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.
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.
GW explicitly doesn't care, they have repeated it multiple times.
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.
On the other hand, game mechanics is not lore, unless you believe a human can punch as hard as a lasgun.
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, game mechanics is not lore
No, but it is lore-adjacent. Spore Mines aren't bundles of muscles, they're just living bombs.
And I'm glad you admit that your outlandish example is ridiculous and you shouldn't use it. Glad to hear that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/25 16:28:14
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
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, game mechanics is not lore
No, but it is lore-adjacent. Spore Mines aren't bundles of muscles, they're just living bombs.
And I'm glad you admit that your outlandish example is ridiculous and you shouldn't use it. Glad to hear that.
Even if you disregard that example, we still have multiple examples of a single company of Marines being able to conquer an entire world, and of individual marines blasting, punching and tearing their way through hordes of enemies. The narrative of Space Marines relies on that fact.
On the other hand, game mechanics is not lore, unless you believe a human can punch as hard as a lasgun.
To be fair, this is one of those things where the concept of Stength gets nebulous. I can definitely impart more total force with my fist than a bullet for example, I can trivially push over a steel target with an elbow push or quick jab punch (if I dont mind punching steel plate) that would take several bullet strikes to accomplish, but the bullets are concentrating their energy onto a far smaller area, allowing them to overcome material my fist will not with substantially less total energy usage.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, game mechanics is not lore
No, but it is lore-adjacent. Spore Mines aren't bundles of muscles, they're just living bombs.
And I'm glad you admit that your outlandish example is ridiculous and you shouldn't use it. Glad to hear that.
Even if you disregard that example, we still have multiple examples of a single company of Marines being able to conquer an entire world, and of individual marines blasting, punching and tearing their way through hordes of enemies. The narrative of Space Marines relies on that fact.
Both of those scenarios are achievable given the right context. Space Marines at a fortified choke point can certainly kill lots of enemies. Or units dispersed among dense ruins, where the numbers of the enemy are hard to bring to bear.
For conquering, Space Marines spend a lot of time re-conquering worlds that might be rebelling. Space Marines will take over defense platforms and just point the guns at the PDF. Space Marines by default can level cities with their Strike Cruiser. Written well, a strike force can work wonders and still not be outside the realm of reason.
Written poorly, it's just the worst bolter-schlock.
Tyran wrote: we still have multiple examples of a single company of Marines being able to conquer an entire world
We also have examples of a hundred Sisters being able to conquer entire worlds, too-- Sisters being ranged-combat focused unaugmented humans who don't have the biology to drop pod. If you had a point, you have failed to prove it. Conquering a world doesn't necessarily mean killing everyone on it, and rarely does. It can easily simply be dropping down and killing the leader and declaring yourself (or your boss, or the emperor) the new leader, then intimidating everyone else in to agreeing with you.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/25 17:33:18
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
Tyran wrote: we still have multiple examples of a single company of Marines being able to conquer an entire world
We also have examples of a hundred Sisters being able to conquer entire worlds, too-- Sisters being ranged-combat focused unaugmented humans who don't have the biology to drop pod. If you had a point, you have failed to prove it. Conquering a world doesn't necessarily mean killing everyone on it, and rarely does. It can easily simply be dropping down and killing the leader and declaring yourself (or your boss, or the emperor) the new leader, then intimidating everyone else in to agreeing with you.
It usually does involve military defeating the defenders.
And sisters do have their own melee-focused units. And while unaugmented they do use power armor and have a tendency to defy physics thanks to their acts of faith. Speaking of acts of faith, didn't the last PA had human priests cutting Crisis Suits in half?
Tyran wrote: And sisters do have their own melee-focused units.
If you're going to argue that Sisters as a whole are focused on melee I'm going to laugh you out of this thread. Sisters have precisely two melee-focused units, and both are literally just their punishment detail where they go to redeem themselves for their failure or die trying.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/25 17:47:08
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
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, game mechanics is not lore
No, but it is lore-adjacent. Spore Mines aren't bundles of muscles, they're just living bombs.
