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.

Either way, he should be punted from the forums by any sensible moderator, but where oh where could such a mythical beast be found?

Cronch wrote:
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.

Hey, I've seen those killcams from Call of Duty. No way a bullet could fly over a house and back down to take out the whole enemy unit at their spawn point!

I think someone from Warhammer TV has been reading this thread:
=68.ARAwKh0WHrXLSRCkoSi0gVXI8YCHGo5PqszE3V5RXMqAgWCAf1XkCsJO_qXemExBtB0UrKwYSMEnPvvQgaOYzJkKEHpUcM6lRYNWNDi44EqKnhPD7yy2Rz9zY43TSFMnDk5E3v0vD_nhMQE2dWThILK0Pqdu2iAAgcHeLhse3lhrqaJ2pkCaXx1_cGkJ-bfjLyDgIIqmI2AtMoLxK1gqY2YKumP3YhK_gWCcclkieBAdB9WjVZrbDuDVgL5mMW8-XdVoCxH-O40n-Scog-fSeUoUe1Mb_19qWnRsE8g9M2n3KoiKwfpjXFc6BqRQHJejQP8njTsDcyEJTTkv5pH7n0wvipBc974aAPYt_BRUVNMFUQt0637h2hV-zrzTyIFajDbF_VUA83fEa7qAMypoQABVDCzQSE92QVZjWsAuC_zr2MgzthR6LC48q_RlSMWM2A-3XoGsMo_sS9NGfplNsdjDROx3Yp-5nSeFGjehfePziLxjbFUojBAJ8T9l3M5slcet0_n4nH92kSojDIPZNJ6J0UcTWmcu22c] They made a Pol!

Which is a monster link that I think works, if not scroll down a little. Bayonet VS Volcano Cannon

That's just surfing along that dumb ''fix bayonet'' IG meme that has been plaguing the 40k stuff for a time now.

 Overread wrote:
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.

Yes, exactly. The issue is that you do not consider how other factions think. You are like Tau, you assume that your opponent will be sane and will fight a sane war. That couldn't be further from the truth. Even amongst Imperium there are simply insane forces like Black Templars who just charge into ambushes and enemy firepower with swords. They endure obscene levels of attrition and they are one of the two remaining loyalist legions in existence, recruiting probably even at the greater numbers than that during Crusade era.

In a same spirit imagine a force without moral scrupulous who can send millions upon millions of unarmed civilians into enemy lines. Partly for military purposes and sometimes just for their amusement, because it is fun to see people being butchered by machine guns, artillery fire and minefields. Here, this is what you are fighting against. Often in lore when Chaos armies land, they do not carry just Chaos space marines. They do not have just spikey Imperial Guard regiments, but they also unload millions of people with varying levels of sanity. Even if we assume 1:35 kill ratio, this is nearly 30,000 guardsmen killed by something which their enemy considers to be utterly worthless. In a same manner Tyranid swarms operate. They will just keep coming, charging at you with endless numbers of teeth and claw. Even if you kill millions upon millions of Tyranids, you still be losing soldiers at an alarming rate and hive mind simply doesn't care. It eats fallen Tyranids and remake them anew.

In w40k armies do not fight for kill rates. They do not care about damage inflicted. Fights are often to the death and war is total. Total casualties endured are far less important than achieving victory on a battlefield. This is why sometimes Imperium is memed for no reason, because it prioritizes victory over material and manpower loss.

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.

The problem with real life examples is that they only have one part of an equation. For example, they have guys who are cannon fodder, but they lack guys who do damage. Even in Tyranid swarm there are small beasts who are meant to die and then there are big guys like Tyranids warriors who are meant to inflict damage. We have examples of soldiers just running into melee against modern armies, but the issue with them is that there is no superpower to support them. If they would be used in intelligent way like to advance before main force to get ambushed, walk into minefields or to distract enemy while other soldiers with small arms take up positions, these guys would suddenly become far more effective.

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.

