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.

Sweeping advance does not represent modern combat.

In modern combat, the enemy runs away before the winner gets into H2H.

The rules of 40K force the enemy to stay and be massacred.

Please do not make absolute judgements, as these tend to be generally wrong at some instance and thus take the debate off-topic a bit. Which is not always a bad thing, but the use of an absolute usually results in someone pulling a but if this, this, and this happened, that would not be true.

Out of curiosity, how is it that you're discounting strength when your talking about close combat? Never mind the fluff behind the weapon, chainsword sawing through things, power weapon disrupting stuff, etc. Strength obviously seems to matter, otherwise you wouldn't use it for rolling stats. It doesn't matter if you have a power weapon that melts through armor more easily than a hot knife through butter when your strength is only a 3 and your opponents toughness is an 8, you aren't doing anything. Additionally, if strength wasn't an issue, a powerfist would do the same base damage on an IG soldier with a S3 as it would on a Space Marine with a S4. There wouldn't be a 2 strength difference on their attacks, making it more effective vs the same troop that your having little effect on with a power weapon. So obviously strength matters.

lemon detective wrote:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/83476-us-warfare-experts-inspired-2004-a.html

so, I don't know if any one else noticed this but this report says the Brits engaged the Madi Army(based in Baghdad/street militia) in Afghanistan. . . . .oh internet

but on topic, CC is in 40k since it's cool, it doesn't really have any real-life applications today
automatic weaponry and AP rounds have really killed CC in the modern world

I think strength is meaningless when you are trying to force a weapon through inches of adamantium plate.

It doesn't matter whether you can exert 100 Newtons of force or 500 Newtons if it takes 1,000,000 Newtons to make any impact.

Perhaps, but then, it seems to matter quite a bit when assaulting vehicles, if your not strong enough, you can't breach the armor. And in close combat, the stronger you are, the tougher an opponent you'll be able to wound, and the more often you'll be able to wound something. If strength wasn't applicable in close combat, if it had no effect, your chance to wound would be strictly skill or agility based.

I like the idea of 40k weapons like chainswords and power weapons being more like a mechanism, than an outright melee weapon. That said, I still dont think strength and kinetic force is completely irrelevant.
I like to think the 'mechanism' of the weapon, whether it'd be powerfield, adamantium-alloy toothed chainsword, as a sort of multiplier for one's strength.
The obvious example is when a powerfist doubles your strength in-game terms, but Id like to think the weapons allow the user's strength and swing-force to have more of an impact.

Since power weapons reduce the strength of the material it comes into contact with I think they definitely would act as a multiplier for strength.

dancingcricket wrote:Perhaps, but then, it seems to matter quite a bit when assaulting vehicles, if your not strong enough, you can't breach the armor. And in close combat, the stronger you are, the tougher an opponent you'll be able to wound, and the more often you'll be able to wound something. If strength wasn't applicable in close combat, if it had no effect, your chance to wound would be strictly skill or agility based.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Since power weapons reduce the strength of the material it comes into contact with I think they definitely would act as a multiplier for strength.

The point I want to make is that whatever concept there is for making a contact weapon more effective, it is still even more effective as a mechanical device than as a muscle powered device.

Take the power glove. It generates a force field which "blah blah blah handwavium disrupts atomic bonds " and allows the wearer to tear apart solid metal.

Suppose you can attach the same forcefield to a drillbit to allow you to drill through enemy armour. Is the drill bit going to be more use in a hand drill or a power drill?

I always imagine a power glove as being like a kind of miniature glove shaped car crusher which uses mechanical boost as well as the force field to achieve its effect. This helps explain why it is initiative 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another example, from real life, is the bangstick.

The bangstick is a weapon used by divers to defend themselves against sharks. It consists of a short spear with a cartridge of some kind in the head. Usually a shotgun cartridge or powerful pistol or rifle cartridge.

The bangstick is jabbed into the shark and contact sets off the cartridge, which automatically hits and blasts straight into the shark's body. This is obviously much more powerful than a normal hand propelled spear.

Another point to think about is the idea of using a speargun to shoot the bangstick. This would give the user ranged attacks. (I don't know if this is done in practice.)

Well, Chainfists and Eviscerators have powerfields along with chainblades.

However most power weapons are not chainswords at their base. I thought I read something saying that it was more difficult to make a power weapon with moving parts (for whatever reason) but that might have just been one of those internet theories.

Powerklaws have hydraulics like you describe, so it wouldn't be a stretch for Powerfists to as well.

The moving parts bit, particularly when it comes to a chainsaw like weapon, is partly because if the "blade" hits at an angle there's an increased chance of the chain slipping from it's 'bindings'.

That is, if they use the same mechanisms for a chainsword as a chainsaw. Since we do not have a working model from M40.000 then we cannot judge it based on what we know of chainsaws.

Actually, you pretty much can. A strictly mechanical system is still going to be the most reliable to produce in any kind of numbers, and use in just about any environment, and still maintain a relatively low power usage, something you will worry about if your going to want to use it for extended periods. So no gravity driven chains, no holding them in place with minor force fields, if you could do that, your ranged weaponry and defenses would be significantly better.

A chainsword, much like a saw is going to have several design limitations. The chain, with the 'saw blades' is going to have to be hooked into several wheels set into a flat shaft, pointing outward. This shaft will hold the wheels in place, and in the interests of being able to 'slice' through things and not have the edges get caught on whatever your trying to dig through, the plates on the side of the blade will have to be fairly flat. Because of the limitations of space, your really not going to be able to provide much in the way of a drive system for the front wheel, all the power will be applied to the wheel(s) that are incased in the housing with the motor. Support to keep the blade rigid is in the plates holding the blade out, and isn't going to be stronger than the metal they're made of. You won't be able to provide any significant support around the outside of the moving saw blades, as in a metal arch from one flat panel to the other, without significantly reducing the area that you can effectively 'hit' with, and possibly increasing the width of the blade beyond what the saw is actually cutting, thereby reducing your ability to penetrate into things.

A chainsaw cuts by having several little blades drag repeatedly over a small area, each one ripping a minor groove out the object being cut. It's used by applying steady pressure in a single direction, and requires a bit of skill and force to keep it on track, and in place. The majority of the weight of a chainsaw is in the motor, which is in your hands, or in a chainsword the hilt and pommel, not in the blade. This means it doesn't swing anything like a normal weapon, and is going to take a lot of training to use effectively. It's going to be difficult to use as a melee weapon, the blade is light, so it's not going to hit with as much impact as most impacts, the weight is close, not far. If it's a hard, or smooth, enough surface, anything other than a direct, 90 degree angle to the surface your hitting is likely to slip off as well as potentially cause the chain to slip. If you can get the teeth to actually bite into the target, the sudden pull on the weapon is just about as likely to pull it out of your hand as it is to do significant damage. The other difficulty is that now that your sword is in, if it hasn't actually killed your opponent, or disabled them, it's a bit stuck, they're not really known for being readily jerked back out. Now, an oversized, genetically mutated space marine might be strong enough and trained well enough to be able to overcome these difficulties, but at this point, he's strong enough that he'd be likely to have just as much effect, if not better, from a regular sword, or more likely, a single handed battle axe, with a spike on the other end.

For an axe, the weight is on the far end of the shaft leading to a larger impact, an axe can do a lot of damage on a impact, with that kind of strength behind it, and a large enough blade, large chunks of an opponent can be made to disappear easily enough. The blade and spike on the the axe are ideal for space combat, particularly the blade, as a small puncture will kill in space. And the spike is a bit more ideal for punching holes in vehicle armor, where your trying to get as much force as limited an area as possible to get through inches of metal plate. And you don't run out of power.

Actually, what is cheapest and best for a civilian market is not the same as what is best for a military market. A chainSAW in the civilian sense (which is the type you are speaking of) is not meant to go through infantry armour (I do not know where you get attacking vehicles from, as chainswords are anti-infantry melee weapons first and foremost). It is also meant to be used in a much slower manner, so that you have the precision you need when cutting trees. A military chainSWORD, on the other hand, is meant to be used against both unarmoured and armoured infantry. Thus it most definitely would have a mechanism that is tougher and can handle rougher usage than a civvie chainsaw.

I also assume you have not seen a picture of a chainsword, as the blades on it can not be described as little or anything like current chainsaws. They are at least 1-1/2 to 2 inches long. This means that the physics involved are likely to be much different to conventional chainsaws.

Not significantly different. Bigger blades, deeper penetration, grip faster on a swing, pull out of your hands quicker. Plus, easier to have it at an angle, meaning more chance of glancing off. If you can actually get the blade into someone, it'll do more damage, but the ability to get it through the armor just isn't really something that a chainsaw, or sword, is going to be ideal for in a situation where your opponent is going to be actively blocking and dodging.

As for armor penetration on a vehicle, your assault marines still have the capability of attacking a vehicle, and getting through the armor well enough to immobilize it, take out weapons, etc. Unless they're specifically using krak or melta grenades, they're still getting the attacks for their chainsword and pistol combo. So it's being used to try to get through armor.

I apologize for the necromancy, but it dawned on me that a crucial detail regarding chainswords seemed to have been forgotten when defending this argument:

riplikash wrote:...most melee weaponry used in 40k does not rely on muscle strength, but instead mechanical operations. The chainsword, force weapons, and power weapons that dominate all seem to rely on mechanical means to puncture armor. The human is there as a vehicle for the necessary machinery and to put it in contact with the target, not to lend strength.

What makes powerfists, powerblades, and forceblades so effective (disruptive fields, etc.) was covered, but when it came down to chainswords, there seemed to be an assumption that they're the same as a souped-up modern-day chainsaw. Not to single you out dancingcricket but your comments about design limitations, tooth snags, slippage, etc. may apply to that STIHL chainsaw I use to cut wood, but not to most 40K military-spec chainswords.

Regardless of how implausible it is, Imperial and Eldar chainswords are described as having monomolecular-edged teeth. (Astartes combat knives have monomolecular-edged blades too.) This would mean that the blade would pass through most materials much more easily than a chainsaw and would therefore require less force behind the blow. Their mechanics may be completely different as well. Perhaps the teeth are kept on track and moving by an electro-magnetic field rather than a motorized drive-system and if that were the case, they could complete a circuit around the blade at a much higher rate, thus improving their cutting power. Without a heavy two-stroke motor in the hilt, the blade could be balanced however they see fit and could be used as a true sword.

P.S. I thought this was an interesting side debate:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:

Osyr wrote: Tau seem to have better guns than others despite their lower tech level, and seem to like plasma which is the counter to the reapperance decent armor in war.

Dude what? Tau are one of the most technologically advanced races in 40k.

Actually, their race is one of the least advanced; Necrons, humans, Orks, and Eldar are all ahead of them, when you look at the most they've achieved. Tyranids too, if their biotechnology counts.

What the Tau do have is a great distribution of their technology.

I think the argument could be illustrated this way: What if everyone in Tauvania drove around in cars while everyone in Imperialand rode horse-drawn carts except for the royalty who flew around in personal flying saucers? Which country is more advanced technologically?

We need the necromancer in here, pronto!

Now to respond to your question on advanced technology, we look at WWII. Yes, WWII. The Germans had state of the art tanks, yes, and a state of the art Air Force, but that was it. They maybe had 1/5 of their infantry mechanized, the rest were foot pounders. Much of their supply line was made up of horse drawn wagons. So they did not have spread out technology, leaving their supply lines to be left in the dust by the fuel chugging tanks. Their tanks would race ahead in typical blitzkrieg fashion, busting through before any anti-tank forces could be directed to stop them. But if they went too far, they would have no support from their infantry and would be forced to either stop or get decimated by enemy anti-tank.

Thus, while having superior tech in certain areas, they did not have technology where they needed it most, in logistics.

It's kind of like Dune-ranged warfare is kind of obsolete because of all the shields, and close combat is the only real way to do battle.

In the dark millennium, it seems that armor seems to have far outstripped ranged weapons.

Amazing that if monomolecular chainswords > pulse rifles/Space Marine armour, no-one uses self-loading crossbows with monomolecular drills on the bolts.

I think the reason that Melee is much more common in the 40k world as opposed to the modern world would be the fact that the average soldier has the potential of moving at the same speed as a hummer.

(Guardsman running rolls a 6, 12" Chimera moving at full speed 12")

If we had cheetas for soldiers you would probably see alot more Marines with knives out there... but thats just how I see it.

Vladsimpaler wrote:It's kind of like Dune-ranged warfare is kind of obsolete because of all the shields, and close combat is the only real way to do battle.

In the dark millennium, it seems that armor seems to have far outstripped ranged weapons.

Only in 40K.

Play Epic. Then you'll see what a firefight really is.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:I think the reason that Melee is much more common in the 40k world as opposed to the modern world would be the fact that the average soldier has the potential of moving at the same speed as a hummer.

(Guardsman running rolls a 6, 12" Chimera moving at full speed 12")

If we had cheetas for soldiers you would probably see alot more Marines with knives out there... but thats just how I see it.

That and because the longest ranged weapons have a range of about 100 metres.

Kilkrazy wrote:Amazing that if monomolecular chainswords > pulse rifles/Space Marine armour, no-one uses self-loading crossbows with monomolecular drills on the bolts.

Your just begging for some one to do a wookie army arnt you

The problem with the "superior melee weapons vs armor argument" is that, with the possible exception of power weapons, there's no kinetic/edge weapon thats going to deliver superior lb/cm penetrative ability.

Kilkrazy wrote:Amazing that if monomolecular chainswords > pulse rifles/Space Marine armour, no-one uses self-loading crossbows with monomolecular drills on the bolts.

The Eldar Shuriken weaponry are the closest thing I think.

I'm going to ignore this thread. It grows boring trying to argue that there is no knowing how powerful a kinetic/edge weapon with monomolecular blades would be because there is no real life example. So until one of you invents such a device that can keep its edge like the ones in 40k do, stop arguing that it can't be done, as you have no proof.

Frazzled wrote:The problem with the "superior melee weapons vs armor argument" is that, with the possible exception of power weapons, there's no kinetic/edge weapon thats going to deliver superior lb/cm penetrative ability.

Actually when broken down, there are four basic catagories of melee weaponry

Standard
Ranging from Bayonettes to chainfists to pistol weaponry (Why an Inferno/Plasma pistol can only be used at the weilders str in melee however is beyond me)

Power
Power swords, Hunting lances, Punishers (DE) etc

Force
Nemisis, Standard Force weapon, Black Staff of Ahriman etc

and
"Special" (Which can fall under the other three catagories)
Claws, Teeth, Monsterous Creature attacks, Chainfists, Manreaper etc

so of the four catagories, I would say there are more ADDED examples of weaponry that delievers the Higher penetrative ability in the w40k universe then not. It is because of these additions, and the increase of weaponry of this type, that melee is more frequent in the 40k universe then in the modern world.

Because in all honesty... if we developed a stick that could slice through something so simple as 'concrete' like butter, in this modern age, our own combat tactics would dramatically change. (Then again, if we had orbital offensive capabilities, I don't think we would ever step foot on an enemy planet/territory without completely obliterating the opposition)

also

GundamMerc wrote:I'm going to ignore this thread. It grows boring trying to argue that there is no knowing how powerful a kinetic/edge weapon with monomolecular blades would be because there is no real life example. So until one of you invents such a device that can keep its edge like the ones in 40k do, stop arguing that it can't be done, as you have no proof.

There is no "real life example" of god yet debates of that matter are constantly occuring and evolving ... Case in point, just because something is theoretical, does not mean it is undebateble!

GundamMerc wrote:I'm going to ignore this thread. It grows boring trying to argue that there is no knowing how powerful a kinetic/edge weapon with monomolecular blades would be because there is no real life example. So until one of you invents such a device that can keep its edge like the ones in 40k do, stop arguing that it can't be done, as you have no proof.

That isn't my argument. I've got no problem with imaginary engineering. I just disagree that it would not be applied to both sides of the equation.

What I am saying is that if a bullet can't penetrate the armour, but a monomolecular edged sword can, then someone would invent a gun which fired monomolecular edged bullets that penetrated armour from 1 meter beyond the reach of the swordsman

Thus there would be almost no melee combat.

Kilkrazy wrote:

What I am saying is that if a bullet can't penetrate the armour, but a monomolecular edged sword can, then someone would invent a gun which fired monomolecular edged bullets that penetrated armour from 1 meter beyond the reach of the swordsman

Thus there would be almost no melee combat.

now what if neither method necessarily "Penetrated" (at least in completion) the armor but had a decent chance of doing so, and the Melee swing were far more reliable (Such is the case with W40K)

Then their would be melee combat correct?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

now what if neither method necessarily "Penetrated" (at least in completion) the armor but had a decent chance of doing so, and the Melee swing were far more reliable (Such is the case with W40K)

Then their would be melee combat correct?

But without any other form of force acting upon the melee weapon, the projectile will always have a greater PSI, hence penetrating power. A bullet will have a lesser area of impact and has the added bonus of fragmentation/tumble upon entry to the body. A sword, even a monomolecular blade has a greater area of impact and what everyoone seems to forget, is that even if the blade has a monomolecular edge, the rest of the blade doesn't, and there is greater and greater resistance as you attempt to force the rest of the blade past the armour. Melee combat is only preferable in 40K because that is the way the rules are written.

I don't really understand your reference to reliability, could you expand on that please?

Cheers

Andrew