And I'm glad you admit that your outlandish example is ridiculous and you shouldn't use it. Glad to hear that.
Even if you disregard that example, we still have multiple examples of a single company of Marines being able to conquer an entire world, and of individual marines blasting, punching and tearing their way through hordes of enemies. The narrative of Space Marines relies on that fact.
You want to know how such a thing can be done? A lightning strike at the leadership either as a decapitation strike or to get them to catipulate or surrender. The average grunt on the field never hears anything other than silence or the order to stand down.
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, game mechanics is not lore
No, but it is lore-adjacent. Spore Mines aren't bundles of muscles, they're just living bombs.
And I'm glad you admit that your outlandish example is ridiculous and you shouldn't use it. Glad to hear that.
Even if you disregard that example, we still have multiple examples of a single company of Marines being able to conquer an entire world, and of individual marines blasting, punching and tearing their way through hordes of enemies. The narrative of Space Marines relies on that fact.
You want to know how such a thing can be done? A lightning strike at the leadership either as a decapitation strike or to get them to catipulate or surrender. The average grunt on the field never hears anything other than silence or the order to stand down.
To be fair, this sort of thing relies heavily on there being no chain of command or competing power centers to step up on leadership, that people will cease resistance when command elements are disconnected, and such command centers being both easily identified and easily accessible to orbital attack.
This works if the force in question is relatively small, led by a single unifying commander operating from an identifiable surface position. Lord Evildoer in his Castle of Doom leading his warband of core of Chaos marines at the head of a few thousand cultists can be defeated relatively easily that way. This makes for lots of easy 40k stories. However, if we're talking about the generalized rebellion of Planet BigIndustry with billions of combatants, underground or mobile field command centers, extensive organization and a coherent chain of command, and a populace dedicated to the fight, the decapitation strike doesnt work at all.
Unfortunately a lot of 40k fluff, particularly Space Marine stuff, is written in such a way, having marines do things that is absolutely not their specialty and that they have neither the numbers nor tools to accomplish, but sounded cool to the author at the time.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, game mechanics is not lore
No, but it is lore-adjacent. Spore Mines aren't bundles of muscles, they're just living bombs.
And I'm glad you admit that your outlandish example is ridiculous and you shouldn't use it. Glad to hear that.
Even if you disregard that example, we still have multiple examples of a single company of Marines being able to conquer an entire world, and of individual marines blasting, punching and tearing their way through hordes of enemies. The narrative of Space Marines relies on that fact.
You want to know how such a thing can be done? A lightning strike at the leadership either as a decapitation strike or to get them to catipulate or surrender. The average grunt on the field never hears anything other than silence or the order to stand down.
To be fair, this sort of thing relies heavily on there being no chain of command or competing power centers to step up on leadership, that people will cease resistance when command elements are disconnected, and such command centers being both easily identified and easily accessible to orbital attack.
This works if the force in question is relatively small, led by a single unifying commander operating from an identifiable surface position. Lord Evildoer in his Castle of Doom leading his warband of core of Chaos marines at the head of a few thousand cultists can be defeated relatively easily that way. This makes for lots of easy 40k stories. However, if we're talking about the generalized rebellion of Planet BigIndustry with billions of combatants, underground or mobile field command centers, extensive organization and a coherent chain of command, and a populace dedicated to the fight, the decapitation strike doesnt work at all.
Unfortunately a lot of 40k fluff, particularly Space Marine stuff, is written in such a way, having marines do things that is absolutely not their specialty and that they have neither the numbers nor tools to accomplish, but sounded cool to the author at the time.
This. There aren't enough marines to make a meaningful difference on a galactic scale.
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, game mechanics is not lore
No, but it is lore-adjacent. Spore Mines aren't bundles of muscles, they're just living bombs.
And I'm glad you admit that your outlandish example is ridiculous and you shouldn't use it. Glad to hear that.