That is usual combination for close quarters combat though. In W40k it is chainsword and las pistol/bolt pistol. In our world, it is ballistic shield and a pistol. There are concerns and everything you said holds true, but that is even more relevant if you are dealing with a bigger weapon. Pistol is quite small and light, thus any such concerns are the lowest compared to all small arms types.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Simple, psychological impact. If suddenly your squadmate gets eviscerated by roaring chainsword and you see behind you a massive brute cutting through your friend while his blood splatters all around you, it is going to mess you up psychologically and you are going to break down on a battlefield sooner or later. I had presented somewhere in this thread a video of why such charges are so effective. They break people down mentally. Wouldn't it be more effective to throw a grenade or fire? Yes and no. In most cases people or things who are charging are too stupid or insane to effectively use a firearm. Small arms are complicated to use really. This is why Ogryns for example have custom made guns marked as "Ogryn proof". As for normal soldier who values his own life and is competent with infantry weapons, it is often better just to fire.

As for W40k, the problem is that they use armor. In our world we can manufacture heavy machine proof body armor quite easily. If we are going to equip soldiers with such armor, soon we will have to face similar dilemma where it would take extreme amounts of ammunition until you put small enemy force of such armored soldiers down. If on the other hand you have a melee weapon who can put such soldier down instantly then it would be a lot more quicker just to kill him with a sword. Firing or throwing a grenade would cause all of them to scatter and then it would be impossible to do anything. If you ever tried to simulate a firefight in dense terrain, you would know that it is really hard to see anything nearby if that person doesn't want to get seen.

 RobS wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

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'.

That is called: presenting examples. In argumentation you have three things to worry about. Initial statement. An argument why this statement is true. Then you have to present an example where your argument holds true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
I laugh at the idea that modern soldiers are somehow weak-willed.

Modern soldiers face a more chaotic and destructive battlefield than ever before.

Before we had to charge into concentrated small arms fire over and over again and engage enemies eye to eye. Now we break down, because we once had seen an actual combat and someone had killed someone in combat. This is from where this disdain comes from.

Ernestas, have you actually ever been near an explosion or gunfire?
Honest question.

Yes. An explosive device had detonated right next to me. I had experienced something akin to shell shock. I do not know how soldiers call it. I fell on a ground on instinct. Surrounding sounds had dimmed, I became dizzy, confused. World around me seemed to slow down as I looked around.

Gunfire, especially while right next to me seemed overwhelming. I do not understand why soldiers are not wearing headphones integrated into their helmets with inter-squad comms and adaptable sound dampening. It seems that it would be impossible to communicate anything vocally on real battlefield.

 Ernestas wrote:
Yes. An explosive device had detonated right next to me. I had experienced something akin to shell shock. I do not know how soldiers call it. I fell on a ground on instinct. Surrounding sounds had dimmed, I became dizzy, confused. World around me seemed to slow down as I looked around.

Gunfire, especially while right next to me seemed overwhelming. I do not understand why soldiers are not wearing headphones integrated into their helmets with inter-squad comms and adaptable sound dampening. It seems that it would be impossible to communicate anything vocally on real battlefield.

And do you know WHY you felt dizy confused and also mostlikely afraid?

Let me help you: YOU DIDN'T expect it and FELT POWERLESS.
This is what really is dangerous, the hulking brute fighting in melee, still leaves you with an intact illusion of power or capability to act. A sniper, a shell or grenades, don't.

This is why the shock value of guns is a lot higher then melee and what is in essence the main hinderance for melee strategies in a nutshell. ALL strategies that want to get into close quarters to seize a position therefore rely nowadays upon shock and awe or infiltration.
A horde of slaves as your starter exemple or drugged up berzerkers, is automatically forfeit because they neither acomplish one or the other effectively.

I agree that an illusion of power is very important. This is why soldiers do hold such belief in their rifles. This is why soldiers were lied to about bayonets and how they are just as effective as spears they had replaced.

