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.

To get at that from another angle: I think (personal opinion) you would still find much more people able and willing to kill with a gun than with a sword.

There is whole of a lot difference along the range of for example:
- strangling someone to death barehanded
- mauling him with a club
- stabbing him to death with a sword
- aiming a pistol directly at a lethal target of his body and pulling the trigger
- roughly aiming an assault gun at him and pull the trigger
- hold a machine gun in his general direction, close your eyes and swiwell it around a bit
- punch his coordinates into a targeting computer and hit a button without ever even seeing his face.
- pay your taxes and elect a goverment that decides who should be killed an when

The result is... somewhat the same. But the more... abstract it gets, the less you have to really see what you are doing and the smaller your actual action gets, the more likely it is that your average Joe would do it.
In these old statements that in WW1 and 2 soldiers would be unwilling to really aim at someone and shoot, they usually claim that they "just generally aimed in the direction of the gunfire". Those might be unaimed shots, but that does not mean they did not kill.

I posted a quote on page 4 from a British soldier who fought in WW1 explicitly saying that he didn't have the stomach to use a bayonet, but was fine with shooting a man.

When you see those quotes about 'unwilling to really aim at someone and shoot' keep in mind that much of it cites back to Marshall's questionable 'research' (which may have been at least partially invented), and also that on a 20th century battlefield being able to see your enemy clearly is a rarity. If you're trading fire with someone in cover over a hundred yards away, you're shooting generally at muzzle flashes, not taking aimed shots at visible targets. Let alone if it's insurgents pot-shotting you from 500+m.

Anyways, in the context of this thread we're assuming that these melee combatants are crazed berserkers with no compunctions. Let's not give OP the impression that melee would become viable if only soldiers were willing to use it...

Another point about swords, because guns run out of ammo etc. Swords get blunt. And break. And get stuck in people. And in melee, are actually quite terrible if there is a big press of bodies and you can't actually move and use the damn thing. And you can only swing so fast, and lunge so fast, especially with the press of bodies and the sheer noise and confusion of battle. And as someone who lifts somewhat heavy objects for fun, and who has enjoyed various sports including boxing, you will get bloody tired just holding your arms up close to your head, especially when the other guy Is punching back, let alone moving round, and lugging a sword around and swinging the bloody thing.

Yeah, all of that is why most soldiers carried around a dagger or other short blade as a backup weapon. Swords are nice and all, but they're not the ULTIMATE WEAPON, even for melee.

Elbows wrote:I'm curious...Ernestas you say "you didn't have the fortune to become a soldier, but I am well trained with swords", then you presume to tell people who have trained with and carried firearms for a living (that's several of us, by the way) that we don't know what we're talking about?

You cite a video about the 21-foot rule. Have you actually performed that drill? Do you know why it exists? A lot of us have actually done this stuff in real life. We're not just making stuff up on the internet.

bingo, those of us who train always train based on the assumption that gak goes wrong. if you always plan on it going perfectly....you don't know how to plan/train.

oh and bullet design has come leaps & bounds in the past 15yrs
https://libertyammo.com/product/civil-defense-9mm/
https://g2rammo.com/handgun-ammunition/
http://www.black-hills.com/product-category/honeybadger/

and what do these all have in common??? Not legal to use in warfare according to the Geneva Convention.

o and another thing, I'm quite confident that an unloaded weapon is still a pretty damn effective delivery method of blunt force trauma.

Racerguy180 wrote:
oh and bullet design has come leaps & bounds in the past 15yrs
https://libertyammo.com/product/civil-defense-9mm/
https://g2rammo.com/handgun-ammunition/
http://www.black-hills.com/product-category/honeybadger/

and what do these all have in common??? Not legal to use in warfare according to the Geneva Convention.

G2 seems to only make gimmicks to get the media in a twist. But the first and third look similar to Speer Gold Dot, which is a good example of the current state of the art.

In any case, they're all fine according to the Geneva Convention. Expanding ammunition is technically banned by the Hague Convention of 1899, but the US was not a signatory, although we do still abide by it (even though it is only meant to regulate formal war against signatory states, not COIN). So no hollowpoints. In many ways, though, the Hague Convention is why modern .223 loads are so effective, as their yawing behavior produces immediate fragmentation with comparable effect to a frangible or hollowpoint load while still being technically legal.

Also non-military government entities aren't bound by those restrictions, which can be interesting, because if you're an intelligence officer or part of a diplomatic staff you can legally carry hollowpoints while in an active warzone, but it has to be kept at arm's length from anything involved in the military supply chain.