Even if you disregard that example, we still have multiple examples of a single company of Marines being able to conquer an entire world, and of individual marines blasting, punching and tearing their way through hordes of enemies. The narrative of Space Marines relies on that fact.
You want to know how such a thing can be done? A lightning strike at the leadership either as a decapitation strike or to get them to catipulate or surrender. The average grunt on the field never hears anything other than silence or the order to stand down.
To be fair, this sort of thing relies heavily on there being no chain of command or competing power centers to step up on leadership, that people will cease resistance when command elements are disconnected, and such command centers being both easily identified and easily accessible to orbital attack.
This works if the force in question is relatively small, led by a single unifying commander operating from an identifiable surface position. Lord Evildoer in his Castle of Doom leading his warband of core of Chaos marines at the head of a few thousand cultists can be defeated relatively easily that way. This makes for lots of easy 40k stories. However, if we're talking about the generalized rebellion of Planet BigIndustry with billions of combatants, underground or mobile field command centers, extensive organization and a coherent chain of command, and a populace dedicated to the fight, the decapitation strike doesnt work at all.
Thankfully for the Imperium there's always sterilization and repopulation.
But really, orbital supremacy will count for a lot. Space Marines can knock out a bunch of defenses and just wait for the Guard to arrive, if need be.
Unfortunately a lot of 40k fluff, particularly Space Marine stuff, is written in such a way, having marines do things that is absolutely not their specialty and that they have neither the numbers nor tools to accomplish, but sounded cool to the author at the time.
Tyran wrote: And sisters do have their own melee-focused units.
If you're going to argue that Sisters as a whole are focused on melee I'm going to laugh you out of this thread. Sisters have precisely two melee-focused units, and both are literally just their punishment detail where they go to redeem themselves for their failure or die trying.
Except that I wasn't arguing they are as a whole melee focused, but that they have melee focused units.
Tyran wrote: Except that I wasn't arguing they are as a whole melee focused, but that they have melee focused units.
Which are a minor aspect of the army and do not prove the point of the OP in any way.
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
catbarfMade, last time you had answered such long comment so quickly that I was unable to make another far shorter and easier comment. Please make some effort into your posting as it is quite pointless to talk when all you encounter is someone in denial and trying to win by shouting louder.
Spoiler:
Jumping off a cliff to literally throw bodies on a defensive position doesn't justify melee combat, dude.
I showed you a simple video. You got several basic facts wrong about that story from "holding them indefinitely" to "sending alien waves" and now you avoid acknowledging this and move discussion goal even further. The whole point which you are missing is that real life is not some counter strike match. Soldiers morale and psychology plays a massive role in real combat scenarios. In combat zones entire platoons are unable to fire upon children even if they know for sure they are carrying bombs and are walking to kill them. They break down mentally on a field and are paralyzed while you imagine that in combat they will be "no scope" headshotting their opponents. You ignore this massive aspect of warfare and thus you cannot see the effectiveness of such tactics for what they are. These human wave attacks had broken down hardened veterans mentally and thus they could not carry any longer. Same would happen and in real life. Soldiers break for far less than W40k is willing to throw at them.
I'm not exaggerating, you don't have any idea what the hell you're talking about. The machine guns the US troops had in the Philippines were immobile, unreliable, inaccurate, and intended for static defense. That is why they did not have or use them in any substantial numbers in jungle warfare against the Moros. A modern machine gun does not have these downsides; you can carry it and (to a limited degree) fire it like an oversized assault rifle. It also has a tremendously higher effective rate of fire (you have given two examples of mechanical rate of fire, which is a worthless metric).
Yes you are. I had said that while firing these guns are just as good. All advantages made these things more efficient. Furthermore, soldiers in jungles had specialized weapons which you had ignored. Light machine gun is worse than a shotgun if ranges are close enough and reaction times are low enough.
I literally just said that's what Termagants are for. The ones with guns. My codex literally says that they exist to expend the defenders' ammunition in preparation for the real assault. It's not Hormagaunts, the melee bugs, being used that way.