Though, I do not think that such effects do not apply to soldiers which we are talking about. Berserkers and madman do not care about self preservation. While I was confused what was happening as it was new experience to me, a berserker will keep on running. In the end, they are not meant to win a battle for you. They are meant to distract opponent, to expose their positions, to walk into ambushes, etc. In lore Chaos usually just enslave entire population of a city and with effects of a warp, most go mad. These madman will be charging your line while Lost and the Damned will advance behind them providing suppressive fire and flanking you.

My point was that it takes very little to replicate tactics used in W40k and make them viable in our world. All that stands in our way is our morality and lack of universal maddening tool which would make person throw itself upon enemy lines with heedless abandon. We have various drugs which take all fear away, but they are rather expensive and complicated to use on such wide scale not to mention that there are plenty of undesired side effects. Initially I argued that IF we had frenzon drug in our world, melee would become viable in modern combat. It would not replace ranged combat, but it would become an actual threat. In lore any serious force which throws people at modern gunlines have them drugged with frenzon which makes them superhumanly strong and fast while making them fearless and to ignore even most grievous of injuries. I don't believe that is beyond realms of possibility, especially now we have drugs who do little bit of everything already what frenzon does.

a berserker will keep on running

Not with actual shrapnel shredding his muscles and ripping tendons from the bone. Not when his eardrums burst and his brain is so rattled inside his head he loses consciousness. You can be as frenzied as you want, your mind is held in a soft spongy orb inside a bony box that is very, very easy to break.

Also, a fun little fact- "frenzied" troops are hilarious. There's an account of an SS unit that got so high on their "panzerschokolade" that one man saw "americans" in the darkness and the unit had to surrender to the actual americans next morning, because they fired all their ammo into the night.

 Ernestas wrote:
I agree that an illusion of power is very important. This is why soldiers do hold such belief in their rifles. This is why soldiers were lied to about bayonets and how they are just as effective as spears they had replaced.

Such effects do not apply to soldiers which we are talking about. Berserkers and madman do not care about self preservation.

And here we fall into the next trap. Have you looked at WW1? Yes? Do you know what "Elan" is? Let me tell you, in german there has now been an established Bonmot called 08/15 Lösung, literally 08/15 solution, tracing back to the 08/15 german machine guns that cut bloddy swaths in early french counter assaults of highly motivated (elan) french rifle men.

While I was confused what was happening as it was new experience to me, a berserker will keep on running. In the end, they are not meant to win a battle for you. They are meant to distract opponent, to expose their positions, to walk into ambushes, etc. In lore Chaos usually just enslave entire population of a city and with effects of a warp, most go mad. These madman will be charging your line while Lost and the Damned will advance behind them providing suppressive fire and flanking you.

This: Is what the average Chaos footsoldier looks like in 40K
He is equiped with a Standard backfield formation Autogun in most cases. Sometimes if he is lucky or an actual traitor guardsmen he is equipped with a lasgun.



this is literally what you can expect from second rate formations in the 40k universe.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:

a berserker will keep on running

Not with actual shrapnel shredding his muscles and ripping tendons from the bone. Not when his eardrums burst and his brain is so rattled inside his head he loses consciousness. You can be as frenzied as you want, your mind is held in a soft spongy orb inside a bony box that is very, very easy to break.

Also, a fun little fact- "frenzied" troops are hilarious. There's an account of an SS unit that got so high on their "panzerschokolade" that one man saw "americans" in the darkness and the unit had to surrender to the actual americans next morning, because they fired all their ammo into the night.

Also this, drugged up soldiers, especiall to a point of fearlessness, ARE great targets preciscly because they make themselves targets, even more so then the happy go lucky WW1 early war french.

Another note, these drugged up soldiers, even in the best case suffered in overall performance the longer the engagement and campaigns went on.

Ernestas you keep using 40K (FANTASY) to deflect/discount real world arguments. You keep saying that if Chaos in the 40K world can win battles with close combat troops against powerful ranged weapons then we should be able to do so in reality as well.

