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.

The design of Thunder Armour makes very little sense. According to the Lexicanum, "Since fighting on Terra during this period was primarily close-quarters, the strength of a warrior's chest and arms was of paramount importance. The legs of this armour Mark are typically not power-armoured at all, but are enclosed in tough padded breeches."
However, if anybody here has actually taken any CQC training (such as Kung Fu, Krav Maga, or even competitive swordplay), they would understand that leg strength is [arguably] the most important aspect of a warrior's combat capabilities. Without strong stances, when fighting, a warrior is a.) unable to put nearly as much power into a strike b.) more easily knocked down c.) less capable of parrying or dodging attacks. What this means is that Thunder Armour would more than likely lead to the death of its wearer. It has incredibly heavy torso, arm, and head armour, power supply, and strength enhancers, but none for the legs; meaning that its wearer would be easily knocked over and killed while he/she was on his/her back. Not only that, it effectively makes it so that the supposed 3-4x multiplication of body strength is more like 2-3x (If you learn proper rotational torque and marriage of gravity, you can literally crack a tree trunk with a single punch - your hand would be a bloody mess, but you could still do it. Using your whole body with a punch is critical to maximizing power), as the lack of leg-strength amplification means that a huge facet of fighting power is neglected.

Don't use language like this on Dakka please. Reds8n

More the designers didn't know about the leg strength because they figured you just need arm strength hitting things with axes or whatever and wanted it to sound like a more primitive incomplete power armour.

iirc they were stronger than the marines as well so may not have really needed it, but had more drawbacks leading to the marines as more balanced.

Isn't the fact that your arms and chest are armoured more important than the strenght of your legs (keep in mind that thier strenght is already massively enhanced due to the fact they are Thunder Warriors)? Those are the places you are likely to be hit most.
It also does say that Thunder Warriors commonly did wear greaves and boots, and all illustrations of Thunder Warrior armour also show that.

Sounds like GW is unaware that legs are a requirement for bipeds to stand. Chalk up another silly invention.

Was Thunder Armour powered at all? Or just armour? The armour was in the right places, but the power should be in the legs, yes.

 dusara217 wrote:
The design of Thunder Armour makes very little sense. According to the Lexicanum, "Since fighting on Terra during this period was primarily close-quarters, the strength of a warrior's chest and arms was of paramount importance. The legs of this armour Mark are typically not power-armoured at all, but are enclosed in tough padded breeches."
However, if anybody here has actually taken any CQC training (such as Kung Fu, Krav Maga, or even competitive swordplay), they would understand that leg strength is [arguably] the most important aspect of a warrior's combat capabilities. Without strong stances, when fighting, a warrior is a.) unable to put nearly as much power into a strike b.) more easily knocked down c.) less capable of parrying or dodging attacks. What this means is that Thunder Armour would more than likely lead to the death of its wearer. It has incredibly heavy torso, arm, and head armour, power supply, and strength enhancers, but none for the legs; meaning that its wearer would be easily knocked over and killed while he/she was on his/her back. Not only that, it effectively makes it so that the supposed 3-4x multiplication of body strength is more like 2-3x (If you learn proper rotational torque and marriage of gravity, you can literally crack a tree trunk with a single punch - your hand would be a bloody mess, but you could still do it. Using your whole body with a punch is critical to maximizing power), as the lack of leg-strength amplification means that a huge facet of fighting power is neglected.
...

You don't understand the difference between using strength for big powerful movements, such as squatting heavy weights and the use of leg 'strength' during CQC. Power is not actually generated from the legs, but from the hips predominantly, and actually the amount of force generation required from the hips to turn a punch without hip torque into a monster punch with is extremely little. Stance isn't really about leg strength either, it's about balance, agility and muscular endurance, something excess strength limits.

Also, kung fu is an incredibly poor martial art to state as evidence in this context, it is not a form that would thrive in CQC on the battle field.

 Fifty wrote:
Was Thunder Armour powered at all? Or just armour? The armour was in the right places, but the power should be in the legs, yes.

However, because it was designed with fighting in a terrestrial environment in mind, it is not fully enclosed, with no means to support the wearer in a vacuum. Only the upper body is powered, due in part to the fact that during the Emperor's Conquest of Terra, ranged weapons were difficult to make due to technological constraints, and so a warrior's upper-body strength was his most important asset.

It was powered, but only the upper half for melee.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 dusara217 wrote:
The design of Thunder Armour makes very little sense. According to the Lexicanum, "Since fighting on Terra during this period was primarily close-quarters, the strength of a warrior's chest and arms was of paramount importance. The legs of this armour Mark are typically not power-armoured at all, but are enclosed in tough padded breeches."
However, if anybody here has actually taken any CQC training (such as Kung Fu, Krav Maga, or even competitive swordplay), they would understand that leg strength is [arguably] the most important aspect of a warrior's combat capabilities. Without strong stances, when fighting, a warrior is a.) unable to put nearly as much power into a strike b.) more easily knocked down c.) less capable of parrying or dodging attacks. What this means is that Thunder Armour would more than likely lead to the death of its wearer. It has incredibly heavy torso, arm, and head armour, power supply, and strength enhancers, but none for the legs; meaning that its wearer would be easily knocked over and killed while he/she was on his/her back. Not only that, it effectively makes it so that the supposed 3-4x multiplication of body strength is more like 2-3x (If you learn proper rotational torque and marriage of gravity, you can literally crack a tree trunk with a single punch - your hand would be a bloody mess, but you could still do it. Using your whole body with a punch is critical to maximizing power), as the lack of leg-strength amplification means that a huge facet of fighting power is neglected.
...

You don't understand the difference between using strength for big powerful movements, such as squatting heavy weights and the use of leg 'strength' during CQC. Power is not actually generated from the legs, but from the hips predominantly, and actually the amount of force generation required from the hips to turn a punch without hip torque into a monster punch with is extremely little. Stance isn't really about leg strength either, it's about balance, agility and muscular endurance, something excess strength limits.

Also, kung fu is an incredibly poor martial art to state as evidence in this context, it is not a form that would thrive in CQC on the battle field.

Yup. Nearly all "Martial arts" would actually be pretty damn useless in an actual battle. You'll notice no military teaches its soldiers Karate or Jiu-jitsu, they only draw some practical techniques that are useful and discard the crap. They teach practical hand to hand techniques to kill and incapacitate.

Martial arts as we know them today are really just exercise techniques and effective ways to stop a mugging. You'll never beat a trained soldier with them though.

Also balance and stance don't need powered legs, and there was armor on the legs.

The only actual problem with unpowered legs is that the legs still bear the weight, slowing the warriors down in mobility.but while the thunder warriors would have been a little slower(remember they were genetically modified for vastly higher strength), the high armor more than makes up for that in preventing melee harm(at range soldiers are taught to aim for center mass and so the torso armor would protect them well there); in melee the T-warriors had the strength to still move nearly as fast as their opponents, wth armor still on the legs to protect the major arteries and veins, and then heavy powered armor to increase the strength of the hit while protecting the vital bits in a harder carapace.

Thunder armor has no issues as far as melee combat goes, it is just everything else that got ramped up in the great crusade-up to the heresy that led to mkii-iii. MkIV-VI was in response to better enemies and other astartes.

What makes it even more stupid is that when that fluff was written Carapace and Power Armour offered the same protection, the whole *point* of Power Armour in-game was that it lacked Carapace armour's movement penalty!

 Grey Templar wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 dusara217 wrote:
The design of Thunder Armour makes very little sense. According to the Lexicanum, "Since fighting on Terra during this period was primarily close-quarters, the strength of a warrior's chest and arms was of paramount importance. The legs of this armour Mark are typically not power-armoured at all, but are enclosed in tough padded breeches."
However, if anybody here has actually taken any CQC training (such as Kung Fu, Krav Maga, or even competitive swordplay), they would understand that leg strength is [arguably] the most important aspect of a warrior's combat capabilities. Without strong stances, when fighting, a warrior is a.) unable to put nearly as much power into a strike b.) more easily knocked down c.) less capable of parrying or dodging attacks. What this means is that Thunder Armour would more than likely lead to the death of its wearer. It has incredibly heavy torso, arm, and head armour, power supply, and strength enhancers, but none for the legs; meaning that its wearer would be easily knocked over and killed while he/she was on his/her back. Not only that, it effectively makes it so that the supposed 3-4x multiplication of body strength is more like 2-3x (If you learn proper rotational torque and marriage of gravity, you can literally crack a tree trunk with a single punch - your hand would be a bloody mess, but you could still do it. Using your whole body with a punch is critical to maximizing power), as the lack of leg-strength amplification means that a huge facet of fighting power is neglected.
.

You don't understand the difference between using strength for big powerful movements, such as squatting heavy weights and the use of leg 'strength' during CQC. Power is not actually generated from the legs, but from the hips predominantly, and actually the amount of force generation required from the hips to turn a punch without hip torque into a monster punch with is extremely little. Stance isn't really about leg strength either, it's about balance, agility and muscular endurance, something excess strength limits.

Also, kung fu is an incredibly poor martial art to state as evidence in this context, it is not a form that would thrive in CQC on the battle field.

Yup. Nearly all "Martial arts" would actually be pretty damn useless in an actual battle. You'll notice no military teaches its soldiers Karate or Jiu-jitsu, they only draw some practical techniques that are useful and discard the crap. They teach practical hand to hand techniques to kill and incapacitate.

Martial arts as we know them today are really just exercise techniques and effective ways to stop a mugging. You'll never beat a trained soldier with them though.

Half agree, half disagree. A muay thai practitioner, or a decent boxer with an additional ground game would give an unarmed soldier a run for their money in CQC. But yeah, the military do tend to hand pick the techniques that are most effective for their military, having said that.... Some of those taught in the british army and elites such as the royal marines are hand down ridiculous.... They wouldn't work in a martial arts bout, let alone against someone with half a clue and average reflexes.

Most martial arts taught to the military are actual for peace keeping reasons though, and not for deadly reasons cause well, they have guns if they want to kill someone, and they don't tend to want to kill rioting civilians.

Many of the techniques they learn do involve disentangling yourself from an opponent who has grappled you so you can just shoot them. But they do learn how to effectively neutralize someone. And more importantly you have your buddies with you and you learn teamwork skills.

No martial art I know of teaches how to fight alongside someone, and not many have effective techniques against multiple opponents.

Same goes for the hypothetical opponent though, outside of movies, one person is incapable of dismantling a whole squad with CQC techniques, they need to be equally matched on numbers, ideally outnumbering said soldiers.

One on one though, I still think certain martial arts would have a chance against your standard military soldier that is unarmed. The US marines CQC program is from what I've seen pretty outstanding and modern, that wouldn't be so easy for a fighter. Russian samba is brutal as well.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 dusara217 wrote:
The design of Thunder Armour makes very little sense. According to the Lexicanum, "Since fighting on Terra during this period was primarily close-quarters, the strength of a warrior's chest and arms was of paramount importance. The legs of this armour Mark are typically not power-armoured at all, but are enclosed in tough padded breeches."
However, if anybody here has actually taken any CQC training (such as Kung Fu, Krav Maga, or even competitive swordplay), they would understand that leg strength is [arguably] the most important aspect of a warrior's combat capabilities. Without strong stances, when fighting, a warrior is a.) unable to put nearly as much power into a strike b.) more easily knocked down c.) less capable of parrying or dodging attacks. What this means is that Thunder Armour would more than likely lead to the death of its wearer. It has incredibly heavy torso, arm, and head armour, power supply, and strength enhancers, but none for the legs; meaning that its wearer would be easily knocked over and killed while he/she was on his/her back. Not only that, it effectively makes it so that the supposed 3-4x multiplication of body strength is more like 2-3x (If you learn proper rotational torque and marriage of gravity, you can literally crack a tree trunk with a single punch - your hand would be a bloody mess, but you could still do it. Using your whole body with a punch is critical to maximizing power), as the lack of leg-strength amplification means that a huge facet of fighting power is neglected.
.

You don't understand the difference between using strength for big powerful movements, such as squatting heavy weights and the use of leg 'strength' during CQC. Power is not actually generated from the legs, but from the hips predominantly, and actually the amount of force generation required from the hips to turn a punch without hip torque into a monster punch with is extremely little. Stance isn't really about leg strength either, it's about balance, agility and muscular endurance, something excess strength limits.

Also, kung fu is an incredibly poor martial art to state as evidence in this context, it is not a form that would thrive in CQC on the battle field.

Yup. Nearly all "Martial arts" would actually be pretty damn useless in an actual battle. You'll notice no military teaches its soldiers Karate or Jiu-jitsu, they only draw some practical techniques that are useful and discard the crap. They teach practical hand to hand techniques to kill and incapacitate.

Martial arts as we know them today are really just exercise techniques and effective ways to stop a mugging. You'll never beat a trained soldier with them though.

Half agree, half disagree. A muay thai practitioner, or a decent boxer with an additional ground game would give an unarmed soldier a run for their money in CQC. But yeah, the military do tend to hand pick the techniques that are most effective for their military, having said that.... Some of those taught in the british army and elites such as the royal marines are hand down ridiculous.... They wouldn't work in a martial arts bout, let alone against someone with half a clue and average reflexes.

Most martial arts taught to the military are actual for peace keeping reasons though, and not for deadly reasons cause well, they have guns if they want to kill someone, and they don't tend to want to kill rioting civilians.

First the muay thai, or pugilist have to close with the soldier(yes terrain helps) then they have to beat the soldier into incapacitation(submission barely counts) and that is not as easy as fighting someone untrained(a criticism i have with us military training is that they cannot train the recruits to take a punch because of bleeding heart types: a volunteer service should know and comply with body hardening exercises just like some martial arts students pay for the opportunity to do).

Modern military all teach hand-to-hand, all include armed and unarmed. The spetznyaz are awesome at habd-to-hand because they are trained normally, and then with additional training for their specialized entrenching tool/weapon/shield. Krav maga is literally the art of dirty fighting, and even it has many hard counters(like a crotch pkate that can stop most bullets and a fully enclosed helmet).

Can a professional boxer beat a U.S.Army soldier in a boxing match? Well yeah, duh, the soldier isn't a professional boxer limited to boxing rules. Literally anywhere else? Yeah probably, but it would not be as "pretty or elegant" as a proper boxing match, and the boxer would likely want to cry about how the soldier was fighting dirty.

You cannot compare any professional or hobby fighting styles with soldier training, nor actual fight for your life situations.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 dusara217 wrote:
The design of Thunder Armour makes very little sense. According to the Lexicanum, "Since fighting on Terra during this period was primarily close-quarters, the strength of a warrior's chest and arms was of paramount importance. The legs of this armour Mark are typically not power-armoured at all, but are enclosed in tough padded breeches."
However, if anybody here has actually taken any CQC training (such as Kung Fu, Krav Maga, or even competitive swordplay), they would understand that leg strength is [arguably] the most important aspect of a warrior's combat capabilities. Without strong stances, when fighting, a warrior is a.) unable to put nearly as much power into a strike b.) more easily knocked down c.) less capable of parrying or dodging attacks. What this means is that Thunder Armour would more than likely lead to the death of its wearer. It has incredibly heavy torso, arm, and head armour, power supply, and strength enhancers, but none for the legs; meaning that its wearer would be easily knocked over and killed while he/she was on his/her back. Not only that, it effectively makes it so that the supposed 3-4x multiplication of body strength is more like 2-3x (If you learn proper rotational torque and marriage of gravity, you can literally crack a tree trunk with a single punch - your hand would be a bloody mess, but you could still do it. Using your whole body with a punch is critical to maximizing power), as the lack of leg-strength amplification means that a huge facet of fighting power is neglected.
..

You don't understand the difference between using strength for big powerful movements, such as squatting heavy weights and the use of leg 'strength' during CQC. Power is not actually generated from the legs, but from the hips predominantly, and actually the amount of force generation required from the hips to turn a punch without hip torque into a monster punch with is extremely little. Stance isn't really about leg strength either, it's about balance, agility and muscular endurance, something excess strength limits.

Also, kung fu is an incredibly poor martial art to state as evidence in this context, it is not a form that would thrive in CQC on the battle field.

Yup. Nearly all "Martial arts" would actually be pretty damn useless in an actual battle. You'll notice no military teaches its soldiers Karate or Jiu-jitsu, they only draw some practical techniques that are useful and discard the crap. They teach practical hand to hand techniques to kill and incapacitate.

Martial arts as we know them today are really just exercise techniques and effective ways to stop a mugging. You'll never beat a trained soldier with them though.

Half agree, half disagree. A muay thai practitioner, or a decent boxer with an additional ground game would give an unarmed soldier a run for their money in CQC. But yeah, the military do tend to hand pick the techniques that are most effective for their military, having said that.... Some of those taught in the british army and elites such as the royal marines are hand down ridiculous.... They wouldn't work in a martial arts bout, let alone against someone with half a clue and average reflexes.

Most martial arts taught to the military are actual for peace keeping reasons though, and not for deadly reasons cause well, they have guns if they want to kill someone, and they don't tend to want to kill rioting civilians.

In regards to the British military, if you're referring to this sorta thing:


That's just the RM having a laugh while advertising. Most things they get taught will have some sort of purpose - be it to gain distance, incapacitate or kill.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 dusara217 wrote:
The design of Thunder Armour makes very little sense. According to the Lexicanum, "Since fighting on Terra during this period was primarily close-quarters, the strength of a warrior's chest and arms was of paramount importance. The legs of this armour Mark are typically not power-armoured at all, but are enclosed in tough padded breeches."
However, if anybody here has actually taken any CQC training (such as Kung Fu, Krav Maga, or even competitive swordplay), they would understand that leg strength is [arguably] the most important aspect of a warrior's combat capabilities. Without strong stances, when fighting, a warrior is a.) unable to put nearly as much power into a strike b.) more easily knocked down c.) less capable of parrying or dodging attacks. What this means is that Thunder Armour would more than likely lead to the death of its wearer. It has incredibly heavy torso, arm, and head armour, power supply, and strength enhancers, but none for the legs; meaning that its wearer would be easily knocked over and killed while he/she was on his/her back. Not only that, it effectively makes it so that the supposed 3-4x multiplication of body strength is more like 2-3x (If you learn proper rotational torque and marriage of gravity, you can literally crack a tree trunk with a single punch - your hand would be a bloody mess, but you could still do it. Using your whole body with a punch is critical to maximizing power), as the lack of leg-strength amplification means that a huge facet of fighting power is neglected.
..

You don't understand the difference between using strength for big powerful movements, such as squatting heavy weights and the use of leg 'strength' during CQC. Power is not actually generated from the legs, but from the hips predominantly, and actually the amount of force generation required from the hips to turn a punch without hip torque into a monster punch with is extremely little. Stance isn't really about leg strength either, it's about balance, agility and muscular endurance, something excess strength limits.

Also, kung fu is an incredibly poor martial art to state as evidence in this context, it is not a form that would thrive in CQC on the battle field.

Yup. Nearly all "Martial arts" would actually be pretty damn useless in an actual battle. You'll notice no military teaches its soldiers Karate or Jiu-jitsu, they only draw some practical techniques that are useful and discard the crap. They teach practical hand to hand techniques to kill and incapacitate.

Martial arts as we know them today are really just exercise techniques and effective ways to stop a mugging. You'll never beat a trained soldier with them though.

Half agree, half disagree. A muay thai practitioner, or a decent boxer with an additional ground game would give an unarmed soldier a run for their money in CQC. But yeah, the military do tend to hand pick the techniques that are most effective for their military, having said that.... Some of those taught in the british army and elites such as the royal marines are hand down ridiculous.... They wouldn't work in a martial arts bout, let alone against someone with half a clue and average reflexes.

Most martial arts taught to the military are actual for peace keeping reasons though, and not for deadly reasons cause well, they have guns if they want to kill someone, and they don't tend to want to kill rioting civilians.

First the muay thai, or pugilist have to close with the soldier(yes terrain helps) then they have to beat the soldier into incapacitation(submission barely counts) and that is not as easy as fighting someone untrained(a criticism i have with us military training is that they cannot train the recruits to take a punch because of bleeding heart types: a volunteer service should know and comply with body hardening exercises just like some martial arts students pay for the opportunity to do).

Modern military all teach hand-to-hand, all include armed and unarmed. The spetznyaz are awesome at habd-to-hand because they are trained normally, and then with additional training for their specialized entrenching tool/weapon/shield. Krav maga is literally the art of dirty fighting, and even it has many hard counters(like a crotch pkate that can stop most bullets and a fully enclosed helmet).

Can a professional boxer beat a U.S.Army soldier in a boxing match? Well yeah, duh, the soldier isn't a professional boxer limited to boxing rules. Literally anywhere else? Yeah probably, but it would not be as "pretty or elegant" as a proper boxing match, and the boxer would likely want to cry about how the soldier was fighting dirty.

You cannot compare any professional or hobby fighting styles with soldier training, nor actual fight for your life situations.

Well, you are wrong because the scenario involves the soldier being unarmed, so they also have to close the distance. Muay Thai is dirty boxing, in fact it is dirtier, and a ground game is vital. Submission holds are extremely valid in such situations. Absolutely valid. As soon as it's on the ground, submission holds are what will stop your opponent from hitting you, or be the main reason you get to stand up. I've also trained with squaddies, they happily give up their back in a pathetic attempt to get back standing, show me your back and you are going out cold.

Some martial arts and systems also place as much focus on lethal techniques as a squaddie would also, if you train their use and counters just as much as them, then you are not at a disadvantage.

I'm not saying that your average martial artist can take on a soldier mind, technically even if they are better than the soldier, the soldiers conditioning will usually allow them to prevail. I've seen soldiers kick off in the pub, everyone else is gassed within 30 seconds, the squaddies are just getting warmed up. I was talking in the more professional fighter sense (not world class either).

Thunder Warriors were stronger than Astartes by a fair margin so they had the leg strength already, the upper body was armoured so they could wreck stuff without needing the leg strength. Plus, the Thunder Warriors were like twice the height of their opponents, the shock and awe factor alone would cause panic enough to die before they could actually fight back.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Same goes for the hypothetical opponent though, outside of movies, one person is incapable of dismantling a whole squad with CQC techniques, they need to be equally matched on numbers, ideally outnumbering said soldiers.

One on one though, I still think certain martial arts would have a chance against your standard military soldier that is unarmed. The US marines CQC program is from what I've seen pretty outstanding and modern, that wouldn't be so easy for a fighter. Russian samba is brutal as well.

MCMAP is very basic and I feel like somebody with actual martial arts training would be fine.

I agree it seems wierd. If nothing else, Thunder Armour's legs should be powered in order to carry the weight whilst on the march.

The main issue of Thunder Warriors, and the reason they were so lethal, was that they were carrying massively overpowered small arms (early-generation bolters) and were highly resiliant to small arms (which were - for most line infantry - inferior to a lasgun).

From what's implied from the stories which referenced it, tactics during the unification wars had decayed to something more resembling napoleonic/american civil war massed block infantry, and the Thunder Warriors were designed to massacre such a force as efficiently as possible.

I disagree about leg strength being MORE important, if thats your implication. Leg strength is important of course, and I doubt they are claiming that these guys are are not using their leg strength. Remember, the Thunder Warriors are immensely powerful, on the same level as space marines. They don't need powered legs to get the job done. The powered arm actuators would let them leverage even more strength into their melee attacks. If you can only power one or the other, you're going to go with the arms if your looking to get into it.

Okay, first of all Kung-Fu: Looks like somebody has never encountered a Shaolin Monk (or basically anyone who was taught actual Kung-Fu, not the swill they teach in most of the modern First World). Kung-Fu was designed to kill people and to defend people. The Chinese have innumerable variants of Kung-Fu, all of which were developed to counter things like Japanese and Mongolian invaders. If you want to see what something resembling "real" Kung-Fu might look like, watch Ip Man, or videos of competitive Chinese Martial Arts combatants. I had a Modern Arnis instructor who studied with the Shaolin Monks, and the stories he had about them were insane (things like a guy literally spending all day punching a tree to practice body shifting).

Second of all: Most civilian Martial Arts aren't meant for actual combat. When you get into the stuff that is designed for combat (Modern Arnis, Small-Circle Jiu-Jitsu, Chinese Kempo, etc.) that's taught to civilians, it's incredibly watered down; almost to the point of ineffectuality. When I was actively studying Modern Arnis and Small-Circle Jiu-Jitsu, I learned dozens of ways to incapacitate someone with nothing but they're arm, the take-downs (one-legged, conventional tackles, "hawk downs", iron brooms, etc.) were very much niche techniques intended for specific situations. My Modern Arnis instructor at the time (Guru Chester Brown), once told us that he never taught us anything that he hadn't personally combat tested (he spent more than a decade in the US Army; much of it in Black Ops), from the Apache knife fighting techniques that he had learned when he was a kid to taking somebody down with nothing but their wrist.

Third of all: "structure", or stances, is absolutely critical to professional hand-to-hand combat of any kind. If you don't have good structure, then you can easily get knocked flat on your ass, put into locks, grabs, etc. When somebody tries to fight you with poor structure, it is incredibly easy to simply sweep their leg out with an iron broom or even just to kick the back of their calf and pull back on the shoulder to knock them flat on their back. Not only that, but when you throw a reverse punch or doing a basic wrist grab (or virtually anything that involves the hand/arm), having good structure is critical to maintaining control (unable to be moved when holding somebody in a wrist lock, shoulder lock, etc.), maximizing power (turning hips into the strike, pushing heel up to slightly increase power while moving forward with legs to use momentum, while turning shoulders into the strike to push toros into it as well), and staying on your feet when somebody nails you with an elbow to the sternum (or any strike/push that puts out a lot of power). This why I said that stances are arguably (aka it depends on your point of view or style of fighting or personal experience) the most important piece of close quarters combat

This is going to some weird places.

A couple things of note, stances or overly complicated martial arts have been completely discarded and discredited as legitimately effective martial arts in a real world setting. Most, when put into combat situations with other martial arts, have had to strip away technique to simplify attack and defense.

It isn't dissimilar to what you see in high level judo. You can learn three dozen throws, but top level judoka often focus on 4 or 5 to use and score with.

I love how all these people are saying that real soldiers would beat up martial artists in the real world...

Guys?

Real soldiers are Martial Artists. Military CQC techniques? Those are Martial Arts.

Technically, everything a soldier does to prepare for his job is martial arts, although they probably draw the line at Anything Goes Combat Accounting.

I remember when martial arts was like magic!

Remember the 80's!

While I think that it does sound like GW just didn't think it through back in the day, you could also consider that chain weapons don't work like normal weaponry.

A chain weapon provides its own cutting strength, the user is there as a stabilizing force. As a head-canon we could just assume that all the thunder warriors were using chain swords and that was the primary armor strength assist they needed.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Real soldiers are Martial Artists. Military CQC techniques? Those are Martial Arts.

Aye, but the things soldiers train aren't generally very flashy. You want to retain control of your weapon, you want to avoid getting hurt (often by hurting the other guy first) and you want to stay standing. No fancy triple-spin high kicks there, no horse stance and absolutely no colored belts.

As for the Thunder Armor it does sound a bit stupid, but it fits perfectly well with the way close combat is important in 40K. Me smash!

 PhillyT wrote:
This is going to some weird places.

A couple things of note, stances or overly complicated martial arts have been completely discarded and discredited as legitimately effective martial arts in a real world setting. Most, when put into combat situations with other martial arts, have had to strip away technique to simplify attack and defense.

It isn't dissimilar to what you see in high level judo. You can learn three dozen throws, but top level judoka often focus on 4 or 5 to use and score with.

As a judoka of going on 13 years and the UK's youngest National level referee I can confirm the comments about judo. Its so true, in fact, it has resulted in major debate in the process you must go through to obtain a 1st Dan, as previously it was common to learn only a few tachiwaza techniques and know very little else, meaning the supposed "experts" and potential coaches don't really know much.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I love how all these people are saying that real soldiers would beat up martial artists in the real world...

Guys?

Real soldiers are Martial Artists. Military CQC techniques? Those are Martial Arts.

Technically, everything a soldier does to prepare for his job is martial arts, although they probably draw the line at Anything Goes Combat Accounting.

When we say "martial artists" we don't think of a soldier who has been taught a practical battlefield combat technique. We think of karate, fencing, boxing, juijitsu, etc...

There is the technical definition, and then there is what is commonly held to be the definition. We don't cal soldiers Martial Artists, they're soldiers. Martial Artists is a title we reserve for practitioners of Karate, Kung-fu, etc...

Love to hear from another judoka!

I worked with O-sensei Porter on several occasions and he drilled that into our heads. Knowing a thousand movies isn't worth a damn thing if you aren't automatic. He said it was important to find what works, but that when he was coaching the Olympic team,he would have his athletes do the same throw hundreds of times over a six hour session. One partner after another, twenty guys in a line cycling over and over. He mentioned automaticity was the focus.

Its part of the reason kung fu has been exposed so severely in mixed martial arts competitions. It is overly flashy, inefficient, and largely ineffective. It has led to a more streamlined version that has evolved due to international competition. Akido has had a similar evolution when it was exposed as being mostly show with only a little go.

 Deadshot wrote:
Thunder Warriors were stronger than Astartes by a fair margin so they had the leg strength already, the upper body was armoured so they could wreck stuff without needing the leg strength. Plus, the Thunder Warriors were like twice the height of their opponents, the shock and awe factor alone would cause panic enough to die before they could actually fight back.

I agree, the 30K book with the traitors on earth delves into this. Thunder warriors were stronger than marines but shorter lived (like replicants)