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 nl
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

 Melissia wrote:
Down the hallway looks really damn far when someone's got a gun aimed at you...

With a gun the face though, one wishes it were a lot farther.
Unless one were a lictor...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The_Real_Chris wrote:


Epic Armageddon was interesting - it stated 90cm was the distance to the horizon (at that height about 4-5 miles depending on elevation), but then that became 'stretchy' at close range with 15cm (the engagement range for small arms), assumed to be about 300m not the 1000 odd it would have been if you sticked with the horizon calculation The rationale being units behaved differently close to each other and this allowed you to get more manoeuvre in rather than crowding units into tiny areas. (It also meant a combat squad had a frontage of roughly 50m.)


Exaltable info.
The translation across scales and armament is interesting ... indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Lads, this is a game where 8 foot super soldiers which can spit acid and fire rockets regularly engage british football hooligan mushrooms, 20 meters alien monsters and robots older than most planets.

I think we need to leave any pretence of realism at the door and just enjoy the spectacle.

If this acid did not work as real acid works and if the ages of robots were not subject to natural laws for instance entropy then the setting loses something, no?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/03/13 19:31:06


   
Made in lt
Fresh-Faced New User




Not Online!!!

I'm not quite getting your point. You refer to general Chaos footsolder, but they are already far better solders than most Chaos brings to the table numerically speaking. Zombies, demons is supernatural element which is mostly dangerous as a shock troops. Yet, the biggest part of Chaos forces are not these renegade soldiers, it is civilian population which was being driven mad and now is being sent at your line in millions. I do believe that if in reality we would have anything like that, any military force would be at a breaking point mentally and hard pressed logistically to provide enough ammunition to the frontlines. This is at the core of my argument, we devalue human life so much that it is worth less than a mine on which it would trip and explode. That artillery shell which took out few of these people was worth more than these troops. Combat drugs and remote control devices are worth more than them.


Ernestas you keep using 40K (FANTASY) to deflect/discount real world arguments. You keep saying that if Chaos in the 40K world can win battles with close combat troops against powerful ranged weapons then we should be able to do so in reality as well.

The world doesn't work like that.



I know that melee combat in real life would not work. What I'm saying is that we need just little bit of push for it to be as a viable thing in futuristic environments. One thing is that we have our morals. In W40k people often do not. Here we would lack necessary tools in making people charge enemy lines, in W40k there is maddening presence of the Warp and if that fails, they have effective combat drugs like frenzone which makes anyone to beserker. What I'm saying is that we need a very small push in terms of our capacity to make W40k into modern, real-life combat.

Here is why it would work. Do you know how much trouble military has just trying to stop suicide bombers? Now imagine that these suicide bombers would not be exceptional individuals (because very few are willing to do so), but rather EVERYONE. And these people not only are charging you with bombs, melee and occasional ranged weapon, but there is an active global war going on with adversary fully capable in fighting you head on by itself. This is why these cannon fodder is dangerous. Its saps morale, ammunition and from time to time wipes out guardsmen all the while being cheap addition to main military force of your enemy who has far more dangerous, disciplined and better equipped and trained troops than these.

Don't even need to go that far back, you can f.e. look at the Wehrmacht during WW2. Pervetin use had serious drawbacks especially obvious during barbaross. Crippling the longterm effectiveness of users of it quite heavily. And we are just talking about pervetin, not druggd out completely stuff that you find in 40k.


I will have to read more about combat drugs which we had used in our world. Though, the main difference is this. We have soldiers. Soldiers are all about the long run. They require discipline, training, equipment. They are here to fight war from start to finish. Thus they need to endure as much as possible, this is why stress and requirements which they are put under usually are quite low. Any hardship is more about carrying your own logistical chain as your backpack. Combat drugs are for combat. It is to kill and be killed kind of thing. Soldiers will never be recipients of said drugs, because their value lies in long term capacity of being able to persevere, conduct complex maneuvers and to force attrition upon the enemy. Anything that messes up with their long term capacity like combat drugs is bad. This is why you do not usually hear IG, Lost and the Damned and most soldiers using combat drugs. Yet, it is perfect for beserkers of some warriors whose goal is to fight in a skirmish and provide as much tactical advantage as possible. They are not expected to survive and their worth is not in the long war. They often are being spent as ammunition of war.