Deadnight wrote:
Another point about swords, because guns run out of ammo etc. Swords get blunt. And break. And get stuck in people. And in melee, are actually quite terrible if there is a big press of bodies and you can't actually move and use the damn thing. And you can only swing so fast, and lunge so fast, especially with the press of bodies and the sheer noise and confusion of battle. And as someone who lifts somewhat heavy objects for fun, and who has enjoyed various sports including boxing, you will get bloody tired just holding your arms up close to your head, especially when the other guy Is punching back, let alone moving round, and lugging a sword around and swinging the bloody thing.

''Blades don't need reloading'' Yeah but they need resharpening, oiling and gak. I hate that quote so much.

It’s true, but there it is.

In the context of 40k, melee already has an emphasis, in that we melee in our own turn _ and _ that of our opponent.

Deadnight wrote:
Another point about swords, because guns run out of ammo etc. Swords get blunt. And break. And get stuck in people. And in melee, are actually quite terrible if there is a big press of bodies and you can't actually move and use the damn thing. And you can only swing so fast, and lunge so fast, especially with the press of bodies and the sheer noise and confusion of battle. And as someone who lifts somewhat heavy objects for fun, and who has enjoyed various sports including boxing, you will get bloody tired just holding your arms up close to your head, especially when the other guy Is punching back, let alone moving round, and lugging a sword around and swinging the bloody thing.

Yeah, its why historically spears and polearms have been the primary weapon of most armies. They're not only cheaper and easier to maintain, but you can use them effectively in formation, which is how fighting was done back then. None of that Hollywood gak where everything is a swirling maelstrom and every combatant pairs off with another to have a nice duel. If the battle gets to that point then something has gone really wrong, tactically speaking.
Even samurai and knights used those over swords; to them swords were actually sidearms.
Hell, in the case of samurai their primary weapons were actually bows and later guns.

Swords are useful weapons, but there's a lot of romanticism behind them that gives rise to several misconceptions of how they were used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
I posted a quote on page 4 from a British soldier who fought in WW1 explicitly saying that he didn't have the stomach to use a bayonet, but was fine with shooting a man.

On the flip side, you do have Mad Jack Churchill in WW2 and the Japanese Imperial Army, who carried swords into battle, so there's that. Those are more exceptions than rules though, and the Banzai charge was a suicide tactic to be used when things have gone wrong anyway.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Yeah, its why historically spears and polearms have been the primary weapon of most armies. They're not only cheaper and easier to maintain, but you can use them effectively in formation, which is how fighting was done back then. None of that Hollywood gak where everything is a swirling maelstrom and every combatant pairs off with another to have a nice duel. If the battle gets to that point then something has gone really wrong, tactically speaking.
Even samurai and knights used those over swords; to them swords were actually sidearms.
Hell, in the case of samurai their primary weapons were actually bows and later guns.

Swords are useful weapons, but there's a lot of romanticism behind them that gives rise to several misconceptions of how they were used.

This is all true. I love history, and I'm familiar enough with the historical facts (and historical based fictions - I do love my Bernard Cornwall novels!), rather than the mythology that is built up.

Interesting fact about swords - they were hard to make, especially in antiquity, and expensive, which is why often they were a status symbol as well. It's why blades were often shorter and why the romans stuck with the gladius for most of their infantry for so long. Also because it was effective. The longsword is a truly terrible weapon for being stuck in a melee. ALso, the same amount of metal that goes into a sword can make quite a few spear points. Same story, interestingly, with plate armour. As I ready it, It's one of the reasons why the iconic Roman plate (Lorica segmentum, iirc?) fell out of favour for mail.
When it came to an actual scrap, what won was either the spear or the short sword. And even then, it wasn't swords that 'won'. It was 'morale'. Most casualties were caused when a warband/army broke, and were chased down. And getting into that press was a short, and sharp affair. People don't actually like being that close to sharp things for an extended period of time. You basically had to get people drunk or high to get them to fight.

But this is getting ot.

Also, in 40k, swords do need power packs. And lube. And spare chains.

Cronch wrote:
Also, in 40k, swords do need power packs. And lube. And spare chains.

Soul-Butter.
The last Soul balm you'll ever need for your demonic sword! Just finished a fight and didn't slay enough innocents? Sword still screaming in your ears at night hungry? Soul-Butter!

Made from the congealed souls of a dozen Guardsmen, each pack is good for 10 uses and guarantees to sooth even the most hungry and irate sword. Just remove the butter from the packaging and rub lightly all over the blade either after each battle and once just before bed (if you've been unfortunate enough not to have fought a battle that day).



New this year - Soul-Butter-Bites - for the mouthy sword in your armoury. An essential training aid in how to tame your sword, especially when combined with Click-Screamers

Cronch wrote:
Also, in 40k, swords do need power packs. And lube. And spare chains.

Coincidentally, the Emperor's Children legion also uses lube for their power fists.

OP needs to stop trying to legitimise 40k as a serious setting. A focus on Close combat is a nonsensical form of warfare and has been for literally centuries in reality, let alone in the year 40,000.

 blood reaper wrote:
OP needs to stop trying to legitimise 40k as a serious setting. A focus on Close combat is a nonsensical form of warfare and has been for literally centuries in reality, let alone in the year 40,000.

Technically its only been truely obsolete since 1862, with the introduction of the gatling gun. Charging into melee suddenly became a much riskier endeavor, especially when one factors in improvements to tactics and firearms.

Wack,

If we were playing "find the Kreiger" I think I would have won.

Bad Pun Generator wrote:
Wack,

If we were playing "find the Kreiger" I think I would have won.

You make it sound as thought being a Krieger were a bad thing. Are you from Vraks?

 blood reaper wrote:
OP needs to stop trying to legitimise 40k as a serious setting. A focus on Close combat is a nonsensical form of warfare and has been for literally centuries in reality, let alone in the year 40,000.

40k has walking tanks also known as the Adeptus Astartes and power weapons.

Tyran wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
OP needs to stop trying to legitimise 40k as a serious setting. A focus on Close combat is a nonsensical form of warfare and has been for literally centuries in reality, let alone in the year 40,000.

40k has walking tanks also known as the Adeptus Astartes and power weapons.

Neither of those make close combat viable when anti-tank weapons are widespread and means of knocking out vehicles are readily available.

 blood reaper wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
OP needs to stop trying to legitimise 40k as a serious setting. A focus on Close combat is a nonsensical form of warfare and has been for literally centuries in reality, let alone in the year 40,000.

40k has walking tanks also known as the Adeptus Astartes and power weapons.

Neither of those make close combat viable when anti-tank weapons are widespread and means of knocking out vehicles are readily available.

Anti-tank weapons are not really that wide spread. And anti-tank weapons are not really optimal for roughly human sized targets (Astartes are bigger than humans but not that much bigger).

Hellguns and the volley version are probably as common as power swords and don't involve you having to get close, either.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Hellguns and the volley version are probably as common as power swords and don't involve you having to get close, either.

I'm pretty sure hellguns' AP is more of a game mechanic than actual lore. Or rather Space Marines are heavily nerfed in the tabletop so a 5 man squad doesn't murder the entire enemy army.

You would be wrong, read a codex other than the Space Marines one sometimes.

 Bobthehero wrote:
You would be wrong, read a codex other than the Space Marines one sometimes.

I have read books, and there is stuff like marines just walking through heavy artillery bombardment as if it was rain for them.

Well then enjoy your god-marines, I wiill enjoy my not-god-marines.

Tyran wrote:
I have read books, and there is stuff like marines just walking through heavy artillery bombardment as if it was rain for them.

There's also stories of Marines in full power armor being overpowered by a single creature that is canonically physically weaker than your average unaugmented adult human, so clearly Marines should be weaker than humans.

 Melissia wrote:

Tyran wrote:
I have read books, and there is stuff like marines just walking through heavy artillery bombardment as if it was rain for them.

There's also stories of Marines in full power armor being overpowered by a single creature that is canonically physically weaker than your average unaugmented adult human, so clearly Marines should be weaker than humans.

Which would supports the argument that melee combat as viable. If heavy artillery doesn't work and they are weaker than humans, the logical conclusion is to beat them to death with your fists.

Doom logic 101.

But if you can beat them to death with fists, but artillery doesn't work on them, logically they'd sit and shoot at you from behind cover, and you are not impervious to guns like they are, so melee is not viable.

And somehow, it would make sense that a creature weaker than a human can kill a SM with a handheld weapon, but artillery can't? Yeah, clearly..

Tyran wrote:
Which would supports the argument that melee combat as viable.

No it doesn't. It proves that GW either doesn't know, or doesn't care, to write consistent material.

 Bobthehero wrote:
And somehow, it would make sense that a creature weaker than a human can kill a SM with a handheld weapon, but artillery can't? Yeah, clearly..

Worse. It was a Spore Mine (which has a strength rating of 1-- the lowest rating in the game!), somehow dragging a power armored marine off of the top of a Rhino.

And this wasn't a common Marine grunt, it was a veteran.

Bear in mind, this was the same book series that had backflipping terminator armor.