The world doesn't work like that.


The fact that pretty much every single situation of primitive closecombat weapons and charging ranged weapons fails doesn't seem to be registering in your mind. Even where the close combat armies gain a victory its often with insanely high losses. Even more so once gattling weapons and automatic rifles and such start to appear on the battlefields.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also this, drugged up soldiers, especiall to a point of fearlessness, ARE great targets preciscly because they make themselves targets, even more so then the happy go lucky WW1 early war french.

Another note, these drugged up soldiers, even in the best case suffered in overall performance the longer the engagement and campaigns went on.

I forget its name, but there's a book written on real world werewolves that I read a while back which spoke about battle berserk and how some of those warriors would take a concoction of drugs to induce a frenzy state. They went on to note that whilst they would be capable of great feats in battle, they might then spend several days asleep afterwards; their bodies and muscles utterly shredded and worn out from the influence. For many modern battle situations you can't go and spend several days safely sleeping after one fight. It worked in the old days way back before guns when a grand battle might well be one major encounter; or even further back when it was closer to warring townships/tribes/villages where, again, you might only get one major engagement to settle the matter.

I believe they also touched on control and the risk of friendly damage taken from people in such a state as well. Which would mean that instead of presenting a unified front where each warrior protects the next; the berserkers had to almost be on their own. A powerful fearsome psychological weapon, but not likely as effective as orderly rank and file troops where they fight with an organised pattern. And we see this in real world warfare; as armies got bigger and bigger we see less of this berserker aspect and more rank and file ordered drills; formations and the like.

 Overread wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also this, drugged up soldiers, especiall to a point of fearlessness, ARE great targets preciscly because they make themselves targets, even more so then the happy go lucky WW1 early war french.

Another note, these drugged up soldiers, even in the best case suffered in overall performance the longer the engagement and campaigns went on.

I forget its name, but there's a book written on real world werewolves that I read a while back which spoke about battle berserk and how some of those warriors would take a concoction of drugs to induce a frenzy state. They went on to note that whilst they would be capable of great feats in battle, they might then spend several days asleep afterwards; their bodies and muscles utterly shredded and worn out from the influence. For many modern battle situations you can't go and spend several days safely sleeping after one fight. It worked in the old days way back before guns when a grand battle might well be one major encounter; or even further back when it was closer to warring townships/tribes/villages where, again, you might only get one major engagement to settle the matter.

I believe they also touched on control and the risk of friendly damage taken from people in such a state as well. Which would mean that instead of presenting a unified front where each warrior protects the next; the berserkers had to almost be on their own. A powerful fearsome psychological weapon, but not likely as effective as orderly rank and file troops where they fight with an organised pattern. And we see this in real world warfare; as armies got bigger and bigger we see less of this berserker aspect and more rank and file ordered drills; formations and the like.

Don't even need to go that far back, you can f.e. look at the Wehrmacht during WW2. Pervetin use had serious drawbacks especially obvious during barbaross. Crippling the longterm effectiveness of users of it quite heavily. And we are just talking about pervetin, not druggd out completely stuff that you find in 40k.

 Ernestas wrote:

My point was that it takes very little to replicate tactics used in W40k and make them viable in our world.

And that point is still wrong. Comically so in most cases, for all the reasons people have already explained to you here.

 Ernestas wrote:

All that stands in our way is our morality and lack of universal maddening tool which would make person throw itself upon enemy lines with heedless abandon. We have various drugs which take all fear away, but they are rather expensive and complicated to use on such wide scale not to mention that there are plenty of undesired side effects. Initially I argued that IF we had frenzon drug in our world, melee would become viable in modern combat. It would not replace ranged combat, but it would become an actual threat. In lore any serious force which throws people at modern gunlines have them drugged with frenzon which makes them superhumanly strong and fast while making them fearless and to ignore even most grievous of injuries. I don't believe that is beyond realms of possibility, especially now we have drugs who do little bit of everything already what frenzon does.