Your belief is incorrect. It doesn't matter what drugs you give to people to turn them into these mythical indestructible berserkers, the body still stops working when a bullet shreds the heart, brain, lungs or any number of other organs. You still can't run when you get shot in the kneecap or your femur is shattered by a bullet in the leg even with enough drugs coursing through you to keep you high for weeks. This whole thread is people telling you you're wrong and explaining why you're wrong, followed by you...ignoring those points and restating your incorrect assertions.


That is incorrect. Human body is capable of enduring multiple bullet wounds without stopping to fight. There are critical areas of course some of which you had mentioned, but you will have to riddle a really determined opponent with bullets, set him on fire or explode him in order for him to just stop fighting.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





That is incorrect. Human body is capable of enduring multiple bullet wounds without stopping to fight. There are critical areas of course some of which you had mentioned, but you will have to riddle a really determined opponent with bullets, set him on fire or explode him in order for him to just stop fighting.


every somewhat competently trained Light infantry will just shoot into the triangle of death. Your average swiss f├╝silier has an engagement range of 300 m. and is trained for that distance.

Also why have you a new account ernestas?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator



The dark hollows of Kentucky

Glad someone else caught that. And the fact that "kelbo-hal" thinks someone can continue fighting after massive damage to vital organs (heart/and or lungs) tells me he's never actually shot anything.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

He's also never played Serious Sam - otherwise he'd know that strapping bombs to people and making them run right at you - doesn't work (I mean it does the first few times, but once you're a battle hardened warrior capable of shrugging off a few bullet holes and learning to dodge in the open - you're fine!)


edit - on a more serious note I think anyone who wants some better idea of bullet wounds might want to watch The Three Kings film. I recall they did several bullet wounds pretty well including the collapsed lung. I'm not saying its documentary style; but it does at least show that one shot to the right spot will down people.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/20 11:16:36


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




Kelbo-Hal wrote:


Your belief is incorrect. It doesn't matter what drugs you give to people to turn them into these mythical indestructible berserkers, the body still stops working when a bullet shreds the heart, brain, lungs or any number of other organs. You still can't run when you get shot in the kneecap or your femur is shattered by a bullet in the leg even with enough drugs coursing through you to keep you high for weeks. This whole thread is people telling you you're wrong and explaining why you're wrong, followed by you...ignoring those points and restating your incorrect assertions.


That is incorrect. Human body is capable of enduring multiple bullet wounds without stopping to fight. There are critical areas of course some of which you had mentioned, but you will have to riddle a really determined opponent with bullets, set him on fire or explode him in order for him to just stop fighting.


No, no, no, no, no. Just...no. The number of ways a human being can be incapacitated with even a single bullet is quite remarkable. Almost any injury to centre-mass (AKA triangle of death as Not Online mentions) will incapacitate any human being. This is to do with physiology, not psychology. All those squishy bits in the middle of a human body are necessary, and often even the smallest interruption of their function stops the human body from working properly almost instantly.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

Kelbo-Hal wrote:
Here is why it would work. Do you know how much trouble military has just trying to stop suicide bombers? Now imagine that these suicide bombers would not be exceptional individuals (because very few are willing to do so), but rather EVERYONE. And these people not only are charging you with bombs, melee and occasional ranged weapon, but there is an active global war going on with adversary fully capable in fighting you head on by itself. This is why these cannon fodder is dangerous. Its saps morale, ammunition and from time to time wipes out guardsmen all the while being cheap addition to main military force of your enemy who has far more dangerous, disciplined and better equipped and trained troops than these.


