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.
If it's the 41st millennia and you are fighting rabid cultists who worship the dark gods, I'd prefer an automatic rifle over a las gun, I'd modify my ammo, to assist it to expand on impact. Remember folks, Geneva Convention is not existant. And they literally worship the dark gods and want to feed your soul to a demon god.
I'd prefer to have a squad automatic weapon over a plasma, melta or flamethrower(not much fun in your lines if that goes up...) because heavy gunfire, is great to suppress people with, and if they choose not to throw themselves into cover they will be riddled with holes. A grenade launcher would be handy.
You can cover ground fast, but if you are coming apart under enemy fire, and when you get close the enemy close into a hedge of bayonets(yeah ask the Scots at Culloden the effectiveness of swords vs bayonets) and start hurling grenades what good is the fickle blessing of the dark gods?
I mean, Khorne will certainly get his blood. Either way.
Besides the best method for melee combat, cost benefit wise, provided you have a band of rabid cultists, is to strap bombs to some of them and use them as suicide bombers. So melee combat would be effectively deterred by this potential threat...
(lol I can imagine some assault marines jumping in on a cultist squad and having a real bad day)
Against foes that are much more powerful and naturally faster than humans? Well weight of firepower is just that, outnumber them, put up a screen of fire so they can't move. Frag them to hell. Prod any of the bigger pieces that are left with your bayonet. If they move brass them up, the bayonet is mounted on the end of the weapon for a reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you don't have the numbers or firepower against superior foe you are dead anyway so aforementioned tactics to martyr yourself for the god emperor would have more effect.
Everyone got their grenades rigged? Good! Time to give those dastardly raptors a real bad day men!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: We had nuclear land mines ready for deployment in the Fulda Gap. We were fully prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a non-MAD-exchange WW3.
The Imperial Guard would have a lot less trouble with hordes of Orks, Tyranids, and other massed adversaries if they issued Davy Crocketts en masse. Sure, there'll be a radioactive crater that people will need to steer clear of for a few years, but the Imperium doesn't strike me as too concerned about mildly elevated cancer rates in the area once all the hot isotopes burn themselves out. Even if there are exclusion zones for a few decades, that's a blink of an eye for the Imperium.
LOL they use Russ eradicators that do that but on a much smaller scale.
The thing with frenzone drug in lore is that it makes person into mindless beserker. You can cut person's arm with chainsword and it won't have any effect on him. Sure, his body might be dying, but combat is often very fast and brutal. He might need a minute to bleed out and die, but he only need a second to stab you with his knife.
Yeah the Russians came across this in the Chechnyan war to varying degrees. The result was usually that the Russian soldiers shot them over and over until the 'bezerker' fell on the ground and bled to death. Surprisingly quick when everyone has automatic service rifles. For a less controversial example look at when when the police have to shoot a ice junkie who is charging at them with a knife.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Are you forgetting that things like bayonet charges largely haven't been attempted since around the time of the american civil war? Or at MOST world war 1? Automatic weapons have largely made it irrelevant. There are some limited examples of melee fighting, but it's pretty rare.
Because rounding up a bunch of boyz and charging at the enemy has proven to be disastrously catastrophic for at least a century.
I dunno about that.
As observed, the most recent bayonet charge was in Afghanistan in 2011. Bayonet charges were also successfully performed by western units during the Falklands War, Yugoslav conflict, and during the Iraq wars.
During the Korean War, both sides used bayonet charges, the Chinese very extensively so.
It's pretty easy to turn up a fairly significant number of bayonet charges made during modern conflicts with a cursory search. While not the primary weapon of any military, it is definitely still something than is still used.
In Iraq 2004 at Danny Boy there was another close quarters engagement with bayonets and no British loses, however for anyone trying to romanticise melee over ranged combat needs to go play some paintball then reconsider.
things are significantly more complicated when someone is shooting at you. That 10ft gap between buildings/cover is plenty of time for a bullet to find you. Hell, even an open doorway is enuff. or if your enemy is utilising barrier indifferent projectiles that car/wall/whatever doesnt provide any protection at all.
Barrett M82A1, turning cover into concealment for 35 years.
I prefer a 304mm rocket mortar. Been turning city blocks to rubble since 1944.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2020/04/14 13:14:03
OldMate wrote: Against foes that are much more powerful and naturally faster than humans? Well weight of firepower is just that
Or as this classic comic puts it:
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
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, my first comment was relating to Sharpe's shortcut method which doesn't use the ramrod
I love the show, but while Napoleonic-era muskets could be tap-loaded because the balls were deliberately undersized for the bore, rifles used balls sized to the bore, which have to be actually rammed through the rifling with non-negligible force- which gets progressively worse as the gun fouls. Three shots per minute is quite fast for a musket, let alone a rifle, let alone either under combat conditions.
And that's my useless bit of pedantry for the day.
Your hordes need to meet grazing fire, enfilade fire and beaten zones. Never mind barbed wire and artillery. You have a wonderfully anachronistic De Grandmaison view of warfare. I am trusting that you are tongue in cheek for this thread.
My head-cannon for Space Marines and melee is that their armour is proof against the "nerveless weapons" that stop mortals from getting into melee in the real world.
Cheers,
T2B
Yes, I'm half serious in this thread. I'm just little bit pissed that some people take it too seriously and tend to argue way too seriously over details. I also love to figure out stuff through discussion, but when someone goes and starts by saying that you are wrong in every statement you make, it is very, very annoying. I personally would behave differently in creating army than trying to rely on such things, but I'm saying what I would do if I would live in W40k. Even Imperial guard has melee formations of normal humans called Penal Legions. They too are pumped up by combat drugs and herded toward mines fields, barbed wire and machine guns and are expected all to die while someone more valuable is moving into position. In lore such formation was used to charge into demon engines and space marines with a great effect. Not because they had killed anyone, but because they almost managed to distract troops which just had reached citadel's walls from realizing that formation of super heavy tanks are maneuvering into position for direct fire in order to cover up a breach. They had bought up valuable time and were an effective distraction. An effective use of manpower in lore and I think that same concepts would work and in real life.
How I imagine melee based army made out of individuals perform in real life? I will give you a perfect example in a lore where we had exactly only hordes of madman charging into melee range against professional army full with artillery, heavy armor, machine gun and space marine support. Entrenched at the edge of jungle with a river splitting two sides. It did not end up end well for Imperial guard, but for completely different reasons than you would imagine.