You should actually read some stories rather than trying to understand lore from codexes. In Tyranid swarms range troops are here to be mixed with melee assaults. Tyranids are primary focused towards melee assaults with some range elements mixed in. Humans on the other hand are primary ranged force with some melee elements mixed in. That is, if there is a Chaos space marine doing his stuff, he will have platoon of maddened fanatics charing enemy lines or holding flanks around him. The key emphasis is on Chaos space marine delivering main source of damage, melee elements here is just to distract enemy, reveal their positions that this dude with bolter could do his job. Melee if applied in combat would look like that, it is supporting element for more valuable troops. Tyranids on the other hand are melee first which means that they put range assets to ultimately support their claws and teeth rather than vice versa.
[spoiler]How on earth do you go from 'soldiers usually only carry one kind of ammunition' to 'all bullets are more or less identical and bullet design hasn't changed significantly over time'?
How on Earth do you start providing examples of specific, specialized ammunition while pretending it is standard issue?
I don't think you quite understand the article you were quoting. M855A1 replicates the terminal performance of M193 which in turn was an improvement over the lethality of the older, heavier, more powerful M80 ball cartridge in .308. They improved the terminal lethality, then they improved the armor penetration, then they improved both.
Bullet design does not work that way. Like I had said, usually penetration and soft tissue damage is mutually exclusive elements and 0.223 is known to lack stopping power of its bigger cousin.
I have ignored any argument based on 'stopping power' because it is a myth with no real-world basis. The FBI themselves released a paper demonstrating that stopping power is bogus and justifying a switch back to a smaller caliber.
Nothing says 'I have no idea how ballistics works' like clinging to stopping power, so I will continue to ignore it. An extremely lightweight .223 is less likely to overpenetrate and waste its kinetic energy and more likely to incapacitate its target than a big, slow, heavy .45ACP.
You had ignored all arguments, because you think you know what you do not. It took you so many posts for you to even bother looking up some information and throw it out. Far less about actually commenting what is written in them. Usually when person does that, he just quoted just whole bunch of information which loosely if at all supports his position.
You don't know what the 21-foot-rule you're citing means. (Hint: It's about being able to engage someone with your weapon holstered in an old-style leather retention holster. It has no relevance to someone with their weapon drawn)
You obviously don't know how awful trying to aim a handgun- let alone one-handed- is in comparison to a rifle.
You seem to think that every SWAT agency in the country must be overwhelmingly incompetent for willingly going into cramped houses against armed suspects, while themselves armed with carbines and not... fething swords and pistols. Yeah, SWAT officers die left and right to perps with handguns 'aiming it quicker' or swordsmen bursting out of closets to impale the whole team before they can react.
Anyways, I wasn't trained how to use a carbine in MOUT as a 'psychological tool' while the helpless instructors secretly knew that if I went up against a sword & pistol gunman I was dead meat. All I'll say on that subject is that I have plenty of reason to think the way I was trained is effective, and the very idea is so fething stupid I'm not going to engage on it.
I am utterly floored by how committed you are to arguing something that you obviously haven't the slightest bit of real-world experience with.
How are your strawman looking? Please find a better alternative then. This video is a great example to visual show reader how dangerous man with a knife is. Person with weapon drawn obviously will be able to fire first, but if he is not already pointing to general direction of charging enemy, same scenario will hold true.
You do not need to aim when your opponent is right next to you. You again are thinking of utterly different scenarios for utterly different roles and I'm not sure why you are talking about aiming a rifle in one hand now.
Sigh, stop clowning around. SWAT utilize SPECIALIZED WEAPONARY AND ARMOR. Furthermore, they face just militia level threats at best. Usually it is just some gangster who just happen to have a gun. Being a swordsman requires discipline, years of training so naturally they will not exist nor anyone who is such great as to become one will find themselves in situation where they are using their sword against policemen. Nor they would be effective against them due to their armor. If they would have a power sword then yes, a swordsman could cut through entire unit of SWAT in an instant if given that chance.