Your belief is incorrect. It doesn't matter what drugs you give to people to turn them into these mythical indestructible berserkers, the body still stops working when a bullet shreds the heart, brain, lungs or any number of other organs. You still can't run when you get shot in the kneecap or your femur is shattered by a bullet in the leg even with enough drugs coursing through you to keep you high for weeks. This whole thread is people telling you you're wrong and explaining why you're wrong, followed by you...ignoring those points and restating your incorrect assertions.

Also in OPs examples there is usually a chaos force that in the end wants its slave masses to die and has no lack of reinforcements (if the writer wants it). That is definitly not the case on earth.

Even if you assume a fictional country doing that and dedicating a large mass of forcably conscripted drugged up troops for more or less suicidal CC mass attacks to provide distraction for the "real" shooty troops and also demoralize the enemy in the way OP describes... They would loose the majority of said CC troops within the first battles and would be unable to replace them. Especially since any force large enough to be threatening to lets say a modern shooty devision with machine guns, vehicles etc. would cover so much area that the majority of them would be shredded from air or by artillery.

If (in WH40k) Chaos would really want to make effective use of enslaved hives etc. they should make half of their slaves build lasguns for the other half. If I imagine being standard guardsmen with Heavy Bolters, Flamers and Stubbers at their hands in a Regiment including tanks, artillery and maybe airsupport, I would be a lot more concerned about 10.000 penal soldiers with Lasguns than about 100.000 drugged up crazy slaves with swords. Mainly because while I could face all 10.000 penals firing simulatanously from cover, the CC slaves have to come out in the open at some time, because they are just too many to all hide.

Of course, now that you armed your slaves, you need to worry about having armed slaves among your troops.

Cronch wrote:
Of course, now that you armed your slaves, you need to worry about having armed slaves among your troops.

But if Close Combat were as effective as the OP suggests, then they're actually less dangerous once you've given them lasguns instead of pointy bits, so it all works out.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Of course, now that you armed your slaves, you need to worry about having armed slaves among your troops.

But if Close Combat were as effective as the OP suggests, then they're actually less dangerous once you've given them lasguns instead of pointy bits, so it all works out.

Ah, but you can use a lasgun to tape a spork to it, turning it into deadliest weapon known to man and demon: laser-guded, extended range tactical spork.

The real question, why even bother arming slaves, if you can recruit the willing into actual effective and motivated fighting forces and use the rest as labour,

Cronch wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Of course, now that you armed your slaves, you need to worry about having armed slaves among your troops.

But if Close Combat were as effective as the OP suggests, then they're actually less dangerous once you've given them lasguns instead of pointy bits, so it all works out.

Ah, but you can use a lasgun to tape a spork to it, turning it into deadliest weapon known to man and demon: laser-guded, extended range tactical spork.

Woah woah woah man, not even Chaos slaves would go that far. That's just disgusting. NSFW this for brutality.

Slipspace wrote:

 Ernestas wrote:

My point was that it takes very little to replicate tactics used in W40k and make them viable in our world.

And that point is still wrong. Comically so in most cases, for all the reasons people have already explained to you here.

 Ernestas wrote:

All that stands in our way is our morality and lack of universal maddening tool which would make person throw itself upon enemy lines with heedless abandon. We have various drugs which take all fear away, but they are rather expensive and complicated to use on such wide scale not to mention that there are plenty of undesired side effects. Initially I argued that IF we had frenzon drug in our world, melee would become viable in modern combat. It would not replace ranged combat, but it would become an actual threat. In lore any serious force which throws people at modern gunlines have them drugged with frenzon which makes them superhumanly strong and fast while making them fearless and to ignore even most grievous of injuries. I don't believe that is beyond realms of possibility, especially now we have drugs who do little bit of everything already what frenzon does.

Your belief is incorrect. It doesn't matter what drugs you give to people to turn them into these mythical indestructible berserkers, the body still stops working when a bullet shreds the heart, brain, lungs or any number of other organs. You still can't run when you get shot in the kneecap or your femur is shattered by a bullet in the leg even with enough drugs coursing through you to keep you high for weeks. This whole thread is people telling you you're wrong and explaining why you're wrong, followed by you...ignoring those points and restating your incorrect assertions.

And also, lets assume one of the fantastical example scenarios is true - in the real world you could be completely overwhelmed by a force on combat drugs and in vastly superior numbers, who will attempt to rush you and engage you in melee - what in that scenario makes you think that arming yourself with a sword and facing them in melee is a winning strategy in any way shape or form?

It's illogical madness whether it's fantasy or reality.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Of course, now that you armed your slaves, you need to worry about having armed slaves among your troops.

But if Close Combat were as effective as the OP suggests, then they're actually less dangerous once you've given them lasguns instead of pointy bits, so it all works out.

Ah, but you can use a lasgun to tape a spork to it, turning it into deadliest weapon known to man and demon: laser-guded, extended range tactical spork.

Woah woah woah man, not even Chaos slaves would go that far. That's just disgusting. NSFW this for brutality.

Except of course if you are slaanesh or khorne.
Excessive violence andthe corresponding bloodflow from a tactical spork bayonett would please both in an unholly communion.

Probably also the only thing they'd agree on beeing good

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Yeah. The main battle-armament of the Adeptus Astartes has a maximum effective range that is shorter than a tennis court (78').

An Earthshaker's much-vaunted range translates, in reality, to less than a quarter of a kilometre.

I think they're mentioned in Vraks as shelling targets at least like 30km out. I think we can assume range compression so that it fits on the tabletop. Basically every tabletop miniatures game has fairly intense range compression.

Epic Armageddon was interesting - it stated 90cm was the distance to the horizon (at that height about 4-5 miles depending on elevation), but then that became 'stretchy' at close range with 15cm (the engagement range for small arms), assumed to be about 300m not the 1000 odd it would have been if you sticked with the horizon calculation The rationale being units behaved differently close to each other and this allowed you to get more manoeuvre in rather than crowding units into tiny areas. (It also meant a combat squad had a frontage of roughly 50m.)

 Ernestas wrote:
Yes. An explosive device had detonated right next to me. I had experienced something akin to shell shock. I do not know how soldiers call it. I fell on a ground on instinct. Surrounding sounds had dimmed, I became dizzy, confused. World around me seemed to slow down as I looked around.

Gunfire, especially while right next to me seemed overwhelming. I do not understand why soldiers are not wearing headphones integrated into their helmets with inter-squad comms and adaptable sound dampening. It seems that it would be impossible to communicate anything vocally on real battlefield.

That isn't shell shock. Shell shock is PTSD. It is not just disorientation, it can be the complete shutdown of your ability to function, to reason, walk, talk, sleep, etc.

100meters probably looks a lot farther with people shooting at you.

Across the street looks a lot farther with people shooting at you.

Down the hallway looks really damn far when someone's got a gun aimed at you...

If you want to make melee viable in modern warfare don't use humans.

Humans have gak logistical requirements like needing a decade and half to be viable combatants.

But if you make drones, equip them with close ranged weapons like explosives and throw them at the enemy you have loitering munitions, which are very viable weapons.

Tyran wrote:
If you want to make melee viable in modern warfare don't use humans.

Humans have gak logistical requirements like needing a decade and half to be viable combatants.

But if you make drones, equip them with close ranged weapons like explosives and throw them at the enemy you have loitering munitions, which are very viable weapons.

Well that’s an idea for a new Tau drone, remove the guns from a drone and strap some knives to it, have at least 1 halfway competent melee model with a squad of fire warriors, give it the ability to join combat like a character to aid nearby units.

To be fair, with the current ranged centric 40k ruleset, Firewarriors are probably already great for assault. Because they probably won't kill much of anything, meaning they can tripoint more effectively to tie a unit into CC.