Real-world militaries have trouble dealing with suicide bombers when deployed from ambush. That is, when they're concealed among civilian populations, hidden in vehicles, or approaching a checkpoint in an urban area at high speed and you have two, maybe three seconds to respond.

IEDs in the open get shot. SVBIEDs in the open get shot. Neither of these is applicable on an open battlefield.




The Islamic State learned this lesson after continuously losing SVBIEDs to hostile fire. So they started building up-armored SVBIEDs.



Congratulations, you have resistance to small arms. Oops, infantry are still packing a ton of weapons capable of penetrating improvised armor. So they continued to innovate.



ISIL reached the point of up-armoring vehicles as SVBIEDs, turning them into two-man vehicles, with an emplaced machine gun and gunner intended to suppress the target.

And then these continued to sustain high losses against Peshmerga irregulars, and around 2017 they gave up and returned to more conventional tactics.

Have you thought about why an organization willing to go to such lengths to make suicide attacks viable, with no shortage of willing martyrs, wouldn't just strap bombs to volunteers and use them in a human wave attack like you keep insisting is viable? It's not like they're going up against a professional military, so it should be even easier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kelbo-Hal wrote:
Combat drugs are for combat. It is to kill and be killed kind of thing. Soldiers will never be recipients of said drugs, because their value lies in long term capacity of being able to persevere, conduct complex maneuvers and to force attrition upon the enemy. Anything that messes up with their long term capacity like combat drugs is bad.


Khat (Somalis), crystal meth (WW2 Germans), Dutch Courage (everybody, Renaissance Europe), intelezi and dagga (Zulus), cocaine (WW1 British, French, Germans), Benzedrine (WW2 Americans), Dextroamphetamine (post-WW2 Americans), Metraprote (Soviets and modern-day Russians).

You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Just stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kelbo-Hal wrote:
Thus they need to endure as much as possible, this is why stress and requirements which they are put under usually are quite low.


Ah yes, soldiers are typically put under low stress so as not to damage them. Military service is really just a breeze. Right. Got it.

I hope someone is enjoying this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The oscillation between 'yeah I know melee doesn't work in real life' and 'I have a sword and have studied swordfighting, and modern military trainers are unaware of the lethality of swords in close combat, so I could take on a rifleman and win!' is giving me whiplash.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/03/20 13:57:27


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





In fairness, most of you are overlooking the psychological factor of people under stress or in combat. On one hand, people have died from completely non-lethal wounds such as a .22 lodged in the thigh simply due to the stress and trauma of being shot. On the other hand there's a case where an off-duty police officer had an assailant try to carjack her SUV in her own driveway and shot her in the heart point blank with a .357 magnum. In her rage she chased him for a block on foot and gunned him down with with her 9mm service pistol - and survived.

These may be extreme cases which can't be applied to any general situation but to argue psychology isn't a strong factor in one's physiological capability is simply incorrect.

I would still have to argue however, that even determined fanaticism matched against trained forces with superior weaponry will have a very difficult if not impossible task unless there are unusual extenuating circumstances to give the fanatics another edge.
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 amanita wrote:
On the other hand there's a case where an off-duty police officer had an assailant try to carjack her SUV in her own driveway and shot her in the heart point blank with a .357 magnum. In her rage she chased him for a block on foot and gunned him down with with her 9mm service pistol - and survived.


Googled this and the only thing which seemed to somewhat match was this: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-07-13-sp-24826-story.html

In short, she was shot, did not chase the assailant a block but only followed him round her truck where she shot him. She then collapsed in her driveway and flatlined. She was able to be resuscitated by paramedics but suffered damage to her intestine, spleen, liver, stomach, heart and a broken rib from the fragmentation of a hollow point round.

She flatlined again at the hospital, requiring 45 minutes of heart massage to bring her back. Then she was in a comatose state for 7 days.

So, I don't really think it holds up as an example.

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
Dakka Veteran





Ah, thanks for finding that - it had been some years since I read the account so I had missed some of the details.

Still, for you to say it doesn't hold up as an example is rather curious. I take it you don't think people are capable of extraordinary feats when most would be incapacitated?