I didn't forget anything. You read something about atmospheric bloom and lasers, which would only come up in the context of ABM/ASAT, and assumed it's relevant to fictional laser rifles at a few hundred yards.
Lasers are affected by numerous interrelated linear and nonlinear phenomena such as molecular and aerosol absorption and scattering, atmospheric turbulence, and thermal blooming not to mention just plain old beam divergence.
So you've studied an obsolete form of combat as a hobby- blithely ignoring why it is now obsolete- and, lacking any familiarity with the reality of modern combat, have Dunning-Kruger'd yourself into thinking not only that your technique can hack it on a modern battlefield, but that combat instructors don't appreciate the superior effectiveness of a sword because they don't know any better. Very cool.
I studied Filipino Martial Arts (FMA/Kali/Escrima) under Doug Marcaida. I think I can hold my own with a machete. I still wouldn't take a machete over a handgun for any reason.
You know that most people who actually train for fighting do study hand-to-hand and use of melee weapons, right? It's not some 'forgotten art' that modern instructors are too out-of-touch to teach, it's just that once you've trained with close combat weapons and trained with firearms, it's obvious which is superior.
When I had said that sword is superior in its performance than an assault rifle? It is you who make those absolutely idiotic points and then complain when I point out how idiotic it is. I had said that if you let enemy to be so close to you as in few meters of you, suddenly guns like assault rifles lose their effectiveness and melee weapons like swords become just as dangerous if not more.
Yes, it is forgotten art. Modern trainers largely focus on unarmed martial arts. In reality nobody knows how to use sword well and I offer perspective usually found nowhere else, because I have understanding of how deadly swordmaster can be in close quarters. I'm by no means such myself, but I know how quick hits are. A swordmaster can strike "inhumanly fast" as authors love to describe. Sword becomes just a blur and when you block and counter attack, it is more contest of endurance and persistence. You follow movement of person's muscles rather than following his blade and try to tire him or to force him to make a mistake. Someone adept at using a sword is a lot more dangerous than someone holding most guns at a range where sword is effective. It is faster, more precise, it is more flexible. If we would go into W40k, they have some truly horrific weapons like chainsaw which would bite into a flesh. With merest touch you could see your comrade being cut in pieces as weapon claws itself into his flesh. Power weapons are in a league of its own. You have formation of SWAT assaulting a room? If someone with power sword would get a swing at them, he would cut through their shields, through their armor and their flesh as it would be nothing. That level of deadliness far surpass any ballistic weapon we have today. We would not go into such idiotic comparisons if you could acknowledge something as simple as that dude standing next to you is more dangerous to you if he is holding a knife rather than an assault rifle.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/28 13:26:08
"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.
Sigh, stop clowning around. SWAT utilize SPECIALIZED WEAPONARY AND ARMOR. Furthermore, they face just militia level threats at best. Usually it is just some gangster who just happen to have a gun. Being a swordsman requires discipline, years of training so naturally they will not exist nor anyone who is such great as to become one will find themselves in situation where they are using their sword against policemen. Nor they would be effective against them due to their armor. If they would have a power sword then yes, a swordsman could cut through entire unit of SWAT in an instant if given that chance.
By your own admission SWAT armour would defeat a swordsman.
. A swordmaster can strike "inhumanly fast" as authors love to describe. Sword becomes just a blur and when you block and counter attack, it is more contest of endurance and persistence. You follow movement of person's muscles rather than following his blade and try to tire him or to force him to make a mistake. Someone adept at using a sword is a lot more dangerous than someone holding most guns at a range where sword is effective. It is faster, more precise, it is more flexible.
Then the swordsman becomes inhumanly powerful again?
Power weapons are in a league of its own. You have formation of SWAT assaulting a room? If someone with power sword would get a swing at them, he would cut through their shields, through their armor and their flesh as it would be nothing
Then you're back to fantasy land again
Seriously I'm starting to wonder if you are having trouble with the basic separation of reality and fantasy.
Most of the people arguing against you are talking about the REAL WORLD situations.