Listen from 49:45 if youtube derps out. If you need context, you can go backwards a minute or two and you will get operation briefing too.
Spoiler:
This is how I imagine such army would perform in real life. The real thing that people are missing is not the combat performance of a man with a knife charging into massed professional army, but their sheer numbers. In this War, such army almost defeated space marines, defeated Imperial guard despite them being entrenched in most favorable conditions and killing them by the millions. First War of Armageddon almost did not ended in decisive defeat for Imperial Guard there is that you all forget that numbers have quality of their own. Khorne hordes were simply too large for Imperial armies to engage. They could not cover all the territory and this is what they had used. When Imperial Guard engages their hordes, elite formations of Khorne hordes moved out uncontested to high value, strategic objectives. In our world, it would be like having professional army bogged down killing millions of madman charging them while enemy formation made out of amazing tanks, artillery, ifv and soldiers going uncontested into most vital objective for a war effort. You can't do anything, because your army is bogged down and can't effectively retreat anymore.
Spoiler:
That means that I have a lot bigger reserve of units which I can use. In war of Armagedon, in order for defenders to safely ride out and set up that massive slaughter field, they had to concentrate their forces and ammunition reserves into a very small area compared to available ground for maneuver. This is when elite formations flanked through unprotected flanks and threatened to surround or get into Imperial Hive Cities. There they could had replaced all loses from those cities. So, you had killed millions of heretics in your little ambush. You think that as a success? Now you have many million more civilians turned into madness and converted into cultists. In next battle, you will be facing tens of millions of cultists, screaming and charging into your lines instead of those measly millions which you had killed prior. I want people to understand that before arguing that W40k is silly and that melee does not work. Melee does work and spectacularly so, because in W40k they have very small differences. It is not high technology that makes melee possible like super duber armor, but simply that they can drive people insane and to effectively herd them and force them to charge enemy lines. At this point, artillery shells and bullets become more expensive than manpower and stress which such charges create upon enemy lines allows more elite formations to maneuver freely and to cut off, encircle, take critical objectives, ground, etc. This is exactly what we had seen in War of Armagedon and why it is actually a viable military strategy.
Even in our world, if we could force people to charge into enemy lines with explosive collars and slave masters, melee armies would be very effective if not whittled down. The thing is, as we progress technologically, we use less and less manpower and weapon systems. They become ever more capable and destructive, but at the same time, they do not have same quantity of firepower as their older, cheaper alternatives. Like, how much bombs can 1 F-35 deliver against charging armies vs 3 F-16 at a same cost? As armies progress, this tendency just amplifies, we have smaller armies capable of doing less killing at a large scale. On the other hand, human population on Earth grows immensely. Most of them are concentrated into massive cities. Fall of even one such cities, you can think of dozen of millions of people getting converted into cultists and joining ranks of Lost and the Damned. You might kill a lot, but in the end, your squads will be easily overwhelmed if not concentrated and if concentrated, your movement is heavily restricted. Now think in real life how an army is supposed to stop millions strong invading force from getting into ANY of their cities? Evacuating hundreds of millions of people from surrounding area is not an easy task which could be done quickly and it will heavily disturb running of an entire nation. If Khorne worshippers land anywhere on this planet, even without all high tech things, just ability to convert people into cultists, it would be already a major war of Earth. We would not be capable of stopping so much manpower to getting into major cities where our combat potential would drop dramatically compared to open field engagements. From there those millions would multiply into tens of millions of fresh cultists who would spread further in all directions or if needed would be focused into giant encirclement maneuvers. You can't move your army, because you have no more than hundred thousand troops on a ground, rest are support personnel, in navy, avation, etc. These troops have to be dispatched through thousands of kilometers of land in order not to be flanked. Otherwise if they focus somewhere in one place, you can move your formations through loosely protected flanks deep into enemy ground. In addition, when attacker has this massive numbers advantage, it can defeat you in detail. Focusing a lot bigger numbers on your position somewhere where you have least stuff and break through there thus forcing you to retreat from your all positions as enemy will start flooding in from a single gap in your lines.
I hope, I had explained logic behind such troops in a way you understand how I think. I do not think that melee in W40k is illogical. I see how it can be done if we agree that certain things about our world can be different. And any other disagreement which I have is rather over extremes. People do not think that a guy with a knife is dangerous up close if they have a gun. This was a major point with which I had disagreed. I think, it is extremely silly for people to try and prove that having an assault rifle in a room makes a knife obsolete, but here we are. Other disagreements were about effectiveness of small arms fire. Soldiers have this unshakable beliefs in their rifles and firepower superiority. I on the other hand, believe in armor, ambushes and speed. I'm afraid of unseen threat, I'm afraid that there is someone behind the corner waiting to ambush me and I won't be able to react quickly enough. This is where my fears lies and differences between me and other people. I disagree that an assault rifle is best weapon in all cases and I value different things. Like pistols, like swords in those extreme close combat cases. Or ability to blend in with a terrain, use camouflage and stealth to get awfully close to the enemy and wipe out threats in an ambush while quickly melting away in dense terrain.
Btw: Ironically, even real life bolter would be a good weapon for me which historically was proven to be a bad weapon. Trading range for destructive firepower.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2020/04/18 18:52:17
"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.
You are aware that a massive horde of slaves with explosive collars, combat drugs and slave-master is going to require a massive suply chain for their food, water, medical equipment (if only for the slave-masters), etc. Plus a horde walking on foot for days on hand arrives in a combat zone exhausted with bloodied feet and injured back isn't exactly all that scarry. It's difficult to move such large quantity of troops in coordonated manner. It requires an extansive communication network and a large number of commanders to act on those information and relay them up the chain of command in a timely manner. If that system is ever damaged, it would leave you with a lot of immobile asset or uncoordonated assets that might start fighting each others in the confusion. 40K makes very little sense and the only way it's semi-believable is with the introduction of magic.
Ernestas wrote: Yes, I'm half serious in this thread. I'm just little bit pissed that some people take it too seriously and tend to argue way too seriously over details.
That's bs and you know it. You've been taking it completely seriously for this entire thread without a hint of exaggeration; you're just saying this as a cop-out after everyone's told you over and over again that you're wrong.
For anyone entering the thread now: This guy has claimed that swords beat guns in modern-day close-quarters fighting, because the fact that he does swordfighting for fun has given him unique insight that combat vets, SWAT officers, and military instructors are too set in their ways to recognize.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/18 19:57:21
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
You are aware that a massive horde of slaves with explosive collars, combat drugs and slave-master is going to require a massive suply chain for their food, water, medical equipment (if only for the slave-masters), etc. Plus a horde walking on foot for days on hand arrives in a combat zone exhausted with bloodied feet and injured back isn't exactly all that scarry. It's difficult to move such large quantity of troops in coordonated manner. It requires an extansive communication network and a large number of commanders to act on those information and relay them up the chain of command in a timely manner. If that system is ever damaged, it would leave you with a lot of immobile asset or uncoordonated assets that might start fighting each others in the confusion. 40K makes very little sense and the only way it's semi-believable is with the introduction of magic.
This is where you are wrong. This is Chaos we are talking about and slaves. They do not need much in terms of support and humans can march very far indeed. Look at historic death marches, even half dead people can beat huge distances in freezing cold with no water or food as human body just refuses to give in and bloody die. Furthermore, you are thinking in terms of Order. Think in terms of Chaos. You do not need to coordinate hordes. All what you need to do is to ensure that there is enough of them where you need them, rest will do something useful by themselves. Raid countryside, will slip by gaps in defense, capture town, etc. As for food, water. We are living in post scarcity society. Even before industrial revolution, armies were living on the land, scavenging. There wasn't any supply chains big enough to supply a whole army. In our or any sufficiently advanced world, there is food bloody everywhere. In every small town there is enough food and water for thousands of soldiers to last for weeks or more. If you capture a major city, you can feed armies for seasons. Furthermore, it is not like food is such precious commodity when life expectancy of a slave is such low and most valuable resource are those explosive collars and drugs which you put on them.
That's bs and you know it. You've been taking it completely seriously for this entire thread without a hint of exaggeration; you're just saying this as a cop-out after everyone's told you over and over again that you're wrong.
For anyone entering the thread now: This guy has claimed that swords beat guns in modern-day close-quarters fighting, because the fact that he does swordfighting for fun has given him unique insight that combat vets, SWAT officers, and military instructors are too set in their ways to recognize.
Not at all. It is just you who took this way too seriously and started by stating really curious things. Like that new bullets are by 999% more effective than old bullets without stating how. Then you proceed to harass and insult me when you ran out of arguments. I wanted not to name you directly, but you are a person which I meant previously who thinks that just by having a gun, makes you invulnerable to anyone with a melee weapon when they are standing next to you.
In addition, even SWAT officers agree with me. They use pistols (sub machine guns) and shields. Instead of addressing those points you just kept harassing me throughout pages as you lack any arguments to back up your beliefs.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/19 17:58:06
"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.
Ernestas wrote: Not at all. It is just you who took this way too seriously and started by stating really curious things. Like that new bullets are by 999% more effective than old bullets without stating how.
Shouldn't you be at least somewhat versed in terminal ballistics before making a thread like this? I'm not talking about looking up FBI penetration and lethality tests, or casualty breakdowns from recent battlefields, but just watching something like The Wound Channel, InRange TV, or C&Rsenal on YouTube.
In addition, even SWAT officers agree with me. They use pistols (sub machine guns) and shields. Instead of addressing those points you just kept harassing me throughout pages as you lack any arguments to back up your beliefs.
First, an SMG isn't a pistol, they just fire a pistol caliber round. Second, many law enforcement agencies are moving away from the SMG towards military-style carbines. Third, the job of a SWAT team is to ensure that everybody, even the criminal, survives the raid so, in theory, they arm themselves for defense so they have time to subdue the bad guy and secure the scene.
There's a reason why the modern military doesn't use that same equipment for breach and clear operations and instead prefer rifles, grenades, and the occasional shotgun for opening locked doors. Going further back we also used flamethrowers for clearing enemy structures.
Most people who get shot tend to stop taking aggressive action. Even if they're not dead, ruptured organs, shredded muscles, shattered bones, burst lungs, tend to make continued combat difficult. Yes there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.
I agree. The issue here is two fold. Why there are exceptions. I believe in finding answers to all questions and merely stating that "there are exceptions" is not good enough for me. How a person can keep on fighting with immense damage to his body? What makes one an exceptional individual. I had touched that in my previous comment.
Secondly, we are not speaking about normal people. We are speaking about people who are drugged up. If they are not on drugs then they are worshippers of Khorne. That means that they are very, very angry and want to die, because that means that they died well and Khorne will judge their souls kindly. And then person really wants something, merely rupturing an organ is not enough to discourage him. Only most critical damage will kill human instantly and then we are talking about dozen of seconds of fighting. It takes an uncomfortable long time for person to die when we are fighting in conditions I had originally mentioned.
Whoa, hold up, full stop. STOP.
No.
I guarantee you a modern rifle will be orders of magnitude more effective at killing people than a musket will be. What you may be confused about is the staggering number of rounds used in combat to kill an individual enemy combatant. This is not due to weapons being ineffective, but rather to these weapons being insanely well supplied, turned on anything even remotely scary, and used to hose it with firepower. This isn't always done with the intent to kill, but to suppress. Suppression is 99% of shooting in combat, ensuring an enemy has no chance to pop up or cross an area or disturb your own crossing. Suppression of this kind simply was not a thing in previous eras, it is a reflection of modern industrialized warfare. Do not mistake being profligate with ammunition as being ineffective.
I have in my home right now swords, knives, axes, shields, and firearms of various types. You ask me what I want to defend myself with, I'm not reaching for the musket, I'm not reaching for a sabre or dussack, I'm sure as hell not reaching for a longsword, I'm going to grab a modern firearm, because it will be by far the most effective tool for that job.
Yes, this is what I had meant exactly. Soldiers are extremely trigger happy and will go full dakka dakka on a vague belief that there might be an enemy soldier. This results in firearms being used at their maximum range with very low kill probabilities. The bigger, more effective weapon you give to a soldier, the more he is inclined of becoming an Ork with his new dakka. We can see this from just how less and less deadly modern battlefields are becoming. Before you would have entire fields of dead and dying. Thousands would be slain in few moments by firearms. Now, after an intense battle we had 1 wounded soldier...Our attrition is unusually low and most threats are being dealt indirectly via air strikes and artillery. I wanted to write that in order to see if anyone is reading and I was inspired after discovering that myself. Though, this doctrine betrays another weakness of modern day soldier. They are used to expend large amounts of ammunition to achieve suppression (which I do not understand why, I mean, throw a smoke grenade and move out) this in turn will lead to situations where soldiers waste too much ammunition on threats which are too far away to be dispatched reliably and they won't have enough when real assaults begins. I had heard that even today we have issues with ammo despite how much soldiers are carrying, now imagine that you have to fight hordes of enemy soldiers whole day long. They are not really capable soldiers, but they have guns who are capable of killing you and you have to laboriously clear them out of their houses and positions. During such fighting, soldiers will get entangled, use up their ammunition and might not be ready for counter charges. Remember, I considered 1:35 kill ratio as quite good. I play different game than trying to maximize kill count.
Though, I do agree that modern weapons are more and more effective. I just wanted to highlight that despite more deadly weapons, soldiers became less efficient in killing others with them. Mostly due to their doctrines of maximum firepower, engaging enemy at ineffective distance and then suppressing them until someone else can deal with them. I was also quite surprised to find out that instead of aiming and carefully planning firing lines, ambushes, stealth, maneuver. Soldiers are more dakka dakka kind nowadays. And we laugh at Orks. In fact, Orks are the ones who had the right idea all this time!
There's a wee bit of misunderstanding and myth in this example, but no, the Russian's didn't just bodily absorb bullets and keep fighting as literal zombies, and the position was lost to the Germans within days. Great example of bravery under some of the first gas attacks by the defenders, but it's not what you're trying to make it out to be either.
That was an imagery which came to German soldiers. I had shown a real world example where soldiers came into terrain which was transformed into a hell hole and they were attacked by troops out of nowhere which they thought were dead. They had charged them with bayonets and despite all the modern weaponary, they fled. Why then Germans did not fired them and they had died? People here are forgetting one massive element when talking about military matters. It is a psychological element and it is just as important. If for example you see a massive brute charging and he has an armor plate on his body. You fire and fire, but you keep hitting that plate and you can't see that your bullets are penetrating and going into his flesh. You start panicking, because everyone had lied to you. Your weapon can't stop him. Then you either freeze in fear or flee like it had happened in that case. Chaos is a very similar case. Rag tag bunch of individuals. They all look horrible. Some are deformed monsters. Others are carrying skulls and other trophies which makes them look intimidating. Most soldiers would break, especially ones without preference for combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shouldn't you be at least somewhat versed in terminal ballistics before making a thread like this? I'm not talking about looking up FBI penetration and lethality tests, or casualty breakdowns from recent battlefields, but just watching something like The Wound Channel, InRange TV, or C&Rsenal on YouTube.
Yes, I know quite a bit about small arms.
First, an SMG isn't a pistol, they just fire a pistol caliber round. Second, many law enforcement agencies are moving away from the SMG towards military-style carbines. Third, the job of a SWAT team is to ensure that everybody, even the criminal, survives the raid so, in theory, they arm themselves for defense so they have time to subdue the bad guy and secure the scene.
There's a reason why the modern military doesn't use that same equipment for breach and clear operations and instead prefer rifles, grenades, and the occasional shotgun for opening locked doors. Going further back we also used flamethrowers for clearing enemy structures.
First, this is why I had wrote it in an (enclosed manner) to show my subjective opinion. Though, you can call it however you like, those are two handed pistols for me. Their purpose is all the same, they are only enlarged versions of their smaller brethren. Also, thank you for confirming what I had said. They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines. Was going more on a basis of my country rather than USA. Furthermore, we had used them only to highlight my point in previous debate about nature of a weapon. SMG have qualities which makes it a better close quarters weapon. This is why SWAT had preferred it over assault rifle. Thus it proves me right over catbarf that a weapon physical qualities matters and having assault rifle in close quarters is not an ideal weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The goalposts have moved so far during this whole discussion I think they're on a different filed playing a different sport now. I'm not even sure what you're really arguing any more.
The whole thing about Hollywood misrepresenting modern warfare and the effects of bullets is hilarious next to the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding that follows. Vaktathi's already touched on the "muskets are more accurate than modern rifles" hilarity which instantly torpedoes any credibility you might have still had (not that there was much anyway) but there's also the fact that all these examples you keep putting out there are often only known about because of how remarkable they are. Yes, some people have survived after having limbs blown off, and even continued fighting in some cases. The only reason we really know about them is precisely because they're so remarkable and out of the ordinary. 99.99% of people will stop fighting after those sort of injuries and more often than not it's because of physical, not mental, reasons.
Also, I have to pick up on the whole "will to live" rubbish too. It would be funny if it wasn't so insultingly ignorant. This idea that people die because they lack the mental fortitude to shrug off a physiological effect is, quite simply, dangerously incorrect and, especially in the current crisis, disgustingly so. Dude, this idea that you can just "tough it out" has no basis in science or medicine. It doesn't matter how great your mental fortitude is if your vital organs are all shutting down due to an infection or cancer or any number of other deadly conditions. The idea that you just need a positive mental attitude is exactly the kind of stupidity that's going to prolong the current crisis and we've already seen people breaking self-isolation and carrying on as if everything is normal because they think they're young and healthy and therefore invulnerable to harm. Ordinarily I might give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was yet another misinterpretation of the fact that improved recovery from major trauma and illness has been linked to attitude and mental factors but at this stage I think you're frankly just making stuff up that fits your required narrative.
At this point, I think it's obvious to anyone but you that you really don't know what you're talking about. Every single post is filled with inaccuracies, misunderstood "evidence", confirmation bias and a severely skewed view of how...well...anything works in the real world.
This is called: a debate. We have to touch reasoning behind it in order to discover if a statement is correct or not. This is why to some it might appear that goalposts are constantly moving. In the end, people here could not prove even a single point to the contrary to what I had said despite your claim that "everything I had said is wrong". I'm quite disappointed in you all to be honest. People here constantly get stuck up on silly things which they can't prove. Instead they act like experts on all things, despite their limited experience and understanding. If you disagree with anything, they act arrogantly and ultimately use only ad hominem in trying to bully out you out of discussion. I'm disappointed to know that most people are like this these days. If you have ideas which are different than their own, that means that you are an idiot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OldMate wrote: If it's the 41st millennia and you are fighting rabid cultists who worship the dark gods, I'd prefer an automatic rifle over a las gun, I'd modify my ammo, to assist it to expand on impact. Remember folks, Geneva Convention is not existant. And they literally worship the dark gods and want to feed your soul to a demon god.
I'd prefer to have a squad automatic weapon over a plasma, melta or flamethrower(not much fun in your lines if that goes up...) because heavy gunfire, is great to suppress people with, and if they choose not to throw themselves into cover they will be riddled with holes. A grenade launcher would be handy.
You can cover ground fast, but if you are coming apart under enemy fire, and when you get close the enemy close into a hedge of bayonets(yeah ask the Scots at Culloden the effectiveness of swords vs bayonets) and start hurling grenades what good is the fickle blessing of the dark gods? I mean, Khorne will certainly get his blood. Either way.
Besides the best method for melee combat, cost benefit wise, provided you have a band of rabid cultists, is to strap bombs to some of them and use them as suicide bombers. So melee combat would be effectively deterred by this potential threat... (lol I can imagine some assault marines jumping in on a cultist squad and having a real bad day)
Against foes that are much more powerful and naturally faster than humans? Well weight of firepower is just that, outnumber them, put up a screen of fire so they can't move. Frag them to hell. Prod any of the bigger pieces that are left with your bayonet. If they move brass them up, the bayonet is mounted on the end of the weapon for a reason.
Hell yeah! Someone who finally understands.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2020/04/19 19:16:23
"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.
I mean let's be honest, Ernesta's self-important blathering here doesn't even exactly match with how melee is handled in 40k, let alone real life.
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
Frankly, that sounds like BS. You don't seem to know the first thing about weapons, let alone tactics, strategy, or logistics.
First, this is why I had wrote it in an (enclosed manner) to show my subjective opinion. Though, you can call it however you like, those are two handed pistols for me.
That ignores little details like the barrel length and increased muzzle energy on an SMG versus a pistol and is thus wrong, like everything else you've posted in this thread.
Also, thank you for confirming what I had said. They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines.
Melissia wrote: I mean let's be honest, Ernesta's self-important blathering here doesn't even exactly match with how melee is handled in 40k, let alone real life.
Please elaborate.
Frankly, that sounds like BS. You don't seem to know the first thing about weapons, let alone tactics, strategy, or logistics.
I had corrected a lot of people here and informed about what they do not know. I think, I'm one of more knowledgeable people here.
hat ignores little details like the barrel length and increased muzzle energy on an SMG versus a pistol and is thus wrong, like everything else you've posted in this thread.
That is irrelevant. They are bigger versions of a smaller weapon, of course they will have some differences. They still fire same ammunition and are good at a similar roles. The real problem is that you are attacking personal views which author himself stated to be as his own and not objective. You seem to be eager to attack someone else for bizarre reasons. Is this to what I had reduced you? You have pages upon pages of things to disagree on and you stick with a thing which I myself stated from a get go to be a subjective viewpoint? Is this what you think proves that I know nothing in your eyes? You seem unreasonably hostile, especially in gaming forum, I suggest you to take a break.
You're also wrong here:
The very first weapon in your link shows a sub-machine gun...Like seriously, read what you are quoting. Furthermore, mere showing of all the weapons being used does not invalidate what I was saying. My argument was very specific, that assaulting closed areas, police prefers to use sub-machine guns. In addition, your second link also doesn't say anything. If they are to be equipped with assault rifles, so why they were using sub-machine guns prior to that?
Here is an answer why:
However, submachine guns are still used by military special forces and police SWAT teams for close quarters battle (CQB) because they are "a pistol-caliber weapon that's easy to control, and less likely to over-penetrate the target".
So called "experts at everything" were beaten by first lines of a wiki article...Or now you are going to disagree even with that as a part of me getting everything wrong?
I had done some further digging, this is why sub-machine guns are being replaced:
Unfortunately, the same asset that made it the primary choice for CQB work (being a pistol caliber weapon that's easy to control, and less likely to over-penetrate the target) has also come to be its biggest limitation with regard to being the weapon of choice today. On the law enforcement side of the house, with the 1997 North Hollywood bank shootout, the police found themselves out-gunned with their pistol caliber weapons while dealing with two rifle-wielding body armored-up assailants. Because it took so many rounds to finally put the robbers down, it was decided that not just SRT-type teams needed rifles, but also normal patrolmen who might find themselves as first responders to an incident.
The second and a major issue that has dropped the submachine gun down on the list as a primary tool for CQB is its range limitations. Since the global war on terror [GWOT] began, the military has had to deal with one crucial factor that most police departments and stateside HRT teams generally don't have to deal with when it comes to CQB. In addition to having to shoot targets at room distance in the target building, military operators also have to deal with a 360-degree threat of targets out to medium distance as you approach and depart the target area.
So, this is merely because threats they are facing requires bigger firepower as police has to transform itself more and more to soldiers. Furthermore, this article is also wrong according to these internet experts, because it agrees with me by portraying a wrong image that a person did not died easily from any weapon which had hit him.
Because it took so many rounds to finally put the robbers down
So, please explain me how this is possible. A person stops fighting after 1 shot from a trained soldier or swat officer. yet, here it says that these people simply wouldn't die. How can they not die if any shot essentially means a mission kill? You people go into such extreme positions and you will never admit in being wrong. I expect fully for you to ignore this point too and proceed with further personal attacks to prove your points.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/04/19 19:39:47
"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.
Ernestas wrote: I had corrected a lot of people here and informed about what they do not know. I think, I'm one of more knowledgeable people here.
The Dunning–Kruger effect called. It would like a word with you.
That is irrelevant. They are bigger versions of a smaller weapon, of course they will have some differences. They still fire same ammunition and are good at a similar roles. The real problem is that you are attacking personal views which author himself stated to be as his own.
Except that they aren't used interchangeably or even for similar roles. You won't, for example, see a beat cop carrying an SMG at his hip instead of a service pistol. Nor will you see a SWAT team going in with nothing but a pistol at their hip.
The very first weapon in your link shows a sub-machine gun...Like seriously, read what you are quoting. Furthermore, mere show of all the weapons being used does not invalidate what I was saying. My argument was very specific, that assaulting closed areas, police prefers to use sub-machine guns. In addition, your second link also doesn't say anything. If they are to be equipped with assault rifles, so why they were using sub-machine guns prior to that?
You said, "They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines." Try reading what you yourself have written before correcting others. You'll get fewer insults hurled at you that way.
However, submachine guns are still used by military special forces and police SWAT teams for close quarters battle (CQB) because they are "a pistol-caliber weapon that's easy to control, and less likely to over-penetrate the target".
What does any of this have to do with the price of tea in china? Especially when SMG or Carbine both weapons are ranged and eminently practical? Wasn't the thrust of your argument that these specialized teams should be using clubs and swords instead of any form of ranged weapon because 'Ranged Combat is Impractical'?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/19 19:37:58
The Dunning–Kruger effect called. It would like a word with you.
And it applies to people who are quick to call on this. It is ad hominem attack. The moment they ran out of arguments and were disproven in their points, they started to attack me personally. This means that you are susceptible to Dunning-Kruger effect, not me.
Except that they aren't used interchangeably or even for similar roles. You won't, for example, see a beat cop carrying an SMG at his hip instead of a service pistol. Nor will you see a SWAT team going in with nothing but a pistol at their hip.
Their qualities are similar, easy to control and they use same ammunition. I based my views on that. Furthermore, I also base my views on that there is awfully small difference between pistols which looks like submachine guns and submachine guns who looks like pistols.
Both are useful in exact same situation in which you would like to use them.
You said, "They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines." Try reading what you yourself have written before correcting others. You'll get fewer insults hurled at you that way.
Europe is a big place. There are a lot of nations in Europe. Each of those nations are highly independent, they are essentially a different world all to itself. It would be like you are from Canada, right? So, even if Mexico is in America, I couldn't say that they use in Mexico X weapon and thus Canadians also use X weapon, because they are both located in America.
ou said, "They use SMG instead of rifles. I'm know that they use a lot of different weapons in USA, but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines." Try reading what you yourself have written before correcting others. You'll get fewer insults hurled at you that way.
No, an argument went like this. Catbarf claimed that having an assault rifle in close quarters is always the best option. I had said that no, different weapons have different handling qualities and thus, assault rifles are not ideal in close quarters. I said that pistol would be better than assault rifle in close quarters due to superior handling characteristics which would result in better control of a weapon. He of course had disagreed on that too. Then he brought up SWAT. I said that SWAT uses sub-machine guns. Then other people joined upon argument and said that they are now using more weapons. Sure, I agree with that, but all of that doesn't mean I was wrong in my argument. As for melee weapons, I say that a melee weapon is just as dangerous as ranged weapon when you are in range of a melee weapon. At most I had said that a swordmaster would have decisive advantage over someone in melee when he is standing in melee with them himself due to sword being easier, quicker to control and being able to parry assault rifle. This is the most I had said about melee being better than a ranged weapon. I only said that WHEN you are in melee, a guy with an assault weapon is quite screwed. Some people went to such foolish extremes to argue that they will always beat someone with a melee weapon while holding an assault rifle despite them being in melee range already. So, I was stuck in arguing for a page or two that no, if someone is standing next to you with a knife, you are really screwed and I got a lot of hate for that.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/04/19 19:58:16
"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.
Ernestas wrote: And it applies to people who are quick to call on this. It is ad hominem attack. The moment they ran out of arguments and were disproven in their points, they started to attack me personally. This means that you are susceptible to Dunning-Kruger effect, not me.
Ah, the school ground I'm rubber and you're glue defense! I've not seen that attempted since grade-school.
Their qualities are similar, easy to control and they use same ammunition.
Name their other similar qualities.
Europe is a big place. There are a lot of nations in Europe. Each of those nations are highly independent, they are essentially a different world all to itself. It would be like you are from Canada, right? So, even if Mexico is in America, I couldn't say that they use in Mexico X weapon and thus Canadians also use X weapon, because they are both located in America.
You made a blanket statement about Europe using exclusively SMGs and not using carbines. I proved you wrong.
No, an argument went like this. Catbarf claimed that having an assault rifle in close quarters is always the best option.
It is if you're looking for a lethal option against anybody in the room. Which is why I brought up the difference between a SWAT teams and their goals and the military.
I had said that no, different weapons have different handling qualities and thus, assault rifles are not ideal in close quarters.
Given that this thread is about military engagements and not police operations, find a single modern first-world military that agrees with your assessment and maintains SMGs for anything other than that PWD role or other extremely niche use cases.
I say that a melee weapon is just as dangerous as ranged weapon when you are in range of a melee weapon.
That is not at all what your opening post to this thread said. You're either trolling, lying, or mentally disadvantaged if you can't see that.
Ernestas wrote: This is where you are wrong. This is Chaos we are talking about and slaves. They do not need much in terms of support and humans can march very far indeed. Look at historic death marches, even half dead people can beat huge distances in freezing cold with no water or food as human body just refuses to give in and bloody die.
Historically people in "death march" didn't fight and were moving much more slowlyy than a well fed army walking on foot. If you are in starvation mode you lose muscle mass very quickly and disease will spread like a wildfire within your troop and reducing their combat effectiveness further. when you shoot them with combat drug, instead of going beserk and charge forward, most of them will simply have a heart attack and die on the spot or after a few seconds of intense activity.
Furthermore, you are thinking in terms of Order. Think in terms of Chaos. You do not need to coordinate hordes. All what you need to do is to ensure that there is enough of them where you need them, rest will do something useful by themselves.
And that requires coordination and excellent communication between your various hordes and your more elite troops. If you lead it to chance, your hordes migh collide with one another, one could be movingg toward wild areas of no use and other might change direction leaving your precious elite elements or command structure defenceless to a raid or counter-attack.
Raid countryside, will slip by gaps in defense, capture town, etc. As for food, water. We are living in post scarcity society.
No we are not living in a post scarcity and the Imperium even less. The casual Imperial citizen in a Hive World lives on a starvation diet of food mostly produced outside the planet itself and that if, faced by giant hordes of troops, your enemy doesn't use a scroched earth tactic, destroying anything valuable
Even before industrial revolution, armies were living on the land, scavenging. There wasn't any supply chains big enough to supply a whole army.
No, they were not living off the land, they had freight trains. If they didn't the army would disolved and died quickly. Every army was followed by a train of non-combattant carrying food, medical supplies, tents, etc. It's what made the Roman army so mobile, it's logistical train, road and fort system to supply their troops. Medieval armies could survive a little bit more easily from pillaging, but the reality was that those army were very small. Joan of Arc is a famous commander who fought and won several important battles with about 5000 troops in her command and at the time, it was considered a sizeable force. One of the largest battle of Medieval Europe was the battle of Agincourt where 10 000 British knights and men-at-arms fought about 20 000 French Knights. The French army had a train of about 10 000 people to feed and manage the army. These are ridiculously small numbers. ISIS, an insurgency group, not even a proper army, could count at it's peak about 70 000 combattants.
In our or any sufficiently advanced world, there is food bloody everywhere. In every small town there is enough food and water for thousands of soldiers to last for weeks or more. If you capture a major city, you can feed armies for seasons
That's also ridiculously false. There is actually very little reserve of food and goods in towns and cities. The COVID-19 outbreak should have tought you that. You can run out of things very fast after a lock down and imagine, our current lockdown is a very soft one. Those reserve of food aren't usable on the go either. You can't eat grain, flour or raw meat. In a recently conquered town, your slow moving hordes of self exploding slaves will take massive casualties to occupy a town where civilians have already pillaged food and valuables and where power and water is down and that's if the town didn't evacuated and was torched before you could step in it. Since your horde are moving slowly, it could take them four or five hours to arrive, walking in the outskirt of a city before if they were detected by a sentry in a lookout tower, if they have aircraft reconnaissance or scouts, it could be days, even weeks before you attack any town. Your big horde is also vulnerable to losing its overseers to snipers and partisan action. A river with a destroyed bridge would stop it dead in its track, etc. Plus, your horde needs to find those recerves of food and generators to cook it and transform it if they want to extand beyond their logistical chain. Plus, a diet of starvation followed by gluts will reduce the effectiveness of your hordes who will fall sick and some might die of it.
Furthermore, it is not like food is such precious commodity when life expectancy of a slave is such low and most valuable resource are those explosive collars and drugs which you put on them.
If you want them fit for combat and expect them to walk there, an average male slave will consume about 3000 calories worth of food every day, almost as much as two sedentary men and it's going to take them weeks to go anywhere. Their life expectancy in combat might be very short, but they need to be alive for months if they want to conquer an area the size of a small country. It would take at least five months of forced march in a perfectly straight line without anything to stop you to cross Canada from East to West. Are you drugs, even in the best preservation condition, lasting that long in reserve?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/19 20:02:32
Outside of what I had mentioned, it is size. These weapons are usually smaller than other weapons. Possess less powerful rounds and thus rounds are less dangerous and do not overpenetrate. Lower recoil than of other weapons, but a lot of those qualities come from using same caliber ammunition which is a biggest deal.
You made a blanket statement about Europe using exclusively SMGs and not using carbines. I proved you wrong.
I had said that in my region they still use sub-machine guns. This isn't a blanket statement, you just did not paid attention to what I was saying specifically. Furthermore, you showing that police is moving towards assault rifles does not invalidate my points at all. It only proves me right.
It is if you're looking for a lethal option against anybody in the room. Which is why I brought up the difference between a SWAT teams and their goals and the military.
It isn't. Police moves out to bigger calibers, because they more and more often have to fill roles of soldiers and sub-machine guns prove inadequate for roles they were chosen for. SWAT officers actually prefer sub-machine guns for CQB and lethality of a weapon is not at all the primary concern to them. It only means that your rounds will overpenetrate and your weapon will be harder to control.
When you look back in time, the MP5 SMG had two attributes that made it the logical choice for hostage rescue CQB work; the first and most important attribute is that it is controllable on full-auto at room distance. During the assault on the Iranian embassy, the SAS shot in full-auto bursts at their targets. This is where the submachine gun shines, and is exactly how I feel it should be employed. Second, because it is a pistol caliber, over penetration of the target is minimized. This is crucial for hostage rescue work. The last thing you want to do is engage a threat and have it go thru and hit the person you are trying to save.
You might have a point if you would claim that you want to really kill that charging brute, but you need to work on your statements man. They are outright wrong and it is child's play to disprove me, even on grounds where I myself agree on it being just my own subjective view and that I'm ignorant on recent developments.
Given that this thread is about military engagements and not police operations, find a single modern first-world military that agrees with your assessment and maintains SMGs for anything other than that PWD role or other extremely niche use cases.
That ignores completely the argument which we had. First agree that SMGs are easier to control than assault rifles in CQB engagements. You are moving debate goals when you encounter something which you cannot argue against and then people wrongly accuse me of shifting debate goals.
That is not at all what your opening post to this thread said. You're either trolling, lying, or mentally disadvantaged if you can't see that.
I had said that during further debates and in opening statement, you will find nothing touching that exact topic. In there I had spoke mainly about how deceptively quickly melee combatants can close the distance. Why you pretend to be such huge authority and hostile when you yourself are ignorant of debate which I had? You jump into 13 long thread, I do not expect you to know everything that had happened, especially over such long period, but you place yourself into such unreasonable and hostile position that it makes me wonder about your character. This is also exactly why this thread went astray, people in a similar, extremely hostile and personal manner would take extreme positions. First they will be arrogant and condescending, later they will turn hostile and start to attack me personally. This is where Dunning–Kruger really manifests and I'm sad seeing that you too can't be more reasonable. In this thread, I was heavily disappointed by many members of this community to be honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post: epronovost, I will address your comment tomorrow or even later since Canadian 5th is such a hassle. I will mention just one thing now.
Historically people in "death march" didn't fight and were moving much more slowlyy than a well fed army walking on foot. If you are in starvation mode you lose muscle mass very quickly and disease will spread like a wildfire within your troop and reducing their combat effectiveness further. when you shoot them with combat drug, instead of going beserk and charge forward, most of them will simply have a heart attack and die on the spot or after a few seconds of intense activity.
I fully agree with you. I just did not wanted to mention about realities of Chaos, because I might get too real and scare people with it. Yet, Chaos practice cannibalism and in lore it mentions quite often. Hence, Chaos can't starve, it doesn't need to worry about food supplies. With their low life expectancy, they do not need to worry about drinking polluted water either. Those too weak will be consumed in order to fuel the strong. Horde will loot everything they encounter and when advancing through civilized worlds, people and supplies are plentifull indeed.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/04/19 20:28:14
"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.
I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.
At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.
So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?
This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.
At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.
So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?
This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.
Most close combat in trench warfare was due to infiltration by highly trained fighters in favorable conditions (at night with low moon and on new section of trenches with fewer enemy soldiers and exhausted sentries. Those attacks were raid made to harrass, demoralise and maybe, if lucky steal orders or maps from officiers and thus get a glimps of enemy plan. There, a good bladed weapon was of use, but rare were the soldiers talented enough to be efficient in that role.
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.
At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.
So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?
This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.
Schocktroops and infiltration assault tactics in combination with cover from artillery including potential buntschiessen (aka chemical warfare with multiple agents) and creepeing barages.
These formations further were the veterans and of those the best of the best because all others wouldn't do or capable of doing it.
I mentioned that some time ago in this very thread.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/19 21:19:14
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Because it took so many rounds to finally put the robbers down
So, please explain me how this is possible. A person stops fighting after 1 shot from a trained soldier or swat officer. yet, here it says that these people simply wouldn't die. How can they not die if any shot essentially means a mission kill? You people go into such extreme positions and you will never admit in being wrong. I expect fully for you to ignore this point too and proceed with further personal attacks to prove your points.
They wouldn't die because of their supreme willpower, although being fully covered in body armor probably helped (it's right there in the snippet )
I am, are you aware of what a wall of ignorance fallacy is?
Outside of what I had mentioned, it is size. These weapons are usually smaller than other weapons.
Smaller is relative. Pistols range from military sidearms to small 5 round concealed carry weapons. SMGs are all exclusively half again as large as a service pistol and usually closer to double the size and weight. SMGs are closer in size to a small carbine than to a pistol so you're flatly wrong here.
Possess less powerful rounds and thus rounds are less dangerous and do not overpenetrate.
I asked for qualities that aren't ammo related so I'm ignoring this and your other point below.
I had said that in my region they still use sub-machine guns. This isn't a blanket statement, you just did not paid attention to what I was saying specifically. Furthermore, you showing that police is moving towards assault rifles does not invalidate my points at all. It only proves me right.
"but here in Europe, they still go full SMG and I'm not familiar with transition to carbines." Which region was mentioned in this quote? I ask because I'm failing to see one...
Also, if the police are moving towards one weapon it means they're moving away from another similar one. Thus police units are moving away from the SMG because it no longer meets their needs. Hence it can't be the ultimate close combat weapon.
It isn't. Police moves out to bigger calibers, because they more and more often have to fill roles of soldiers and sub-machine guns prove inadequate for roles they were chosen for. SWAT officers actually prefer sub-machine guns for CQB and lethality of a weapon is not at all the primary concern to them. It only means that your rounds will overpenetrate and your weapon will be harder to control.
Yes, and this disproves my point about militaries prefering carbines how exactly?
That ignores completely the argument which we had. First agree that SMGs are easier to control than assault rifles in CQB engagements. You are moving debate goals when you encounter something which you cannot argue against and then people wrongly accuse me of shifting debate goals.
I came in here:
"In addition, even SWAT officers agree with me. They use pistols (sub machine guns) and shields. Instead of addressing those points you just kept harassing me throughout pages as you lack any arguments to back up your beliefs."
I've never argued with you about how easy to use a weapon is, only about the general utility of the SMG versus the carbine in situations where the aim is lethality; such as a military sweep and clear mission versus a SWAT rescue mission. Try to keep your arguments and who they're with straight.
I had said that during further debates and in opening statement, you will find nothing touching that exact topic. In there I had spoke mainly about how deceptively quickly melee combatants can close the distance. Why you pretend to be such huge authority and hostile when you yourself are ignorant of debate which I had? You jump into 13 long thread, I do not expect you to know everything that had happened, especially over such long period, but you place yourself into such unreasonable and hostile position that it makes me wonder about your character.
I've posted in this thread before today... I've also read the entire thread and find your argumenst to be sophomoric at best and an outright farce or attempt to troll at their worst.
Your refusal to answer point-blank questions such as those that follow don't help your case:
If SMGs have so many advantages why don't military units use them for close-quarters battle?
How are SMGs and Pistols related outside of the ammunition they fire? In which ways are SMGs closer to carbines than pistols?
How are your slave armies going to get where they are going if the enemy takes steps to deny them resources?
What percentage of losses do you expect your slave units to take after each engagement? How many of those are from the enemy, from lack of supplies/poor treatment, and from the drugs or explosive collars?
Why hasn't your tactic for masses of disposable units been put into real-world practice?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/19 22:11:11
Pyroalchi wrote: I'm currently also wondering a bit about the armies crossing battlefields of WWI.
At various points in this topic the effectiveness of artillery and machine gun fire in putting humans down was put into question. Now when we look at WW1 we have various battles were thousands of soldiers tried to storm through relatively short areas and did not even manage to get close enough to use their rifles sensibly, let alone get into close combat. And there seemed to have been trenchlines in World War 1 which were less than 10 meters apart and were still not stormed by one side or the other because everyone trying was gunned down etc.
So if the human body can withstand such an enormous punishment and it was only a matter of "fighting spirit", shouldn't breacktroughs into enemy trenches into melee have happened much more often?
This question is not meant to be mean to you Ernestas, its more a thing I keep thinking about everytime I read here, that human waves will not be stopped by an odd Artillery shell or a well placed machine gun.
We could expand this to Imperial Japan, who actually had this backwards mentality written into their military doctrine. Yet, despite all the "fighting spirit" the Imperial Japanese Army was inept at anything that didn't involve committing war crimes against civilians or holding a well entrenched position to the last man and ultimately losing that position. The Imperial Japanese Army wasted literally (literally) thousands upon thousands of lives on suicidal charges against enemy troops and only ever succeeded in instances where the enemy was woefully outnumbered. In fact, the IJA had been behaving in this manner since before WWI, and despite taking grievous losses in numerous instances from the Russo-Japanese War onward, never considered for long that they might be wrong about the conducting of infantry warfare.
Which is a wonderful metaphor for this thread, cause I don't really see the point in trying to convince someone so deep in their own ignorance that they're wrong.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
)