

Also, you post this excerpt about bullet design evolution right after saying that all bullets are 'pretty much identical'? I'm not even sure what your point is here. They took the armor-piercing SS109/M855 round, originally developed to defeat Soviet body armor, and considerably boosted its terminal effects to match the performance of the old M193.

Wait a second- just to be clear, you realize .223 and 5.56 are the same caliber, right?

 Ernestas wrote:
Also no, 0.223 exhibit yawning behavior like all projectiles do. It is more tied to quality of ammunition.


I don't know what you're trying to say but it's probably wrong.

 Ernestas wrote:
One of the most popular calibers for concealed carry handguns is .380, 9mm (also a .38-cal, but with more powder than .380) is the most common handgun cartridge in the world, and .45 is increasingly unpopular (often referred to as '.45 AARP' because the guys willingly carrying it are almost universally over 60 and have no idea what they're doing), so no. Where did you even get that?


Article briefly touches people concerns with high calibers. Furthermore, you are moving debate goals here. 0.38 cal is a proof that people prefer higher calibers for their stopping power. Now you suddenly ignore an entire argument and somehow to you 0.38 cal is the same as 0.223 cal.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/behold-10-best-guns-home-defense-66642


Oh god, The National Interest. I added The National Interest to my phone's blocklist because their gun articles are shockingly bad and clearly written by someone getting their gun knowledge from Wikipedia. I initially got a good laugh out of an article titled something along the lines of 'The Desert Eagle Combines The Firepower Of A Rifle And A Gun', but after seeing their clickbait trash over and over again it got to be too much. Out in the real world, the most popular handguns for concealed carry are 9mm single-stack polymer-framed striker-fired handguns, the most popular handguns for home defense are 9mm double-stack polymer-framed striker-fired handguns with some competition from steel-framed hammer-fired handguns, and most every military in the world now issues 9mm double-stack polymer-framed striker-fired handguns as standard service weapons. 9mm is .38-caliber. The myth of stopping power is dead and buried.

Nobody said .38 is the same as .223, I don't know where you got that. The difference is that a .223 loading has two to eight times the kinetic energy of any of the .38 calibers. It has more energy and is more powerful despite a smaller caliber. Smaller bullet going fast better than big bullet going slow. Big bullet does not equal big damage. This is not a particularly complicated concept.

 Ernestas wrote:
That is called "hitting your target". You assume ideal conditions where everyone is calm, have time to aim their individual shots. These are not combat conditions nor how human psyche operates. Why modern force would be less effective? Because their weapons have less stopping power than before. Though, not exactly because of introduction of automatic fire. That argument was more to show that existing stopping power is insufficient against suitably determined foe by W40k standards.


I assume we are applying real-world logic and not anachronistic fantasy-land boomer logic where .30-cal carbines bounce off coats but .45 blows bowling-ball sized holes in both the man and their soul.

 Ernestas wrote:
That is sadly a myth. Rifle is long, it requires aiming. It is difficult to quickly shift your angle of attack. It also requires reloading. There is a reason why we have an entirely separate class of guns specially designed for close quarters. Typical melee armament is some sort of sword and a pistol. Pistol is quicker to aim if it comes to duel over range and a sword is superior in close quarters in cutting down enemy opponent. It has wider arc of attack, it is more deadly, it has far greater psychological impact, it doesn't need to reload, it is infinitely more reliable and it can provide intimate defense where assault rifle is next to useless when opponent stands right next to you.


God damn, that is pretty bold telling me carbines being effective in close combat is a 'myth'. I guess I'll have to go track down my old combat instructors and tell them the M4 I qualified on for deploying overseas with a .gov was actually a poor choice for the personal protection duties I was expected to fulfill. I guess all the training I did in stabilized point-shooting was just smoke and mirrors.

I should have been carrying a fething sword and pistol instead! Are you getting your combat knowledge from anime?

And I don't even know what that entirely separate class of close quarters guns you could be referring to, because the floor dropped out from under the subgun market in the 90s and the only shotguns you see on the battlefield nowadays are for breaching doors, but I wait with bated breath to hear what could possibly compete with the sheer close-quarters lethality of a fething sword and pistol.

 Ernestas wrote:
I did read and they are severely impacted by atmospheric conditions.


Over the dozens of miles in the role for which they were envisioned, namely ABM/ASAT, so not relevant to rifle range.

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2020/02/21 14:42:23


 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 catbarf wrote:
You might as well be arguing that spoons are excellent weapons and beat assault rifles... if you have a completely unlimited number of them. That's disingenuous. You know what'd be more scary than a charging horde of Orks with axes? A charging horde of Orks with guns.
Yep, and Orks agree! Unless they're Feral Orks, all Orks are pretty much assumed to have guns even if they're just pistols. And they're very, VERY willing to use them.

Feral Orks are usually less of a threat, lol.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Melissia wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
You might as well be arguing that spoons are excellent weapons and beat assault rifles... if you have a completely unlimited number of them. That's disingenuous. You know what'd be more scary than a charging horde of Orks with axes? A charging horde of Orks with guns.
Yep, and Orks agree! Unless they're Feral Orks, all Orks are pretty much assumed to have guns even if they're just pistols. And they're very, VERY willing to use them.