This reminds me of when engineers wanted to study martial artists' ability to break concrete blocks. They'd done the math and were astonished to find that the martial artists could break blocks that should have broken their hands yet they were unharmed. Subsequently they realized that the martial artist's bone density was much greater due to the healing of micro-fractures produced over time. Now this is a physiological event unaccounted for, but it relates to issue. Adrenalin, sheer willpower and belief CAN overcome in some cases where logic would indicate otherwise.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 amanita wrote:
This reminds me of when engineers wanted to study martial artists' ability to break concrete blocks. They'd done the math and were astonished to find that the martial artists could break blocks that should have broken their hands yet they were unharmed. Subsequently they realized that the martial artist's bone density was much greater due to the healing of micro-fractures produced over time. Now this is a physiological event unaccounted for, but it relates to issue. Adrenalin, sheer willpower and belief CAN overcome in some cases where logic would indicate otherwise.


Okay, but we have ample historical evidence of combatants, high as a kite on drugs, still dying to concentrated gunfire.

One of the oft-repeated examples is the experience of US Army Rangers during the 'Black Hawk Down' (Op Gothic Serpent) incident. They reported hitting Somalis who, at the height of their Khat stimulation in the early evening, were picked up by their comrades and carried out of the line of fire. This prompted an investigation into the weapons used, which determined that the FMJ ammunition used by the Rangers had a maximally terminal range of about 100yds when fired through their 14.5" M4s, after which they lost the velocity to yaw/fragment as intended.

The ammunition was redesigned to a newer standard (M855A1) and the issue was solved. Insurgents on amphetamines drop like a sack of bricks when hit by the newer ammo. They can be so strung out that they don't consciously recognize the hit, but a fist-sized hole in your heart, spinal column, or any major artery is not ignorable.

I get that adrenaline and state of mind have a huge impact on incapacitation. But there are limits.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

Not only are there limits, but as noted in the recent example above of the police officer and in others through the thread. Most people who go through a period of extreme exertion and/or injury often come out the other end at the very best exhausted to the point of collapse for days. At the other end of the scale they can be physically and mentally crippled from the experience. Sure you got what was likely 5 mins of heroic action - and you pay for it for the rest of your life.

Furthermore many required immediate medical attention in the field or very soon after in order to survive. That means you've got to have trained people, with the right resources and a clear mind on hand to save the hero. A whole unit drugged up on its own might achieve great things - then its gunned down, wounded and worn out and if alone you've just lose those soldiers.

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





 catbarf wrote:
 amanita wrote:
This reminds me of when engineers wanted to study martial artists' ability to break concrete blocks. They'd done the math and were astonished to find that the martial artists could break blocks that should have broken their hands yet they were unharmed. Subsequently they realized that the martial artist's bone density was much greater due to the healing of micro-fractures produced over time. Now this is a physiological event unaccounted for, but it relates to issue. Adrenalin, sheer willpower and belief CAN overcome in some cases where logic would indicate otherwise.


Okay, but we have ample historical evidence of combatants, high as a kite on drugs, still dying to concentrated gunfire.

One of the oft-repeated examples is the experience of US Army Rangers during the 'Black Hawk Down' (Op Gothic Serpent) incident. They reported hitting Somalis who, at the height of their Khat stimulation in the early evening, were picked up by their comrades and carried out of the line of fire. This prompted an investigation into the weapons used, which determined that the FMJ ammunition used by the Rangers had a maximally terminal range of about 100yds when fired through their 14.5" M4s, after which they lost the velocity to yaw/fragment as intended.

The ammunition was redesigned to a newer standard (M855A1) and the issue was solved. Insurgents on amphetamines drop like a sack of bricks when hit by the newer ammo. They can be so strung out that they don't consciously recognize the hit, but a fist-sized hole in your heart, spinal column, or any major artery is not ignorable.

I get that adrenaline and state of mind have a huge impact on incapacitation. But there are limits.


I agree completely. I merely wanted to mention that there are exceptions concerning the physiological impairment of combatants under unusual circumstances. Not in any way those exceptions can be relied upon tactically.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




All of this talk seems to be concentrated on the oft chance idea that a man or woman on enough drug can survive a bullet wound to engage the enemy at close combat and there cause some damage. This is not only a huge stretch, but it's basically taking into account the weakest and one of the mosty useless weapon of modern warfare: the infantry rifle. Most of modern war's casualties are caused by artillery and air strikes. The question isn't can some dude endure a gunshot wound, the question is can some dude endure artillery shells and missiles. Even if they could, close combat would still be terrible as it's a slow way to kill people.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Carnifex



Mexico

Just replace the man or woman with a drone.
   
Made in us
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel




Douglasville, GA

Even if melee was deadlier than ranged combat, there's one factor you have to account for: fatigue. Even a drone is gonna require far more energy to run up and fight in close quarters than to sit back and fire a gun. Even hopped up on drugs, a human being will reach muscle failure within a hour of strenuous melee combat, while a gunman can literally keep firing for hours. It don't matter if you can't feel any pain if you're unable to lift your arms anymore.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Carnifex



Mexico

Eh... kinda?

That is true for humans, and somewhat true for ground drones. But flying drones are going to expend the same energy anyway.

And of course explosive drones are meant to cease to exists so it's not as if energy is a truly important issue for them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/20 18:57:19


 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






epronovost wrote:
All of this talk seems to be concentrated on the oft chance idea that a man or woman on enough drug can survive a bullet wound to engage the enemy at close combat and there cause some damage. This is not only a huge stretch, but it's basically taking into account the weakest and one of the mosty useless weapon of modern warfare: the infantry rifle. Most of modern war's casualties are caused by artillery and air strikes. The question isn't can some dude endure a gunshot wound, the question is can some dude endure artillery shells and missiles. Even if they could, close combat would still be terrible as it's a slow way to kill people.


Inflicting casualties is not what war is entirely about. It's about taking ground and reducing the enemy's ability to continue fighting. If your guys are jacked up on drugs and not giving a feth then they are less likely to give up/surrender/retreat and more likely to require becoming a casualty to end their ability to fight. Drugs might be great for winning the battle (if it doesn't mess with your ability to understand and execute orders) but they generally have a long effect which is bad for the overall operation/war.

Also what that "unless" infantry rifle is doing is establishing moments of firepower superiority and allowing troops to advance and take the position. Enemy gets pushed back, loses the will to fight, they flee or surrender. All that artillery is effective at inflicting casualties but it's also great at forcing the enemy to seek cover, increase their distress, and help discourage the enemy from continuing the fight.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in us
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel




Douglasville, GA

Tyran wrote:
Eh... kinda?

That is true for humans, and somewhat true for ground drones. But flying drones are going to expend the same energy anyway.

And of course explosive drones are meant to cease to exists so it's not as if energy is a truly important issue for them.


Even a flying drone takes more energy, because they either have a weapon that needs to swing (requiring more energy both for the swing and to stabilize the drone) or thrust (about the same as above) with enough force to inflict actual damage, while avoiding the attacks coming towards it. A drone shooting at you from 100 yards away is an incredibly small target and is only threatened by things which would be nigh impossible to dodge, meaning less energy expenditure there. It DOES need to account for recoil, but even that's less taxing than stabilizing a thrust or slash. Furthermore, if it's unable to fly, it can still be dangerous at a long range (albeit with a limited area), while a melee drone would be pretty much useless.

Exploding drones are a fair point, but honestly at that point you might as well just be firing mortars at your target, for far less resources.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




To address the drone idea for close combat, this is still a stupid idea. The concept of a flying close combat drone is rather pointless. An identical flying drone with a ranged weapon would be far, far superior. It could basically defeat it's competing drone by flying away from it and shooting at it at the same time. As for the idea that a "flying suicide-bombing drone" as "close combat" weapon, this is ridiculous. We already have primitive version of those. They are called "guided missiles". They are very efficient and they are ranged weapons. If you absolutely wanted to resurrect close combat doctrines in modern or futuristic warfare, you have more chance with cavalry and even then. Their use would be extremely limited and focused on certain scenario.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vankraken wrote:
what that "unless" infantry rifle is doing is establishing moments of firepower superiority and allowing troops to advance and take the position.


That job is more often attributed to drone and air strike or light artillery support like mortars. The infantry rifle is basically icing on the cake, desperate measures or suppression in very close range engagement against enemy skirmishers. Even then, machine guns sections and sniper fire is more often favored when cannons and bombs aren't available.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/20 19:57:45


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord






Kelbo-Hal wrote:


That is incorrect. Human body is capable of enduring multiple bullet wounds without stopping to fight. There are critical areas of course some of which you had mentioned, but you will have to riddle a really determined opponent with bullets, set him on fire or explode him in order for him to just stop fighting.


That is incorrect.

Please stop posting if you're going to simply spout nonsense. This isn't Hollywood. Can a person survive multiple non-lethal gunshot wounds? Sure. Will a person who's high on meth ignore the immediate effects of a non-lethal gunshot wound? Sure. There is no motivation or drug, however, which will allow a human body to ignore actual effective gunshots. These are not "a few critical areas" that are impossible to hit or strike.

The use of lethal force, for instance, in a law enforcement capacity has three primary targets: spine, lungs, and heart. In a desperate instance the head, followed by the pelvis in more modern instruction, are "back up" locations if you don't have another option.

No motivation or drug will allow you to ignore a gunshot wound to your heart.
No motivation or drug will allow you to move and function if your spine is severed or incapacitated.
No motivation or drug will allow you to breathe if your lungs collapse.
No motivation or drug will allow you to function if a gunshot wound to the head impacts your brain significantly. (oddly you can survive weird stuff like crossbow bolts...but that's freak science and obviously a rare occurence)
No motivation or drug will allow you to walk if your pelvis is shattered.

The goal of employing a firearm - in most instances - is the immediate cessation of the threat; stopping your target immediately with the quickest available force. Can you survive a shot to your thigh, and your arm, and your shoulder, and a grazing bullet to your skull, and some shrapnel in your legs and losing a finger? Sure. 100%. Happens all the time in combat. Can adrenaline pull you through in situations like that? Yes. Is there a significant chance you bleed out in short order afterwards? Also yes. This is how you end up with Medal of Honor recipients, even posthumously awarded ones. This would be akin to taking non-lethal knife and sword wounds in a fight with someone. The first rule of a knife fight is simple: you're going to get cut.

You do not have to "riddle" someone with bullets to stop them. In fact, science and combat medicine has shown that most of the time, a simple non-lethal gunshot wound will incapacitate the average soldier or make them completely combat ineffective. There are instances where that is not the case, and those are the fringe cases you're talking about. In reality, a properly place shot will kill a person outright, two, three, or five shots...even more likely.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/20 21:32:50


 
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

There's also the fact that your option when fighting against a billion(s) strong horde isn't more guys with swords or more guys with rifles. It's artillery fired nuclear shells, buried nuclear mines, virus bombs, exterminatus, etc. You simply don't get worlds back from the Tyranids, Orks or well-entrenched chaos uprisings.

On defense, you need to stop them in space or at least keep them from landing en mass. Otherwise, see my point above.

It may be worth looking up the NATO plans for the Fulda Gap to get an idea of what our outdated forces from the late 40's to the early 90's could do about a massed assault of air, armor, and soldiers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/20 23:53:57


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

Even in the lore the Imperium generally employs copious amounts of artillery to bombard the enemy (and often their own troops sacrificed to help stop the advancing enemy forces).

In fact most of the races use artillery - even Tyranids use long ranged weapons like vast clouds of sporemines. Backed up with Exocrines, Rapture Cannon, biovores, barbed stranglers and other long ranged capable weapons. All long before gaunts and such swarm over the defensive positions.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in mx
Rampaging Carnifex



Mexico

flandarz wrote:
Exploding drones are a fair point, but honestly at that point you might as well just be firing mortars at your target, for far less resources.