Most of the thread agrees with you regarding the 40K world since the technology and setting is basically emulating a sort of musket/rifle era level of technology effectiveness. Even though they've got gattling RPG launchers and plasma guns and lasers and such.
If swords could beat guns as much as you claim in the real world then real world armies would still use swordsmen. Soldiers would go to battle armed with swords as well as their guns. SWAT would be carrying swords.
Plus modern troops still carry their knives and such. They just don't use them anywhere near as much in actual combat as they do the gun they are carrying and using.
Overread wrote: Ernestas your argument is jumping all over the place.
One moment you're talking about 100m ranges; then jungles; then WW1 then modern police forces; then 2ft indoor encounters then back to jungles.
Plus each time you admit that ranged firepower is superior you then jump to 40K.
I know why we do not try to attack in melee. Guns are more effective. Yet, my argument was that we do not charge anymore, because people gotten too lazy and weak willed. In W40k I would enslave millions if not billions of people.
Right there you do it all in one line. You admit ranged fire is superior; then you make some odd argument that we don't blindly charged into close combat because we are weak willed? Then you shift the whole debate back into 40K.
In the real world you don't charge into close combat because you're dead. The ranged weapons rule the battlefield even before you consider the higher value we place on life today than in the past. Heck don't think that people have become weaker over the generations - self preservation is and always has been there. Warriors in the old days got freaking scared - heck most ancient battles in close combat weren't won with numbers lost to death, but more due to moral loss. When your army saw enough die and the situation go back that they broke and ran away. Self preservation isn't something new.
Honestly I think you need to just admit defeat. Close combat works in 40K because basically the game is emulating the musket era of combat; when ranged weapons were strong, but not totally dominating. Plus 40K has means of battle that are honestly insane - being able to take losses into the actual millions if not billions and still come out winning. These are insane ways to right. It's regularly pointed out that if the Imperium were not a bureaucratic and mostly insane Empire it could have made huge victories and won the war generations ago. Of course the same argument can be said for most factions.
It is because of catbarf making ridiculous points of how a melee weapon stands no chance in melee combat and how assault rifle is so much superior. Of course ranged weapon will be better at range, but if someone gets close, range weaponary even in our world is quite inferior in performance against pistols and other melee weapons. As for those other things, these are examples of how dangerous someone determined can be. I wanted to show how long 100 meters is in real life and how quickly it can be covered. Jungles is just one visualized example where soldiers had fight of their lives against nothing more than half naked beserkers who just charged and died. Indoor encounters was brought int by catbarf if I remember correctly, because he believes that it is better to have an assault rifle than a dagger when I'm standing next to someone else.
This was exactly my point. These fads as "self preservation" makes us weak. In my given example with USA soldiers encountering hostile tribe, they had shown how much determined enemy is dangerous. Human being can charge through multiple shots and our modern caliber would be too small to stop such beserker. Full auto would be necessary and then soldiers will be reloading magazines which would allow them to get into melee. The only thing which does not allow melee to be effective is low determination of modern population. If something from W40k would come, nothing too spectacular like just maddening effects of a warp, making humans into mad, deranged lunatics who would charge enemies on their own, that alone would be sufficient to make melee into a viable form of fighting. I agree that it is extremely heavily on human casualties, but usually the ones charging are considered to be quite worthless.
By your own admission SWAT armour would defeat a swordsman.
Yes, their shields makes them untouchable and in general, flak armor would block hits as swords are quite primitive. We did not had any development in melee weapons for quite a while.
Then the swordsman becomes inhumanly powerful again?
Yes, movement of their sword, swinging and attacking is very quick and precise if you are properly trained with a sword. If you are confused about previous statement, the issue is with penetrating armor and SWAT shields. It is about covering distance and getting a hit. If swordsman is in range, he can actually wield his sword with this "inhuman power" again, because of his training.
Then you're back to fantasy land again
Seriously I'm starting to wonder if you are having trouble with the basic separation of reality and fantasy.
Most of the people arguing against you are talking about the REAL WORLD situations.
Most of the thread agrees with you regarding the 40K world since the technology and setting is basically emulating a sort of musket/rifle era level of technology effectiveness. Even though they've got gattling RPG launchers and plasma guns and lasers and such.
If swords could beat guns as much as you claim in the real world then real world armies would still use swordsmen. Soldiers would go to battle armed with swords as well as their guns. SWAT would be carrying swords.
Plus modern troops still carry their knives and such. They just don't use them anywhere near as much in actual combat as they do the gun they are carrying and using.
I have same questions and to you. Do you comprehend what you are reading at all. How many power weapons do we have? I make a simple comparison how real world scenario would differ if we would have a power sword which would enable a swordman to cut through armor with impunity and that alone confuses you to no end. Imagine this scenario as an RPG. You have one weapon. Then you have a cheat code to get another OP weapon. Suddenly even unfavorable situation becomes one sided, because you used cheat code and got OP weapon. This is what this is.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/28 13:52:27
"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 mean those wildmen who were drugged up with close combat weapons in the jungles who lost around 500 men compared to 14 or so Americans lost. Where the americans were armed with ranged weapons?
I mean yes the tribesmen fought hard, but they still lost 35 times more men than the ranged weapon armed Americans.
To me that's a pretty clear sign that ranged weapons ARE better. To kill 100 soldiers with ranged weapons you might need 3500 warriors with swords and in dense jungles to win. If it were anywhere more open those numbers would go up even higher.
It's at the point where primitive VS advanced weapon victories are measured in tiny numbers; and often required contrived or very specific situations to win.
A pistol is not "a melee weapon" in real life. Trying to shoot someone who's trying to grab or punch you is a very, very difficult and dangerous proposition. Worst case scenario is that you've just allowed your opponent to disarm you, or discharged your weapon into yourself of a comrade.
Your focus on people being somehow weak-willed and unable to fight is strange.
I mean, if someone tries to grab you, if you have a sword you're just as eff'd, because the person is INSIDE your defensive range and you can't effectively block or stab/swing. I can't give you a direct quote, but I recall a medieval text that, when faced with two knife-wielding opponents in an alley, recommended that a solitary swordsman flee the fight. Because a sword is not a "melee" weapon either compared to knife or fist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 14:04:54
Agamemnon2 wrote: A pistol is not "a melee weapon" in real life. Trying to shoot someone who's trying to grab or punch you is a very, very difficult and dangerous proposition. Worst case scenario is that you've just allowed your opponent to disarm you, or discharged your weapon into yourself of a comrade.
A pistol is a melee weapon by all practical measures. Techniques like center axis relock are all about using handguns in confined areas, including places and ranges where you wouldn't have the room to effectively use a sword. I've done kill-house clearing with both handguns and carbines against simulated (volunteer, simunitions) knife-wielding attackers. Only times I got tagged were when my team was incapacitated or absent and I was taken by surprise (ie stabbed in the back), scenarios where it wouldn't matter what weapon the other guy is using, I'm dead either way.
If you have your weapon drawn/shouldered already, it is not hard to engage someone at point blank range. The risk that gives rise to the 21-foot rule is when the weapon is holstered before the threat is recognized. Drawing a handgun from a conventional retention holster while being attacked and without resulting in a struggle for the weapon is not easy.
Whether we're talking sappers in WW1 or tunnel rats in Vietnam, troops expecting extremely close-quarters combat have historically universally opted for handguns over melee weapons when they've had the option. Troops expecting more conventional CQB have opted for submachine guns and shotguns. Nobody in the last, oh, hundred-odd years has gone into combat of any sort saying 'gee, I really wish I brought a sword instead of this self-loading firearm'.
Ernestas is an overenthusiastic hobbyist with no practical experience to inform him otherwise. That's really all there is to it here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 14:36:07
One thing I have also a hard time wrapping my head around: in this threat there have been mentions in the likes of this quote by Ernestas:
That is true, but in real combat scenario you will rarely get someone charging at you while you are facing him with your weapon drawn. Human being will use cover, surprise you. They might even suppress you with their own fire while designated melee chargers will try to kill you up close
in the general meaning of "A melee capable opponent can, under the right circumstances, get up close enough to a surprised ranged combattant to use his CC weaponry". In the same vein there was mentionining of Vietcong getting real close to american soldiers in the jungle - close enough to spring amongst them and use melee
My problem is: when I can surprise my enemy enough to get into melee... than I'm definitly close enough for VERY effective EDIT: ranged combat. I mean in those scenarios I have an surprised enemy maybe 5 yards away that has no weapon drawn. And it seems that I'm not surprised and had time to draw my weapon (else I would not have my sword ready). Wouldn't it in this scenario be much more efficient and also safe for me to throw a grenade/shoot a pistol/assault rifle/shotgun? I would even have time to aim for the head, maybe even to rest my gun on a nice stable support.
Looking at the Vietcong: If me and my guys have approached that unsuspecting GI column up to 10 Yards through the jungle, wouldn't it be much more sensible to unload our rifles into them and then retreat just to prepare the next ambush? Until they get their weapons ready we would be far away without any losses while they would definitly suffer.
One might argue with ammunition consumption, but that never seems to be a real problem in WH40k
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 14:41:53
Pyroalchi wrote: My problem is: when I can surprise my enemy enough to get into melee... than I'm definitly close enough for VERY effective EDIT: ranged combat. I mean in those scenarios I have an surprised enemy maybe 5 yards away that has no weapon drawn. And it seems that I'm not surprised and had time to draw my weapon (else I would not have my sword ready). Wouldn't it in this scenario be much more efficient and also safe for me to throw a grenade/shoot a pistol/assault rifle/shotgun? I would even have time to aim for the head, maybe even to rest my gun on a nice stable support.
At five yards you absolutely don't have time to aim for the head or brace your weapon, but otherwise yeah you are pretty much spot on. At that range three rounds rapid, center-mass, is real easy. The closer he gets, the easier the shot. By the time your assailant is two yards away- striking distance- if your weapon is loaded you basically cannot miss.
Melee casualties suffered from bayonet assaults against prepared defenders, as in the occasional use of banzai charges among the Japanese during WW2 or the mass infantry assaults carried out by the Chinese in the Korean War, come almost universally from defenders being too overwhelmed by the number of attackers to effectively engage each one. But you need a LOT of charging infantry combined with an already-disordered defender, and even then it has never been enough to actually win- just inflict a few scattered casualties with incredibly lopsided (30+:1) kill ratios.
There were instances of individual Japanese soldiers in the Philippines popping out of concealed positions for a point-blank bayonet or grenade attack against patrols. It was a psychological weapon in non-combat contexts, not an effective battlefield tactic.
Ernestas is an overenthusiastic hobbyist with no practical experience to inform him otherwise. That's really all there is to it here.
Oh, I don't disagree with that at all. In fact I'd go so far as to call him a crackpot or a looney, regarding his constant refrain about how people in the modern age are apparently some kind of sissified soyboys too weak for the purity of martial combat. It's really quite disturbing.
I laugh at the idea that modern soldiers are somehow weak-willed.
Modern soldiers face a more chaotic and destructive battlefield than ever before.
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
Ernestas is an overenthusiastic hobbyist with no practical experience to inform him otherwise. That's really all there is to it here.
Oh, I don't disagree with that at all. In fact I'd go so far as to call him a crackpot or a looney, regarding his constant refrain about how people in the modern age are apparently some kind of sissified soyboys too weak for the purity of martial combat. It's really quite disturbing.
He's also subtly and continously changing his argument and cherry-picking which points to continue to dispute.
The topic is 'why ranged combat is impractical' where now his argument is 'in a very specific set of circumstances a sword *might* beat a gun'.
I am convinced he is a troll, but his arguments are so outlandish it's actually endearing.
Next on the docket, why grenades are the best sniper weapon.
~6550 build and painted
819 build and painted
830 