Feral Orks are usually less of a threat, lol.


This. The biggest threat that Orks have posed to the Tau empire, for example, was when the Orks had scavenged Tau ranged weaponry and were capable of outshooting them.

The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord






I've never seen someone so adamantly stick to being...wrong...than Ernestas. This is a train wreck I can't look away from!

 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Carnifex



Mexico

This thread is a mess. On one side melee combat in modern warfare is very stupid and it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

But on the other 40k is not modern combat, it has a wide spectrum of different technological paradigms that are constantly competing against each other. Although even then ranged warfare tends to dominate in 40k aside of very special niches.
   
Made in gb
Sword-Wielding Bloodletter of Khorne






I'm STILL not sure what the point of this thread is...
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator



The dark hollows of Kentucky

 RobS wrote:
I'm STILL not sure what the point of this thread is...

The same as a Faces of Death video. People like watching train wrecks.
   
Made in ru
Regular Dakkanaut





 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Ernestas wrote:


Sigh, not melee combat. Engagement ranges. Lack of heavy firepower. That argument is to prove that there are plenty of wars where it is impossible to control engagement ranges or use superior range, accuracy and optics in real war.


What measurement are you using to justify your argument that the US was lacking heavy firepower in Vietnam? Infantry had weapons like the M60 and M16 which massively increased their potential firepower over previous conflicts (Korea and WW2). They also had helicopter support, also equipped with M60s. The US dropped over 3 times as many bombs in the Vietnam war than it did over both theatres of WW2. They had fething Napalm.

I'm failing to see "lack of heavy firepower" in the US's approach to the Vietnam conflict. The failure of the US military in Vietnam was political and doctrinal. The focus on kills as the measure of success of operations etc. was misguided and contributed to the mindsets of command which led to atrocities like My Lai. The revelation of those kinds of atrocities absolutely tanked support for the war back home, which was already pretty low to begin with once the US casualties started to tick up, which had the knock on effect of damaging the morale of the US forces (not gonna feel happy that you're stuck halfway round the world because you got unlucky in a lottery and to top it off when you get home you get lumped in with people who massacred women and children).


They had all that equipment, but terrain is that prevented effective use of it. Tanks are next to useless. Vehicles can't travel through most terrain. Heavy foliage prevents effective support from air, effectiveness of artillery is also severely hampered. This then results that entire USA military is reduced to only light infantry. Mind you, modern light infantry has all those machine guns and etc, but they are a lot less effective. This is because in jungle you can see 20 meters in front of you reliably. Of course it varies from location to location, but it is extremely easy to sneak upon entire platoons in such terrain. If you would investigate how communists fought in Vietnam, you will see that they had no trouble in ambushing USA troops at close ranges. If these troops would be more dedicated to their goals and would charge into melee there actually be very little one can do to stop it even with all modern and futuristic technology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote:
Except it makes zero sense to train against Ork or especially tyranids in melee. The Ork is roughly equivalent to Marine in terms of raw strenght. Tyranid melee organisms are usually equipped with long blades on arms and superior reflexes. A normal, unaugumented human will have little to no chance deflecting an ork strike, or hitting with enough force to damage the ork in melee. They also won't be able to match the speed of an organism that actually has no survival instinct.
Training to match their natural skills in melee would be a collosal waste of time, might as well train the soldiers to grow armor-piercing teeth to deal with tau tanks.

If you assume normal laws of physics apply, a lasblast will have more kinetic energy than a bayonet, and will have better chance of de-arming said Ork than stabbing with a tiny blade.


There is a rule of diminishing returns. If you take a person, you have a lot to teach him initially. How to assemble his gun, how to shoot, aim, etc. Yet after a week person will know how to maintain his gun and will be able to operate it as well as an average soldier. Any other skills will come very slowly and expensively. Training to compensate for gravity properly, calculating wind, training him to properly hold breath and remain still at very high level. Those skills which makes soldier an exceptional soldier are far harder to come by than simply making soldier jack of all trades. Sword fighting and equipping guardsmen with proper gladius would help them to significantly increase their potency and chances of survival if someone gets into melee range. Even if some tyranid organisms are better equipped in melee, they still are mere animals and proper application of blade can dispatch far greater creature. Now common tactic is to gak its pants and pray to God Emperor that this tyranid doesn't slaughter him.

Energy weapon doesn't carry kinetic energy at all. This was one of my main points. Lasgun is exceptionally poor weapon at providing stopping power. Stub weapons are better. Pulse weapons are better. Bolters are A LOT better than anything at stopping things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 RobS wrote:
 Ernestas wrote:
Then you should start reading my comments. I know that they are long and difficult to get into, but this is for what this thread is meant. I especially love when people prove me right with real world examples and then conclude that I'm wrong and melee combatants are outdated.


I have. That's why I made the comment I did.