Different weapon, exploding drones, also known as loitering munitions, have a far greater range than mortars. And arguably more tactically flexibility.


epronovost wrote:To address the drone idea for close combat, this is still a stupid idea. The concept of a flying close combat drone is rather pointless. An identical flying drone with a ranged weapon would be far, far superior. It could basically defeat it's competing drone by flying away from it and shooting at it at the same time. As for the idea that a "flying suicide-bombing drone" as "close combat" weapon, this is ridiculous. We already have primitive version of those. They are called "guided missiles". They are very efficient and they are ranged weapons. If you absolutely wanted to resurrect close combat doctrines in modern or futuristic warfare, you have more chance with cavalry and even then. Their use would be extremely limited and focused on certain scenario.


Guided missiles are a far different weapon from LMs. LMs are cheaper, easier to deploy and have better maneuverability at the cost of far less individual explosive power and far slower.


   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







Tyran wrote:
flandarz wrote:
Exploding drones are a fair point, but honestly at that point you might as well just be firing mortars at your target, for far less resources.

Different weapon, exploding drones, also known as loitering munitions, have a far greater range than mortars. And arguably more tactically flexibility...


Wouldn't it be cheaper to mount missiles on your drones than having to blow up the whole drone?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in mx
Rampaging Carnifex



Mexico

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Tyran wrote:
flandarz wrote:
Exploding drones are a fair point, but honestly at that point you might as well just be firing mortars at your target, for far less resources.

Different weapon, exploding drones, also known as loitering munitions, have a far greater range than mortars. And arguably more tactically flexibility...


Wouldn't it be cheaper to mount missiles on your drones than having to blow up the whole drone?


A proper UAV is far more expensive, that is the cost of requiring the systems to support missiles and of course the missiles themselves. Also the UAVs are meant to make round trips, which limits their range compared to LMs.
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Tyran wrote:
A proper UAV is far more expensive, that is the cost of requiring the systems to support missiles and of course the missiles themselves. Also the UAVs are meant to make round trips, which limits their range compared to LMs.


Even for a one-way trip you need command and control nodes along the way and those are prone to jamming or outright being blown up. Otherwise, you're looking at sentient machines or putting a servitor into each of these one-use weapons which is wasteful.

As always the best answer to a massed assault is strategic weapons not boots on the ground.
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Or more pithily:

Kill your enemy wholesale, not retail.

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 mx
Rampaging Carnifex



Mexico

 Canadian 5th wrote:


Even for a one-way trip you need command and control nodes along the way and those are prone to jamming or outright being blown up. Otherwise, you're looking at sentient machines or putting a servitor into each of these one-use weapons which is wasteful.

As always the best answer to a massed assault is strategic weapons not boots on the ground.


Strategic weapons have political downsides that make them not viable outside of literally the Armageddon.

As for the LMs, some models are actually capable of autonomous attacks, the idea being that you launch a swarm of them to overwhelm enemy AA. The LMs for this role are designed to target radar emissions.

Other roles for LMs is stealth attacks as they are quite stealthy. Remember those bombings on Saudi oil infrastructure by Houthies/Iranians? They were made using LMs.

Some models are quite small, being able to be carried and launched by infantry.
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Tyran wrote:
Strategic weapons have political downsides that make them not viable outside of literally the Armageddon.

Not in 40k and not when you're facing an unstoppable tide of enemies you can't fight with conventional weapons. We considered tactical and strategic nuclear weapons as a vital part of the defense of West Germany in the Cold War, now replace Germany with an entire planet producing vital resources and pretty much anything, including scorched earth tactics come into play. Also, consider that mere nuclear fallout is practically a utopia compared to the conditions in under hives and death worlds and 40k will pave over the craters and slap something new on top of it as if the battle never happened.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 18:21:08


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: