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.

Before I answer your question I think you need to change the title of your thread to better represent the topic as there is a differance between close quartered combat and fighting in hand to hand combat. A Shotgun is considered a close quartered weapon. So by your title shot guns, burst cannons, flamers etc shoulden't be used in 40k.

Anyway the Imperium "bothers" with hand to hand combat because it has to. Even in our modern warfare hand to hand circumstances still arise which is why every soldier (at least in the U.S) get's training in hand to hand combat. In 40k where humanity is forced to fight creatures like Orks, Tyranids and other alien races in hand to hand if you don't have some kind of hand to hand weapon you're not going to have much to defend yourself with.

As for your comparison between a cc weapon+pistol combo and a Storm Shield as I said before they have differant purposes. The Storm Shield is designed to defend against more powerfull attacks, sure it could block an Ork cleaver just as easily. But a cc weapon and pistol weapon can not only deflect that cleaver (yes even Guardsmen can do it) but they can also kill it. Also you're mistaking the purpose of the equiptment, weapons are intended to defend yourself from other weapons (even guns, shoot them before they shoot you) by attacking the user and eliminating their ability to attack you. Shields and armor are intended to simply protect the user from enemy attacks and are not intended as a weapon unless modified to be one.

So the bottom line is the Imperium trains and fights in hand to hand combat because it has to. Think of it this way, your a school kid with a sling shot and there is a bully with a big stick. You shoot him with the sling shot and unless you hit him in say the eye or you shot him with a marble (which hurts like a ) it dosen't stop him from getting in close and beating you with the stick. But if you have your own stick then you can at least block his.

Why does the Imperium?

This one is easy. They really drive the point home that the resource the Imperium has in greatest, never-ending abundance, is people. Guns take logistics, craftsmanship, proper training to actually be useful, etc.

A board with a nail in it doesn't even require the person to have all his limbs.

When you can solve any problem by throwing bodies at it, like the Imperium can, then just keep throwing bodies.

Why does anyone else?

Aside from Tau and Eldar, everyone else has some imperative to be up close. And even so, former is relentlessly bad at it, and the latter have no actual fluff behind the game mechanics we're given.

The Eldar don't have fluff behind fighting in hand to hand? 2 of the Aspects of Khaine are focused on hand to hand combat, one of their gods forged swords so that Khaine and his Chosen could fight Slaanesh. They have alot of fluff for fighting in hand to hand.

Three Aspects actually. Shining Spears are another close combat oriented unit (although less so than the Banshees and Scorpions). They also have Storm Guardians, a specific division of guardians who excel in hand to hand combat rather than ranged combat.

DarknessEternal wrote:Why does the Imperium?

This one is easy. They really drive the point home that the resource the Imperium has in greatest, never-ending abundance, is people. Guns take logistics, craftsmanship, proper training to actually be useful, etc.

A board with a nail in it doesn't even require the person to have all his limbs.

When you can solve any problem by throwing bodies at it, like the Imperium can, then just keep throwing bodies.

Why does anyone else?

Aside from Tau and Eldar, everyone else has some imperative to be up close. And even so, former is relentlessly bad at it, and the latter have no actual fluff behind the game mechanics we're given.

Bodies have never won over firepower. Just ask the chinese about a little conflict called The Korean War.

The reason why there is close combat? I guess it makes the game fun and tactical.

There is CC in 40K because there is CC in Starship Troopers:

I can see why the space marines use CCW considering their use of tactics. When deepstriking into the middle of the enemy it's probably sometimes to their advantage to engage in close combat instead of taking a gun fight. In close combat they are really superior to most of their enemies and being outnumbered is less of an issue. Running towards an objective and slashing their way forward with CCWs is probably faster than running and shooting. Their power armor is also quite resiliant to small arms fire and if they are not in close combat they take a greater risk of getting targeted by more heavy weaponry.

For the imperial guard I think it's more about using their numbers. To gain terrain they seem to enjoy using WW1 tactics and just forcing their way forward. They can run forward and shoot, but sooner or later they will run into the enemy and there is no way to stop since there are more lines of guardsmen coming from behind so they pretty much have to use whatever ccw they have.

Well this has proply nothing to do with this but this is my way of seeing it, say your playing CoD online, you run onto a room you see a guy in front of you, two choices 1. Knife him get the kill or 2. try and shoot if your lucky you might pull of the shot but if not you will proply get knifed. That is just how I think of it.

Imperium generally avoids CC.Even the Space Marine is pictured as a dude firing his bolter onto an unknown enemy,but there are exceptions to this(Feral world regiments and certain SM chapters).

Also consider that CC is useful when facing enemies like Orks and Tyranids.

sourclams wrote:

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

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

That's why we have these.

One Answer

the Tau, how else would imperium kill Tau?

Monster Rain wrote:

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

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

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

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

Artillerymen, sure - sergeants have a lot more organising to do. You think they do that for infantrymen?

Retrias wrote:One Answer

the Tau, how else would imperium kill Tau?

By mobility and shooting. Most IoM armies are much more shooty and mobile than Tau.

1. The only way to take ground against a defender who is dug in and willing to really fight is to go there and smash in his skull. No amount of gunfire, be it rifles, artillery or bombing, will ever take any measure of ground against such a defense.

2. The only reason close combat is not as common today is that lives are considered valuable, not only in a humanitarian view, but to military commanders as well. They'd rather have a tactical retreat to preserve their fighting strength so they can fight another day under better conditions than defend a hopeless position. If they were less valuable to their commanders, for example because there is a massive amount of replacements, soldiers would get sent into close combat a lot more.

3. In 40K almost every race is determined to fight for every patch of ground they happen to own, and neither aliens nor the IoM does not consider a life worth a mote of dust.

So as a result, loads and loads of close combat are, in my opinion, entirely realistic, if one can apply that word to a fantasy setting.

Note that I consider the use of guns at point-blank range, grenades and swords close combat, just like the rules guys at GW do.

1. The only way to take ground against a defender who is dug in and willing to really fight is to go there and smash in his skull. No amount of gunfire, be it rifles, artillery or bombing, will ever take any measure of ground against such a defense.

Do you thing the US soldiers went in and smashed the heads of the iraqi defence forces a couple of years back?
I heard nothing about that atleast, quite the opposite.
US (and allies) firepower was simply too much for any dfences the iraqi had.
In orther words, atleast currently no defence or armour match the amout of firepower and ability rto strike from afar current possed by modern military. (gurilla tactics is quite another matter)

So had the imperuim had our kind of military they would not rely on CC. which again leads to the conclusion theat they do simply not posses the firepower/targeting ability modern military does, and thus relies on CC to finish the job.

so in my oppinion, loads of close combat is entirely unrealistic, but still loads of fun.

Kaltenberg wrote:

1. The only way to take ground against a defender who is dug in and willing to really fight is to go there and smash in his skull. No amount of gunfire, be it rifles, artillery or bombing, will ever take any measure of ground against such a defense.

Do you thing the US soldiers went in and smashed the heads of the iraqi defence forces a couple of years back?
I heard nothing about that atleast, quite the opposite.
US (and allies) firepower was simply too much for any dfences the iraqi had.
In orther words, atleast currently no defence or armour match the amout of firepower and ability rto strike from afar current possed by modern military. (gurilla tactics is quite another matter)

So had the imperuim had our kind of military they would not rely on CC. which again leads to the conclusion theat they do simply not posses the firepower/targeting ability modern military does, and thus relies on CC to finish the job.

so in my oppinion, loads of close combat is entirely unrealistic, but still loads of fun.

I think the war in Iraq is a quite bad example on the efficieny of close combat. Look at Stalingrad in WW2, there you had a city turned to rubble and it wasn't the side with the best guns that won. I think SKylifter makes some very good points.

imweasel wrote:
Bodies have never won over firepower. Just ask the chinese about a little conflict called The Korean War.

Or the Russians about WW2...oh, wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:The Eldar don't have fluff behind fighting in hand to hand?

Given their resources, population, technology, and abilities for killing, Eldar armies should consist solely of complete badasses with unstoppable weapons and impenetrable armour, and be like 15-20 guys total.

Instead they send bakers and telephone repair men with flak jackets and slingshots.

Skylifter wrote:1. The only way to take ground against a defender who is dug in and willing to really fight is to go there and smash in his skull. No amount of gunfire, be it rifles, artillery or bombing, will ever take any measure of ground against such a defense.

This bit is true.

Skylifter wrote:2. The only reason close combat is not as common today is that lives are considered valuable, not only in a humanitarian view, but to military commanders as well. They'd rather have a tactical retreat to preserve their fighting strength so they can fight another day under better conditions than defend a hopeless position. If they were less valuable to their commanders, for example because there is a massive amount of replacements, soldiers would get sent into close combat a lot more.

Only what happens is that either the defenders or the attackers decide their own lives are more valuable intact than the bit of ground involved. Usually one side runs away before melee occurs.

Skylifter wrote:3. In 40K almost every race is determined to fight for every patch of ground they happen to own, and neither aliens nor the IoM does not consider a life worth a mote of dust.

Indeed, except for the Tau, who have a standard tactic of falling back to allow an enemy's attack to land on thin air, before counter-attacking. The game rules don't allow falling back, of course.

Skylifter wrote:So as a result, loads and loads of close combat are, in my opinion, entirely realistic, if one can apply that word to a fantasy setting.

Note that I consider the use of guns at point-blank range, grenades and swords close combat, just like the rules guys at GW do.

Kaltenberg wrote:

1. The only way to take ground against a defender who is dug in and willing to really fight is to go there and smash in his skull. No amount of gunfire, be it rifles, artillery or bombing, will ever take any measure of ground against such a defense.

Do you thing the US soldiers went in and smashed the heads of the iraqi defence forces a couple of years back?
I heard nothing about that atleast, quite the opposite.
US (and allies) firepower was simply too much for any dfences the iraqi had.
In orther words, atleast currently no defence or armour match the amout of firepower and ability rto strike from afar current possed by modern military. (gurilla tactics is quite another matter)

So had the imperuim had our kind of military they would not rely on CC. which again leads to the conclusion theat they do simply not posses the firepower/targeting ability modern military does, and thus relies on CC to finish the job.

so in my oppinion, loads of close combat is entirely unrealistic, but still loads of fun.

The iraq wars are bad examples because the iraqi military lacked in both departments: will to fight and dug in. In both wars most of their military forces had little loyalty for their commanders and they lacked actual defensive positions with more than a bit of sand to stop enemy bullets and shrapnel.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Skylifter wrote:2. The only reason close combat is not as common today is that lives are considered valuable, not only in a humanitarian view, but to military commanders as well. They'd rather have a tactical retreat to preserve their fighting strength so they can fight another day under better conditions than defend a hopeless position. If they were less valuable to their commanders, for example because there is a massive amount of replacements, soldiers would get sent into close combat a lot more.

Only what happens is that either the defenders or the attackers decide their own lives are more valuable intact than the bit of ground involved. Usually one side runs away before melee occurs.

I agree that may be the case very often. Many 40K forces are fanatical enough not to run, though. But there are actual historical examples of soldiers on both sides fighting determinedly for a worthless bit of ground, too. Endlessly assaulting the same enemy defences, with loss rations of 80% and still going at it, even when nobody in that unit actually knows what it is good for. Hamburger Hill is one, I think, and as mentioned above, Stalingrad is another. Actually, most of WWI is a good example.

So equipping troops for CC is a good idea, and most modern soldiers I know bring some kind of combat knife anywhere they go. Many are actually obsessing more over their combat knife than over their rifles, and while there certainly is a lot of machismo in that, it is also because most soldiers learn about charging the enemy and driving them from dugouts and fortified positions in their basic training or at least in their infantry specialisation training. If swords and axes weren't so unwieldy and unsuited to camouflage and keeping low to the ground, I'd have taken my bastard sword to manoeuvres all the time.

"Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!"

imweasel wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Why does the Imperium?

This one is easy. They really drive the point home that the resource the Imperium has in greatest, never-ending abundance, is people. Guns take logistics, craftsmanship, proper training to actually be useful, etc.

A board with a nail in it doesn't even require the person to have all his limbs.

When you can solve any problem by throwing bodies at it, like the Imperium can, then just keep throwing bodies.

Why does anyone else?

Aside from Tau and Eldar, everyone else has some imperative to be up close. And even so, former is relentlessly bad at it, and the latter have no actual fluff behind the game mechanics we're given.

Bodies have never won over firepower. Just ask the chinese about a little conflict called The Korean War.

The reason why there is close combat? I guess it makes the game fun and tactical.

The Red Army begs to differ.

Pen≥Sword wrote:

imweasel wrote:Bodies have never won over firepower. Just ask the chinese about a little conflict called The Korean War.

The Red Army begs to differ.

Which bit? The live bit or the dead bit?


Thinking of IG regiments:
All troopers start in the PDF;
PDF takes a hand in (I am guessing) crowd control/riot control/suppression etc.
You can't just use lasguns from 100m out on civilians, therefore, CC techniques need to be learned (a different aspect, sure).

I haven't read the whole thread so please excuse me if someone already mentioned this...

I think the imerium developed their close combat troops etc so much because it became a necessity for the enemy they are fighting. In mothern combat, relativaly small groups of soldiers with rifles fight against relativaly small groups of soldiers with rifles. The imperium faces hordes of millions of tyranids and orks, who cannot be stopped before they reach close combat. Thus it seems smart to have the assorted weaponary to meet and beat the enemy when he comes close, which he eventually will.

lg
FFE

A simple answer.