You are writing fictional posts about a fictional subject.

There is nothing that can be offered as real-world examples that will prove or disprove your point.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, to be honest, but I think it's that melee is more powerful than shooting in general (and that this can be applied to the fictional 40k universe).



I'm writing real posts about how real combat operates and want to show that if we translate W40k armies into real world, even without most of its tech, their way of fighting would still work. I also had proved my point and point was further proven by other commenters. Please look for previous video where tribe assaulted USA soldiers with swords.

Response to catbarfMade
Spoiler:

The completely ineffective human wave attack was supported by a non-human-wave attack, and the latter was successful, so human wave attacks work.


You should listen more carefully, because now you just skimmed through video and got basic facts about story wrong. There were no non-human wave attack in that story.

Triple the effective rates of fire, far higher hit probability thanks to modern optics, lower manpower required to operate, issued on a squad basis rather than battalion basis, and don't require tripods or gun carriages with a non-negligible setup time.

But yeah sure late-1800s machine guns are just like modern MGs. And muskets are just like assault rifles.


Calm down and stop exaggerating. If my machine gun fires 450 shots per second and yours 650 shots per second it doesn't mean that my gun is not dangerous. In fact, I will kill you and your entire platoon just as well with 450 shots per seconds. After all, difference between Sherman and Abrams tank is largely just academic when all you have to fight it is your assault rifle.

Even in-universe, Tyranids don't use Hormagaunts to drown defenders in bodies. That's what Termagants are for. They have guns.

You might as well be arguing that spoons are excellent weapons and beat assault rifles... if you have a completely unlimited number of them. That's disingenuous. You know what'd be more scary than a charging horde of Orks with axes? A charging horde of Orks with guns.


I have a question. When was a last time you read or listened to some W40k lore? Because seriously, telling me that tyranids main tactic is not to run into enemy until they run out of ammunition or are overrun is so out of touch with how they are depicted in lore that I don't know what to say to you.

Yes, I have near unlimited number of spoons. It is a point which you had ignored multiple times. Spoon makes poor gunners, because guns are expensive, complicated to use. So, I give them a big stick.

This is so completely wrong I don't know where to start.

1. Kinetic energy matters. Size doesn't. Stopping power is a myth. It's not 1980 anymore. Repeating thoroughly debunked ideas doesn't make your points more compelling.
2. Medieval cannonballs had far more energy than modern bullets. Come on. If you're going to use a thought experiment to argue in favor of historical myths, at least get it right.
3. 'Most bullets are designed for ballistic performance and thus they are pretty much identical' is wrong. Utterly wrong. Tell me, what's a boat-tail bullet? Or a spitzer? What's a JHP? Or a wadcutter? How does the weight distribution changes of a tungsten-core projectile affect range and accuracy? What's frangible ammunition used for?
4. I've already mentioned overpenetration as a reason why modern intermediate-caliber firearms are as lethal as older full-sized rifle calibers, why are you repeating it here?


1. You are not debunking anything. You just keep repeating your own baseless statements while ignoring my arguments and examples.
2. You are imagining siege cannons, there were a lot of types of cannons and powder used was very weak by comparison to modern powder.
3. Tell me, what are main ammunition type for soldiers? You continuously move discussion goals to talk about whatever while not knowing what you are even fighting against. A soldier having multiple types of ammunition is very rare and is rather reserved for specialized missions. That holds true in our world through history and in W40k.


Did you miss the phrase 'consistently fragment in soft-tissue when fired from not only standard length M16s, but also the short-barreled M4 carbines'? Regular M855 was intended as an armor-piercing round and doesn't yaw when it drops below around 2500fps. In 14.5"-barrel M4s this limited the range of that maximally-lethal effect to around 100 yards. M855A1 extends this to around 300yds.

Also, you post this excerpt about bullet design evolution right after saying that all bullets are 'pretty much identical'? I'm not even sure what your point is here. They took the armor-piercing SS109/M855 round, originally developed to defeat Soviet body armor, and considerably boosted its terminal effects to match the performance of the old M193.

Wait a second- just to be clear, you realize .223 and 5.56 are the same caliber, right?


This article talks about issues with bullet which you were talking about. You said that new generation ammo is designed to be better in causing damage to soft tissue. I had said that no, it is actually designed to penetrate more due to small caliber. You disagreed and so I had proven you wrong. In addition, performance against soft and hard tissues are often exclusive, the better round acts against soft target, worse its anti-armor performance becomes.

I don't know what you're trying to say but it's probably wrong.


You don't know what you are arguing against, but instead you just argue for a sake of it?

Oh god, The National Interest. I added The National Interest to my phone's blocklist because their gun articles are shockingly bad and clearly written by someone getting their gun knowledge from Wikipedia. I initially got a good laugh out of an article titled something along the lines of 'The Desert Eagle Combines The Firepower Of A Rifle And A Gun', but after seeing their clickbait trash over and over again it got to be too much. Out in the real world, the most popular handguns for concealed carry are 9mm single-stack polymer-framed striker-fired handguns, the most popular handguns for home defense are 9mm double-stack polymer-framed striker-fired handguns with some competition from steel-framed hammer-fired handguns, and most every military in the world now issues 9mm double-stack polymer-framed striker-fired handguns as standard service weapons. 9mm is .38-caliber. The myth of stopping power is dead and buried.

Nobody said .38 is the same as .223, I don't know where you got that. The difference is that a .223 loading has two to eight times the kinetic energy of any of the .38 calibers. It has more energy and is more powerful despite a smaller caliber. Smaller bullet going fast better than big bullet going slow. Big bullet does not equal big damage. This is not a particularly complicated concept.


You continue to ignore entire argument and continue to move debate goals. USA military had moved to bigger caliber because previous calibers lacked stopping power. That caliber is 0.38. Then "forgot" that point and acted that 0.38 caliber is same as 0.223. My point is that mass provides greater stopping power than velocity. Bullet going fast does not stop target on its own. Hence, my argument about rifles which we used in WW1 and their issue of being too powerful against normal human targets as they would overpenetrate. This is why your argument that small bullet goes fast and thus is better at stopping target is just a confused argument which lacks real world examples or internal logic when compared to other guns.


I assume we are applying real-world logic and not anachronistic fantasy-land boomer logic where .30-cal carbines bounce off coats but .45 blows bowling-ball sized holes in both the man and their soul.


That is called: armor penetration. It directly scales with bullets velocity and density.

God damn, that is pretty bold telling me carbines being effective in close combat is a 'myth'. I guess I'll have to go track down my old combat instructors and tell them the M4 I qualified on before deploying overseas with a .gov was actually a poor choice for the personal protection duties I was expected to fulfill. I guess all the sims I gave and took from a couple of feet away (cracked a rib, it was fun!) were flukes and the training I did in stabilized point-shooting was just smoke and mirrors.

I should have been carrying a fething sword and pistol instead! Are you getting your combat knowledge from anime?

And I don't even know what that entirely separate class of close quarters guns you could be referring to, because the floor dropped out from under the subgun market in the 90s and the only shotguns you see on the battlefield nowadays are for breaching doors, but I wait with bated breath to hear what could possibly compete with the sheer close-quarters lethality of a fething sword and pistol.


Indeed it is. Many things are actually here just for psychological effect. Like bayonetes being very poor melee weapons despite being used through centuries and armies were telling lies to themselves that no really, we don't need melee weapon, because we have bayonets now and they are just as good.

Yes, all that was just messing around. If I would had been here with sword and pistol, I will often get a first shot on you, because my pistol is lighter and thus I can "draw" and aim it quicker than you can your assault rifle. That is about unexpected scenarios where you can't just aim rifle ahead of me, but have to rather shift in unexpected ways or even worse, your rifle is not in firing position already. If I'm next to you, you can't really use your weapon, because enemy won't allow it.

Here is some reality check of that would happen if you would happen in real combat:




Same would apply even more to assault rifle if it is in not ready position.

Over the dozens of miles in the role for which they were envisioned, namely ABM/ASAT, so not relevant to rifle range.


You forgot again. That argument was tied to real lasgun suffering quite heavily in its performance due to atmospheric condition or minor obstacles in its path like foliage.




This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/02/21 13:34:22


"If the path to salvation leads through the halls of purgatory, then so be it."

Death Guard = 728 (PL 41) and Space Marines = 831 (PL 50)
Slaanesh demons = 460
Khorne demons = 420
Nighthaunts = 840 points Stormcast Eternals = 880 points. 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

That video isn't a combat video.
If they were in a battle situation the officer would be approaching with their gun already drawn; depending on the situation it would likely already be pointed at the potential suspect. In a warzone you're not ambling around patrolling; you're patrolling with your gun in hand; you're ready to shoot and engage because its a battle situation and anyone who isn't on your site is potentially an armed enemy out to kill you.


Police are typically in very different situations and will be in situations where they aren't expecting attacks. The western style of policing is not military style, even if at times they do arm up like the military. The way you approach and interact with your own population is very different to how you approach and interact with a hostile population.

Yet you can be sure if it was and armed police situation the officer would be approaching with their gun already drawn.





A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in lt
Regular Dakkanaut





 Overread wrote:
That video isn't a combat video.
If they were in a battle situation the officer would be approaching with their gun already drawn; depending on the situation it would likely already be pointed at the potential suspect. In a warzone you're not ambling around patrolling; you're patrolling with your gun in hand; you're ready to shoot and engage because its a battle situation and anyone who isn't on your site is potentially an armed enemy out to kill you.


Police are typically in very different situations and will be in situations where they aren't expecting attacks. The western style of policing is not military style, even if at times they do arm up like the military. The way you approach and interact with your own population is very different to how you approach and interact with a hostile population.

Yet you can be sure if it was and armed police situation the officer would be approaching with their gun already drawn.


That is true, but in real combat scenario you will rarely get someone charging at you while you are facing him with your weapon drawn. Human being will use cover, surprise you. They might even suppress you with their own fire while designated melee chargers will try to kill you up close. They might throw a grenade at you or be driven utterly insane and will surprise you at their boldness, tenacity and sheer madness. If we come to urban fighting, armies relies on very regimented style of fighting to assault and defend positions, but all of this will go out of a window when fighting dedicated enemy. Squads will be thinned out, ammunition will run low, etc. It is only matter of time before people will start making mistakes or simply won't have enough manpower to cover everything. Then if we compare forces who will charge into melee without any tactics like Orks or Tyranids then we have inhuman element. Orks being simply way too tough for 0.223 caliber to be effective no matter what catbarf might think and Tyranids in lore just throw endless waves of disposable beasts until something really nasty comes along like Tyranid Warrior.

"If the path to salvation leads through the halls of purgatory, then so be it."

Death Guard = 728 (PL 41) and Space Marines = 831 (PL 50)
Slaanesh demons = 460
Khorne demons = 420
Nighthaunts = 840 points Stormcast Eternals = 880 points. 
   
Made in az
Sword-Wielding Bloodletter of Khorne






 Ernestas wrote:


That is true, but in real combat scenario you will rarely get someone charging at you while you are facing him with your weapon drawn.


Really?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/21 13:45:48


 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






This thread is the gift that keeps on giving.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 Ernestas wrote:
You should listen more carefully, because now you just skimmed through video and got basic facts about story wrong. There were no non-human wave attack in that story.


Jumping off a cliff to literally throw bodies on a defensive position doesn't justify melee combat, dude.

 Ernestas wrote:
Calm down and stop exaggerating. If my machine gun fires 450 shots per second and yours 650 shots per second it doesn't mean that my gun is not dangerous. In fact, I will kill you and your entire platoon just as well with 450 shots per seconds. After all, difference between Sherman and Abrams tank is largely just academic when all you have to fight it is your assault rifle.


I'm not exaggerating, you don't have any idea what the hell you're talking about. The machine guns the US troops had in the Philippines were immobile, unreliable, inaccurate, and intended for static defense. That is why they did not have or use them in any substantial numbers in jungle warfare against the Moros. A modern machine gun does not have these downsides; you can carry it and (to a limited degree) fire it like an oversized assault rifle. It also has a tremendously higher effective rate of fire (you have given two examples of mechanical rate of fire, which is a worthless metric).

 Ernestas wrote:
I have a question. When was a last time you read or listened to some W40k lore? Because seriously, telling me that tyranids main tactic is not to run into enemy until they run out of ammunition or are overrun is so out of touch with how they are depicted in lore that I don't know what to say to you.


I literally just said that's what Termagants are for. The ones with guns. My codex literally says that they exist to expend the defenders' ammunition in preparation for the real assault. It's not Hormagaunts, the melee bugs, being used that way.

 Ernestas wrote:
3. Tell me, what are main ammunition type for soldiers? You continuously move discussion goals to talk about whatever while not knowing what you are even fighting against. A soldier having multiple types of ammunition is very rare and is rather reserved for specialized missions. That holds true in our world through history and in W40k.


How on earth do you go from 'soldiers usually only carry one kind of ammunition' to 'all bullets are more or less identical and bullet design hasn't changed significantly over time'?

 Ernestas wrote:
This article talks about issues with bullet which you were talking about. You said that new generation ammo is designed to be better in causing damage to soft tissue. I had said that no, it is actually designed to penetrate more due to small caliber. You disagreed and so I had proven you wrong. In addition, performance against soft and hard tissues are often exclusive, the better round acts against soft target, worse its anti-armor performance becomes.


I don't think you quite understand the article you were quoting. M855A1 replicates the terminal performance of M193 which in turn was an improvement over the lethality of the older, heavier, more powerful M80 ball cartridge in .308. They improved the terminal lethality, then they improved the armor penetration, then they improved both.

 Ernestas wrote:
You continue to ignore entire argument and continue to move debate goals. USA military had moved to bigger caliber because previous calibers lacked stopping power. That caliber is 0.38. Then "forgot" that point and acted that 0.38 caliber is same as 0.223. My point is that mass provides greater stopping power than velocity. Bullet going fast does not stop target on its own. Hence, my argument about rifles which we used in WW1 and their issue of being too powerful against normal human targets as they would overpenetrate. This is why your argument that small bullet goes fast and thus is better at stopping target is just a confused argument which lacks real world examples or internal logic when compared to other guns.


I have ignored any argument based on 'stopping power' because it is a myth with no real-world basis. The FBI themselves released a paper demonstrating that stopping power is bogus and justifying a switch back to a smaller caliber.

Nothing says 'I have no idea how ballistics works' like clinging to stopping power, so I will continue to ignore it. An extremely lightweight .223 is less likely to overpenetrate and waste its kinetic energy and more likely to incapacitate its target than a big, slow, heavy .45ACP.

 Ernestas wrote:
Indeed it is. Many things are actually here just for psychological effect. Like bayonetes being very poor melee weapons despite being used through centuries and armies were telling lies to themselves that no really, we don't need melee weapon, because we have bayonets now and they are just as good.

Yes, all that was just messing around. If I would had been here with sword and pistol, I will often get a first shot on you, because my pistol is lighter and thus I can "draw" and aim it quicker than you can your assault rifle. That is about unexpected scenarios where you can't just aim rifle ahead of me, but have to rather shift in unexpected ways or even worse, your rifle is not in firing position already. If I'm next to you, you can't really use your weapon, because enemy won't allow it.

Here is some reality check of that would happen if you would happen in real combat:




Same would apply even more to assault rifle if it is in not ready position.


This is a joke, right? You are trolling at my expense?

You don't know what the 21-foot-rule you're citing means. (Hint: It's about being able to engage someone with your weapon holstered in an old-style leather retention holster. It has no relevance to someone with their weapon drawn)

You obviously don't know how awful trying to aim a handgun- let alone one-handed- is in comparison to a rifle.

You seem to think that every SWAT agency in the country must be overwhelmingly incompetent for willingly going into cramped houses against armed suspects, while themselves armed with carbines and not... fething swords and pistols. Yeah, SWAT officers die left and right to perps with handguns 'aiming it quicker' or swordsmen bursting out of closets to impale the whole team before they can react.

Anyways, I wasn't trained how to use a carbine in MOUT as a 'psychological tool' while the helpless instructors secretly knew that if I went up against a sword & pistol gunman I was dead meat. All I'll say on that subject is that I have plenty of reason to think the way I was trained is effective, and the very idea is so fething stupid I'm not going to engage on it.

I am utterly floored by how committed you are to arguing something that you obviously haven't the slightest bit of real-world experience with.

 Ernestas wrote:
You forgot again. That argument was tied to real lasgun suffering quite heavily in its performance due to atmospheric condition or minor obstacles in its path like foliage.


I didn't forget anything. You read something about atmospheric bloom and lasers, which would only come up in the context of ABM/ASAT, and assumed it's relevant to fictional laser rifles at a few hundred yards.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/21 13:51:27


 
   
Made in lt
Regular Dakkanaut





Why I'm arguing so strongly for melee? Well, because I truly believe in. I might not had fortune to become a soldier, but I have extensive training in various martial arts. Most notably, I had trained how to fight with real swords in real combat like soldiers did centuries ago. So I intimately know how dangerous guy with sword can be. What instructors don't tell you and what they don't know is what I know and can do with a sword.

Pointing assault rifle at me won't do you any good, because it is very easy to parry your gun. I can wield sword quicker than person can wield an assault rifle, so I will be quicker to bring my sword to my side or react to an unexpected scenario. I also know how absolutely dangerous I can be with a sword. If I'm in a room with my sword in my hand and you are not holding your weapon to my direction, you are dead. My arm with a sword can reach more or less 2 meters with lunging. I have developed strong leg work as part of melee training and can mover remarkably quickly in very short distances in my fighting style. That video is actually quite realistic of what would happen if I would charge a soldier with a sword which is not pointing his gun at me.

I know why we do not try to attack in melee. Guns are more effective. Yet, my argument was that we do not charge anymore, because people gotten too lazy and weak willed. In W40k I would enslave millions if not billions of people. My armies would not be mere couple hundred thousand, but would be numbering in millions upon millions. I would not train my soldiers to highest, professional standard of today, but would enslave and force others to do my bidding. At this level, suddenly guns become expensive and complicated to use when your soldiers are mad children, men and women including elderly. Additionally, even if melee is effective in some scenarios in real life, we don't use it, because modern armies are casualties averse. In our world, suffering 10% casualties in your regiment after battle would be considered as heavy. Even a single death is enough to announce on national news. In W40k, IG suffers 40% and calls it just hard fought battle. We simply lack will and are too self centered to fight to our full capacity as a species. We are too concerned about our own survival and how we look. This is why we do not like or apply such tactics, because they are very heavy on casualties. Even if I would take my sword and pistol into modern fighting in hypothetical army which uses melee today, I would not be expecting to survive for long. One, two, maybe three encounters with an enemy and I will be dead. That is simply mind boggling attrition rate for modern nation and army to endure. This is why it is not done and is not being thinked about at all.

"If the path to salvation leads through the halls of purgatory, then so be it."

Death Guard = 728 (PL 41) and Space Marines = 831 (PL 50)
Slaanesh demons = 460
Khorne demons = 420
Nighthaunts = 840 points Stormcast Eternals = 880 points. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 Ernestas wrote:
Why I'm arguing so strongly for melee? Well, because I truly believe in. I might not had fortune to become a soldier, but I have extensive training in various martial arts.
Martial arts are good to have, but it doesn't matter how many martial arts you use when you're riddled with bullets.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






 Ernestas wrote:


Pointing assault rifle at me won't do you any good, because it is very easy to parry your gun.

Are you a literal Jedi?
   
Made in kw
Furious Raptor




New Orleans

Don’t feed the trolls. The “martial arts master” claims that his tactics would revolutionize warfare despite having no practical experience at all. More importantly a sword is completely irrelevant against armored vehicles and aircraft. Write me when you can parry MLRS strikes. The last real shock army died at Rorke’s Drift.

Iron within, Iron without 
   
Made in az
Sword-Wielding Bloodletter of Khorne






 Ernestas wrote:
In W40k I would enslave millions if not billions of people. My armies would not be mere couple hundred thousand, but would be numbering in millions upon millions. I would not train my soldiers to highest, professional standard of today, but would enslave and force others to do my bidding.


Please, please write this novel.


In our world, suffering 10% casualties in your regiment after battle would be considered as heavy. Even a single death is enough to announce on national news.

THE REAL WORLD
In W40k, IG suffers 40% and calls it just hard fought battle.

FICTION

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/21 14:02:21


 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 Ernestas wrote:
In W40k I would
Be an unknown, unwanted, unloved corpse in the bottom of a hive city or the middle of a battlefield, no one even remembering your name.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

Ernestas your argument is jumping all over the place.

One moment you're talking about 100m ranges; then jungles; then WW1 then modern police forces; then 2ft indoor encounters then back to jungles.

Plus each time you admit that ranged firepower is superior you then jump to 40K.

I know why we do not try to attack in melee. Guns are more effective. Yet, my argument was that we do not charge anymore, because people gotten too lazy and weak willed. In W40k I would enslave millions if not billions of people.


Right there you do it all in one line. You admit ranged fire is superior; then you make some odd argument that we don't blindly charged into close combat because we are weak willed? Then you shift the whole debate back into 40K.


In the real world you don't charge into close combat because you're dead. The ranged weapons rule the battlefield even before you consider the higher value we place on life today than in the past. Heck don't think that people have become weaker over the generations - self preservation is and always has been there. Warriors in the old days got freaking scared - heck most ancient battles in close combat weren't won with numbers lost to death, but more due to moral loss. When your army saw enough die and the situation go back that they broke and ran away. Self preservation isn't something new.



Honestly I think you need to just admit defeat. Close combat works in 40K because basically the game is emulating the musket era of combat; when ranged weapons were strong, but not totally dominating. Plus 40K has means of battle that are honestly insane - being able to take losses into the actual millions if not billions and still come out winning. These are insane ways to right. It's regularly pointed out that if the Imperium were not a bureaucratic and mostly insane Empire it could have made huge victories and won the war generations ago. Of course the same argument can be said for most factions.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 Ernestas wrote:
Why I'm arguing so strongly for melee? Well, because I truly believe in. I might not had fortune to become a soldier, but I have extensive training in various martial arts. Most notably, I had trained how to fight with real swords in real combat like soldiers did centuries ago. So I intimately know how dangerous guy with sword can be. What instructors don't tell you and what they don't know is what I know and can do with a sword.


So you've studied an obsolete form of combat as a hobby- blithely ignoring why it is now obsolete- and, lacking any familiarity with the reality of modern combat, have Dunning-Kruger'd yourself into thinking not only that your technique can hack it on a modern battlefield, but that combat instructors don't appreciate the superior effectiveness of a sword because they don't know any better. Very cool.

I studied Filipino Martial Arts (FMA/Kali/Escrima) under Doug Marcaida. I think I can hold my own with a machete. I still wouldn't take a machete over a handgun for any reason.

You know that most people who actually train for fighting do study hand-to-hand and use of melee weapons, right? It's not some 'forgotten art' that modern instructors are too out-of-touch to teach, it's just that once you've trained with close combat weapons and trained with firearms, it's obvious which is superior.

 Ernestas wrote:
Pointing assault rifle at me won't do you any good, because it is very easy to parry your gun. I can wield sword quicker than person can wield an assault rifle, so I will be quicker to bring my sword to my side or react to an unexpected scenario. I also know how absolutely dangerous I can be with a sword. If I'm in a room with my sword in my hand and you are not holding your weapon to my direction, you are dead. My arm with a sword can reach more or less 2 meters with lunging. I have developed strong leg work as part of melee training and can mover remarkably quickly in very short distances in my fighting style. That video is actually quite realistic of what would happen if I would charge a soldier with a sword which is not pointing his gun at me.


[tips fedora]

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/02/21 14:43:49


 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






OP is this you? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/15/us-man-quest-kill-bin-laden-pakistan
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord






I'm curious...Ernestas you say "you didn't have the fortune to become a soldier, but I am well trained with swords", then you presume to tell people who have trained with and carried firearms for a living (that's several of us, by the way) that we don't know what we're talking about?

You cite a video about the 21-foot rule. Have you actually performed that drill? Do you know why it exists? A lot of us have actually done this stuff in real life. We're not just making stuff up on the internet.

 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




 DominayTrix wrote:
 Ernestas wrote:


Pointing assault rifle at me won't do you any good, because it is very easy to parry your gun.

Are you a literal Jedi?

In all fairness parrying a gun isn't that hard and the gun itself doesn't pose a threat. Its bullets you need to watch out for. (Which as an aside also kill Jedi).

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in de
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Also regarding the "untrained, enslaved masses" argument: I think from my limited experience that it is much easier to learn how to kill someone with a gun than in CC. I highly doupt that I (male, 80 kg, not completely unfit) could reliably overpower someone my size, not even with some months of melee training. It's not just strength and technique, I doupt that I could bring myself to run towards someone and stab him or smash his head with a club.

But in my military service I got handed an assault rifle and a pistol, had a short introduction (mainly in safety rules and maintenance) and maybe 20 minutes on the shooting range with each (I was paramedic, so just basic training). And I assume I could kill with both. And while I don't think I would have the "courage" to maul someone with a shovel, roughly aiming an assault rifle at his torso and pull the trigger... is not that hard.

More importantly anyone, even a child with a gun can kill a highly trained soldier with a lucky shot (and a magazine has quite a few of those), while being no match in melee.

And even caught in CC I think my chances would be way better with a rifles, trying to fall back and shot than with a sword.


Getting to your personal experience: you mentioned your abilities in close combat, even swordfighting. That must have taken quite some time to learn. Yet still: if you fail to surprise your opponent, je already has his weapon at the ready or he is not alone, you are quite likely dead after the first real engagement, even if your enemy barely had 10 minutes of training

~1600 build and painted 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord






Pretty much what Pyro said.

Any country can teach a soldier how to load and "point" (not even properly aim) a simple modern rifle within minutes. Obviously days and weeks and then years to become exceptionally proficient with it, depending on your desired result. Many of the world's best Special Forces soldiers have been killed by a fifteen year old waving an AKM pattern rifle while squeezing the trigger.

This is an ancient answer to a problem, dating back to the first archers and crossbowmen who "broke the rules" of war by slaying rich, armored knights on their pretty horses. It was hugely insulting to the elite "Knights" of the world when cheap mercenary crossbowmen started to turn the tides of battles, or simple English long-bowmen were murder-hosing trained soldiers at range, etc.

Missile weaponry (i.e. any thrown, hurled, fired, slung projectile) became a thing because it's actually IMMENSELY practical, far more so than any close combat training/weapons/equipment.

 
   
Made in pl
Dakka Veteran




I'd like to point out that the Welsh bowmen were largely a time-limited offer. Training a bowman takes as long as training a knight, and it took truly, astoundingly arrogant French knights to line up the perfect battlefield for the archers to work. It wasn't the crossbows, and certainly not the very limited amount of longbowmen that killed heavy cavalry, it was the changing economy. It took until roughly XVIIIc to truly obsolete cavalry as main offensive force, when improvements in guns finally let them reload fast enough to outkill the cavalry charge.

Though the last cavalry on cavalry battle took place in 1920...
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

Another point that often gets forgotten in the real world is that most people don't want to kill. Even in WW1 and 2 when you had loads of patriotic movies and campaigns and loads of people conscripted on both sides - many wouldn't actually shoot to kill. From what I gather it was actually very difficult to get people to kill. See you can't train someone to kill till you're in the actual battle situation. You can train them to stab bags and shoot targets, but the actual kill training only happens on the battlefield.

So even if you've put a gun in everyone's hand it doesn't make them a killer. However even if armed with a semi automatic the gunfire alone will make the enemy put their heads down and seek cover when they come under fire. So even if your conscripted soldiers don't even aim for the kill shot it will still have an effect.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 Overread wrote:
Another point that often gets forgotten in the real world is that most people don't want to kill. Even in WW1 and 2 when you had loads of patriotic movies and campaigns and loads of people conscripted on both sides - many wouldn't actually shoot to kill. From what I gather it was actually very difficult to get people to kill. See you can't train someone to kill till you're in the actual battle situation. You can train them to stab bags and shoot targets, but the actual kill training only happens on the battlefield.


This is actually a controversial topic, as the main piece of research that originated this claim has been contested as possibly invented.

Either way, it is accepted that by Vietnam upwards of 90% of soldiers were able and willing to shoot to kill in combat.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

 catbarf wrote:
 Overread wrote:
Another point that often gets forgotten in the real world is that most people don't want to kill. Even in WW1 and 2 when you had loads of patriotic movies and campaigns and loads of people conscripted on both sides - many wouldn't actually shoot to kill. From what I gather it was actually very difficult to get people to kill. See you can't train someone to kill till you're in the actual battle situation. You can train them to stab bags and shoot targets, but the actual kill training only happens on the battlefield.


This is actually a controversial topic, as the main piece of research that originated this claim has been contested as possibly invented.

Either way, it is accepted that by Vietnam upwards of 90% of soldiers were able and willing to shoot to kill in combat.


Ahh I'd honestly not read far into it at all. Though I'd also heard that modern armies were different, partly because a good few rely less on mass conscription and more on the attitude of the "professional soldier" angle. I suspect there are grains of truth in it all, especially when you deal with massive wars that suddenly conscript en-mass like the World Wars; but also when you've situations like the 1st World War where at one stage both sides were playing football against each other (at least the lower ranks were).

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: