Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have no idea what you are saying.

First of all, your ranting about "if we just eschewed our taboos, we would totally wipe out the baddies" is completely wrong. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam by the US than in both theaters of World War 2 combined, and the bombing of north Vietnam remains the largest aerial bombardment in human history.

I'll let you research who actually won the war.

As for melee in 40k... I don't know anyone who thinks it shouldn't be decisive. I know people who think it should be uncommon, bit that is a different discussion

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have no idea what you are saying.

First of all, your ranting about "if we just eschewed our taboos, we would totally wipe out the baddies" is completely wrong. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam by the US than in both theaters of World War 2 combined, and the bombing of north Vietnam remains the largest aerial bombardment in human history.

I'll let you research who actually won the war.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm pretty sure I don't want to know any power fantasy the OP has about killing people in real life.

 catbarf wrote:

There is no taboo on hand-to-hand combat, it's just nearly irrelevant to modern combat, regardless of what weird ideas space fantasy fans have cooked up. It's fine for 40K to have a melee focus because it isn't particularly trying to be realistic to the modern day.

ccs wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
Literally no one thinks that.

You are literally wrong on that.

Melee players have been pandered to for decades in this game.
I generally despise melee in my sci-fi games full of guns, bigger guns, crazy sized guns, death rays, lasers, rockets, orbital bombards, & other shooty stuff. I'm not alone.
Melee should rarely happen & units that're any good at it should be the rare & expensive exception outside of anything but the Tyranids.

Instead? Practically everyone (but perhaps the Tau?) have affordable effective melee units & there's NO problem getting things into melee if that's your intent.
The reverse is not true. Those of us who dislike melee practically can't avoid it.
Most recently? The board sizes have been shrunk (now the melee minded have less space they have to navigate!), EVERYONE can get really close via deepstrike/reserves/etc, and we shooty armies sole means of defense (firing overwatch) has been crippled by 1) only hitting on 6's, 2) worse, being turned into a strategim. What kind of sense does THAT make? You're units face multiple charges but only one of them has the sense to unload into the oncoming enemies?

Meanwhile, over in AoS, where much of the action IS intended to be melee based (but shooting can also be effective)? The units being charged have options! They can stand & shoot (overwatch essentially), they can brace for impact, or even opt to try & fall back.

If I wanted to resolve things in melee I'd play Sigmar. When I'm playing 40k I expect to resolve most combat with assorted types of shooting.

Lammia wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:
What is not normal for us, could very well be normal in the 40k universe. "Modern warfare" is not savage, but 40k is.

Let's play the 'spot someone with no millitary experience' game...

...or let's not.

It's not normal to only bring a sword to a gunfight. That doesn't work. Melee only works when you have no other option and your opponent doesn't either.

Lammia wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:
What is not normal for us, could very well be normal in the 40k universe. "Modern warfare" is not savage, but 40k is.

Melee only works when you have no other option and your opponent doesn't either.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's also worth noting that trench raids and stalingrad are distinctly different types of warfare to what is depicted in 40k.

I agree that 40k takes melee combat *waaay* too far as a viable military technique.
But that's not the point. As an earlier poster mentioned, melee is dramatic and heroic, which is basically the definition of 40k.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
40k largely depicts field battles.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Surely this is trolling...

Anyway, there were wars/battles where this 'taboo' was utilised, might want to look at well, world war I in general - running at guns basically and the charge of the light brigade.

On a completely side note, you need to look into empathy and the value of human life...

 Vector Strike wrote:
"Of course, melee combat shouldn't be important. It's barbaric and old-fashioned; a relic from more primitive times. Societies and civilizations must advance into more cultured behavior and solve their military problems as they should be dealt with: dedicated firepower. Nothing speaks more about how one could be a brutish simpleton than trying to skewer or bite your enemy."

So said the Ethereals, so it shall be true.

 Haighus wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

There is no taboo on hand-to-hand combat, it's just nearly irrelevant to modern combat, regardless of what weird ideas space fantasy fans have cooked up. It's fine for 40K to have a melee focus because it isn't particularly trying to be realistic to the modern day.

What weird ideas space fantasy "cooked up" that wasn't already shown in the brutal trench warfare where sharpened spades, clubs, maces, knives and even knuckle dusters made a serious comeback?

What's that game which had WW1+WW2 influences eg. land raider, leman russ, savage city fighitng eg eastern front etc.,

What is not normal for us, could very well be normal in the 40k universe. "Modern warfare" is not savage, but 40k is.

No one carried trench clubs or improvised weapons at the start of the great war. The germans never anticipated brutal hand to hand combat on the eastern front in ww2, yet it became a common thing. Those degenerations occurred in the span of a year or two of savage warfare and since 40k is often savage total war all of the time.....why are you projecting ?

Er... what?!

Everyone anticipated melee combat in WWI! Every major combatant entered the war issuing bayonets to soldiers, usually long sword-bayonets to make up for the shorter rifles coming into use (such as the SMLE). Officers carried swords. Cavalry used swords and lances. The reason no one carried improvised weapons was because they carried issued weapons.

The specific nature of the melee combat was unexpected, and as such long bayonets turned out to be less useful than a short club with a nail through it, but every soldier had a weapon to use from the beginning. Officers also lost their swords, it would appear largely because of marking officers as a target for snipers rather than their efficacy as a melee weapon.

In fact, the British learnt from this and changed to a short spike bayonet for their WWII-era No.4 rifle to make it more useable in confined melee. Interestingly, they also changed their close quarters shooting drill during WWII from a melee-focussed stance based around bayonet use to a shooting-focussed stance based around having the gun in the shoulder, presumably based on operational experience that repeated shooting was generally preferred in close quarters over being prepared to stab someone after the initial shots are fired. Note that this is using a bolt-action rifle, and shooting was still more effective in general.

WWI also showed that repeating firearms make great CQB weapons- revolvers and repeating pistols were favoured trench raiding weapons for their close range firepower, but obviously not every soldier could get one. Trench guns and SMGs took a similar role later on. The spades and clubs were backup.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah I don't get what is going on in this thread. Are we supposed to "Affix Bayonets!" more when we encounter a sniper or some position with automatic weapons?

Does that win the war more?

Maybe in the next war we can improvise some trench shovels to sink enemy DDGs...

 vipoid wrote:

Let's say for a moment that western forces decided that the Taliban needed to be destroyed at any cost and were prepared to shrug off all war crimes, civilian casualties, damage to infrastructure, bad press, international outrage, rules of warfare that they signed etc.. In the event that they adopted such a mindset, why on earth would they make use of melee combat? Surely, if they abandoned sentiment and took a 'by any means necessary' approach, the solution would be along the lines of massive nuclear strikes or similar ordnance? "Yes, that entire country is now uninhabitable, irradiated desert and we inflicted 99.9% civilian casualties but we beat our enemies!"