Its more viable when you have the technology to deliver a super soldier who can break his opponent in half with his bear hands into CC rather then charge head on.
thus it simply becomes an option again.

GW's own answer is the one that applies, since it's their world.

In the 40K setting, armour technology, materials and construction has outstripped ranged weapons, rendering close combat more effective than it is in 11.M03.

Skylifter wrote:

Kaltenberg wrote:

1. The only way to take ground against a defender who is dug in and willing to really fight is to go there and smash in his skull. No amount of gunfire, be it rifles, artillery or bombing, will ever take any measure of ground against such a defense.

Do you thing the US soldiers went in and smashed the heads of the iraqi defence forces a couple of years back?
I heard nothing about that atleast, quite the opposite.
US (and allies) firepower was simply too much for any dfences the iraqi had.
In orther words, atleast currently no defence or armour match the amout of firepower and ability rto strike from afar current possed by modern military. (gurilla tactics is quite another matter)

So had the imperuim had our kind of military they would not rely on CC. which again leads to the conclusion theat they do simply not posses the firepower/targeting ability modern military does, and thus relies on CC to finish the job.

so in my oppinion, loads of close combat is entirely unrealistic, but still loads of fun.

The iraq wars are bad examples because the iraqi military lacked in both departments: will to fight and dug in. In both wars most of their military forces had little loyalty for their commanders and they lacked actual defensive positions with more than a bit of sand to stop enemy bullets and shrapnel.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Skylifter wrote:2. The only reason close combat is not as common today is that lives are considered valuable, not only in a humanitarian view, but to military commanders as well. They'd rather have a tactical retreat to preserve their fighting strength so they can fight another day under better conditions than defend a hopeless position. If they were less valuable to their commanders, for example because there is a massive amount of replacements, soldiers would get sent into close combat a lot more.

Only what happens is that either the defenders or the attackers decide their own lives are more valuable intact than the bit of ground involved. Usually one side runs away before melee occurs.

I agree that may be the case very often. Many 40K forces are fanatical enough not to run, though. But there are actual historical examples of soldiers on both sides fighting determinedly for a worthless bit of ground, too. Endlessly assaulting the same enemy defences, with loss rations of 80% and still going at it, even when nobody in that unit actually knows what it is good for. Hamburger Hill is one, I think, and as mentioned above, Stalingrad is another. Actually, most of WWI is a good example.

So equipping troops for CC is a good idea, and most modern soldiers I know bring some kind of combat knife anywhere they go. Many are actually obsessing more over their combat knife than over their rifles, and while there certainly is a lot of machismo in that, it is also because most soldiers learn about charging the enemy and driving them from dugouts and fortified positions in their basic training or at least in their infantry specialisation training. If swords and axes weren't so unwieldy and unsuited to camouflage and keeping low to the ground, I'd have taken my bastard sword to manoeuvres all the time.

"Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!"

You should get hold of a copy of "Forward Into Battle" by Paddy Griffith.

And my thinking of it was the fact that the way this game is played is very 1700 and 1800 style of warfare with heavy WWI and WWII influence. Consider the fact that the armies stand across from each other in coherency, "in a line" and shoot at the other guy doing the same thing, and then they charge each other.

I've seen Glory and the Patriot and read enough about the Wars in the American Colonies and the American Civil War and even the French and Indian Wars, Heck even in the Napoleonic war it was the same style of ground based warfare. Blast them with artillery if you have it, line up, march, shoot and then charge.

They fight in hand-to-hand because everybody else does. The imperium is a sucker for peer pressure.

In other words, when most of your enemies are running at you ready to tear you limb from limb, hand-to-hand becomes vital to survive.

It's a one-upping idea, whenever your foes get new ways to get into hand-to-hand, you get a better way, until it encompasses most of war during that era unless you have enough gunfire to lay down the charging troops (even then, you have to fight eventually).

Think of the WWI trench warfare, where not much happened between the two dug in forces with the long strip of waste between them (outside of sniping) until one side charged across the no-man's-land, often dying to machine-gun fire. In 40k, it starts off the saem, but when one side charges, they can shrug off the enemy gunfire (either through sheer wieght of numbers or superior armor) and can breach the enemy defences.

Finally, if you fight in a spacecraft, given some of the guns used, you can very easily cause a hull breach with a stray shot (melta, plasma, etc).

Cryonicleech wrote:
In 40k, the concept is the same. S4 AP5 is the standard issue weapon,

Isn't it Str 3 AP- for the ubiquious lasgun?

If you think about it, the Guardsman Sv5+ is pretty awesome by today's standard... few armors could protect as well against automatic fire.

Str 4 AP5 weapon would be truly devastating on today's battlefield.